16 Mar 2016Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information in relation to building works carried out on a specific address, including the installation of a log burning stove. Cheshire West and Chester Council (the council) provided the information it held but the complainant considered it had not provided all that it held. During the Commissioner’s investigation, a further document was located and sent to the complainant. Other than this further document, the Commissioner has determined that no further information is held by the council within the scope of the request. The Commissioner did however find that the council had breached regulation 5(1) of the EIR in not providing its initial response within the permitted 20 working days following receipt of the request and that it breached regulation 11 of the EIR because it provided the complainant with its internal review outside the required 40 working days following the request for one to be conducted. As the Commissioner has determined that no further
Exemptions cited: EIR 11; EIR 5(1); EIR 5(2)
View Cheshire West and Chester Council
16 Mar 2016Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested a copy of a contract between Ascham Homes and contractors who carried out kitchen and bathroom programmes from 2010-2015. Ascham Homes was a company wholly owned by Waltham Council and therefore a public authority under FOI in its own right. It applied section 43(2) to the entirety of the contracts. During the course of the Commissioner's investigation all services provided by Ascham Homes were taken over by the council. The council agreed to provide further information to the complainant, retaining section 43(2) for the pricing schedules within the contracts. The complainant was happy with that level of disclosure but wished the Commissioner to recognise the delays by decision notice. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council has not complied with section 10(1) of the notice in that the complainant's request was not responded within 20 workings days. However the Commissioner notes that the council only took over responsibility for the request in Novembe
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Waltham Forest Council
16 Mar 2016Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information relating to an enforcement complaint made about a third party. The council provided information however the complainant believes that further information must be held falling within the scope of the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council was correct to apply Regulation 12(4)(a) to the complaint. However the Commissioner has also decided that the council did not comply with Regulation 5(2) in that it did not respond to the complainant's request within 20 working days. The Commissioner does not require the council to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(a); EIR 5(2)
View Mid Devon District Council
16 Mar 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested from the University of Liverpool the identity of the two local rescue centres that supply it with canine cadavers for teaching purposes at its School of Veterinary Science. The University has withheld this information under sections 43(2) and 44 of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the University of Liverpool has correctly applied section 43(2) of the FOIA. The Commissioner therefore does not require the University of Liverpool to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 43
View The University of Liverpool
16 Mar 2016Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested details of information held by the authority as regards a legal action for non-payment of business rates by a charity. Some information was disclosed by the council however some information was withheld under section 40(2) (personal data). The council also confirmed that it did not hold some information. During the course of the investigation the council disclosed some information which it had initially decided to apply section 40(2) to, but continued to withhold a small amount of information. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council has correctly applied Regulation 40(2) to the information. He has also decided that on a balance of probabilities the council was correct to say that it does not hold further information requested by the complainant. The Commissioner has however decided that the council failed to comply with the requirements of section 10(1) in that it failed to disclose information to the complainant within 20 working days of the recei
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 40
View Nottingham City Council
16 Mar 2016Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to the issuing of an allegedly false passport to a named individual. The Home Office responded to this request by asking the complainant to provide evidence of his identity, evidence that the individual named in the request is deceased, a signed version of his request and his postal address. It stated that the request would not be progressed without the provision of those materials. The Commissioner’s decision is that the request was valid for the purposes of section 8 of the FOIA without the provision of any of the materials requested by the Home Office and that it was not permitted to refuse to comply with the request unless those materials were provided. In failing to respond to the request within 20 working days the Home Office breached section 10(1) of the FOIA. It is now required to respond to the request. The Commissioner requires the Home Office respond to the request.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 8
View Home Office
16 Mar 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information about furniture and other equipment purchased for use by the Chief Executive. Powys County Council (‘the Council’) provided some information but withheld other information under section 40(2) of the FOIA. During the course of the Commissioner’s investigation, the Council disclosed some additional information relevant to the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the remaining withheld information is exempt under section 40(2). He does not require any steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View Powys County Council
16 Mar 2016Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested a full copy of a viability report in relation to a planning application regarding a development site in London. The Council disclosed this report, however it redacted some information from it (“the withheld information.”) citing regulation 12(5)(e) of the EIR as a basis for non-disclosure. The Commissioner’s decision is that the exception as set out in the above regulation is engaged, however the public interest in all the circumstances of the case favours disclosure of the withheld information. The Commissioner requires the Council to disclose the withheld information to the complainant. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2016/0095 withdrawn.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(e)
View Westminster Council
14 Mar 2016Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to the treatment of her father at East Lancashire Hospitals NHS Trust. The Commissioner’s decision is that in failing to respond to this request East Lancashire Hospitals NHS Trust (the Trust) has breached sections 10(1) of the FOIA. The Commissioner requires East Lancashire Hospitals NHS Trust to respond to the request in accordance with FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10
View East Lancashire Hospitals NHS Trust
14 Mar 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to the Ministry of Defence (MOD) seeking information regarding the cost of living allowance paid to staff overseas. The MOD disclosed some information but withheld the remainder on the basis of section 43(2) (commercial interests) and section 41(1) (information provided in confidence) of FOIA. The Commissioner has concluded that the withheld information is exempt from disclosure on the basis of section 43(2) of FOIA and that in all the circumstances of the case the public interest favours maintaining the exemption. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2016/0089 dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 43
View Ministry of Defence
14 Mar 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) for a copy of the file FO 1093/491. The FCO refused to disclose the information relying on section 23(1) of FOIA. The Commissioner has concluded that the FCO is entitled to rely on this exemption to withhold the requested information.
Exemptions cited: FOI 23
14 Mar 2016Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested a copy of a highway maintenance contract from Norfolk County Council (“the council”). The council provided information but withheld some information from Schedule 3 of the contract using the exemptions under section 41(1) and 43(2) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (“the FOIA”). In its internal review, the council also referred to the exception under regulation 12(5)(e) of the Environmental Information Regulations 2004 (“the EIR”). The council said that it could disclose a limited amount of additional information during the Commissioner’s investigation. The Commissioner’s decision is that the remaining information was excepted under regulation 12(5)(e) of the EIR and the public interest favoured maintaining the exception. He has found procedural breaches of regulations 5(1), 5(2), and 14(2). The Commissioner requires the public authority disclose to the complainant the redacted version of the withheld spreadsheet which the council has agreed to disclose,
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(e); EIR 14(2)(1); EIR 5(1); EIR 5(2)
View Norfolk County Council
10 Mar 2016Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant made a freedom of information request to Transport for Greater Manchester (TfGM) for details of the termination of its contract with Atos for the ‘Get me there’ smart ticketing scheme. TfGM disclosed some of the requested information but also withheld some information under the exemption in section 43(2) (commercial interests). The Commissioner’s decision is that the section 43(2) exemption is not engaged and the information was wrongly withheld. The Commissioner requires the public authority to disclose to the complainant the information in part 4 of his request.
Exemptions cited: FOI 43
View Mayor of Greater Manchester
10 Mar 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant made a request to Nottinghamshire Healthcare NHS Trust (the Trust) for information relating to Arnold Lodge. The Trust refused to comply with the request under section 14(1) FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Trust has correctly applied section 14(1) FOIA in this case and was not therefore obliged to comply with the request. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2016/0080 withdrawn.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14
View Nottinghamshire Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust
10 Mar 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant made a request to the Department of Health (DoH) for information relating to financial figures on the role of technology in driving efficiency savings in the NHS, as discussed at the National Information Board meeting on June 17, 2015. The DoH refused to provide the information it held within the scope of the request under section 35(1)(a) FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the DoH has correctly applied section 35(1)(a) FOIA in this case. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 35
View Department of Health and Social Care
10 Mar 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to the public authority for copies of evidentiary material which formed the basis of Lord Denning’s report following his inquiry into the circumstances leading to the resignation of John Profumo, a Cabinet Minister under Harold Macmillan’s government. He also asked for documentation held by the public authority relating to future plans for the evidence including its preservation. The Commissioner’s decision is that the public authority was entitled to rely on the exemptions at sections 21(1), 23(1), 35(1)(a) and (b) and 41(1) FOIA to withhold information within the scope of the request. He also finds that the public authority was entitled to rely on section 42(2) FOIA as the basis for neither confirming nor denying whether it holds information within the scope of the request in respect of which a claim to legal professional privilege could be maintained in legal proceedings. No steps are required.
Exemptions cited: FOI 21; FOI 23; FOI 35; FOI 41; FOI 42
View Cabinet Office
10 Mar 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from Queen Mary University of London (the ‘University’) copies of all correspondence sent and/or received by the University from a named individual since a specific date. The Commissioner’s decision is that the University has correctly applied the exemption for personal data at section 40(2) of the FOIA. Therefore the Commissioner does not require the University to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View Queen Mary University of London
10 Mar 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to complaints dealt with by a specific adjudicator. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS) has correctly applied section 40(2) to the withheld information. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
10 Mar 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested a copy of the Sale and Purchase Agreement, and other contracts concerning the Government’s sale of the remaining mortgage style student loans to Erudio Student Loans Ltd in November 2013. The Department for Business Innovation and Skills withheld the requested information in its entirety under section 43(2)(prejudice to commercial interests) and section 41 (information provided in confidence) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000. During the course of the Commissioner’s investigation the Department provided the complainant with most of the previously withheld information, with some information being redacted and withheld under the above exemptions and section 40(2)(third party personal data).The Commissioner’s decision is that the Department wrongly withheld all of the information at the time of the request but has subsequently provided the complainant with all the information within scope of the request other than that information which is validly exem
Exemptions cited: FOI 43
View Department for Business and Trade
9 Mar 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information related to a clinical trial concerning treatments for chronic fatigue syndrome carried out by Queen Mary University of London (“QMUL”). QMUL has refused the request as vexatious under section 14(1) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that QMUL has correctly applied section 14(1) to this request. There are no further steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14
View Queen Mary University of London
9 Mar 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information concerning the University of Cambridge’s (“the University”) alumni associations. The University did not respond to the request in reliance on section 17(6) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the University is entitled to rely on section 17(6) and was therefore not obliged to respond to the complainant’s request. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2016/0100 dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 17
View The University of Cambridge
9 Mar 2016Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to an Electronic Asset Management System contract. Manchester City Council provided some of the information but withheld other information under the exemption for prejudice to commercial interests (section 43(2) of the FOIA). The Commissioner’s decision is that Manchester City Council breached section 10(1) and failed to demonstrate that section 43(2) is engaged. The Commissioner requires the public authority disclose the costs quoted by the respective organisations.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 43
View Manchester City Council
9 Mar 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested the details relating to the liability orders issued by the Council in respect of unpaid council tax over the last six years. The Council refused the request under section 14(1) on the basis that it was vexatious. The Commissioner’s decision is that the request was vexatious and therefore the Council was entitled to refuse the request under section 14(1). The Commissioner does not require the Council to take any further action in this matter.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14
View Wigan Council
9 Mar 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from London Borough of Hackney (the Council) on why the lettings policies for 60 specially adapted flats for older and disabled people were dismantled. He has also requested information regarding who takes responsibility for the new scheme and who deals with allocations. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council does not hold any further recorded information falling within the scope of the request. The Commissioner requires the Council to take no further steps. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2016/0092 allowed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View London Borough of Hackney
8 Mar 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested a copy of the written observations submitted by the UK government, in a particular matter, to the European Court of Justice. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Department for Work and Pensions (“DWP”) correctly relied on section 32(1)(a) to withhold the requested information.
Exemptions cited: FOI 32
View Department for Work and Pensions
8 Mar 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to the school’s obligations in respect of parents parking whilst dropping off and picking up their children. The school disclosed a copy of its Health and Safety Policy to the complainant and informed him that no further information was held. The complainant remained dissatisfied and felt that further recorded information should be held relating to his issues with parking. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the school does not hold any further recorded information falling within the scope of the complainant’s request. The Commissioner therefore does not require any further action to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View HURST PRIMARY SCHOOL
8 Mar 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant made a request to the BBC for anonymised conflict of interest forms of BBC Newsnight staff. The BBC responded to the request by explaining that the information was derogated in that it was held for the purposes of journalism, art or literature and therefore not subject to 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
8 Mar 2016Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information about HS2 project. The Department for Transport (DfT) refused to provide the requested information under section 35(1)(a), section 40(2) and section 43(1) of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), and as far as the withheld information is environmental, regulation 12(4)(d), 12(4)(e) and 12(5)(e) of the Environmental Information Regulations 2004 (EIR). The Commissioner’s decision is that the DfT was correct to deal with parts of the request under FOIA and parts under EIR. The Commissioner has numbered the documents in the order they appear on the ‘Explanatory Spreadsheet’ under each separate request which was provided by the DfT. Part 1 of the request: the DfT correctly applied regulation 12(5)(e) EIR. Part 2 of the request: the DfT correctly applied section 40(2) FOIA to the redactions made to document 1 and in part to document 9. It incorrectly applied this exemption to parts of document 9 and document 10 and 16 in full. It correctly applied r
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(d); EIR 12(4)(e); EIR 12(5)(e); FOI 40
View Department for Transport
8 Mar 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant submitted a number of requests to the Land Registry seeking information concerning the registration of a particular parcel of land. The complainant complained to the Commissioner about the Land Registry’s failure to provide him with the information sought by two of these requests dated 5 June and 13 September 2015. During the course of the Commissioner’s investigation the Land Registry sought to refuse these requests on the basis of section 14(1) (vexatious) of FOIA, or in the alternative, regulation 12(4)(b) (manifestly unreasonable) of the EIR. The Commissioner has concluded that the requests should be considered under the EIR but that the Land Registry is entitled to refuse to comply with the requests on the basis of regulation 12(4)(b) because they are manifestly unreasonable. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2016/0067 dismissed.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(b)
View HM Land Registry
8 Mar 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to Mortality and Morbidity meetings within the Trust. The Trust has applied section 41 of FOIA (information provided in confidence) as a basis for non-disclosure of the requested information. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Trust has correctly applied section 41 of FOIA to the requested information. Therefore the Commissioner requires no steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 41
View Department of Health and Social Care
8 Mar 2016Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information on the number of mothers who had been in the care of the Trust’s maternity unit at any time during their pregnancy and had subsequently died over a given period together with information on the year and month of each mother’s death and where they died. The Trust provided the total number of deaths and some further details in respect of some of those deaths, but refused to provide the other details under section 41 as it believed to do so would breach a duty of confidence owed to the deceased. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Trust is not entitled to rely on section 41 to withhold this information. The Commissioner requires the public authority to disclose the withheld information.
Exemptions cited: FOI 41
View Homerton Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust
8 Mar 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant made a request to the BBC for information about the potential conflict of interest involving a BBC employee. The BBC responded to the request by explaining that the information was derogated in that it was held for the purposes of journalism, art or literature and therefore not subject to 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
8 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 Just Solutions International and related payments, bids and contract. 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. The MOJ must take these steps within 35 calendar days of the date of this decision notice. Failure to comply may result in the Commissioner making written certification of this fact to the High Court pursuant to section 54 of the Act and may be dealt with as a contempt of court.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10
View Ministry of Justice
8 Mar 2016Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested from the Cabinet Office information about spending over £25,000. It refused to provide it citing section 22 (information intended for future publication) as its basis for doing so. It upheld this at internal review. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Cabinet Office was not entitled to rely on section 22 as a basis for refusing to provide this information. However, given that it has now published the requested information, no steps are required.
Exemptions cited: FOI 22
View Cabinet Office
8 Mar 2016Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from the London Borough of Enfield (“the Council”) relating to the Southgate Town Controlled Parking Zone (CPZ) extension project, including consultations held between the Council and contractors. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council does not hold any further information in addition to that which has already been disclosed to the complainant. The Commissioner requires the Council to take no steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10
View Enfield Council
8 Mar 2016Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to criminal convictions of Hackney Carriage and Private Hire Taxi drivers. The Commissioner’s decision is that the City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council has correctly applied the exemption at section 12 of the FOIA where the cost of compliance exceeds the appropriate limit. The Commissioner has also decided that the City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council did not provide adequate advice and assistance under section 16 of the FOIA. However, he does not require the public authority to take any steps to ensure compliance with the legislation.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12; FOI 16
View City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council
8 Mar 2016Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information about a draft report relating to bus lanes. Liverpool City Council confirmed that some of the information was not held and withheld other information under the exceptions for adverse affect to the confidentiality of commercial information (regulation 12(5)(e)) and adverse affect to the interests of the information provider (regulation 12(5)(f)). The Commissioner’s decision is that Liverpool City Council: Correctly confirmed that it does not hold the information in part 2 of the request and complied with regulation 5(1) and, failed to demonstrate that the exceptions in regulation 12(5)(e) and regulation 12(5)(f) are engaged by the information specified in part 1 of the request. The Commissioner requires the public authority to disclose the report requested in part 1 of the request. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2016/0084 withdrawn.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(e); EIR 12(5)(f); EIR 5(1)
View Liverpool City Council
8 Mar 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information relating to an insurance claim brought against the council relating to subsidence at a nearby property and remedial work intended to be carried out on a nearby tree. The council refused to disclose a copy of the insurance claim, citing regulations 12(5)(b) and 13 of the EIR. The Commissioner’s decision is that regulation 13 of the EIR applies in this case. He therefore does not require any further action to be taken. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2016/0091 withdrawn.
Exemptions cited: EIR 13
View Camden Council
8 Mar 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information in files relating to Anthony Blunt. The Cabinet Office withheld this citing the exemptions at section 22(1) (Information intended for future publication), section 23(1) (Security bodies’ information), section 40(2) (Unfair disclosure of personal data); and section 41(1) (Information provided in confidence) as its basis for doing so. It upheld this position at internal review. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Cabinet Office is entitled to rely on section 22(1) as its basis for withholding some of the information and section 23(1) as its basis for withholding the remainder. No steps are required.
Exemptions cited: FOI 22; FOI 23
View Cabinet Office
8 Mar 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to UK Anti-Doping (UKAD) for communications sent and received by its Chief Executive relating to the story published in The Sunday Times on 2 August 2015 concerning allegations of doping in athletics. UKAD provided the complainant with some of the information falling within the scope of his request but withheld the remainder on the basis of sections 36(2)(b)(i) and (ii) (effective conduct of public affairs) of FOIA. The Commissioner has concluded that both exemptions are engaged and the public interest favours withholding the information.
Exemptions cited: FOI 36
View UK Anti-Doping
8 Mar 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information relating to the tenders the council received in relation to the mowing of the Playing Field, Village Green and Hay Crop in the parish. He also requested information relating to the audit of accounts for 2014/15. The council disclosed some information, stated that other information is not held and advised the complainant that the two tenders it did receive were being withheld under section 43 of the FOIA. During the Commissioner’s investigation it was decided that the request should be considered under the EIR rather than the FOIA. The council advised that it now wished to rely on regulations 12(4)(a) and 12(5)(e) of the EIR. The Commissioner’s decision is that regulations 12(4)(a) and 12(5)(e) of the EIR do apply and therefore no further action is required.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(a); EIR 12(5)(e)
8 Mar 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to the Ministry of Defence (MOD) for information concerning the shooting of Annette McGavigan in Derry in 1971. The MOD initially withheld all of the information on the basis of the exemptions contained sections 31(1)(a) to (c) (law enforcement) and section 40(2) (personal data) of FOIA. During the course of the Commissioner’s investigation the MOD provided the complainant with some of the information falling within the scope of her request. The Commissioner is satisfied that the remaining information is exempt from disclosure on the basis of sections 31(1)(a) to (c), or section 40(2), of FOIA. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2016/0086 allowed in part.
Exemptions cited: FOI 31; FOI 40
View Ministry of Justice
7 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 numbers of Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (‘RIPA’) requests about prison staff. 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.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10
View Ministry of Justice
7 Mar 2016Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information from the Department for Energy and Climate Change (DECC) relating to the Biomass Suppliers List (BSL). DECC has disclosed the information it holds within the scope of the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that on the balance of probabilities, DECC has now disclosed all the relevant information it holds but that disclosure of some of that information was outside the statutory 20 day time limit and accordingly DECC has breached regulation 5(2) EIR. The Commissioner does not require DECC to take any further steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 5(1); EIR 5(2)
View Department of Energy & Climate Change
7 Mar 2016Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information from the Department for Energy and Climate Change (DECC) relating to the Biomass Suppliers List (BSL). DECC set out its response to questions 1, 2, 4 and 5 of the request but in response to question number 3, relied on regulation 13 (personal information) to refuse the request. During the course of the investigation, DECC disclosed the information requested at question 3. The Commissioner’s decision is that DECC has disclosed the requested information but that disclosure for part of the requested information was outside the statutory 20 day time limit and accordingly DECC has breached regulation 5(2) EIR. The Commissioner does not require DECC to take any further steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 5(2)
View Department of Energy & Climate Change
7 Mar 2016Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested the Individual Management Review (IMR) compiled by the Thames Valley Police force (the police) following a lengthy criminal investigation which led to the conviction of several adult males for serious sexual offices against children. The Commissioner decided that the IMR had a policing purpose. It is therefore held by the police for their own purposes in addition to its use as a source document for the Serious Case Review (SCR) prepared for, and published by, the Local Safeguarding Children Board (LSCB). The LSCB is not a public authority for the purposes of FOIA. The Commissioner partly upheld the complaint and decided that parts of the IMR should have been disclosed. Redactions are set out in the confidential annex to this notice. He did not uphold the remainder of the complaint and decided that the police had relied correctly on the section 30(1) and 40(2) FOIA exemptions to withhold the remaining information. The police delay in responding to the request
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 30; FOI 40
View Thames Valley Police
7 Mar 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested a transcript of the public disciplinary hearing of a dismissed police officer. The Metropolitan Police Service (the “MPS”) initially advised that no information was held. Subsequently it refused to provide any information on the grounds of sections 31(1)(g) (law enforcement) and 40(2) (personal information) of the FOIA. During the Commissioner’s investigation this was revised to section 40(5), an exclusion to the duty to confirm or deny whether the information is held. The Commissioner’s decision is that the MPS cited section 40(5) correctly so it was not obliged to confirm or deny whether the requested information was held. No steps are required.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View Metropolitan Police Service
7 Mar 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information about investigations into the health and personal circumstances of Peterlee Town Council’s (“the council”) town clerk and the costs relating to her employment. The Commissioner’s decision is that section 40(2) is engaged and the council is not required to comply with the request. The Commissioner does not require the council to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
7 Mar 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information regarding an investigation. Nottinghamshire Police applied section 14(2) (repeated requests). The Commissioner’s decision is that Nottinghamshire Police has applied section 14(2) appropriately to the request. The Commissioner requires Nottinghamshire Police to issue a fresh response to question 1 of the request.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14
View Nottinghamshire Police
7 Mar 2016Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to the closure of the Pyramids Centre in Portsmouth. Portsmouth City Council (the Council) failed to respond to this request for information within the statutory timeframe. The Commissioner’s decision is that in doing so the Council breached section 10(1) of the FOIA (time for compliance). As the Council has now responded, the Commissioner requires no further steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Portsmouth City Council