22 Feb 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to an extradition request he believed had possibly been made. The Home Office refused to confirm or deny whether it held this information and cited the exemptions provided by sections 23(5) (information relating to or supplied by security bodies) and 27(4) (international relations) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Home Office was entitled to rely on the exemption at section 23(5) to neither confirm nor deny whether it held information within the scope of the request which, if held, would be exempt by virtue of section 23(1) of the FOIA. He requires no steps. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2016/0047 allowed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 23
View Home Office
22 Feb 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested details of legislation which states that an officer of a lower rank can investigate a complaint against an officer of a more senior rank. South Wales Police refused the request relying on section 21 of the FOIA, as it determined that the information is reasonably accessible to the applicant by other means. South Wales Police provided a link to the relevant information relating to allocation of investigators. The complainant stated that the information referred to by South Wales Police was not the information he had requested. The Commissioner has investigated and his decision is that South Wales Police does not hold any further recorded information relevant to the request, other than that which it has stated is reasonably accessible to the applicant by other means. The Commissioner does not require any steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View South Wales Police
22 Feb 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information about illegal Notices of Intended Prosecution (NIPs) issued by South Wales Police in relation to a particular (now non-operational) mobile speed camera site. South Wales Police initially stated that it did not hold the information requested. In its internal review it stated that it considered the request to be vexatious and, as such, it was relying on section 14(1) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that South Wales Police has correctly applied section 14(1) of the FOIA to the request. He does not require any steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14
View South Wales Police
22 Feb 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested details of authorisation to input false information onto the Police National Computer (‘PNC’). South Wales Police stated that it did not hold the information requested. The Commissioner’s decision is that South Wales Police has complied with its obligations under section 1(1) of the FOIA. The Commissioner does not require any steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View South Wales Police
18 Feb 2016Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to confiscation orders imposed on foreign nationals. The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) failed to respond to this request and the Commissioner’s decision is that in doing so the CPS breached sections 1(1) and 10(1) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA). The Commissioner requires the CPS to respond to the request.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10
View Crown Prosecution Service
18 Feb 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from the Ministry of Justice (the ‘MOJ’) about the cost of FOIA tribunals, which are heard in the First Tier Tribunal which is part of the General Regulatory Chamber (‘GRC’). The MOJ said that the information is not held as the expenditure is not broken down by the types of tribunals heard by the GRC. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the MOJ does not hold the requested information. He does not require the MOJ to take any remedial steps to ensure compliance with the legislation.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Ministry of Justice
18 Feb 2016Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainants requested information relating to an increase in the fee for a particular type of visa. The Home Office refused the request on cost grounds under section 12(1) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Home Office cited section 12(1) correctly and so it was not obliged to comply with the request. He also finds, however, that the Home Office failed to comply with the requirement of section 16(1) of the FOIA in that it did not provide advice to the complainants on how their request could be refined to bring it within the cost limit. It is now required to write to the complainant providing this advice. The Commissioner requires the Home Office to write to the complainants with advice on how their request could be refined to bring it within the cost limit.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12; FOI 16
View Home Office
18 Feb 2016Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from Staffordshire Police relating to its pensions provision having been outsourced to a contractor. Staffordshire Police disclosed some information, but withheld the remainder under the following sections of the FOIA: 14(1) (vexatious requests), 40(2) (personal information), 42(1) (legal professional privilege) and 43(2) (prejudice to commercial interests). The Commissioner’s decision is that sections 14(1) and 43(2) were cited correctly, so Staffordshire Police was not obliged to disclose the information withheld under those provisions. The Commissioner’s view is that the information for which section 42(1) was cited was either not within the scope of the request, or is the personal data of the complainant and so was exempt under section 40(1) of the FOIA, rather than 42(1). In relation to section 40(2), the Commissioner’s finding is that this exemption is not engaged and Staffordshire Police is now required to disclose the information withheld u
Exemptions cited: FOI 14; FOI 40; FOI 42; FOI 43
View Staffordshire Police
18 Feb 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to an allegation of crime which he reported to Cambridgeshire Constabulary (the “Constabulary”). The Constabulary did not respond to the request in reliance on sections 17(5) and 17(6) of the FOIA, by virtue of the request being vexatious under section 14(1). The Commissioner’s decision is that it was entitled to do so.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14; FOI 17
View Cambridgeshire Constabulary
18 Feb 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to locations at which child sexual exploitation had taken place. West Midlands Police (WMP) withheld this information under the exemption provided by section 30(1)(a) (information held for the purposes of an investigation) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that WMP cited section 30(1)(a) correctly and so it was not obliged to disclose this information.
Exemptions cited: FOI 30
View West Midlands Police
18 Feb 2016Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information concerning offences committed in custody, use of Twitter, assaults on the police and complaints against police officers. Hertfordshire Constabulary (the ‘Constabulary’) found the request to be vexatious under section 14(1) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Constabulary was not entitled to refuse to comply with the request under section 14(1) of the FOIA and he requires it to issue a fresh response to the request that does not rely on section 14(1).
Exemptions cited: FOI 14
View Hertfordshire Constabulary
17 Feb 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to a named Judge as well as information relating to investigations into the conduct of the judiciary and the work of the Judicial Conduct Investigations Office. The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) said that it did not hold some of the requested information and that some of it was accessible to the applicant by other means (section 21 FOIA). With respect to the remainder, MoJ refused to confirm or deny whether the information was held, citing section 32(3) (court records), 40(5) (personal information) and 44(2) (prohibitions on disclosure) of FOIA. The Commissioner has investigated MoJ’s application of section 44(2). His decision is that MoJ has correctly applied that exemption on the basis that confirmation or denial was prohibited by section 139 of the Constitutional Reform Act 2005 (CRA). He requires no steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 44
View Ministry of Justice
17 Feb 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) which, if held, would relate to complaints made about a named individual. The MoJ refused to either confirm or deny holding information within the scope of the request citing sections 40 (personal information) and 32 (court records) of FOIA. The Commissioner has investigated MoJ’s application of section 40(5). His decision is that the MoJ was not obliged to confirm or deny if the requested information was held under section 40(5)(b)(i) of FOIA. He requires no steps to be taken. Information Tribunal appeal EA/20160048 dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View Ministry of Justice
17 Feb 2016Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to Home Office handling of subject access requests. The Home Office disclosed some information, but applied a restrictive reading to one part of the request and cited the following exemptions when withholding information from a document within the scope of another part of the request: 31(1)(e) (prejudice to the immigration controls), 36(2)(c) (prejudice to the effective conduct of public affairs), 40(2) (personal information). It also withheld some of the content of that document on the grounds that it was not within the scope of the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Home Office misread one part of the request and also failed to identify all the information it held that was within the scope of other parts of the request. In so doing it breached section 1(1)(a) of the FOIA. It is now required to provide a fresh response to those parts of the request. In relation to the document from which some of the content was withheld, the
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 31; FOI 36; FOI 40
View Home Office
17 Feb 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information which concerns the granting of two planning applications by Bristol City Council under references 14/05573/H and 15/00164/H, and information associated with those applications. The Commissioner’s decision is that Bristol City Council is entitled to rely on Regulation 12(4)(b) on the grounds that her request of 15 July 2015 is manifestly unreasonable. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take no further action in this matter.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(b)
View Bristol City Council
17 Feb 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from Belfast Metropolitan College (“the College”) in the form of a personnel paper. The College refused to disclose the requested information, citing sections 36, 40 and 42 of FOIA as a basis for non-disclosure. The Commissioner’s decision is that the College has correctly applied the above exemptions to the requested information. The Commissioner therefore requires no steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 36; FOI 40; FOI 42
17 Feb 2016Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to assistance provided by local authorities to refugees. The Home Office failed to respond to this request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Home Office breached sections 1(1) and 10(1) of the FOIA through its failure to respond to this request. It is now required to respond to the request. The Commissioner requires the Home Office to respond to the request.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10
View Home Office
17 Feb 2016Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) for information about the late Sir Peter Hayman. The FCO disclosed some information to the complainant but withheld the remainder on the basis of sections 23(1) (security bodies), 40(2) (personal data) and 41 (information provided in confidence) of FOIA. The Commissioner has concluded that the withheld information is exempt from disclosure under sections 23(1) and 40(2) of FOIA. He has also concluded that the FCO breached section 17(1) of FOIA by failing to provide the complainant with a refusal notice which cited these exemptions within 20 working days of his request.
Exemptions cited: FOI 17; FOI 23; FOI 40
17 Feb 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about an examination of his mobile phone carried out by Cheshire Constabulary (“the Constabulary”), including details of the officers involved. The Constabulary judged that most of the information constituted the complainant’s own personal data. That part of the request was successfully dealt with as a subject access request under the Data Protection Act 1998 (“the DPA”). The Constabulary also disclosed some technical information and information about a senior officer. It refused to disclose information about a junior member of police staff, citing section 40(2) (personal data) of the FOIA. The Information Commissioner’s decision is that the Constabulary was entitled to rely on section 40(2) to refuse to disclose the information. He requires no steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View Cheshire Constabulary
17 Feb 2016Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from St Pinnock Parish Council (the ‘parish council’) relating to minutes, agendas and end of year information. The parish council acknowledged the complainant’s request and provided some relevant information but has not issued a response which fulfils its obligations under the terms of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the parish council has breached sections 1(1) and 10(1) of the FOIA. The Commissioner requires the parish council to issue a response to the complainant in compliance with FOIA with respect to the outstanding parts of the request.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10
17 Feb 2016Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (‘the FCO’) in papers listed in the inventory on the FCO website, referenced as ‘Transparency data’. The FCO confirmed that it holds information relevant to the requests. It has repeatedly advised the complainant that it requires 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 provide the complainant with a substantive response to her information requests. 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 considerations.
Exemptions cited: FOI 17
16 Feb 2016Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about the Automatic Number Plate Recognition (“ANPR”) database. To date the Home Office has failed to respond to this request. The Commissioner’s decision is that in failing to respond to this request the Home Office breached sections 1(1) and 10(1) of the FOIA. The Commissioner requires the Home Office respond to the request.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10
View Home Office
16 Feb 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information in connection with a complaint regarding a named academic employee of Cardiff University. The University refused to confirm or deny whether it held relevant information citing section 40(5) of the FOIA on the basis that to confirm or deny whether a complaint had been received against a specific employee would in unfairly disclose personal information. The Commissioner’s decision is that Cardiff University appropriately relied on section 40(5) of the FOIA to neither confirm or deny whether it held any relevant information. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2016/0071 dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View Cardiff University
16 Feb 2016Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
In an 11 part request, the complainant has requested particular meeting minutes, correspondence, conveyancing documents, agreements and insurance schedules from Wark Parish Council (‘the Council’). The Council released some of the information, says it does not hold some and that some could be released on the payment of a fee. The Commissioner has decided that: On the balance of probabilities, the Council does not hold the information requested at parts 2, 3, 5, 6, 7 and 8; does not hold further information requested at part 11 and has met its obligations under section 1(1) of the FOIA. The Council has breached section 9(1) because it did not provide the complainant with a fees notice with regard to part 1 of the request within 20 working days of receiving the request. The Council has now provided the relevant fees notice and the Commissioner does not require it to take any further steps. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2016/0077 withdrawn.
Exemptions cited: FOI 9
16 Feb 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about its Resource Allocation System with regards to customers and carers. West Sussex County Council (‘the Council’) disclosed some information and the complainant considers that the Council holds more information that it has not disclosed with relation to parts 1, 2 and 4 of his request. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, West Sussex County Council has disclosed all the information that it holds that falls within the scope of these three parts of the request. He considers the Council has met its obligations under section 1(1) of the FOIA and does not require it to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View West Sussex County Council
16 Feb 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to the cost of fostering children outside the borough between 2011 and 2015. The council refused to respond to the complainant’s request citing section 14(1) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council acted appropriately by refusing to respond to the request under section 14(1) of the FOIA. He therefore does not require any further action to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14
View Salford City Council
16 Feb 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information about the ownership of Colwyn Bay Pier (‘the Pier’). Conwy County Borough Council (‘the Council’) refused the request under sections 14(1) and 14(2) as it considered it to be vexatious and repeated. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has correctly applied section 14(1) of the FOIA to the request. He does not require any steps to be taken. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2016/0068 dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14
View Conwy County Borough Council
16 Feb 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information about noise related tests carried out on wind turbines at Hunterston in North Ayrshire. The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) says it does not hold the requested information. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, HSE does not hold the information that has been requested and that regulation 12(4)(a) of the EIR therefore applies. The Commissioner does not require HSE to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(a)
View Health and Safety Executive
16 Feb 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information about the estimated costs involved in building a new fire station. Merseyside Fire and Rescue Authority (“MFRA”) refused the request, citing section 44(1)(a) (prohibitions on disclosure) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (“the FOIA”). During the Information Commissioner’s investigation MFRA agreed that the EIR, rather than the FOIA, was the correct access regime. MFRA revised its position, applying regulation 12(5)(e) (confidentiality of commercial or industrial information) of the EIR. The Commissioner’s decision is that the EIR was the applicable access regime. The Commissioner’s decision is that MFRA was entitled to withhold the requested information under the exception at regulation 12(5)(e). The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken. This decision notice is currently under appeal to the Tribunal.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(e)
View Merseyside Fire and Rescue Service
16 Feb 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information about queries and complaints received about a particular property. The Isle of Anglesey County Council (‘the Council’) disclosed some information but withheld other information. During the course of the Commissioner’s investigation, the Council confirmed that it considered the EIR to apply to the request as opposed to the FOIA. The Council also disclosed some additional information but maintained that information about the individual who reported the matter to the Council was exempt under regulations 13 and 12(5)(f). The Commissioner’s decision is that the remaining withheld information is exempt under regulation 13 of the EIR. He does not require any steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 13
View Isle of Anglesey County Council
15 Feb 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has made a request to Kirklees Metropolitan Council (“the council”) for the identities of individuals present at a ‘speed awareness course’. The council withheld the information under the exemption provided by section 40(2). The Commissioner’s decision is that the council has correctly withheld the information under section 40(2). The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2016/0064 withdrawn.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View Kirklees Metropolitan Council
15 Feb 2016Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (‘the FCO’) on files listed by the National Archives but retained by the FCO. The FCO confirmed that it holds information relevant to the requests. It repeatedly advised the complainant that it requires further time to consider the public interest test. In respect of the additional requests, made following the delays, the FCO is yet to acknowledge or respond to the complainant. To date, the FCO has failed to provide the complainant with any substantive responses. By failing to do so the Commissioner has concluded that the FCO breached section 17(3) and section 10(1) of the FOIA. The Commissioner requires the public authority to provide the complainant with substantive responses to his information requests. 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
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 17
15 Feb 2016Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested from the Royal Borough of Greenwich (“the Council”) information about the financial contributions to improving air quality being made by a developer as a result of the redevelopment of a particular site. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council did not provide the information for the first part of the request within 20 working days of the request and so breached regulation 5(2) of the EIR. It also did not confirm that no information was held regarding the final part of the request within 20 working days of the request and so breached regulation 14(3) of the EIR. The Council has now provided the information covered by the first part of the request and confirmed that it does not hold information for the final part of the request. The Commissioner therefore does not require it to take any further steps to ensure compliance with the legislation.
Exemptions cited: EIR 14(3); EIR 5(2)
View Royal Borough of Greenwich
15 Feb 2016Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested a breakdown of cost information with regards to pay and display machines. Bristol City Council (the council) advised that it does not record the information in a way which would provide the complainant with the information he requires and therefore does not hold the requested information. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council does not hold the requested information. The Commissioner has also found that the council has breached section 10(1) of the FOIA as it did not respond to the complainant’s request within the required 20 working days from receipt of it. As the council has now responded and it has been determined the requested information is not held, the Commissioner does not require the council to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10
View Bristol City Council
15 Feb 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information relating to a loft conversion. Birmingham City Council withheld the information under the exception for adverse effect to the course of justice (regulation 12(5)(b) of the EIR). The Commissioner’s decision is that the council has correctly applied regulation 12(5)(b) of the EIR to withhold the requested information. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(b)
View Birmingham City Council
15 Feb 2016Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information in relation to a planning application. Hastings Borough Council (the council) provided its response but the complainant was not satisfied that the council had provided all the information it held. He also considered that it had deliberately withheld, concealed or provided inaccurate information. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council has provided the information it holds within the scope of the request. He has also considered the complainant’s concerns about information he considers has been deliberately withheld, concealed or inaccurate in the ‘other matters’ section at the end of this decision notice. The Commissioner does not require the council to take any steps. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2016/0058 dismissed. Information Tribunal appeal GIA/3181/2016 (permission to appeal) refused.
Exemptions cited: EIR 5(1)
View Hastings Borough Council
15 Feb 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested from the Cabinet Office polling information collected in advance of the referendum on independence for Scotland. Following an earlier decision notice from the Information Commissioner requiring it to respond, the Cabinet Office did so. It refused to provide the requested information citing section 35 as its basis for doing so. It failed to conduct an internal review despite the complainant’s request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Cabinet Office is entitled to rely on section 35 as its basis for refusing the request. No steps are required.
Exemptions cited: FOI 35
View Cabinet Office
15 Feb 2016Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested a list of individuals who had been allocated parliamentary passes sponsored by political parties. The House of Commons refused the request under section 40(2) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the Act) on the grounds that the relevant information was third party personal data and its disclosure would breach one of the data protection principles. The Commissioner’s decision is that the House of Commons rightly viewed the information as third party personal data. However, the Commissioner’s view is that there is a legitimate interest in disclosure which outweighs the rights of the individuals concerned. Therefore, the Commissioner’s decision is that the information should be disclosed. The Commissioner requires the public authority disclose the names of those individuals allocated passes by parliamentary parties.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View Corporate Officers of the House of Commons
15 Feb 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to a specific planning matter. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, Gloucester City Council does not hold the requested information. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2016/0115 dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Gloucester City Council
15 Feb 2016Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information relating to a draft masterplan for the redevelopment of Guildford town centre. Guildford Borough Council withheld the information under the exception for commercial confidentiality (regulation 12(5)(e) of the EIR).The Commissioner’s decision is that Guildford Borough Council has failed to demonstrate that regulation 12(5)(e) is engaged. The Commissioner requires the public authority to disclose the withheld information to the complainant. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2016/0065 allowed.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(e)
View Guildford Borough Council
15 Feb 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested a copy of correspondence between Somerset County Council (“the Council”) and others in relation to the termination of the contract for the services of its interim Director of Children’s Services. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council correctly relied on section 36(2)(c) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA) to withhold the requested information.
Exemptions cited: FOI 36
View Somerset Council
15 Feb 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested two reports produced by the District Valuer Service (DVS) for the London Borough of Southwark (the Council) in relation to the proposed development of the Heygate Estate. The Council provided the complainant with the reports prepared by the DVS subject to redactions made under the ‘confidentiality of commercial or industrial information’ (regulation 12(5)(e)) exception in the EIR. The complainant has asked the Commissioner to consider whether the Council was entitled to withhold this information. The Commissioner has decided that the withheld information engages regulation 12(5)(e) of the EIR and that in all the circumstances the public interest in disclosure is outweighed by the public interest in maintaining the exception. He does not therefore require the Council to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(e)
View Southwark Council
11 Feb 2016Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested copies of the school’s fund account for the last six years. The school first responded disclosing some information. The complainant requested an internal review stating that the information provided was not what she requested and the school issued a further response invoking section 14(1) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the school has inappropriately relied on section 14(1) of the FOIA in this case, as he considers the request is not vexatious. The Commissioner therefore requires the school to issue a fresh response to the complainant under the FOIA which does not rely on section 14(1).
Exemptions cited: FOI 14
11 Feb 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested copies of information which Durham Constabulary (the ‘Constabulary’) submitted to the Interception of Communications Commissioner’s Office (‘IOCCO’) to assist with an inquiry being undertaken. Having initially found the request to be vexatious under section 14(1) of the FOIA, the Constabulary revised its position and instead found the information to be exempt from disclosure under section 31(1)(a)(b) and (g) (law enforcement). The Commissioner is satisfied that it was entitled to rely on section 31(1)(a) & (b) and that the balance of the public interest favours maintaining these exemptions. No steps are required.
Exemptions cited: FOI 31
View Durham Constabulary
11 Feb 2016Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information about individuals’ rights, injuries and damages, recovery of property and theft. The Ministry of Justice (the ‘MOJ’) did not respond within the statutory 20 working days prescribed by FOIA. The complainant requested that a decision notice be issued by the Commissioner recording the delay. The Commissioner’s decision is that the MOJ has breached section 10(1) of FOIA by issuing its response late, but as a substantive response has been provided to the complainant, he does not require any remedial steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Ministry of Justice
11 Feb 2016Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested the contents of two planning files – 2/3/4836 and 2/3/4710, from Cheshire West and Chester Council. The two files relate to the construction of Mill View Primary School in Chester and they date back to the mid-1960s. The Commissioner’s decision is that Chester West and Cheshire Council has provided the complainant with all of the recorded information it holds in respect of the two planning files. The Council has therefore complied with Regulation 5(1) of the EIR. The Commissioner has also decided that the Council has acted in contravention of Regulation 11 of the EIR for its failure to conduct a formal internal review in response to the complainant’s representations. The Commissioner requires the Council to take no further action in this matter.
Exemptions cited: EIR 11; EIR 5(1)
View Cheshire West and Chester Council
11 Feb 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to Court warrants and summonses. Cambridgeshire Constabulary (the ‘Constabulary’) initially refused to comply with the request on the grounds that it was not valid as per section 8(1)(c) of the FOIA. It subsequently refused the request on the grounds that it is vexatious. The Commissioner’s decision is that the request is not a valid request for information because it does not meet the requirements of section 8 of the FOIA. The Commissioner does not require the Constabulary to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 8
View Cambridgeshire Constabulary
11 Feb 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested a report relating to allegations of corruption. Cumbria County Council confirmed that the information was not held and advised the complainant to redirect their request to Allerdale Borough Council. The Commissioner’s decision is that Cumbria County Council has correctly confirmed that it does not hold the requested information and complied with section 1(1) of the FOIA. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Cumbria County Council
11 Feb 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant made a request to Northumbrian Water for information relating to the Whitburn system. Northumbrian Water refused to comply with parts a-f of the request as it considers this to be manifestly unreasonable under regulation 12(4)(b) EIR. It refused to provide the information relevant to part g of the request under regulation 12(4)(d) EIR which applies to material which is still in the course of completion, to unfinished documents or to incomplete data. The complainant asked Northumbrian Water to conduct an internal review only in relation to parts a-d and f of his request. Northumbrian Water upheld its application of regulation 12(4)(b) EIR to parts a-d and f of the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that Northumbrian Water has correctly applied regulation 12(4)(b) to parts a-d and f of the request. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2016/0051 dismissed.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(b)
View Northumbrian Water
11 Feb 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested the number and dates of all public complaints directly made against two named individuals. The Local Government Ombudsman (LGO) originally explained that it did not consider it held this type of information as it deals with complaints about corporate bodies rather than specific individuals. However the Commissioner considers that if complaints have been made because of the actions about specific individuals employed by such a corporate body, this information would be held. The LGO explained that either way, it would not be obliged to confirm or deny whether the requested information was held in this case under section 44(2) FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the LGO was correct to neither confirm nor deny whether it held the information requested under section 44(2) FOIA. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2016/0052 withdrawn.
Exemptions cited: FOI 44
View Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman