23 Mar 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has made a request to South Gloucestershire Council (“the council”) for information relating to a specific vote undertaken by councillors at a committee meeting. The council confirmed that the information was not held, which was subsequently contested by the complainant. The Commissioner’s decision is that the requested information is not held. He does not require any steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View South Gloucestershire Council
23 Mar 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested evidence showing that a planning report had been critically examined by East Devon District Council (the council). The complainant was not satisfied with the council stating that it does not hold this information and he was unhappy that it had provided him with a link to information that he had not requested. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council does not hold the requested information. He also found that the council had complied with regulation 9(1) of the EIR – providing advice and assistance – in providing a link to the complainant which showed the type of information it did hold with regards to the planning application. The Commissioner does not require the council to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 5(1); EIR 9(1)
View East Devon District Council
23 Mar 2016Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from London Borough of Lewisham (“the Council”) relating to a development proposal for Beckenham Place Park, in London. The Council provided some information, however it stated that it did not hold information in relation to the remainder of the complainant’s requests. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council does not hold any further recorded information falling within the scope of the request. However, the Commissioner also finds that the Council has breached section 10(1) of FOIA as it did not respond to the complainant’s requests within the statutory time limit of 20 working days. The Commissioner therefore requires no steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10
View Lewisham Council
23 Mar 2016Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information from the London Borough of Lewisham (“the Council”) relating to Planning and Building applications in respect of a specific property. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has correctly applied regulation 5(3), and regulation 12(3) and 13 of the EIR to some of the requested information. However, the Council did not respond to the request within the statutory timeframe. It has therefore breached regulation 5(2) of the EIR. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take no steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(3); EIR 13; EIR 5(2); EIR 5(3)
View Lewisham Council
23 Mar 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested from Natural England information relating to the different culling methods used, either free shooting or cage trapping, in the pilot badger culls. Natural England advised that the only relevant information it holds are the estimated costs supplied by the licensed control companies, which it considered to be excepted information under regulations 12(5)(d) (confidentiality of proceedings) and 12(5)(e) (confidentiality of commercial or industrial information) of the EIR. The Commissioner has found that regulation 12(5)(d) of the EIR is engaged and that, in all the circumstances, the public interest in withholding the information outweighs the public interest in disclosure. He does not therefore require Natural England to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(d)
View Natural England
23 Mar 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information regarding gas and electricity consumption at ‘The Knowle’. The Commissioner’s decision is that East Devon District Council has correctly applied the exception for manifestly unreasonable requests at Regulation 12(4)(b) of the EIR. The Commissioner has also found that East Devon District Council has not breached the provision to provide advice and assistance at Regulation 9(1) or the requirements in relation to the refusal to disclose information at Regulation 14(3). He does not require the public authority to take any steps to ensure compliance with the legislation.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(b); EIR 14(3); EIR 9(1)
View East Devon District Council
23 Mar 2016Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has made three requests for different items of advice received by Selby District Council (the Council) in connection with the Burn airfield site. The Council has withheld, either in full or in part, information covered by each of the requests. For request 1, the Commissioner has decided that the Council incorrectly relied on regulations 12(5)(e) (confidentiality of commercial or industrial information) and 12(4)(d) (material in the course of completion) of the EIR to withhold the disputed information and therefore the information should be disclosed. For requests 2 and 3, the Commissioner considers the Council correctly applied regulation 12(5)(b) (course of justice) of the EIR and that in all the circumstances the public interest in disclosure is outweighed by the public interest in maintaining the exception. The Commissioner requires the Council to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. In relation to request 1, disclose a copy of the rema
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(d); EIR 12(5)(b); EIR 12(5)(e)
23 Mar 2016Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from Thorns Community College (the College) relating to the number of students excluded for the academic year 2014 and 2015. The Commissioner’s decision is that the College did not deal with the request for information in accordance with section 10 of the FOIA in the following way: It failed to provide a response to the request within that statutory time frame of 20 working days. The Commissioner requires the College issue a response under the FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
23 Mar 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has made a request to Manchester City Council (“the council”) for information relating to One Education Ltd., which is a company wholly owned by the council. The council disclosed some held information and withheld the reminder under section 43(2), which the complainant subsequently contested. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council has correctly applied section 43(2). He does not require any steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 43
View Manchester City Council
23 Mar 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested from Ealing Council (“the Council”) details of tenders submitted for the procurement of a service. The Council refused to disclose some of the requested information (“the withheld information”) citing section 43 of FOIA as a basis for non-disclosure. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has correctly applied section 43(2) to the withheld information, although section 43(1) does not apply. The Commissioner therefore requires no steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 43
View Ealing Council
23 Mar 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested the name of the medically qualified case examiner who provided advice in relation to his complaint about a number of doctors. The GMC refused to confirm or deny whether the requested information was held under section 40(5) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA). The Commissioner’s decision is that the GMC was correct to neither confirm nor deny whether the requested information was held under section 40(5) FOIA. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View GMC
23 Mar 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested from the Office for Fair Access (‘OFFA’) information relating to the educational background of its Director, Assistant Director and other members of the Senior Management Team (SMT). OFFA disclosed information to parts of the request and applied section 40(2) of the FOIA to the remaining parts. The Commissioner’s decision is that OFFA has correctly applied the exemption for personal data at section 40(2) to parts of the request. Therefore the Commissioner does not require OFFA to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View Office for Fair Access
23 Mar 2016Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a twelve part request for information on the success of BBC’s Mentoring and Development Programme (MDP) and the continued development of the staff who participated in that programme, including those who self-identified as Black, Asian, Minority Ethnic (BAME). The BBC initially refused the first six parts of the request under section 40(2) - third party personal data, and the remainder under section 12 on the basis the cost of complying with those elements of the request would exceed the appropriate limit. Following an internal review the BBC maintained its reliance on section 40(2) in respect of some information, disclosed other information and, in effect, argued that it did not hold the remaining information. During the Commissioner’s investigation, the BBC applied section 12 – appropriate limit, to the entire request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the BBC is entitled to refuse to comply with the request on the basis that the cost of doing so would exce
Exemptions cited: FOI 12; FOI 16
View BBC
23 Mar 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested the closed extract contained in file WO 208/4493/1 - Joachim von Ribbentrop from open parent file WO 208/4493 - Joachim von Ribbentrop. TNA refused to provide the requested information under section 40(2) FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that TNA has correctly applied section 40(2) FOIA to the withheld information. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View The National Archives
23 Mar 2016Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to employee travel and expenditure. The BBC refused to comply with the request under section 12 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA) as it said it would exceed the cost limit to do so. The Commissioner’s decision is that the BBC was correct to apply section 12 FOIA in his case. However the BCC breached its obligations under section 16 FOIA in relation to the way in which it dealt with this request. The Commissioner requires the public authority provide the complainant with advice and assistance in accordance with the BBC’s obligations under section 16 FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12; FOI 16
View BBC
23 Mar 2016Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information from the Environment Agency relating to correspondence between the organization and the Prince of Wales on the subject of flooding. The Commissioner has decided that the Environment Agency breached Regulation 5(2) by failing to respond to the complainant’s request within the twenty day compliance period. The Commissioner requires the Agency to issue a response under the EIR.
Exemptions cited: EIR 5(2)
View Environment Agency
23 Mar 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to the voting results in the Eurovision 'You Decide' final. 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.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View BBC
23 Mar 2016Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested from the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) documented procedures relating to a particular scenario. To date he has not received a substantive response. The Commissioner’s decision is that 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
23 Mar 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to fees paid by the NHS to the ‘Big four accounting firms’, for legal advice and rent. The DoH provided some information to the complainant in response to his request. However it said that it did not collect data on payments by NHS bodies to individual suppliers, so confirmed that it does not hold this information under section 1(1)(a) FOIA. The Commissioner considers that the DoH was correct to confirm that it does not hold data on payments by NHS bodies to individual suppliers under section 1(1)(a) of the FOIA. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Department of Health and Social Care
23 Mar 2016Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to foreign national offenders. 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
23 Mar 2016Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested a registrant’s indemnifier and his policy number. The GDC refused to confirm or deny whether the requested information was held under section 40(5) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA). The Commissioner’s decision is that the GDC was incorrect to neither confirm nor deny whether the requested information was held under section 40(5) FOIA. The Commissioner requires GDC to inform the complainant whether the requested information is held. If the information is held it should provide it to the complainant or else issue a refusal notice in accordance with section 17 of FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View General Dental Council
23 Mar 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant made requests for information on the number of allegations relating to disability discrimination. Humber NHS Foundation Trust (the Trust) answered the initial request but refused a later request as vexatious under section 14(1) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Trust has correctly applied the vexatious provision at section 14(1) of the FOIA. He does not require any steps to be taken. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2016/0102 dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14
View Humber Teaching NHS Foundation Trust
23 Mar 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant made requests for information relating to the ownership of documents and their destruction. Humber NHS Foundation Trust (the Trust) answered the initial request but refused the later request as vexatious under section 14(1) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Trust has correctly applied the vexatious provision at section 14(1) of the FOIA. He does not require any steps to be taken. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2016/0101 dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14
View Humber Teaching NHS Foundation Trust
23 Mar 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant asked Colchester Borough Council for details of the time spent and costs incurred in preparing a complaint against one of its councillors. The Council responded to the complainant’s request by advising him that the information he seeks is not held. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, Colchester Borough Council does not hold the information which the complainant has asked for. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take no further action in this matter.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Colchester City Council
23 Mar 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information about the numbers of midwives suspended for bullying. The Rotherham NHS Foundation Trust (the Trust) withheld the information, citing the exemption under section 40(2) of the FOIA (third party personal data) as its basis for doing so for part of the request and section 1 for the remainder of the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Trust has correctly applied section 40 (2) and section 1 of FOIA and does not therefore require the Trust to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 40
View Rotherham NHS Foundation Trust
23 Mar 2016Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from the London Borough of Croydon (“the Council”) relating to a proposed 20mph speed limit consultation. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has correctly applied section 12 and section 40 of the FOIA to some of the requested information. He has also determined that the Council has breached section 10 of the FOIA as it failed to provide full response to the request within 20 working days. As a full response has now been provided the Commissioner requires the Council to take no steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 12
View London Borough of Croydon
23 Mar 2016Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from the Department for Communities and Local Government (“the DCLG”) concerning his local authority’s interpretation of the Housing Acts of 1988 and 1996. The Commissioner’s decision is that the complainant’s request is not a valid request for recorded information and therefore the provisions of section 1 do not apply to it. The Commissioner has also decided that the DCLG has failed to provide the complainant with appropriate advice and assistance in order for him to make a valid request. Consequently the DCLG has breached section 16 of the FOIA. However, in view of the information which the DCLG has provided the complainant by way of assisting his understanding of annual tenancy visits, the Commissioner does not require the DCLG to take any further steps in this matter.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 16
View Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government
22 Mar 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) for information it held about a meeting between Nicola Sturgeon the First Minister of Scotland and the French Ambassador. The FCO confirmed that it held some information falling within the scope of the complainant’s request but it considered this to be exempt from disclosure on the basis of section 27 (international relations), section 28 (relations within the UK) and section 40 (personal data). The Commissioner has concluded that the withheld information is exempt from disclosure on the basis of sections 27(1)(a) and 40(2) of FOIA. The Commissioner has also concluded that the FCO undertook its public interest considerations in a reasonable time and thus did not breach section 17(3) of FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 27; FOI 40
22 Mar 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to the Promissory Oaths Act 1868, impounding of court documents, contempt of court proceedings against a named company and information relating to the ability for court users to choose the level of judge to hear their case.
The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the Attorney General’s Office (AGO) does not hold the requested information. He does not require the AGO to take any remedial steps to ensure compliance with the FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Attorney General's Office
22 Mar 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information on his father’s Crown Service. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Department for International Development (‘DfID’) is not required to confirm whether it holds the requested information in accordance with section 40(5) of the FOIA. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps to ensure compliance with the legislation.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View Department for International Development
22 Mar 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a number of requests to Surrey County Council (the Council) seeking information about library staff. The Council provided the majority of the information requested but refused to disclose the number of staff who had received ‘departure payments’ when leaving the Council and also refused to disclose the total cost of these departure payments. The Council argued that both pieces of information were exempt from disclosure on the basis of section 40(2) of FOIA. The Commissioner has concluded that the Council was entitled to rely on this exemption to withhold both pieces of information. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2016/0107 dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View Surrey County Council
22 Mar 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
With regard to planning applications submitted to develop the Bishopsgate Goodsyard area, the complainant requested copies of (i) any financial viability assessment(s) produced in connection with the plans and (ii) any reports prepared to assess or verify the financial viability assessment. The London Borough of Tower Hamlets (the Council) has disclosed a copy of the developer’s financial viability assessment (FVA) subject to extensive redactions made under regulation 12(5)(e) and 12(5)(f) of the EIR. The Council also confirmed that at the time of the request it did not hold any corresponding report that tested the assumptions made in the financial viability assessment. The Commissioner’s determination is that, with regard to request (i), the FVA engages regulation 12(5)(e) of the EIR and the public interest in disclosure is outweighed by the public in favour of maintaining the exception. In relation to request (ii) the Commissioner has found that the Council did not hold the informati
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(e)
View London Borough of Tower Hamlets
22 Mar 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information pertaining to the funding of the government’s Work Programme (South West). The Commissioner’s decision is that the Department for Work and Pensions (‘DWP’) has correctly relied on section 43(2) to withhold the requested information. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2016/0082 dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 43
View Department for Work and Pensions
22 Mar 2016Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about the cost to the BBC of providing its staff at Media City UK in Salford Quays with free teas and coffee, together with the details of the drinks consumed. The BBC initially refused the request under section 43 – commercial interests, but at the internal stage it refused to provide the majority of the information under section 12 on the basis that complying with the request would exceed the cost limit for dealing with such requests. It did however provide some information on the brands of the beverages. The Commissioner’s decision is that the BBC is entitled to refuse the request under section 12. However, to date, the BBC has not provided the complainant with the advice and assistance required to enable him to make a fresh request which could be dealt with within the appropriate limit. This constitutes a breach of section 16. The Commissioner requires the public authority provide the complainant with appropriate advice and assistance.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12; FOI 16
View BBC
22 Mar 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to child sexual exploitation. The Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) refused the request on cost grounds under section 12(1) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the MPS cited section 12(1) correctly and so it was not obliged to comply with this request.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12
View Metropolitan Police Service
22 Mar 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to whether a named high profile individual held a British passport. The Home Office refused to confirm or deny whether it held this information and cited the exemption provided by section 40(5) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Home Office cited section 40(5) correctly, so it was not obliged to confirm or deny whether the requested information was held.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View Home Office
22 Mar 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested from the Francis Crick Institute (the ‘Crick’) information relating to a Physiologist’s emails between a Physicist, staff at the Science Media Centre and writers/reporters from 8 June 2015 to the present. The Crick has explained that it is not a public authority for the purposes of the FOIA and has refused to respond to this request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Crick is not a public authority for the purposes of the FOIA. He therefore upholds the Crick’s position and requires no steps to be taken in this case.
Exemptions cited: FOI 3
22 Mar 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to correspondence from the European Commission to the United Kingdom about the Data Protection Act. The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) refused to provide the requested information citing sections 27(1) and (2) of FOIA (international relations). The Commissioner’s decision is that the information is exempt from disclosure on the basis of section 27(1)(b) of FOIA and that in all the circumstances of the case the public interest favours maintaining the exemption. The Commissioner did not proceed to consider MoJ’s application of section 27(2) to the same information. The Department for Culture Media and Sport (DCMS) is not required to take any steps as a result of this notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 27
View Department for Culture, Media and Sport
22 Mar 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested Sir Nigel Sheinwald’s report on data sharing between the British government and US corporations. It initially refused the request citing section 21. It directed the complainant to a summary of the report available online. At internal review, it revised its position. It said that any information not already released in the summary was exempt under section 23 (security bodies’ information) and section 24 (safeguarding national security). During the Commissioner’s investigation, it introduced reliance on section 27 (international relations) and section 35 (formulation/development government policy) in the alternative to section 24). The Commissioner’s decision is that the Cabinet Office is entitled to rely on sections 23 and 24 as its basis for withholding the requested information. No steps are required.
Exemptions cited: FOI 23; FOI 24
View Cabinet Office
22 Mar 2016Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (‘the FCO’) for copies of correspondence between the British Embassy in Riyadh and the Foreign Office in London. The FCO confirmed that it holds information relevant to the request. It repeatedly advised the complainant that it required further time to consider the public interest test. To date, the FCO has failed to provide the complainant with a substantive response. By failing to do so, the Commissioner has concluded that the FCO breached section 17(3) of the FOIA. The Commissioner requires the FCO to provide the complainant with a substantive response to her information request. If the FCO 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 consideration.
Exemptions cited: FOI 17
22 Mar 2016Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (‘the FCO’) for information regarding the history of the Middle East and provided 25 file reference numbers. The FCO confirmed that it holds information relevant to the request. It repeatedly advised the complainant that it required further time to consider the public interest test. To date, the FCO has failed to provide the complainant with a substantive response. By failing to do so, the Commissioner has concluded that the FCO breached section 17(3) of the FOIA. The Commissioner requires the FCO to provide the complainant with a substantive response to his information request. If the FCO decides to withhold any information then the complainant should be provided with a refusal notice giving a full explanation as to why the information will not be disclosed, including details of any public interest test consideration.
Exemptions cited: FOI 17
22 Mar 2016Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (‘the FCO’) for details of the Secretary of State’s previous visit to Saudi Arabia. The FCO confirmed that it holds information relevant to the request. It repeatedly advised the complainant that it required further time to consider the public interest test with regards to section 27 ‘International relations’. To date, the FCO has failed to provide the complainant with a substantive response. By failing to do so, the Commissioner has concluded that the FCO breached section 17(3) of the FOIA. The Commissioner requires the FCO provide the complainant with a substantive response to his information request. If the FCO decides to withhold any information then the complainant should be provided with a refusal notice giving a full explanation as to why the information will not be disclosed, including details of any public interest test consideration.
Exemptions cited: FOI 17
21 Mar 2016Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to the pay and grading of psychologists employed by the prison service including those in the psychology department at HMP Wakefield. The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) provided some information but refused to provide the remainder citing sections 40(2) (personal information) and 44(1) (prohibitions on disclosure) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the exemption at section 44 is not engaged but that MoJ was entitled to rely on section 40(2) FOIA in respect of the information withheld by virtue of that exemption. The Commissioner requires the MoJ disclose to the complainant the information withheld only by virtue of section 44(1) FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40; FOI 44
View Ministry of Justice
21 Mar 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested a file of Prime Ministerial correspondence on the matter of security which dates from the period 1964-70. The Cabinet Office refused to provide it citing the exemptions at section 23(1) (security bodies) and section 24(1) (national security) in the alternative as its basis for doing so. It also cited section 40 (unfair disclosure of personal data). It upheld this at internal review. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Cabinet Office is entitled to rely on section 23(1) and section 24(1) in the alternative as its basis for refusing to provide the requested information. No steps are required.
Exemptions cited: FOI 23; FOI 24
View Cabinet Office
17 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’) about court costs. 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
17 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’) about case jurisdictions it oversees under the heading of Special Educational Needs and Disability. 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
17 Mar 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested correspondence and communications within the Ministry of Justice (MOJ), or between the Legal Aid Agency (LAA) and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, relating to the funding of a case where there had been some prospect of judicial review proceedings arising. The Commissioner decided that, subject to disclosing the information listed for disclosure in the confidential annex to this decision notice for which no exemptions are engaged, MOJ has applied section 42(1) and 40(2) FOIA appropriately. He found that section 40(1) also applied to some of the withheld information. The Commissioner does not require MOJ to take any additional steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40; FOI 42
View Ministry of Justice
17 Mar 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested a copy of the train and duty analysist sets of diagrams (TADA) from Transport for London (TfL). The request was refused on the grounds of health and safety (section 38 of FOIA). The Commissioner has found that section 38(1) is engaged and that in all the circumstances the public interest in disclosure is outweighed by the public interest in maintaining the exemption. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any remedial steps to ensure compliance with the legislation.
Exemptions cited: FOI 38
View Transport for London
17 Mar 2016Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to cost applications in R v Coulson and Others (also known as “the phone hacking trial”). The Ministry of Justice (the ‘MOJ’) refused to confirm or deny whether it held the requested information, citing sections 32(3), court records and 40(5), personal information of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the MOJ has dealt with the requests correctly in that section 40(5) is engaged and so it is not required to confirm or deny whether it holds this information. In addition, the MOJ failed to provide its refusal to respond within the statutory 20 working days framework and thereby breached section 17(1) of FOIA. He does not require the MOJ to take any remedial steps to ensure compliance with FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 17; FOI 40
View Ministry of Justice
16 Mar 2016Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has made a request to Hampshire County Council (“the council”) for emails that are referenced in a council document relating to a recreational trail called the ‘Meon Valley Trail’ (“the MVT”). The council refused the request under regulation 12(4)(b) of the Environmental Information Regulations (“the EIR”).The Commissioner’s decision is that the council has incorrectly applied regulation 12(4)(b), and has breached the requirement of regulation 14(2).The Commissioner requires the public authority to issue a fresh response under the terms of the EIR that does not rely on regulation 12(4)(b). 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 12(4)(b); EIR 14(2)(1)
View Hampshire County Council