11 Feb 2016Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information relating to a village green application which was made to the council by a local resident. The council provided some information however it withheld other information on the basis that Regulation 12(5)(b) (course of justice) applied, and also Regulation 13 (personal data). The Commissioner’s decision is that the council was not correct to apply 12(5)(b) to the information as the public interest rests in its disclosure. He has however decided that it was correct to apply Regulation 13.The Commissioner requires the public authority disclose the information which the council considered exempt under Regulation 12(5)(b).
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(b); FOI 13
View Hertfordshire County Council
11 Feb 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information about ‘his court case’. The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) refused to either confirm or deny holding information within the scope of the request citing sections 40(5) (personal information) and 32(3) (court records) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the MoJ was correct to neither confirm nor deny holding information within the scope of the request. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View Ministry of Justice
11 Feb 2016Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information on a property which the council has a legal interest in due to a loan which it had previously provided to a third party. The council responded applying section 42, (legal professional privilege), 43 (commercial interests), 41 (information provided in confidence), 40 (personal data) and section 21(information available by other means). During the course of the Commissioner's investigation it disclosed a large amount of information to the complainant, however it maintained the application of sections 42, 43(2) and section 41. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council correctly applied the exemptions to the information. He considers however that the late disclosure of some of the information during his investigation was a failure to comply with section 10(1) of the Act. The Commissioner does not require the council to take any steps. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2016/0059 refused.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 21; FOI 40; FOI 41; FOI 42; FOI 43
View Kent County Council
11 Feb 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested access to a closed War Office/Ministry of Defence file held by The National Archives relating to Northern Ireland in 1971. The National Archives (TNA) refused the request under the exemptions provided at sections 31(1)(a)-(c), law enforcement, 38(1)(a) and (b), health and safety, 40(2), personal information. The Commissioner’s decision is that TNA was entitled to refuse the request under the exemptions cited. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any further action. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2016/0060 part allowed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 31; FOI 38; FOI 40
View The National Archives
10 Feb 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information on an instruction by the Prudential Regulation Authority (‘PRA’), a division of the Bank of England (‘the Bank’), to the National Australia Bank (‘NAB’) regarding provision against potential losses related to legacy conduct costs. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Bank of England appropriately applied the exemption contained in section 44 of the FOIA. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 44
View Bank of England
10 Feb 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information relating to Section 106 highways contributions regarding a specific planning application. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, Cheshire East Council does not hold the requested information. He does not require any steps to be taken to ensure compliance with the legislation.
Exemptions cited: EIR 5(1)
View Cheshire East Council
10 Feb 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about a named electrician. Warwickshire County Council says it does not hold any information within the scope of the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that Warwickshire County Council does not hold any relevant information and has complied with its obligations under section 1(1) of the FOIA. The Commissioner does not require Warwickshire County Council to take any further steps. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2016/0049 part allowed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Warwickshire County Council
10 Feb 2016Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested that Derbyshire Constabulary (the ‘Constabulary’) confirm or deny whether it has used RIPA to intercept journalists’ communications data. The Constabulary refused to deal with the request stating that it was a question rather than a request for recorded information. The Commissioner’s decision is that it is a valid request and that the Constabulary should therefore provide a response. The Commissioner requires the Constabulary disclose the requested information or issue a refusal notice in compliance with section 17 of FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 8
View Derbyshire Constabulary
10 Feb 2016Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested that Cambridgeshire Constabulary (the ‘Constabulary’) confirm or deny whether it has used RIPA to intercept journalists’ communications data. The Constabulary refused to deal with the request stating that it was a question rather than a request for recorded information. The Commissioner’s decision is that it is a valid request and that the Constabulary should therefore provide a response. The Commissioner requires the Constabulary disclose the requested information or issue a fresh refusal notice in compliance with section 17 of FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 8
View Cambridgeshire Constabulary
10 Feb 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information regarding rent at an industrial estate. The Commissioner’s decision is that Braintree District Council has correctly applied the vexatious provision at section 14(1) of the FOIA. He does not require any steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14
View Braintree District Council
9 Feb 2016Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to the Isle of Scilly airport lease. The Council of the Isles of Scilly refused the request under the exemption for prejudice to commercial interests (section 43(2) of the FOIA), the exemption for information intended for future publication (section 22 of the FOIA) and the exemption for research information (section 22A of the FOIA). The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council of the Isles of Scilly has failed to demonstrate that the exemptions in section 22, section 22A and section 43(2) are engaged in respect of the withheld information. The Commissioner requires the public authority disclose the withheld information to the complainant.
Exemptions cited: FOI 22; FOI 43
9 Feb 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about money the Pension Protection Fund may or may not have saved as a result of a particular pension compensation cap. The Pension Protection Fund says it does not hold the information that has been requested. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Pension Protection Fund does not hold the requested information and has met its obligations under section 1(1) of the FOIA. The Commissioner does not require the Pension Protection Fund to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Pension Protection Fund
9 Feb 2016Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested copies of two contracts between Brent CCG (the CCG) and the relevant service providers. One contract is for the provision of ophthalmology services and the other for cardiology services. The CCG provided the bulk of the information from those contracts but withheld certain information under section 43 on the basis that it was commercially sensitive. The Commissioner’s decision is that only part of the withheld information is covered by the exemption provided by section 43. The Commissioner requires the public authority to disclose the information that does not engage section 43. This information is identified in the open annexe which accompanies this notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 43
9 Feb 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested the names of individuals and organisations who made representations in respect of certain parades. The Parades Commission refused the request under section 41(1) of the FOIA (information provided in confidence). The Commissioner’s decision is that the Parades Commission was entitled to rely on the exemption at section 41(1). The Commissioner also finds that the Parades Commission should also have cited section 40(5) to neither confirm nor deny that any of the requested information comprised personal information relating to the complainant. The Commissioner does not require any steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40; FOI 41
9 Feb 2016Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to the wills of three members of the Royal Family. The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) confirmed it holds the requested information but refused to provide it citing section 44 of FOIA (prohibitions on disclosure). The Commissioner’s decision is that section 44 was correctly applied. The Commissioner finds, however, that in failing to respond to the complainant’s request within the statutory timescale MoJ breached section 10(1) of FOIA. He requires no steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 44
View Ministry of Justice
9 Feb 2016Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information regarding signage to prevent the use of motorcycles. In relation to one of the requests, the council said that the information was not held. When the complainant did not accept this, the council said that it wished to rely on the exception under regulation 12(4)(b) of the Environmental Information Regulations 2004 (“the EIR”). This exception relates to requests that are manifestly unreasonable. In relation to another request, the council supplied information however the complainant disputed that this information had answered the request. The council then said that it wished to rely on the exception under regulation 12(4)(b). The decision of the Information Commissioner (“the Commissioner”) is that the exception was correctly applied on this occasion and that the public interest was in favour of maintaining the exception. He has found a breach of regulation 14(2) because the exception was not relied upon within 20 working days. The Commissioner does
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(b); EIR 14(2)(1)
View Essex County Council
9 Feb 2016Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to the Scott Moncrieff report into Royal Wolverhampton Hospitals. The Commissioner’s decision is that in failing to respond to this request NHS Trust Development Authority (NHS TDA) has breached section 10(1) of the FOIA. The Commissioner requires NHS TDA to provide a substantive response to the request in accordance with FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10
9 Feb 2016Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to concerns raised about a particular care home. The council refused to supply some information and cited the exemptions under section 43(2) and section 40(2) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (“the FOIA”). These exemptions relate to commercial information and third party personal data. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council incorrectly sought to withhold a significant amount of the information using the exemption under section 43(2) and he has therefore found a breach of section 1(1)(b) and 10(1) of the FOIA. However, the Commissioner found that that some information ought to be withheld using the exemption under section 40(2). The Commissioner requires the public authority to take steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. In this case there is a significant amount of information to be released with specific redactions and the Commissioner has therefore set out his steps in Annex A associated with this decision notice
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10; FOI 40; FOI 43
View Herefordshire Council
8 Feb 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested the response which the Metropolitan Police Service (the ‘MPS’) sent to a regulation 28 report sent by the Coroner in a particular case. The MPS withheld this on the basis of sections 32(1)(a) & (b) (court records). The Commissioner’s decision is that the MPS was entitled to do so. No steps are required.
Exemptions cited: FOI 32
View Metropolitan Police Service
8 Feb 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 details of Category A prisons which provide ‘Virtual Campus’ facilities. 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 section 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
8 Feb 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 a report on air quality test results into the effects of second hand smoking in prisons. 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 section 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 public authority to issue a response to the request set out in paragraph 5.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10
View Ministry of Justice
3 Feb 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested correspondence between the Advisory Committee on Business Appointments (‘ACOBA’) and Mr Tony Blair and his representatives from July 2005 to July 2009. The Commissioner’s decision is that ACOBA has appropriately applied the exemption at section 36 of the FOIA. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take the any steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. Information Tribunal appeal GIA/447/2017 allowed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 36
View Advisory Committee on Business Appointments
3 Feb 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about payments the Borough Council of Wellingborough (‘the Council’) has made to ‘Places for People Leisure’. This company develops and manages leisure facilities on behalf of local authorities across the UK. The complainant does not consider that the information that the Council has released to him satisfactorily addresses his request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has complied with its obligations under section 1(1) of the FOIA. He does not require it to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
3 Feb 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to an investigation undertaken by the Historical Enquiries Team (HET), then part of the Police Service of Northern Ireland (PSNI). PSNI refused the request in reliance on sections 30(1)(a)(i) and 40(2). The Commissioner’s decision is that PSNI was entitled to rely on the exemption at section 30(1)(a)(i) and he does not require any steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 30
View Police Service of Northern Ireland
3 Feb 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested the name of the company that fitted a noise limiting device within the grounds of Eckington Manor. Having initially withheld the information, citing the exemption under section 40 (personal data), Wychavon District went on to release it to the complainant. The Commissioner’s decision is that Wychavon District Council has released to the complainant all the information that it holds that falls within the scope of the complainant’s request and has complied with its obligations under section 1(1) of the FOIA. The Commissioner does not require Wychavon District Council to take any further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Wychavon District Council
3 Feb 2016Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from Whittington Hospital NHS Trust (‘the Trust’) about a consultation regarding the restructuring of its gynaecology service. The Trust released some information. The complainant considers that the Trust holds further information that it has not released. The Commissioner is satisfied that, on the balance of probabilities, the Trust has complied with the requirements of section 1(1) of the FOIA (general right of access) and has released all the information that it holds that falls within the scope of the request. The Commissioner has also decided that the Trust breached section 10(1) of the Act because it did not provide a response within 20 working days.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10
View Whittington Health NHS Trust
3 Feb 2016Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about the handling of a previous request he made to the Cabinet Office. Initially, the Cabinet Office refused the requests as invalid but, after internal review, it provided some information in response to one of the requests. It sought to rely on section 42(2) (legal professional privilege) as a basis for refusing to confirm or deny whether information was held in respect of another of the requests. It also sought to rely on provisions of section 36 (prejudice to the effective conduct of public affairs) in relation to two of the other requests. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Cabinet Office should have refused to confirm or deny whether information was held in respect of one of the requests by virtue of section 40(5)(a) (personal data exemption) instead of section 42(2). However, it is entitled to rely on the provisions of section 36 that it has cited in respect of two of the requests. It is also entitled to rely on section 23(5) (sec
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 36; FOI 40; FOI 42
View Cabinet Office
2 Feb 2016Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainants requested internal communications relating to a judgment by the Court of Justice of the EU. 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, so it was not obliged to comply with this request, although it did breach section 16(1) of the FOIA by failing to provide advice to the complainants and section 17(5) by failing to respond to the request within 20 working days.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12; FOI 16; FOI 17
View Home Office
2 Feb 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information about any contact that the Department for Education (“DfE”) had with the British Humanist Association (“BHA”) over Christian-ethos schools in the North East of England. The DfE relied on sections 36, 38, 40(2) and 41 as a basis for withholding the information. The Commissioner’s decision is that the DfE has correctly applied section 36(2)(b)(ii) to the withheld information. The Commissioner therefore does not require the DfE to take any further steps to ensure compliance with the legislation.
Exemptions cited: FOI 36
View Department for Education
2 Feb 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested from E-ACT information regarding pupils that attended Oldham Academy North (the ‘Academy’) and information concerning members of staff at the Academy. During the investigation E-ACT applied section 40, section 44 and section 14 of the FOIA to the requests. The Commissioner’s decision is that E-ACT is entitled to rely on section 14(1) of the FOIA to refuse the requests. He does not require the public authority to take any further steps.Information Tribunal appeal EA/2016/0053 dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14
View E-ACT
1 Feb 2016Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information relating to arbitration for the sale of land in 1967. After initially relying on section 32(1)(c)(i), (court records) to withhold the information, the Ministry of Justice (the ‘MOJ’) then said that it did not hold the requested information. The Commissioner’s decision, on the balance of probabilities, is that the requested information is not held by the MOJ. However, by failing to consider the request under the EIR, the MOJ breached regulation 2(1)(c). He finds that the request should have been refused relying on the exception in regulation 12(4)(a) of EIR (information is not held) and, thereby, that the MOJ failed to issue a refusal notice in accordance with regulation 14 of the EIR. In addition, the MOJ failed to provide appropriate advice and assistance and to transfer the request and therefore breached regulations 9 and 10 of the EIR. The Commissioner does not require the MOJ to take any steps to ensure compliance with the legislation.
Exemptions cited: EIR 10(1); EIR 12(4)(a); EIR 14(3); EIR 2(1)(c); EIR 5(1); EIR 9
View Ministry of Justice
1 Feb 2016Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to a decision not to prosecute a named individual in 1993. The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) failed to respond to this request for information 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
1 Feb 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information in relation to a Tribunal decision to a previous information request. Doncaster Council (the council) refused this under section 14(1) of the FOIA request as vexatious. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council was correct to rely on section 14(1) of the FOIA to refuse this request. The Commissioner does not require the council to take any steps. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2016/0038 dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14
View Doncaster Council
1 Feb 2016Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has made a request to Nottingham City Council (“the council”) for statistics about Penalty Charge Notices (“PCNs”) issued as a result of a specific traffic camera, along with information about the council’s enforcement powers. The council confirmed that some of the requested information was not held, and refused to comply with parts of the request under section 12(1) of the Freedom of Information Act (“the FOIA”). The Commissioner’s decision is that the council has correctly applied section 12(1) to refuse parts 1b, c and d of the request, but has failed to comply with the requirement of section 16(1) to provide advice and assistance. In respect of part 2 of the request the Commissioner has concluded that the requested information is not held. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. In respect of part 1 of the request, provide the complainant with appropriate advice and assistance as to what i
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 12; FOI 16
View Nottingham City Council
1 Feb 2016Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to bus shelters carrying advertising. Merseytravel provided answers to all but the request concerning financial benefits it accrues from the advertising. This information was refused on the basis of section 43 (commercial interests). Later, Merseytravel also sought to rely on section 41 (information provided in confidence) and section 44 (prohibitions on disclosure). The Commissioner has found that none of these exemptions are engaged. He therefore requires Merseytravel to disclose the information on finance and financial benefits in the contract between CCUK and Merseytravel – namely sections 5, 6, 7, 12, 22, 24 and 25.
Exemptions cited: FOI 41; FOI 43; FOI 44
1 Feb 2016Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has made a request to Liverpool City Council (“the council”) for information about payments made to barristers for legal advice. The council disclosed some information, but withheld the names of the barristers 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). However, the Commissioner finds that the council has failed to comply with part of the request, and has breached the requirement of section 10(1). The Commissioner requires the council issue a fresh response under the terms of the FOIA to the part of the complainant’s request that seeks copies of relevant invoices.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 40
View Liverpool City Council
1 Feb 2016Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested details of rating list update schedules which were provided to the council by the Valuation Office Agency (the VOA) for specific properties. The council applied section 21 (accessible by other means) and told the complainant that the information was available from the VOA. The complainant then requested the information from the VOA. Its response was that it did not hold the information. The complainant then requested the information from the council again. It confirmed with the VOA that it does hold the information but with minor differences, at which point the council confirmed the application of section 21 to the information to the complainant. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council was not correct to apply section 21 to the information as it was not reasonably accessible to him from the VOA on this occasion. The Commissioner requires the public authority to disclose the requested information to the complainant.
Exemptions cited: FOI 21
View Manchester City Council
1 Feb 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested from the BBC any correspondence between Alan Yentob and BBC staff members about the charity ‘Keeping Kids Company’. After investigation, the Information Commissioner has found that the information sought by the complainant is not held by the BBC for the purposes of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the BBC is entitled to rely on section 3(2)(a) of FOIA and that other 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; FOI 3
View BBC
28 Jan 2016Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant made a freedom of information request to NHS England for the costs of suspending a named doctor. In response NHS England refused to confirm or deny if the requested information was held under section 40(5)(b)(i). The Commissioner’s decision is that section 40(5)(b)(i) was incorrectly applied and NHS England failed to comply with section 1(1)(a) of the Act by refusing to confirm or deny if the requested information was held. The Commissioner requires the public authority to inform the complainant whether or not it holds the requested information. The public authority must take these steps within 35 calendar days of the date of this Decision Notice. Failure to comply may result in the Commissioner making written certification of this fact to the High Court (or the Court of Session in Scotland) pursuant to section 54 of the Act and may be dealt with as a contempt of court.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 40
View NHS England
28 Jan 2016Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to the costs associated with professional conduct panel hearings. The Department for Education (DfE) complied with some of the requests but considered that the information relating to two requests, which form the focus of this notice, was exempt information under section 43(2) (commercial interests) of FOIA. Section 43(2) is qualified by the public interest test and the DfE found that on balance the public interest favoured maintaining the exemption. The Commissioner has determined that neither of the two requests engages section 43(2) of FOIA and therefore requires the DfE to disclose the specified information to ensure compliance with the legislation. The public authority must take these steps within 35 calendar days of the date of this decision notice. Failure to comply may result in the Commissioner making written certification of this fact to the High Court pursuant to section 54 of the Act and may be dealt with as a contempt of c
Exemptions cited: FOI 43
View Department for Education
28 Jan 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information held by the Department of Finance and Personnel relating to the redevelopment of Casement Park. The Department provided some information but refused the remainder under regulation 12(5)(e) of the EIR. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Department was entitled to rely on the exception cited. No steps are required.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(e)
View Department of Finance and Personnel for Northern Ireland
28 Jan 2016Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from St Bartholomew’s School (“the School”) relating to IQ and dyslexia profiles of children at the School. The Commissioner’s decision is that the School does not hold some of the information that has been requested. With respect to the remaining information, the Commissioner considers that this is exempt under section 12 of the FOIA. However, the Commissioner has determined that the School has breached section 10 of the FOIA as it failed to provide the complainant with a response within 20 working days. The Commissioner requires the School to take no steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 12
View ST BARTHOLOMEW'S SCHOOL
28 Jan 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to parking enforcement at Manchester Airport, London Stansted Airport, East Midlands Airport and Bournemouth Airport. The Commissioner’s decision is that Manchester City Council does not hold the requested information. While he notes that the information is held by Manchester Airports Group Ltd, he is satisfied that it does not hold the information on behalf of Manchester City Council. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps to ensure compliance with the legislation.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Manchester City Council
28 Jan 2016Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information connected with the use of Plymouth Hoe Promenade. Plymouth City Council (‘PCC’) provided most of the requested information but refused to disclose information connected to the use of the area by Plymouth University, citing section 43(2) (commercial interests) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that section 43(2) is not engaged. The Commissioner requires PCC to disclose the Heads of Terms Licence document entitled: “Plymouth University Use of Plymouth Hoe”. PCC 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 43
View Plymouth City Council
28 Jan 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about two named police officers who had arrested him in 2006. The Metropolitan Police Service (the ‘MPS’) would neither confirm nor deny holding information about the officers, citing section 40(5)(b)(i) of the FOIA. During the Commissioner’s investigation the MPS revised its position, additionally relying on section 40(5)(a)(i) in that the requested information relates to the complainant personally and, if held, would be his own personal data. The Commissioner is satisfied that it was correct to rely on 40(5)(a)(i). No steps are required. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2016/0070 allowed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View Metropolitan Police Service
28 Jan 2016Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from the London Borough of Waltham Forest (“the Council”) about the performance of a private contractor with regard to a contract for the delivery of a domestic waste management services. The Council withheld part of the requested information under section 43(2). The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has incorrectly applied section 43(2) to the information that it has withheld. The Commissioner requires the Council to disclose to the complainant the information falling within Part 5(a)-(f) of his request to which it had applied section 43(2). The public authority must take these steps within 35 calendar days of the date of this decision notice. Failure to comply may result in the Commissioner making written certification of this fact to the High Court pursuant to section 54 of the Act and may be dealt with as a contempt of court. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2016/0045 withdrawn.
Exemptions cited: FOI 43
View Waltham Forest Council
28 Jan 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from the Southwark Council (“the Council”) relating to a named individual. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council does not hold the requested information. The Commissioner requires the Council to take no steps. This decision notice is currently under appeal to the Tribunal.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Southwark Council
27 Jan 2016Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested copies of complaints made against the Adjudicator’s Office. The Adjudicator’s Office is administratively part of Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs (HMRC). It refused the request for information, relying on FOIA section 44 – prohibitions on disclosure. During the course of the Commissioner’s investigation, HMRC disclosed some information falling within the scope of the request. The Commissioner notes however that this information was disclosed outside of the statutory time limit for response and accordingly HMRC has breached section 10 of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that HMRC (and therefore The Adjudicator’s Office) was entitled to rely on section 44(1)(a) to refuse to disclose the remainder of the information falling within the scope of this request. No steps are required. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2016/0037 withdrawn.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 44
27 Jan 2016Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (“Defra”) relating to Prince’s Consent. The Commissioner’s decision is that Defra has correctly applied regulation 12(4)(b) of the EIR and section 12(1) and section 12(2) of the FOIA to the request. However, Defra has breached regulation 11 as it failed to provide an internal review within 40 working days. The Commissioner requires Defra to take no steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 11; EIR 12(4)(b); FOI 12
27 Jan 2016Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information in relation to the Meon Valley Trail (the MVT). Hampshire County Council (the council) provided information in response to the request. The council provided some further information during the Commissioner’s investigation, but the complainant considers that he has not been provided with all the information requested. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council has provided the complainant with the information it holds within the scope of his request. He has also found that the council has breached regulation 5(2) of the EIR, as it did not respond within the required 20 working days following the request being made. As the information held has now been provided, the Commissioner does not require the council to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 5(1); EIR 5(2)
View Hampshire County Council