7 Mar 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about Metropolitan police officers assisting bailiffs. The Metropolitan Police Service (the “MPS”) initially advised that to comply with the request would exceed the cost limit. During the Commissioner’s investigation this was revised and the MPS advised that it did not hold the requested information. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the MPS does not hold the requested information. He does not require the MPS to take any remedial steps to ensure compliance with the FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Metropolitan Police Service
7 Mar 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about breaking of diplomatic relations between Syria and the UK during 1986. The Cabinet Office refused to confirm or deny it held information within the scope of the request, citing section 23(5) (security bodies) or section 24(2) (national security) as its basis for doing so. It also cited section 27(4) (international relations). It upheld this at internal review. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Cabinet Office is entitled to rely on section 23(5) and section 24(2) as its basis for refusing to confirm or deny whether the requested information is held. No steps are required.
Exemptions cited: FOI 23; FOI 42
View Cabinet Office
7 Mar 2016Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from the Cabinet Office relating to meetings between government ministers or their staff and representatives of the Duchy of Cornwall, including the Duke himself – His Royal Highness Prince Charles. The Cabinet Office refused the request under section 12(2) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the Act). The Commissioner’s decision is that Cabinet Office has not sufficiently justified its use of section 12(2) of the Act. The Commissioner requires the public authority to issue a substantive response to the complainant which does not refuse the request under section 12(2) of the Act. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2016/0083 allowed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12
View Cabinet Office
3 Mar 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to the public authority for the number of cyber security incidents at the authority, the total number of times that the authority had engaged named specialist cyber security firms, and the total amount spent on their services, over a specified period. The Commissioner’s decision is that; in relation to Part 1 of the request, the public authority was entitled to rely on section 31(3) FOIA as the basis for not complying with the duty to confirm or deny whether it held the information requested. The public authority was also entitled to withhold information within the scope of Part 2 of the request on the basis of the exemption at section 31(1)(a) FOIA. No steps are required.
Exemptions cited: FOI 31
View Bank of England
3 Mar 2016Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to whether the Council had an obligation to reimburse tenants of Salisbury Independent Living (SIL) money he believed they were owed. Ultimately the Council provided much of the information requested but continued to withhold other information under the exemptions provided by section 42 – legal professional privilege and section 30(2) – confidential sources. During the course of the Commissioner’s investigation the Council also applied sections 36 – prejudice to the conduct of public affairs, and 31 - law enforcement. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council is entitled to rely on the exemptions provided by section 42 and 36 to withhold the requested information. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any further action in this matter. However the Commissioner does find that the Council failed to respond with the request within twenty working days of its receipt. This is a breach of section 10.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 36; FOI 42
View Wirral Council
3 Mar 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information about waste deliveries and collections at a particular site. Caerphilly County Borough Council (‘the Council’) refused to respond to the request in reliance on regulation 12(4)(b) of the EIR, on the grounds that the request was considered to be manifestly unreasonable. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council correctly applied Regulation 12(4)(b). The Commissioner also finds that the Council met its obligations to offer advice and assistance under regulation 9. The Commissioner does not require any steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(b)
View Caerphilly County Borough Council
3 Mar 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from the University of Oxford (“the University”) broadly relating to any communications sent to or from Oxford University Administration and Services staff members in relation to ice hockey from the 1st November 2012 to the date of the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the University has correctly applied section 14(1) of the FOIA to the request. The Commissioner requires the University to take no steps. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2016/0081 dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14
View The University of Oxford
2 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 about the dismissal of the Governor of St Kitts and Nevis in 1981. The FCO provided the complainant with information falling within the scope of this request but withheld certain parts on the basis of sections 40(2) (personal data) and 41(1) (information provided in confidence) of FOIA. It subsequently sought to also rely on section 37(1)(a) (communications with The Sovereign) to withhold some of this information, before extending its reliance on this exemption to use it as a basis to withhold all of the withheld information. The Commissioner’s decision is that all of the withheld information is exempt from disclosure on the basis of section 37(1)(a).
Exemptions cited: FOI 37
2 Mar 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to death certification processes in Northern Ireland. The DHSSPS refused to disclose the information (“the withheld information”) and cited section 35(1)(a) of FOIA as a basis for non-disclosure. The Commissioner’s decision is that the DHSSPS has correctly applied section 35(1)(a) to the withheld information. Therefore the Commissioner requires no steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 35
View Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety
2 Mar 2016Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant made a request to Network Rail for various pieces of information about the Royal Train. Network Rail disclosed some of the requested information and said that some of the information was not held. It also said that other information was being withheld under the exemptions in section 24 (National Security), section 31 (Law enforcement), section 38 (Health and Safety) and section 43 (commercial interests). The Commissioner has considered the complaint and found that the section 24 and section 43 exemptions were correctly applied and that the public interest in maintaining each exemption outweighed the public interest in disclosure. The Commissioner did not consider the application of section 31 or section 38 as he is satisfied that any information withheld under these exemptions is exempt on the basis of section 24. The Commissioner also found that Network Rail breached section 10(1) of FOIA in its handling of the request but requires no steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 24; FOI 43
View Network Rail
1 Mar 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information relating to an allotment site within the local area. Streatley Parish Council (the Council) provided one document and confirmed no further relevant information was held. The Commissioner’s decision is that on the balance of probabilities the Council has provided all of the information it holds relevant to the request. No steps are required.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(a); FOI 1
1 Mar 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information regarding the costs of “appeals” to the Department for Work and Pensions. It declined to provide the requested information by relying on section 12(1) (costs). The Commissioner’s decision is that the Department for Work and Pensions’ reliance on 12(1), not to provide the requested information, was correct.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12
View Department for Work and Pensions
1 Mar 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information on an issue relating to benefit reform from the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP). The DWP denied holding any relevant information. The Commissioner’s decision is that on the balance of probabilities the DWP is unlikely to hold any relevant information. No steps are required.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Department for Work and Pensions
1 Mar 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about the procedures followed by Avon and Somerset Constabulary (“the Constabulary”) when conducting injury on duty (“IOD”) award reviews. The Constabulary stated that it did not hold any information which fell within the scope of the request. The Information Commissioner is satisfied that, on the balance of probabilities, the Constabulary does not hold the requested information. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Avon and Somerset Police
1 Mar 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested from the Department for Education a list of all schools in Norfolk, Suffolk and Cambridgeshire that applied for funding from the priority school building programme 2 (PSBP2) and for each school how much money they requested, and a short summary of why they wanted the money. The Department for Education provided the complainant with a list of the schools that were successful in securing PSBP2 funding together with a summary of what they wanted it for but withheld the details for the unsuccessful schools under sections 36(2)(b)(i) and 36(2)(c) of the FOIA. In relation to the amount of money requested, the Department for Education stated that this information was held in a recorded format. The Commissioner’s decision is that Department for Education has incorrectly applied Sections 36(2)(b)(i) and 36(2)(c) of the FOIA. The Commissioner requires the Department for Education to disclose a list of the schools that were unsuccessful in securing (PSBP2) funding togeth
Exemptions cited: FOI 36
View Department for Education
1 Mar 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested minutes of the HD Committee from the Cabinet Office. The Cabinet Office refused to provide this citing section 35(1)(a) (formulation or development of government policy) and section 37(1)(b) (honours information) as its basis for doing so. It upheld this at internal review. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Cabinet Office is entitled to rely on section 37(1)(b) as its basis for refusing to provide the requested information. No steps are required. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2016/0078 allowed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 37
View Cabinet Office
1 Mar 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information in relation to wheelie bins. Birmingham City Council (the council) provided some of the information but refused two parts of the request under section 12(1) of the FOIA as it determined that it would take over the appropriate limit to respond. The complainant asked the Commissioner to consider if section 12(1) was engaged to the remaining part of his request, and also whether the council has complied with regulation 16 of the FOIA – providing appropriate advice and assistance. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council is able to rely on section 12(1) of the FOIA to refuse the parts of the request it has and also it has complied with section 16 of the FOIA. The Commissioner does not require the council to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12
View Birmingham City Council
1 Mar 2016Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information relating to the compensation paid to companies affected by the Olympics Compulsory Purchase Order (CPO). Initially the request was considered under the FOIA, and the GLA refused to disclose some information under sections 12 and 43 of the FOIA. During the Commissioner’s investigation it was agreed that the request should have been considered under the EIR and the GLA informed the Commissioner that it now wished to rely on regulations 12(4)(a), 12(4)(b) and 12(5)(e) of the EIR. In relation to the application of regulation 12(5)(e) of the EIR, the Commissioner has decided that this exception is not engaged. However, in relation to the application of regulation 12(4)(a) and 12(4)(b) of the EIR, the Commissioner’s decision is that these exceptions have been correctly applied by the GLA. The Commissioner requires the GLA to disclose the information previously withheld under regulation 12(5)(e) of the EIR to the complainant. Information Tribunal appe
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(a); EIR 12(4)(b); EIR 12(5)(e)
View Greater London Authority
1 Mar 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to children in the care of the Belfast Health and Social Care Trust (“the Trust”). The Trust disclosed most of the requested information but refused to disclose certain information citing section 12(1) as a basis for non-disclosure. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Trust has correctly applied section 12(1) in this case. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12
View Department of Health and Social Care
29 Feb 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested from Balcarras School (the ‘School’) information regarding the School’s appeals process. The Commissioner’s decision is that the School is entitled to rely on section 14(1) of the FOIA to refuse this request. Therefore, he does not require the School to take any further steps. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2016/0079 dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14
29 Feb 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information about the Radio 4 daily schedule. The BBC explained the information was covered by the derogation and excluded from FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that this information was held by the BBC for the purposes of ‘journalism, art or literature’ and did not fall inside FOIA. He therefore upholds the BBC’s position and requires no remedial steps to be taken in this case.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View BBC
29 Feb 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant submitted a request to the public authority for information relating to discussions on fracking and/or shale gas extraction by members of the Economic Affairs Committee. The public authority denied the request in reliance on the exceptions at regulations 12(4)(e), 12(5)(e) and 12(5)(f) EIR, and the exemptions at sections 35(1) (a) and (b) FOIA in the alternative. The Commissioner’s decision is that the public authority was entitled to withhold the information held (“the disputed information”) on the basis of the exception at regulation 12(4)(e). No steps are required.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(e)
View HM Treasury
29 Feb 2016Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information about himself and his property. Warwick District Council (‘the Council’) released his own personal data to him under the Data Protection Act. The Council released additional information under the EIR, having redacted some. It says the redacted information is exempt from disclosure under regulation 12(4)(e) (internal communications), 12(5)(b) (legal proceedings) and regulation 13(1) (third person personal data). The Commissioner’s decision is as follows: The Council has correctly applied the exception at regulation 12(4)(e) to some of the withheld information but the public interest favours disclosure of this information. The Council has correctly applied the exception at regulation 12(5)(b) to some of the withheld information and the public interest favours maintaining the exception. The Council has correctly applied the exception at regulation 13(1) to some of the withheld information. The Commissioner requires the public authority to discl
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(e); EIR 12(5)(b); EIR 13(1)
View Warwick District Council
29 Feb 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information on documents or emails in connection with a letter of support for the BBC signed by celebrities in July 2015. The BBC confirmed that it did not hold the requested information. The complainant considered that more information must be held by the BBC. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the BBC does not hold any further information in this case. The Commissioner has found a breach of section 10 because the BBC did not respond within 20 working days. The Commissioner does not require the BBC to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View BBC
29 Feb 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to a report into the health economy of Eastern Cheshire. The Commissioner’s decision is that the NHS Commissioning Board (NHS England) has correctly applied section 22(1) of the FOIA in its response to the request. The Commissioner does not require NHS England to take any steps as a result of this decision notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 22
View NHS England
29 Feb 2016Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested a file dating from 1954 to 1957 concerning the conferment of the title of Prince on the Duke of Edinburgh. The Home Office withheld the majority of this information under the exemption provided by section 37(1)(a) of the FOIA (communications with the Sovereign) and the remainder under 37(1)(b) (conferring of honours). The Commissioner finds that sections 37(1)(a) and 37(1)(b) were both applied correctly and requires no steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 17; FOI 37
View Home Office
25 Feb 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant made a freedom of information request to the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) for information about its then Creative Director Alan Yentob and his involvement with the charity Kids Company. The BBC responded to the request by confirming that no information was held. The Commissioner has investigated the complaint and found that the BBC holds no information falling within the scope of the request and complied with its duty under section 1 of FOIA. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View BBC
25 Feb 2016Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested copies of two reports relating to the acquisition of a property next to a local school. Wrexham County Borough Council (‘the Council’) refused the request under regulation 12(4)(e) and regulation 13. The Commissioner’s decision is regulation 12(4)(e) is engaged but the public interest in maintaining the exception is outweighed by the public interest in disclosure. However, the Commissioner has determined that the Council correctly applied regulation 13 to third party personal data contained within the reports. The Commissioner requires the public authority to disclose the information which has been withheld under regulation 12(4)(e) only, ie the information withheld under regulation 13 should be redacted from the reports.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(e); EIR 13
View Wrexham County Borough Council
25 Feb 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to children in the care of the South Eastern Health and Social Care Trust (“the Trust”). The Trust disclosed most of the requested information but refused to disclose certain information citing section 12(1) as a basis for non-disclosure. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Trust has correctly applied section 12(1) in this case. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12
25 Feb 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested details regarding a charity’s lease and business rates which the council took legal action against to recover unpaid debts. The council provided the majority of the information, however it said that it did not hold a copy of a lease which it said that the charity took out on the property to which the business rates apply. The complainant disbelieves that a copy of the lease is not held. The Commissioner’s decision is that on a balance of probabilities the council was correct to state that a copy of the lease was not held. The Commissioner does not require the council to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Leeds City Council
25 Feb 2016Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested copies of correspondence in relation to a specific planning application. The Commissioner’s decision is that Cheshire West and Chester Council has incorrectly applied the exception where disclosure would adversely affect the course of justice, the ability of a person to receive a fair trial or the ability of a public authority to conduct an inquiry of a criminal or disciplinary nature at regulation 12(5)(b) of the EIR. The Commissioner requires the public authority to disclose the information withheld under regulation 12(5)(b).
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(b)
View Cheshire West and Chester Council
25 Feb 2016Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information which the council holds which led it to issue a briefing to parish councillors regarding a change to the balance it places on local neighbourhood plans where no 5 year plan for future housing development is in place. The council withheld information under Regulation 12(4)(e), however it subsequently also applied Regulation 12(5)(b) during the Commissioner's investigation. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council has correctly applied Regulation 12(5)(b) and Regulation 12(4)(e) in this instance. He has however decided that the council’s response did not comply with Regulation 5(2) in that it did not respond within 20 working days. The Commissioner does not require the council to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(e); EIR 12(5)(b); EIR 5(2)
24 Feb 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested a copy of an asbestos report relating to a specific road. Isle of Wight Council provided the requested report but the complainant disputed that all the relevant information had been disclosed. The Commissioner’s decision is that Isle of Wight Council has disclosed all the requested information and complied with regulation 5(1) of the EIR. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 5(1)
View Isle of Wight Council
24 Feb 2016Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested from the Durand Academy information on the outcomes of pay progression decisions taken for its teachers. To date the Durand Academy has not responded to the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Durand Academy has breached Section 10(1) of the FOIA. The Commissioner requires the Durand Academy provide a substantive response to the request in accordance with FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
24 Feb 2016Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to Operational Policy Instructions (OPIs). The Home Office refused to comply with the request because it considered it vexatious under section 14(1) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the request was not vexatious and so the Home Office incorrectly relied on section 14(1). It is now required to issue a fresh response to the request. The Commissioner requires the Home Office to provide to the complainant a fresh response to his request that does not rely on section 14(1).
Exemptions cited: FOI 14
View Home Office
24 Feb 2016Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to payroll and pension services provided by Borough of Poole (the Council) to schools. The Council disclosed some information, but withheld information recording how much the Council charges schools for these services under the exemption provided by section 43(2) (prejudice to commercial interests) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that section 43(2) was engaged, but that the public interest favoured disclosure of the information. The Council is now required to disclose the withheld information. The Commissioner requires the Council to disclose the withheld information. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2016/0074 part allowed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 43
24 Feb 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham (“the Council”). The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council incorrectly handled some of the request under the FOIA, as some of the requested information is environmental and should have been considered under the EIR. However, the Commissioner has also determined that the Council has correctly applied section 12 of the FOIA to request 1, and section 40 to request 7. The Commissioner is also satisfied that the Council does not hold any further information which has not already been provided to the complainant that falls within the scope of his requests. The Commissioner requires the Council to take no steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 12; FOI 40
View Hammersmith and Fulham Council
24 Feb 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to the university plans to host the "International Law and the State of Israel: Legitimacy, Responsibility and Exceptionalism" conference. Initially the university refused the request citing sections 21, 38, 40 and 42 of the FOIA. However, during the Commissioner’s investigation, the university confirmed that it wished to claim a late reliance on section 12 of the FOIA. The Commissioner has considered the application of section 12 of the FOIA to the complainant’s request. He is satisfied that compliance would exceed the cost limit and so section 12 of the FOIA does apply. He therefore requires no further action to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12
View University of Southampton
23 Feb 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information on pension transfers. The NHS Business Services Authority (NHSBSA) confirmed that they did not hold any further information. The complainant considered that more information must be held by NHSBSA. The Commissioner’s decision is that NHSBSA does not hold any further information in this case. The Commissioner does not require NHSBSA to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View NHS Business Services Authority
23 Feb 2016Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information in relation to concerns he had raised with Quainton Parish Council, which explained that it did not hold any further recorded information. The Commissioner’s decision is that the complainant was asking for his own personal information and therefore that it should have been withheld under section 40(1) (personal information) of the FOIA. The Commissioner also considers that Quainton Parish Council has breached sections 1(3) (clarification of a request), 17(1) and 17(7) (refusal of a request). The Commissioner does not require Quainton Parish Council to take any steps as a result of this decision. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2016/0128 disposed of by consent order.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 17; FOI 40
23 Feb 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has made a request to Buckinghamshire County Council (“the council”) for information about the installation of a speed limit sign. The council disclosed information in response, but the complainant contested that this was not what had been requested. The Commissioners decision is that the council has disclosed all relevant held information that falls within the scope of the request. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2016/0066 dismissed.
Exemptions cited: EIR 5(2)
View Buckinghamshire Council
23 Feb 2016Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested various information from Lewisham Council in connection with its decision to dispose of its freehold interest in land in the Surrey Canal Triangle to a private developer. This information includes the consideration agreed for the disposal (in money or money’s worth), the principal terms of the disposal, the due diligence report commissioned about the developer and the internal and external legal advice received. Lewisham Council has withheld the entirety of the information requested under Regulations 12(5)(e) and 12(5)(b) of the EIR. The Commissioner’s decision is that Lewisham Council has successfully applied Regulation 12(5)(e) in respect of the consideration agreed for the disposal of its freehold interests and Regulation 12(5)(b) in respect of legal brief and legal advice received. The Commissioner requires Lewisham Council disclose the principal terms of the disposal of its freehold interests as specified in the complainant’s request with the exceptio
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(b); EIR 12(5)(e)
View Lewisham Council
23 Feb 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant made a freedom of information request to the Department of Health for a copy of an earlier draft of a report carried out by Lord Rose into Leadership in the NHS, the final version of which was published in July 2015. The Department of Health refused the request under the exemption in section 35(1)(a) of FOIA (formulation and development of government policy). The Commissioner has considered the complaint and found that the section 35(1)(a) exemption is engaged and the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosure. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 35
View Department of Health and Social Care
23 Feb 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information on possible financial links between pharmaceutical companies and NHS officials involved in making decisions on which drugs CCGs should use. Luton Clinical Commissioning Group (Luton CCG) confirmed that they did not hold any further information. The complainant considered that more information must be held by Luton CCG. The Commissioner’s decision is that Luton CCG does not hold any further information in this case. The Commissioner does not require Luton CCG to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
23 Feb 2016Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant made a request for a copy of the Schedule of Condition dated 22 December 1965 which is associated with a lease with North Lincolnshire Council regarding the use of Normanby Hall. The Commissioner’s decision is that North Lincolnshire Council has breached section 10 of the FOIA by failing to respond to the complainant’s request within the twenty day compliance period which this section requires. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any further action in this matter.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View North Lincolnshire Council
22 Feb 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested from the London School of Economics (the ‘School’) information regarding the Discretionary Places Scheme at the School. The School has relied upon section 14 to refuse to respond to the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the School is entitled to rely on section 14(1) of the FOIA to refuse this request. He does not require the public authority to take any further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14
View London School of Economics and Political Science
22 Feb 2016Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about section 14 orders made under the Public Order Act 1986. Greater Manchester Police (“the Constabulary”) has not responded to the request. The Information Commissioner’s decision is that the Constabulary has breached sections 1(1) and 10(1) of the FOIA in that it has failed to provide a response to the request within the statutory time for compliance. The Commissioner requires the Constabulary to issue a response to the request under the FOIA by either complying with section 1(1) or issuing a valid refusal notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10
View Greater Manchester Police
22 Feb 2016Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to a member of staff at Teignbridge District Council (the Council). Specifically, any investigation into the conduct of that member of staff and any resulting disciplinary actions. The Council initially refused the request under section 40(2) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the Act) because it considered that the information relating to the named officer would be third party personal data and disclosure would breach the data protection principles. The Council altered its position in its internal review and refused the request under section 40(5) of the Act, by which it neither confirmed nor denied that relevant information was held. During the course of the Commissioner’s investigation the Council changed its position again. In its submissions to the Commissioner the Council argued that the request was now being refused under section 14(1) of the Act as it was viewed as vexatious. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council bre
Exemptions cited: FOI 14; FOI 17
View Teignbridge District Council
22 Feb 2016Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to any alert given to border control staff about a named individual. The Home Office refused to confirm or deny whether it held this information and cited the exemptions provided by sections 24(2) (national security) and 31(3) (prejudice to law enforcement) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that neither of these exemptions was engaged and so the Home Office is now obliged to confirm or deny whether it holds the requested information. The Commissioner requires the Home Office to send to the complainant a fresh response to his request that confirms or denies whether the requested information is held. In relation to any relevant information that it held, this must either be disclosed or the complainant given an explanation of the valid reason under the FOIA as to why it is withheld.
Exemptions cited: FOI 24; FOI 31
View Home Office
22 Feb 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested a copy of the Will of Lewis Evans dated 1689-1690. The National Library of Wales has stated that it does not hold the requested information. The Commissioner’s decision is that the National Library of Wales has complied with its obligations under section 1(1) of the FOIA. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1