31 Mar 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested copies of all school newsletters held. Wood Memorial School (‘the School’) agreed to provide copies of the information requested, on payment of a fee, subject to pupil names being redacted under section 40(2). The complainant did not pay the fee requested but expressed dissatisfaction at the School’s application of section 40(2) to pupil names. During the course of the Commissioner’s investigation, the School indicated that it considered some other information within the newsletters to be exempt under section 40(2). The Commissioner’s decision is that the School has correctly applied section 40(2) to the proposed redactions in the newsletters. He does not require any steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
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 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) 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 most 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 to disclose to the complainant the information relevant to the complainant’s request as indicated in the Scotland Office letter to the Commissioner dated 26 February 2016.
Exemptions cited: FOI 27; FOI 40
View Scotland Office
31 Mar 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information relating to an application for a copy of a land ownership folio. The Department of Finance and Personnel originally refused the request under section 40(2) of the FOIA, but later sought to rely on section 14 instead since it considered the request vexatious. The Commissioner has concluded that the request should have been dealt with under the EIR but that the Department would have been entitled to refuse to comply with the request on the basis of regulation 12(4)(b) because it is manifestly unreasonable. No steps are required. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2016/0114 allowed.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(b)
View Department of Finance and Personnel for Northern Ireland
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 requested information relating to the distribution of a memorandum that was leaked to the media. The Scotland Office refused the request under sections 38(1)(a) and 40(2) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Scotland Office was entitled to refuse the request under section 40(2). No steps are required.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View Scotland Office
31 Mar 2016Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information relating to conditions associated with a particular planning application. Carmarthenshire County Council (‘the Council’) stated that that it did not hold information relevant to the request. In failing to issue a proper refusal notice within the required timescales the Council breached regulation 14 of the EIR. The Commissioner does not require any steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: EIR 14
View Carmarthenshire County Council
31 Mar 2016Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested legal advice relating to a planning matter. Aylesbury Vale District Council withheld the information under section 42 of the FOIA (the exemption for legal professional privilege). During the Commissioner’s investigation the council reconsidered the request under the EIR and withheld the information under the exception for adverse affect to the course of justice - regulation 12(5)(b). The Commissioner’s decision is that Aylesbury Vale District 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)
30 Mar 2016Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information relating to a street lighting contract. The Commissioner’s decision is that Cambridgeshire County 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 Cambridgeshire County Council
30 Mar 2016Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has made a request to the Department for Communities and Local Government (“the department”) for information about its management of complaints. The department provided some held information and withheld some under section 40(2) of the Freedom of Information Act (“the FOIA”). The complainant subsequently contested whether all relevant held information had been identified for parts 3, 5 and 6 of the request, and whether the department’s application of section 40(2) was correct. The Commissioner’s decision is that the department has correctly withheld information under section 40(2) and that no further relevant held information is likely to be held in respect of parts 3 and 5 of the request. However the department failed to provide a valid response to part 6 of the request, and also breached section 16(1) by failing to provide appropriate advice and assistance to the complainant. The department has also breached the requirement of section 10(1) by failing to comply with s
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10; FOI 16; FOI 17; FOI 40
View Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government
30 Mar 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested copies of reports, PAT testing certificates and documents relating to dispute resolution procedures relating to the Wye Valley NHS Trust and its PFI partner, Mercia Healthcare. Further information relating to a dispute resolution procedure was identified and disclosed to the complainant but the Trust maintained it did not hold the remaining information and Mercia Healthcare did not hold the information on its behalf. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Trust has complied with section 1(1) of the FOIA when it states that it does not hold the remaining information. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2016/0125 allowed in part.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Wye Valley NHS Trust
30 Mar 2016Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has made two requests for information about traffic flows relevant to the Mersey Gateway Project. The Commissioner’s decision in respect of the complainant’s first request is that Halton Borough Council (“the Council”) holds information from which the information sought by the complainant can be extracted and therefore the Council has breached Regulation 5(1) of the EIR. The Commissioner has also decided that, on the balance of probabilities, the Council does not hold information relevant to the complainant’s second request. The Commissioner requires the public authority issue a fresh response to the complainant regarding the formative information it holds used in creating the Traffic Model which was shared with bidders as part of the Dataroom.
Exemptions cited: EIR 5(1)
View Halton Council
30 Mar 2016Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information relating to planning contravention notices. Guildford Borough Council withheld the requested information under the exception for personal data, regulation 13 of the EIR. The Commissioner’s decision is that Guildford Borough Council (the “council” failed to issue a refusal notice in time and breached regulation 14 and that it correctly applied regulation 13(1) to withhold the requested information. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 13(1); EIR 14
View Guildford Borough Council
30 Mar 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to the September 2013 BBC One Panorama programme Saving Syria’s Children (SSC) and related BBC News reports. The BBC explained that 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 within the scope of FOIA. He therefore upholds the BBC’s position and requires no remedial steps to be taken in this case. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2016/0120 dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View BBC
30 Mar 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has made requests to Great Bedwyn Parish Council (“the council”) for information about the maintenance of a memorial marker stone. The council refused the requests under section 14(1). The Commissioners decision is that the council has correctly refused the requests under section 14(1). The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2016/0109 dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14
30 Mar 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has made a request to Halton Borough Council (“the council”) for information about Parental Assessments. The council responded that no relevant information was held. The Commissioner finds that no relevant information is likely to be held, and that the council has complied with the requirements of section 16(1) and section 10(1). He does not require any steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10; FOI 16
View Halton Council
30 Mar 2016Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has made a request to Northampton Borough Council (“the council”) for information relating to website usage data. The council confirmed that whilst relevant information was collated and held by a third party, it was not held by the council. This was subsequently contested by the complainant. The Commissioner’s decision is that the relevant information is held by the third party on behalf of the council. The Commissioner requires the public authority to access and consider the relevant information in relation to the complainant’s request, and provide the complainant with a fresh response that complies with section 1(1), or else issue a valid refusal notice under section 17.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View West Northamptonshire Council
30 Mar 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested recorded information which concerns the contract – the Project Agreement and the Demand Management Participation Agreement associated with the Mersey Gateway Project. The Commissioner’s decision is that Halton Borough Council is entitled to refuse the complainant’s request in reliance on section 14(1) of the FOIA, on the grounds that the request imposes a disproportionate burden on the Council. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take no further steps in this matter.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14
View Halton Council
30 Mar 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has made two requests to Lincolnshire County Council for information concerning the Mental Health Prevention Fund. The Council initially provided the complainant with explanations about the way this fund operates. Latterly the Council determined that both requests should be refused in reliance on section 14(1) on the grounds that they are vexatious. The Commissioner’s decision is that Lincolnshire County Council has correctly applied section 14(1) of the FOIA to the complainant’s requests. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take no further action in this matter. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2016/0117 dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14
View Lincolnshire County Council
29 Mar 2016Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested correspondence on the subject of the Investigatory Powers Bill. The Home Office failed to respond substantively to this request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Home Office breached sections 1(1) and 10(1) of the FOIA by failing to respond to this request and it is now required to respond. The Commissioner requires the Home Office to respond to the request.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10
View Home Office
29 Mar 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant made a freedom of information request to the ICO for information that it received from the Financial Conduct Authority as part of an investigation into a complaint against that organisation. The ICO refused to disclose the requested information under section 44(1)(a) (prohibitions on disclosure) by virtue of the statutory prohibition in section 59 of the Data Protection Act 1998. The Commissioner’s decision is that the requested information is exempt under section 44(1)(a) and he requires no steps to be taken. Information Tribunal appeal GIA/3422/2016 dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 44
View Information Commissioner
29 Mar 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to the legal basis for a West Midlands Police (WMP) officer to drive non-WMP vehicles. WMP refused this request as vexatious under section 14(1) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the request was vexatious and so section 14(1) was cited correctly and WMP was not obliged to comply with the request.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14
View West Midlands Police
29 Mar 2016Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to the lease and rent agreements for several local sporting facilities. Petersfield Town Council (“PTC”) disclosed some information but stated that it did not hold the remainder of the information described in the request. The Commissioner is satisfied that, on the balance of probabilities, PTC does not hold the requested information. However, it has breached section 16 by failing to provide advice and assistance to the complainant about his request. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 16
29 Mar 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant asked to know the costs of investigating a complaint made to Greater Manchester Police (“GMP”) about him. GMP stated that it did not hold any information which fell within the scope of the request. The Commissioner is satisfied that, on the balance of probabilities, GMP does not hold the requested information. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Greater Manchester Police
29 Mar 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant asked Greater Manchester Police (“GMP”) for information about its response times for dealing with emails and other forms of communication. GMP refused to comply with the request, citing section 12 of the FOIA (cost of compliance exceeds appropriate limit). The Commissioner’s decision is that GMP cited section 12(1) correctly and so it was not obliged to comply with the request. However, by failing to provide an internal review it did not act in accordance with the section 45 Code of Practice. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12; FOI 16
View Greater Manchester Police
29 Mar 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant made a request to the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) for information about a complaint that he had previously made against a tradesman. The HSE disclosed some information but other information was withheld under the exemptions in section 40(2) (personal information) and section 41 (information provided in confidence). The Commissioner has decided that the withheld information is exempt under section 40(2) and he requires no steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View Health and Safety Executive
29 Mar 2016Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about correspondence between Sir Bruce Keogh and Deloitte.
The Commissioner’s decision is that NHS Commissioning Board (NHS England) has breached section 10(1) of the FOIA because it has not provided the complainant with a response to his request within 20 working days. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: Provide the complainant with a response to his request of 26 December 2015. The public authority 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 10
View NHS England
29 Mar 2016Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to the “Kingsgate” tender process. The Commissioner’s decision is that in failing to respond to this request Southend University Hospital Foundation Trust (the Trust) has breached section 10(1) of the FOIA. Southend University Hospital Foundation Trust is now required to respond to this request. The Commissioner requires the trust to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: Respond to the request. The Trust 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 10
View Mid and South Essex NHS Foundation Trust
29 Mar 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information regarding ministerial representations and information in relation to a Serious Fraud Office investigation. The Attorney General’s Office would neither confirm nor deny holding the requested information by virtue of section 31(3) FOIA (law enforcement). The Commissioner’s decision is that the Attorney General’s Office has applied section 31(3) appropriately. The Commissioner does not require the Attorney General’s Office to take any further steps as request of this decision.
Exemptions cited: FOI 31
View Attorney General's Office
29 Mar 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to a specific investigation being carried out by the Serious Fraud Office, and details of any foreign bribery or overseas corruption cases regarding which the Attorney General had engaged with the Serious Fraud Office, since 2012. The Attorney General’s Office applied sections 31(1)(b) (prejudice to the apprehension or prosecution of offenders) and (c) (prejudice to the administration of justice) to some of the information, and would neither confirm nor deny holding the remainder by virtue of section 31(3) (law enforcement). The Commissioner’s decision is that the Attorney General’s Office has applied sections 31(1)(b) and (c) and section 31(3) appropriately. The Commissioner does not require the Attorney General’s Office to take any steps as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: FOI 31
View Attorney General's Office
29 Mar 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to a named residential care home which is regularly inspected by the Regulation and Quality Improvement Authority (RQIA). The RQIA applied the exemptions under sections 36, 40 and 42 of FOIA to the information in the first part of the complainant’s request and applied section 14 of FOIA to the second part of the complainant’s request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the RQIA has correctly applied the above sections of FOIA to the complainant’s request. The Commissioner therefore requires no steps to be taken. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2016/0116 part allowed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14; FOI 36; FOI 40; FOI 42
29 Mar 2016Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about the health and social issues of people of mixed race, which Dicconson Group Practice (DGP) says it does not hold. The Commissioner’s decision is that DGP was correct to handle the request under the FOIA. He has decided that, on the balance of probabilities, DGP does not hold the requested information. The Commissioner finds that DGP breached section 10(1) of the FOIA, however, because it did not respond to the request within 20 working days. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10
29 Mar 2016Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information relating to cryptosporidium in the water supply. The Commissioner’s decision is that United Utilities has contravened Regulation 5(2) of the EIR by failing to respond to the request within the 20 working day statutory time limit. The Commissioner requires United Utilities to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: Provide a substantive response to the complainant in accordance with Regulation 5 of the EIR. The public authority 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: EIR 5
View United Utilities
29 Mar 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from the President’s Office (Employment Tribunals England and Wales) relating to the minutes of meetings of judges. The President of the Employment Tribunals in England and Wales (the President) provided the complainant with some information within the scope of the request – information which is publically available - but did not provide the information requested relating to the minutes of Regional Employment Judge meetings. It was explained that the reason for this is that the judiciary is not a public authority for the purposes of the FOIA. After investigation, the Commissioner has found that the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) stated correctly and in accordance with section 1(1)(a) of the FOIA that it did not hold the requested information as the MoJ only holds this information on behalf of another person and so under section 3(2)(a) of the FOIA it does not hold it for the purposes of that Act. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2016/0094 dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Ministry of Justice
29 Mar 2016Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to minutes of meetings of the independent remuneration panel (IRP) which provides recommendations to the Council. The Council refused to disclose the requested information, citing section 36(2)(b) of FOIA as a basis for non-disclosure. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has correctly applied section 36(2)(b)(ii) to the requested information. The Commissioner also finds that the Council is in breach of section 10(1) of FOIA as it did not respond to the complainant’s request within the statutory time limit. The Commissioner therefore requires no steps to be taken. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2016/0097 dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 36
View South Holland District Council
29 Mar 2016Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to appeals concerning firearms certificates. To date he has not received a substantive response. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Ministry of Justice (the ‘MoJ’) has breached section 10(1) of the FOIA in that it failed to provide a response to the request within the statutory timeframe of 20 working days. He requires it to comply with the request or issue a valid refusal notice as set out in section 17 of the FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Ministry of Justice
29 Mar 2016Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to Winchester City Council’s “All Risks Insurance Policy”. The Commissioner’s decision is that by failing to respond to this request within the statutory timescale Winchester City Council (WCC) has breached section 10(1) of the FOIA. The Commissioner does not require any steps to be taken as WCC has now responded to the request.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Winchester City Council
29 Mar 2016Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request for information to the Ministry of Justice (the ‘MOJ’) for correspondence relating to the Denbury Allotments at Her Majesty’s Prison Channings Wood. By the date of this notice, 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
29 Mar 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested from Queen Mary University of London (“QMUL”) data connected with a published article about chronic fatigue syndrome. QMUL refused the request as vexatious under section 14(1) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that QMUL has correctly applied section 14(1) to the request. He does not therefore require it to take any further steps to ensure compliance with the legislation.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14
View Queen Mary University of London
29 Mar 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information and correspondence exchanged between the MoJ, the Judicial College and the judiciary. The MoJ refused this request as vexatious under section 14(1) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the MoJ correctly applied section 14(1) to the request. He does not require any steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14
View Ministry of Justice
29 Mar 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested a copy of the Global Address List (GAL). The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) refused this request as vexatious under section 14(1) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the MoJ correctly applied section 14(1) to the request. He does not require any steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14
View Ministry of Justice
29 Mar 2016Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information concerning the management of a medical physics department within University Hospitals Coventry and Warwickshire NHS Trust (‘the Trust’). The Commissioner’s decision is that the Trust has breached section 10(1) of the FOIA because it has not provided the complainant with a response to her request within 20 working days. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: Provide the complainant with a response to the FOIA elements of her information request of 8 December 2015. The public authority 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 10
View University Hospitals Coventry and Warwickshire NHS Trust
29 Mar 2016Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about correspondence between a specific individual and members of NHS England staff, and information about that individual. The Commissioner’s decision is that NHS Commissioning Board (NHS England) has breached section 10(1) of the FOIA because it has not provided the complainant with a response to his request within 20 working days. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: Provide the complainant with a response to his request of 15 January 2016. The public authority 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 10
View NHS England
23 Mar 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested the name of the person who made a complaint that unlawful works were being carried out to trees covered by a tree preservation order at the rear of [address]. Welwyn Hatfield Borough Council (the Council) confirmed that it did not hold the requested information under section 1(1)(a) FOIA. The Commissioner considers that the Council was correct to confirm that it does not hold the requested information under section 1(1)(a) of the FOIA. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Welwyn Hatfield Borough Council
23 Mar 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information concerning a financial award made by the Big Lottery Fund (the “Fund”) to the Melness and Tongue Community Development Trust (“MTCDT”) in Sutherland. In particular the complainant has requested invoices and claims forms regarding money received by MTCDT and its associated entities. These have been provided to him but with personal data redacted under section 40(2) of the FOIA and regulation 13(1) of the EIR. The complainant has argued he should be provided with the names of the individuals who submitted the claims forms and invoices. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Fund is correct to apply section 40(2) of the FOIA and regulation 13(1) of the EIR to the redacted personal data. He therefore requires no further steps to be taken.Information Tribunal appeal EA/2016/0106 allowed.
Exemptions cited: EIR 13(1); FOI 40
View Big Lottery Fund
23 Mar 2016Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
This is the second decision notice referring to a request for copies of speeches made by the Chair of Governors and Principal at Portadown College (the College) on a particular speech day. In his first decision notice served under the case reference FS50573105, the Commissioner had disagreed with the College’s position that any information held by the Chair and Principal would not be subject to FOIA. He therefore ordered the College to issue a fresh response that reflected this finding. The College subsequently informed the complainant that the Principal and Chairman did have hard copies of their speeches but advised that this was exempt information under the ‘third party personal data’ (section 40(2)) exemption in FOIA. The College further claimed that it was not in any event obliged to comply with the request on the basis that the request was vexatious in accordance with section 14(1) of FOIA. It is this revised response which forms the focus of the present notice. The Commissioner’s
Exemptions cited: FOI 14; FOI 40
23 Mar 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from the University of Cambridge (“the University”) relating to Einstein’s theory of relativity. The Commissioner has determined that the University was correct to apply section 12 of the FOIA to the request. The Commissioner requires the University to take no steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12
View The University of Cambridge
23 Mar 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested from Ealing Council (the ‘Council’) information relating to premises licence applications. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council is entitled to rely on section 14(1) of the FOIA to refuse this request. Therefore, he does not require the Council to take any further steps. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2016/0112 allowed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14
View Ealing Council
23 Mar 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to a student he believes studied at the university between 2006 and 2009. The university responded to the request, refusing to disclose any information it may hold under section 40(2) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the university acted appropriately by refusing to disclose any information it may hold under section 40(2) of the FOIA. He therefore does not require any further action to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View The University of Westminster
23 Mar 2016Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested details of all draft plans for intersections on the A3 in and around Burpham, specifically London Road Slip and Clay Lane Northbound off. The council said that it could disclose a note written by the complainant but the remaining information held was excepted under regulations 12(5)(e), 12(4)(d) and 12(5)(f) of the Environmental Information Regulations 2004 (“the EIR”). The Commissioner’s decision is that regulation 12(4)(d) was correctly applied to some of the information and the public interest favoured maintaining the exception. The remaining information was excepted under regulation 12(5)(e) and the public interest also favoured maintaining the exception with the exception of one paragraph relating to noise emissions. It was not necessary to consider the application of regulation 12(5)(f). The Commissioner requires them disclose paragraph 4.13 of document 4 entitled “Notes of Meeting: Gosden Hill – Highways Agency Meeting”. Information Tribunal appeal EA/
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(d); EIR 12(5)(e); EIR 5(1); EIR 5(2)
View Guildford Borough Council