May
Case Ref: FER0422498
Date: 08/05/2012
Public Authority: Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council
Summary: The complainant has requested the release of the background papers relating to a report produced by Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council (the “Council”) in connection with its Parks and Countryside Services Procurement Exercise (PACSPE). The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council was entitled to rely on the exceptions provided by 12(4)(d) (unfinished documents) and 12(5)(b) (course of justice) of the EIR in respect of some of the requested information. He has, however, decided that the public interest favoured the disclosure of other parts of the information to which regulation 12(4)(d) or 12(4)(e) (internal communications) had been applied. In addition, the Commissioner has found that regulation 12(5)(b) was not engaged in some cases.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: EIR 12.4.d - Complaint Partly Upheld, EIR 12.4.e - Complaint Upheld, EIR 12.5.b - Complaint Partly Upheld
View PDF of Decision Notice FER0422498
Case Ref: FS50420105
Date: 08/05/2012
Public Authority: Ministry of Defence
Summary: The complainant requested a copy of the Ministry of Defence’s (MOD) risk register for the defence nuclear programme. The MOD provided the complainant with a redacted version of the register explaining that the withheld parts were exempt from disclosure on the basis of numerous exemptions contained within The Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). The Commissioner has concluded that the majority of the withheld information is in fact exempt from disclosure on the basis of either section 24 (national security) or section 27 (international relations). The exceptions to this are small parts of the register which have only been withheld on the basis of section 43 (commercial interests) or section 28 (relations within the UK).
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 24 - Complaint Not upheld, FOI 27 - Complaint Not upheld, FOI 28 - Complaint Upheld, FOI 43 - Complaint Upheld
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50420105
Case Ref: FS50424157
Date: 08/05/2012
Public Authority: Cabinet Office
Summary: The complainant has requested copies of the drafting papers (i.e. instructions to Parliamentary Counsel and correspondence with Parliamentary Counsel) regarding specific provisions within the Finance Act 1994 and the Finance Act 2008. The Cabinet Office withheld the information on the basis of the legal professional privilege exemption (section 42) and the government policy exemption (section 35) of the Freedom of Information Act. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Cabinet Office is entitled to withhold the requested information on the basis of section 42.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 42 - Complaint Not upheld
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50424157
Case Ref: FS50425762
Date: 08/05/2012
Public Authority: Sheffield City Council
Summary: The complainant requested a copy of an independent review (the “Newton Report”) into the circumstances of the fraud committed by the former manager of the South Yorkshire Trading Standards Unit. Sheffield City Council (the “council”) refused to provide the information on the grounds that it was intended for future publication and because it considered that the information was ‘commercially sensitive’. The Commissioner’s decision is that the public authority has failed to demonstrate that the exemptions are engaged. The Commissioner has decided that a small quantity of information contained within the Newton Report should be withheld because it constitutes an individual’s sensitive personal data. The Commissioner requires the public authority to disclose the withheld information, subject to the redactions identified in the confidential annex.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 22 - Complaint Upheld, FOI 40 - Complaint Not upheld, FOI 43 - Complaint Upheld
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50425762
Case Ref: FS50396004
Date: 03/05/2012
Public Authority: Department of the Environment Northern Ireland
Summary: The complainant requested information on all incident reports indicated as high severity incidents and medium severity incidents upon the Six Mile Water, all fish kill assessments that you hold, records of enforcement action taken that relates to any of those incident reports, the June 2008 biological investigation into the cause of the fish kill on the Six Mile Water, the October 2008 baseline biological survey for the Six Mile Water system and where a survey did not result in a published report, to provide appropriate interpretation of the information so that the information disclosed is accessible to me. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Department of the Environment for Northern Ireland (“the Department”) has correctly applied the exceptions under regulations 13(1) and 12(5)(b) of the EIR. However, the Department has breached regulations 11 and 14 (2) and (3) of the EIR.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: EIR 11 - Complaint Upheld, EIR 12.5.b - Complaint Not upheld, EIR 13.1 - Complaint Not upheld, EIR 14.2 - Complaint Upheld, EIR 14.3 - Complaint Upheld
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50396004
Case Ref: FS50426572
Date: 03/05/2012
Public Authority: Ministry of Defence
Summary: The complainant requested information concerning investigations by the Royal Military Police of incidents in Afghanistan in which Afghan civilians have been either killed or wounded by British personnel. The Ministry of Defence (MoD) refused to disclose this information under the exemptions provided by sections 30 (information held for the purposes of an investigation) and 40(2) (personal information of third parties). It also refused to confirm or deny whether any further information was held under sections 23(5) (information relating to, or supplied by, security bodies) and 24(2) (safeguarding national security). The Commissioner’s decision is that the MoD has applied the exemptions provided by sections 30, 23(5) and 24(2) correctly. In relation to section 40(2), the Commissioner finds that this exemption was applied correctly in part, but that some of the information withheld under this section is not exempt. The Commissioner requires the public authority to disclose the information described in paragraphs 36 to 38 below in relation to which the Commissioner has found that section 40(2) was not engaged.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 23 - Complaint Not upheld, FOI 24 - Complaint Not upheld, FOI 30 - Complaint Not upheld, FOI 40 - Complaint Partly Upheld
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50426572
Case Ref: FS50432734
Date: 03/05/2012
Public Authority: Southwark Council
Summary: The complainant has requested - all papers related to the Greenland dock future options, item 81 in Southwark Council’s Forward Plan for December 2011 to March 2012. The Commissioner’s decision is that Southwark Council (the council) incorrectly applied section 22 of the Act in relation to the requested information and therefore requires the council to disclose this information to ensure compliance with the legislation.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 22 - Complaint Upheld
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50432734
Case Ref: FS50436308
Date: 03/05/2012
Public Authority: Department for Education
Summary: The complainant requested copies of advice or guidance on whether the use of private emails for government business is covered by the Freedom of Information Act. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Department for Education (DfE) failed to respond to the request and therefore breached section 10 of the FOIA. The Commissioner requires the DfE to state whether it holds the requested information and either disclose the information that is held or issue a valid refusal notice compliant with section 17 of the FOIA.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 10 - Complaint Upheld
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50436308
Case Ref: FS50421702
Date: 02/05/2012
Public Authority: National Policing Improvement Agency
Summary: The complainant requested information relating to a National Policing Improvement Agency (NPIA) project called ‘Project Lantern’. NPIA refused the request citing section 12(1) of FOIA, but also redacted and disclosed some information outside of FOIA. The Information Commissioner’s decision is that NPIA incorrectly relied on section 12(1) and failed to issue a refusal notice in accordance with section 17(1) of FOIA. The Commissioner requires the public authority to disclose the requested information or issue a valid refusal notice citing a valid exemption.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 10 - Complaint Upheld, FOI 12 - Complaint Upheld, FOI 16 - Complaint Upheld, FOI 17 - Complaint Upheld
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50421702
Case Ref: FS50424953
Date: 02/05/2012
Public Authority: Liverpool City Council
Summary: The complainant has requested information regarding Liverpool City Council’s engagement of Ernst & Young in relation to the Updated Partnership Refresh Proposal for Liverpool Direct Limited and for information relating to the assertion that BT has the potential to make a legal claim against the council for £56million if it were to terminate the existing contract. In relation to parts (1) and (4) of the request, the Commissioner’s decision is that Liverpool City Council has incorrectly applied the exemption where information has been obtained by the public authority from any other person and the disclosure by the public authority would constitute an actionable breach of confidence. In relation to part (5) of the request, the Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, Liverpool City Council does not hold the requested information. No further action is required in respect of part (5) of the request. The Commissioner requires the public authority to disclose the information requested at parts (1) and (4).
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 1 - Complaint Not upheld, FOI 10 - Complaint Upheld, FOI 41 - Complaint Upheld
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50424953
Case Ref: FS50426973
Date: 02/05/2012
Public Authority: Hounslow London Borough Council
Summary: The complainant requested information relating to an alleged parking contravention notice, the organisation operating a CCTV system and the purpose for which CCTV cameras in the areas were operating. He also requested various other details about the parking enforcement operation in general. The Commissioner’s decision is that London Borough of Hounslow Council has breached the Act in that it did not respond to the complainant's request within 20 working days as required by s10 of the Act. However the Commissioner notes that the council did in fact respond to the complainant and therefore does not require any steps to be taken in this instance.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 10 - Complaint Upheld
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50426973
Case Ref: FS50430442
Date: 02/05/2012
Public Authority: West Berkshire District Council
Summary: The complainant has requested a copy of a report into a health and safety-related incident that the public authority investigated. This was withheld under the exemptions at sections 30 (investigations) and 40 (personal information). The Information Commissioner’s decision is that the public authority correctly withheld the information under section 30. He does not require the public authority to take any steps.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 30 - Complaint Not upheld
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50430442
Case Ref: FS50435645
Date: 02/05/2012
Public Authority: Northumbria Police
Summary: The complainant has requested information about confidentiality clauses, agreements and policies that the public authority’s staff need to comply with as well as information about disciplinary action against its staff. The public authority initially found the request to be ‘vexatious’ but subsequently provided some information and also relied on the exemptions at sections 40(2) and 41(1). The complainant has not complained about the application of these exemptions so they have not been considered. The Information Commissioner has found no breaches and does not require any steps to be taken.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 1 - Complaint Not upheld
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50435645
Case Ref: FER0415154
Date: 01/05/2012
Public Authority: Havering London Borough Council
Summary: The complainants made a request to the London Borough of Havering (‘LBH’) for information about a Decent Homes bid made to improve sound installation at their property (and other similar properties), specifically for the monies awarded and how this had been spent. LBH advised that it does not hold the requested information. The Information Commissioner has investigated the complaint and concluded, on the balance of probabilities, that LBH does not hold the requested information. He therefore requires no steps to be taken.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: EIR 5.1 - Complaint Not upheld, EIR 11 2 - Complaint Not upheld
View PDF of Decision Notice FER0415154
Case Ref: FS50379603
Date: 01/05/2012
Public Authority: Metropolitan Police Service
Summary: The complainant requested information concerning an allegation he had made of criminal damage. The Metropolitan Police Service (the MPS) refused to confirm or deny whether it held information relevant to the request in reliance on the exemption at sections 30(3) and 40(5) of the Act. The Commissioner’s decision is that the MPS was entitled to rely on the exemption at section 40(5) in relation to the entirety of the request. Therefore the MPS is not required to take any further action.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 40 - Complaint Not upheld
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50379603
Case Ref: FS50391799
Date: 01/05/2012
Public Authority: Nottingham City Council
Summary: The complainant has requested “Details of various meetings between Nottingham City Council (the council) and Nottinghamshire Police in 2006”. The Commissioner’s decision is that Nottingham City Council has not successfully engaged section 30(1)(a) of the Act in relation to the requested information but finds that section 40(2) is engaged in relation to any references to the group of individuals associated with the investigation. The Commissioner requires Nottingham City Council to disclose the requested information with any references to the group of individuals connected with the investigation redacted under section 40(2).
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 30 - Complaint Upheld, FOI 40 - Complaint Not upheld
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50391799
Case Ref: FS50409217
Date: 01/05/2012
Public Authority: Liverpool John Moores University
Summary: The complainant has requested copies of emails sent by a former lecturer at Liverpool John Moores University (the “University”). The Commissioner’s decision is that any information described by the request is not held for the purposes of FOIA or the EIR. He does not therefore require the University to take any steps as a result of this notice.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 1 - Complaint Not upheld, EIR 5 - Complaint Not upheld
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50409217
Case Ref: FS50425232
Date: 01/05/2012
Public Authority: Department for Education
Summary: The complainant made a freedom of information request to the Department for Education (DfE) for guidance given to the Secretary of State, Michael Gove concerning the security of his communications. The complainant has not received a substantive response to this request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the DfE has breached section 10(1) of FOIA by failing to respond to the complainant’s request within 20 working days. The Commissioner requires the public authority to State which information it holds within the scope of the complainant’s request, and communicate the information it holds to the complainant and/or issue a refusal notice in respect of all or parts of the information it intends to withhold in accordance with section 17 of the FOIA.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 10 - Complaint Upheld
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50425232
April
Case Ref: FS50408585
Date: 30/04/2012
Public Authority: National Archives
Summary: The complainant made a freedom of information request to the National Archives for copies of a closed extract within a Foreign Office file. In response the National Archives disclosed most of the requested information by opening up the closed extract. However, three small passages were redacted under the exemptions in section 27(1) (International relations) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the redacted information was exempt under section 27(1)(a) and 27(1)(d) of FOIA and that the public interest in maintaining each exemption outweighed the public interest in disclosure. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 27 - Complaint Not upheld
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50408585
Case Ref: FS50424236
Date: 30/04/2012
Public Authority: HM Treasury
Summary: The complainant requested information from HM Treasury (“the Treasury”) relating to the change in the bank levy announced in the Chancellor of the Exchequer’s Budget 2011 speech and his claim that this change would offset the gains to banks from the reduction in Corporation Tax. The Treasury applied section 35(1)(a) (formulation and development of government policy) to all of the information that it withheld and also applied section 43(2) (prejudice to commercial interests) to part of it. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Treasury has correctly applied section 35(1)(a) to all of the withheld information. He therefore does not require the Treasury to take any further steps to ensure compliance with the legislation.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 35 - Complaint Not upheld
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50424236
Case Ref: FS50425999
Date: 30/04/2012
Public Authority: Cottesloe School
Summary: The complainant has requested information relating to meetings of the Governing Body and other administrative information relating to Cottesloe School (the School). The School provided the complainant with information in response to the request however it did not provide him with a letter referred to in a set of minutes which were disclosed dated 3 November 2011. The School provided the information to the complainant during the course of the Commissioner’s investigation however it made two redactions under section 40(2) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA). The Commissioner’s decision is that the School correctly applied section 40(2) to make the redactions to the letter. However the Commissioner considers that the School breached its obligations under section 10(1) FOIA as it did not provide the complainant with a redacted copy of the letter within 20 working days of the request. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 10 - Complaint Upheld, FOI 40 - Complaint Not upheld
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50425999
Case Ref: FS50434948
Date: 30/04/2012
Public Authority: Ballymoney Borough Council
Summary: The complainant submitted a request to Ballymoney Borough Council (“the Council”) under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (“FOIA”) for information about the Council’s expenditure on legal fees for employment matters. The Commissioner has investigated the complaint and finds that the Council failed to provide the complainant with the information she requested or to issue a valid refusal notice within the statutory timeframe of 20 working days as set out in section 10(1) of FOIA. The Council was in breach of its procedural obligations under FOIA. However, since the requested information has now been provided to the complainant, the Commissioner requires no steps to be taken.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 10 - Complaint Upheld
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50434948
Case Ref: FS50443960
Date: 30/04/2012
Public Authority: Northumbria Police
Summary: The complainant has requested information concerning the cost to the public authority of a named solicitor firm. The Information Commissioner’s decision is that the public authority breached section 10(1) of FOIA by failing to confirm whether it held the requested information within the statutory time limit. However, as it provided a response shortly after the time limit expired he does not require it to take any further steps.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 10 - Complaint Upheld
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50443960
Case Ref: FER0414615
Date: 26/04/2012
Public Authority: Cheshire East Council
Summary: The complainant has requested information relating to planning enforcement files at a specific address. The Commissioner’s decision is that Cheshire East Council has correctly 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.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: EIR 12.5.b - Complaint Not upheld
View PDF of Decision Notice FER0414615
Case Ref: FER0428392
Date: 26/04/2012
Public Authority: Merton London Borough Council
Summary: The complainant requested information from the London Borough of Merton (“the council”) concerning a contract. The council disclosed the information with the exception of some that it considered was excepted under regulation 12(5)(e) of the Environmental Information Regulations 2004 (“the EIR”), the exception relating to commercial confidences. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council correctly withheld information using regulation 12(5)(e). The Commissioner does not require any steps to be taken.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: EIR 12.5.e - Complaint Not upheld
View PDF of Decision Notice FER0428392
Case Ref: FS50428141
Date: 26/04/2012
Public Authority: Merton London Borough Council
Summary: The complainant requested information from the London Borough of Merton (“the council”) concerning a contract. The council disclosed the information with the exception of some that it considered was excepted under regulation 12(5)(e) of the Environmental Information Regulations 2004 (“the EIR”), the exception relating to commercial confidences. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council correctly withheld information using regulation 12(5)(e). The Commissioner does not require any steps to be taken.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: EIR 12.5.e - Complaint Not upheld
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50428141
Case Ref: FS50442149
Date: 26/04/2012
Public Authority: Cottesloe School
Summary: The complainant has requested information relating to meetings of the Governing Body and other administrative information relating to Cottesloe School (the School). The School provided the complainant with information in response to the request however it did not provide a set of Governing Body minutes dated 1 December 2011 as these had not been authorised by the Chair at the time of the request. The School did not provide the information to the complainant until the Commissioner’s investigation had commenced. The Complainant has now therefore been provided with the minutes dated 1 December 2011. The Commissioner’s decision is that the School breached section 10(1) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA) as it did not provide the Governing Body minutes dated 1 December 2011 within the statutory time for compliance. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 10 - Complaint Upheld
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50442149
Case Ref: FS50442177
Date: 26/04/2012
Public Authority: Cottesloe School
Summary: The complainant has requested salary information relating to staff at Cottesloe School (the School). The School provided the complainant with some information but withheld information under section 40(2) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA). The complainant confirmed that he wished to obtain salary information within £5,000 bands for the headteacher and deputy headteachers for the previous 5 years. The School provided this information to the complainant during the Commissioner’s investigation. The School therefore withdrew its application of section 40(2) FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the School breached section 10(1) of the FOIA as it did not provide this salary information within the statutory time for compliance. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 10 - Complaint Upheld
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50442177
Case Ref: FER0429801
Date: 25/04/2012
Public Authority: Warrington Borough Council
Summary: The complainant has requested information relating to a proposal to develop Peel Hall, an area in Warrington. The Commissioner’s decision is that Warrington Borough Council (the “Council”) has correctly refused to disclose information covered by the scope of the requests under regulations 12(4)(e) and regulation 12(5)(e) of the EIR. The Commissioner does not therefore require the Council to take any steps as a result of this notice.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: EIR 12.4.e - Complaint Not upheld, EIR 12.5.e - Complaint Not upheld
View PDF of Decision Notice FER0429801
Case Ref: FS50392143
Date: 25/04/2012
Public Authority: Cranfield University
Summary: The complainant requested copies of all teaching materials for the Information Operations PGCert course and associated modules. Cranfield University withheld the information under sections 24, 26, 40, 41 and 43. The Information Commissioner’s decision is that the university has applied section 43 appropriately. The Information Commissioner does not require the university to take any steps.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 43 - Complaint Not upheld
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50392143
Case Ref: FS50429082
Date: 25/04/2012
Public Authority: Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames
Summary: The complainant requested the agendas and minutes of meetings of the meetings of the strategic leadership team. The complainant has not received a substantive response to this request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames (‘the Council’) failed to respond to the request and therefore breached its obligations under section 10 of the FOIA. The Commissioner requires the Council to provide a substantive response to the complainant either disclosing the information or issuing a valid refusal compliant with section 17 of the FOIA.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 10 - Complaint Upheld
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50429082
Case Ref: FS50434758
Date: 24/04/2012
Public Authority: Leicester City Council
Summary: The complainant requested information from Leicester City Council (“the council”) concerning outsourcing to either Barristers Chambers or solicitors at employment tribunals. The council applied section 12 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (“the FOIA”) to the original request (an exclusion relating to costs). When a refined request was made, the council did not supply the requested information within 20 working days. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council breached section 10 of the FOIA because it failed to provide the information requested within 20 working days. The Commissioner does not require any steps to be taken.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 10 - Complaint Upheld
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50434758
Case Ref: FS50434955
Date: 24/04/2012
Public Authority: Manchester City Council
Summary: The complainant requested information from Manchester City Council (“the council”) relating to outsourcing to either Barristers Chambers or solicitors at employment tribunals. The council supplied the requested information outside of the 20 working day time frame. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council breached section 10 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (“the FOIA”) because it did not supply the information within 20 working days. The Commissioner does not require any steps to be taken.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 10 - Complaint Upheld
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50434955
Case Ref: FER0379965
Date: 23/04/2012
Public Authority: Marine Management Organisation
Summary: The complainant made two requests to the Marine Management Organisation (the MMO). Request 1 was for information relating to the Port of Tyne dredging trial, and various reports. The MMO provided some information, withheld further information under regulation 13 of the EIR, and advised that the remainder was not held. Request 2 repeated request 1 and requested further information. The MMO refused request 2 under regulation 12(4)(b) on the basis that it was manifestly unreasonable. The Commissioner’s decision is that the MMO handled request 1 in accordance with the EIR, except for the names of some officials which were wrongly withheld under regulation 13. However the MMO failed to carry out an internal review in relation to request 2, thus breaching regulation 11 of the EIR. The Commissioner requires the public authority to disclose the names of officials as indicated in the confidential annex to this notice; and conduct an internal review of the MMO’s handling of request 2 which meets the requirements of regulation 11 of the EIR.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 11 - Complaint Upheld, FOI 13 - Complaint Partly Upheld
View PDF of Decision Notice FER0379965
Case Ref: FS50402016
Date: 23/04/2012
Public Authority: Cabinet Office
Summary: The complainant asked the public authority to provide information about communications sent or received by a specified individual and their line manager and direct or indirect reports, in relation to the company Phorm. The Cabinet Office withheld all the information it held relevant to the request (four pieces of correspondence) claiming that all of it constituted the personal data of the specified individual. In addition, it applied the exemption for international relations (section 27) to two of the four documents. The complainant indicated to the Information Commissioner that he was content for any ‘personal data’ to be redacted from the withheld information. Therefore, where applied, the Information Commissioner will not consider further the exemption for personal information (section 40(2)). In respect of the exemption at section 27, the Information Commissioner has decided that the public authority properly applied this exemption and that the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosure. The Information Commissioner therefore requires the public authority to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: he orders that the content of the two emails previously withheld under the exemption for personal information should now be disclosed to the complainant, with the names of the parties redacted.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 27 - Complaint Not upheld, FOI 40 - Complaint Upheld
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50402016
Case Ref: FS50421724
Date: 23/04/2012
Public Authority: Foreign and Commonwealth Office
Summary: The complainant requested information about the UK’s official reactions to a report alleging serious crimes, including organ trafficking. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) provided him with some information but withheld the remainder, citing the exemptions relating to international relations, law enforcement, formulation of government policy and effective conduct of public affairs. The Information Commissioner’s decision is that the FCO correctly withheld the majority of the information. However, he does not find the exemption engaged with respect to some of the withheld text and orders disclosure of that information. The Commissioner requires the public authority to disclose the information identified in the confidential annex to this decision notice.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 27 - Complaint Not upheld, FOI 31 - Complaint Partly Upheld, FOI 35 - Complaint Not upheld, FOI 36 - Complaint Not upheld
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50421724
Case Ref: FS50430180
Date: 23/04/2012
Public Authority: Metropolitan Police Service
Summary: The complainant has requested a copy of the Theseus Report (the “Report”), which relates to the bombings in London on 7 July 2005. The Information Commissioner finds that the Report is a court record and that it was properly withheld under the absolute exemption at section 32(1)(a). The Commissioner found that the public authority made procedural breaches in providing a late response. The Information Commissioner requires no steps to be taken.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 17 - Complaint Upheld, FOI 32 - Complaint Not upheld
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50430180
Case Ref: FS50430949
Date: 23/04/2012
Public Authority: Department for Transport
Summary: The complainant has requested copies of all Safety Assessment of Foreign Aircraft (SAFA) inspection reports dated from 1 January 2010 to the present date where any Category 3 findings have been recorded. The Department for Transport (DfT) refused to provide the information requested under section 27(1)(a) and (c) and section 31(1)(g) with subsection 31(2)(j) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (“FOIA”). The Commissioner’s decision is that the DfT has correctly applied section 27(1)(a) and (c) to withhold the requested information. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 27 - Complaint Not upheld
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50430949
Case Ref: FS50435442
Date: 23/04/2012
Public Authority: Hackney London Borough Council
Summary: The complainant requested full contact details for a named department within Hackney Council (the “Council”) along with the Outlook diaries of two named officers and information in relation to a named project undertaken by the Council. To date, the complainant has not received a substantive response from the Council. The Information Commissioner’s (the “Commissioner”) decision is that the Council has breached section 10(1) of the FOIA by failing to respond to the complainant within the statutory time frame. The Commissioner requires the Council to respond to the complainant either providing the requested information or issuing a refusal notice valid under section 17 of the FOIA to ensure compliance with the legislation.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 1 - Complaint Upheld, FOI 10 - Complaint Upheld
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50435442
Case Ref: FER0396638
Date: 19/04/2012
Public Authority: Surrey County Council
Summary: The complainants requested a business plan and related information concerning proposed changes to parking charges due to be brought in by Surrey County Council (SCC). The Information Commissioner’s decision is that SCC failed to justify its application of the “manifestly unreasonable” exception and failed to respond within the statutory timescale. The Information Commissioner requires SCC to either provide an adequate refusal under the correct legislation (the EIR) or disclose the requested information.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: EIR 5.1 - Complaint Upheld, EIR 5.2 - Complaint Upheld, EIR 9.1 - Complaint Upheld
View PDF of Decision Notice FER0396638
Case Ref: FER0429061
Date: 19/04/2012
Public Authority: High Speed Two Limited
Summary: The complainant asked for High Speed Two Ltd (‘HS2 Ltd’) to “explain the justification” for alleged changes made to the proposed high speed railway track around Hints. HS2 Ltd did not accept the complainant’s submission as a valid request for information. The Commissioner finds that part of the request is valid and that HS2 Ltd must comply with regulation 5(1) of the EIR or issue a valid refusal notice.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: EIR 5.1 - Complaint Upheld
View PDF of Decision Notice FER0429061
Case Ref: FS50418874
Date: 19/04/2012
Public Authority: Kent County Council
Summary: The complainant has requested details of a proposal that was provided to conservative councillors relating to plans for local libraries in the county in the future. The council refused the request on the grounds that section 36 of the Act applied. It said that a disclosure of the information would prejudice the effective conduct or public affairs. The Commissioner’s decision is that Kent County Council was correct to apply section 36 to the withheld information.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 36 - Complaint Not upheld
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50418874
Case Ref: FS50425488
Date: 19/04/2012
Public Authority: Conwy County Borough Council
Summary: The complainant requested information about expenditure on travelling and subsistence for the financial year 2010/2011. The Council refused to comply with the request as it would exceed the cost limit under section 12 of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council correctly refused the request under section 12 as compliance would exceed the appropriate cost limit. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 12 - Complaint Not upheld
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50425488
Case Ref: FS50432906
Date: 19/04/2012
Public Authority: Neath Port Talbot County Borough Council
Summary: The complainant submitted two requests to Neath Port Talbot County Borough Council (‘the Council’) both of which sought information about a particular development in the area. In response to these requests the Council provided the complainant with some information and relied on section 12 of the FOIA to refuse to provide any further information. The Commissioner’s decision is that the information requested constitutes environmental information and the correct access regime is the EIR. The Commissioner requires the Council to reconsider both requests under the EIR and either disclose the information requested or issue a valid refusal notice in accordance with regulation 14 of the EIR.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 1 - Complaint Upheld
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50432906
Case Ref: FS50432949
Date: 19/04/2012
Public Authority: Bangor University
Summary: The complainant requested information which was used to produce a particular report entitled “Alcohol Involved Deaths”. Bangor University (‘the University’) refused to provide the information on the basis that it had been provided to it in confidence and it was therefore exempt under section 41(1) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the University correctly relied on section 41 of the FOIA for the non disclosure of the requested information. The Commissioner has, however, identified some procedural issues surrounding the University’s handling of the request. The Commissioner requires no further action to be taken.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 10 - Complaint Upheld, FOI 41 - Complaint Not upheld
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50432949
Case Ref: FS50439016
Date: 19/04/2012
Public Authority: Liverpool City Council
Summary: The complainant has requested a copy of the first ‘Partnership Refresh Proposal’ from BT as part (3) of a five part request. Despite the intervention of the Commissioner, Liverpool City Council has not provided an adequate response to this part of the request in accordance with the Freedom of Information Act. The Commissioner therefore reminds Liverpool City Council of its obligations under the Freedom of Information Act and requires that it either respond to the request in accordance with the legislation or issue a valid refusal notice under section 17(1).
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 1 - Complaint Upheld
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50439016
Case Ref: FER0436438
Date: 18/04/2012
Public Authority: Babergh District Council
Summary: The complainant requested information from Babergh District Council (“the council”) regarding Nayland Airfield. The council refused to comply with the request on the basis that it was manifestly unreasonable under regulation 12(4)(b) of the Environmental Information Regulations 2004 (“the EIR”) and the public interest favoured maintaining the exception. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council correctly relied on regulation 12(4)(b) and that the public interest favoured maintaining the exception in this case. The Commissioner does not require any steps to be taken.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: EIR 12.4.b - Complaint Not upheld
View PDF of Decision Notice FER0436438
Case Ref: FS50415856
Date: 18/04/2012
Public Authority: Wigan Metropolitan Borough Council
Summary: The complainant requested information relating to statements of SEN at a particular school. Wigan Metropolitan Borough Council (“the council”) refused to provide the information on the basis of costs under section 12(1) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (“the FOIA”) however it subsequently withdrew its reliance on this exclusion following the Commissioner’s investigation. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council breached section 1(1) and section 10(1) of the FOIA because it failed to respond to the request within 20 working days and when it did respond, it relied incorrectly on section 12(1). The Commissioner requires the public authority to disclose the requested information to the complainant.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 10 - Complaint Upheld, FOI 12 - Complaint Upheld
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50415856
Case Ref: FS50417705
Date: 18/04/2012
Public Authority: Wiltshire County Council
Summary: The complainant requested information from Wiltshire Council (“the council”) relating to the tax records of a particular family. The council said that the information was exempt under section 40(2) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (“the FOIA”). The Information Commissioner (“the Commissioner”) decided that the council correctly determined that the information was exempt, although it should have cited the exemption under section 40(5), the exemption that applies to circumstances where the public authority cannot confirm or deny whether the information is held because to do so would in itself reveal personal data which would breach the Data Protection Act 1998 (“the DPA”). The Commissioner does not require the council to take any steps.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 40 - Complaint Not upheld
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50417705
Case Ref: FS50426060
Date: 18/04/2012
Public Authority: Chelmsford Borough Council
Summary: The complainant requested Chelmsford Borough Council (the council) for information relating to a Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents (RoSPA) report. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council did not deal with the request for information in accordance with the FOIA as it failed to provide a response to the request within the statutory time frame of 20 working days. As a response has now been provided, the Commissioner requires no steps to be taken.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 10 - Complaint Upheld
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50426060
Case Ref: FS50431421
Date: 18/04/2012
Public Authority: Newham London Borough Council
Summary: The complainant requested details of any financial relationship or transactions between the London Borough of Newham (the “council”) and Obsidian Forest Gate Ltd. (OFG). The council provided some information but withheld other information because it considered that disclosure would be likely to prejudice its commercial interests and those of OFG. It also argued that disclosure of the information could result in an actionable breach of confidence. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council has correctly applied the commercial interests exemption to the withheld information and that the public interest favours maintaining the exemption. The Commissioner does not require the council to take any steps.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 43 - Complaint Not upheld
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50431421
Case Ref: FS50424497
Date: 17/04/2012
Public Authority: Civil Aviation Authority
Summary: The complainant requested information relating to commercial airline pilots convicted of drink driving. The Commissioner’s decision is that the public authority was correct to withhold the information on the basis of the exemption at section 40(2) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the Act). The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 40 - Complaint Not upheld
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50424497
Case Ref: FS50403767
Date: 16/04/2012
Public Authority: Royal Mail
Summary: The complainant has requested the following information: all legal advice sought or received by the Department of Regional Development, Northern Ireland Water, or the Panel charged with assessing, short listing, or interviewing applicants for the position of Non Executive Directors at Northern Ireland Water. All legal advice, notes and correspondence (internal and external) relating to the advice specifically sought in relation to my application for the position of Non Executive Director at Northern Ireland Water. In addition copies of all guidance given in relation to responding and justifying the refusal to interview, myself and the subsequent rejection of my appeal by the Panel. The Department of Regional Development (“DRD”) disclosed some of the information requested in part 2 of the complainant’s request, however it refused to disclose the information in part 1 of the request and the remainder of the information in part 2 of the request (“the withheld information”), citing the exemptions under sections 40(2)(b) (personal data) and 42(1) (legal professional privilege) as a basis for non-disclosure. The Commissioner’s decision is that the DRD has correctly applied the sections 40(2)(b) and 42(1) exemptions to the withheld information. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 12 - Complaint Not upheld
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50403767
Case Ref: FS50421653
Date: 16/04/2012
Public Authority: Department for Culture Media and Sport
Summary: The complainant requested information in relation to the decision by Somerset County Council to close a number of libraries in the county. The Commissioner’s decision is that the public authority correctly withheld information on the basis of the exemption at section 36(2)(b)(ii) of the Act. However, the public authority breached sections 1(1)(a) and 10(1) of the Act by not informing the complainant that it held no information relating to certain parts of the request. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 1 - Complaint Upheld, FOI 10 - Complaint Upheld, FOI 36 - Complaint Not upheld
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50421653
Case Ref: FS50425713
Date: 16/04/2012
Public Authority: Legal Services Commission
Summary: The complainant asked the Legal Services Commission (LSC) to provide him with the names of the individuals who acted as Independent Cost Assessors and the fees paid to each named individual. The LSC provided him with the names of each assessor and an anonymised list of fees to each assessor, but withheld the amounts paid to each named individual on the basis of the personal data exemption of the Freedom of Information Act. The Commissioner has decided that the LSC is entitled to withhold this information on the basis of this exemption.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 40 - Complaint Not upheld
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50425713
Case Ref: FS50426691
Date: 16/04/2012
Public Authority: NHS Warrington
Summary: The complainant made a request to NHS Warrington (the “PCT”) for copies of information relating to a tender for extra NHS dental services in Warrington in 2010. Specifically, the complainant asked for all bids placed. This information was withheld by the PCT under the commercial interests exemption (section 43(2)). The Commissioner’s decision is that the PCT has correctly withheld this information under section 43(2). Therefore the Commissioner does not require the PCT to take any steps.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 43 - Complaint Not upheld
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50426691
Case Ref: FER0415204
Date: 12/04/2012
Public Authority: Tower Hamlets Council
Summary: The complainant requested information relating to a site at Heron Quays West from the London Borough of Tower Hamlets (“the council”). Following the disclosure of some information, the only outstanding issue was the council’s decision to withhold information on the basis that it was covered by legal professional privilege and was excepted under regulation 12(5)(b) of the Environmental Information Regulations 2004 (“the EIR”). The Commissioner’s decision is that the council correctly relied on regulation 12(5)(b) to withhold the majority of the information.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: EIR 5.1 - Complaint Upheld, EIR 5.2 - Complaint Upheld, EIR 11 - Complaint Upheld, EIR 12.5.b - Complaint Partly Upheld
View PDF of Decision Notice FER0415204
Case Ref: FER0429794
Date: 12/04/2012
Public Authority: Solihull Metropolitan Borough Council
Summary: The complainant has requested the name of the proposer of a specific piece of land for development as a Gypsy/Traveller site. The Commissioner’s decision is that Solihull Metropolitan Borough Council has correctly withheld the requested personal data.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: EIR 13 - Complaint Not upheld
View PDF of Decision Notice FER0429794
Case Ref: FS50404682
Date: 12/04/2012
Public Authority: Nottinghamshire Police
Summary: The complainant made 6 requests for information concerning a speeding offence committed by a named Police Superintendent and other related information regarding any police officers cautioned for speeding offences where the cases had not been referred to the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS). Nottinghamshire Police withheld the information under sections 40(2) (personal data) and 30(1) (investigations) of FOIA. The Information Commissioner’s (“the Commissioner’s”) decision in relation to requests 1 and 2 is that the correct response was to have neither confirmed nor denied holding any information on the basis of section 40(5)(b)(i). This is because confirming or denying the existence of information would constitute processing of sensitive personal data in breach of the first data protection principle. In relation to requests 3, 4 and 5, the Commissioner has found that Nottinghamshire Police incorrectly refused to respond on the basis that the requests were not valid under section 8 of FOIA. However he has also decided that the correct response in respect of those requests would have been to refuse to confirm or deny holding any information on the basis of section 40(5)(b)(i). In relation to request 6, Nottinghamshire Police correctly refused to provide the information in accordance with section 12(1) (costs limit), but failed to provide appropriate advice and assistance to the applicant under section 16(1) of FOIA. The Commissioner requires Nottinghamshire Police to contact the complainant and provide advice and assistance either with regards to refining the request to enable compliance or explaining in greater detail why it cannot be refined adequately to bring it under the cost limit.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 12 - Complaint Not upheld, FOI 16 - Complaint Upheld, FOI 40 - Complaint Not upheld
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50404682
Case Ref: FS50420956
Date: 12/04/2012
Public Authority: Lancashire Police Authority
Summary: The complainant requested information relating to five investigation reports. Lancashire Police Authority (the Authority) refused to disclose the requested information citing section 40(2) (personal information). The Information Commissioner’s (‘the Commissioner’s’) decision is that the Authority applied the exemption correctly to most, but not all, of the information. The Commissioner requires the public authority to disclose a limited amount of information from three of the investigation reports, as indicated in the confidential annex to this notice.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 40 - Complaint Partly Upheld
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50420956
Case Ref: FS50428228
Date: 12/04/2012
Public Authority: HM Treasury
Summary: The complainant has requested information concerning the public sector pension scheme. The Information Commissioner’s decision is that HM Treasury did not provide a response within 20 working days and so breached section 10(1) of the FOIA. The Commissioner requires no remedial steps to be taken in this case.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 10 - Complaint Upheld
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50428228
Case Ref: FS50423913
Date: 10/04/2012
Public Authority: Fleetwood Town Council
Summary: The complainant requested information concerning an allotment plot from Fleetwood Town Council (“the council”). The council withheld some information using section 42(1) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (“the FOIA”) on the basis that it was subject to legal advice privilege. During the Commissioner’s investigation, the council disclosed some of the legal advice as it accepted that this was no longer confidential. The Commissioner’s decision is that the request should have been dealt with under the terms of the Environmental Information Regulations 2004 (“the EIR”) rather than the FOIA. He is satisfied however that regulation 12(5)(b) was engaged in relation to the remaining information and that the public interest favoured maintaining the exception. He was also satisfied that no further recorded information was held.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: EIR 12.5.b - Complaint Not upheld
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50423913
Case Ref: FS50428318
Date: 10/04/2012
Public Authority: West Sussex County Council
Summary: The complainant requested information relating to a parking matter outside his property. West Sussex County Council (“the council”) supplied relevant information, although it withheld some information using the exemption under section 40(2) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (“the FOIA”) on the basis that it was the personal data of a third party. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council correctly relied on the exemption under section 40(2) to withhold the information, apart from in relation to some information that was the complainant's own personal data that should have been considered separately under the Data Protection Act 1998 (“the DPA”). The Commissioner does not require any steps to be taken.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 40 - Complaint Not upheld
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50428318
Case Ref: FER0422597
Date: 04/04/2012
Public Authority: Public Services Ombudsman for Wales
Summary: The complainant requested information provided by Flintshire County Council (‘the Council’) to the Public Services Ombudsman for Wales (‘the PSOW’) in respect of a complaint of maladministration she made to the PSOW. The PSOW provided some information and withheld other information under 12(5)(d) of the EIR. It also stated that regulation 6(1)(b) applied as some of the information was publicly available and easily accessible. During the course of the Commissioner’s investigation the PSOW withdrew its reliance on regulation 12(5)(d) but maintained that regulation 6(1)(b) was applicable to all of the remaining withheld information. The Commissioner’s decision is that the remaining withheld information held is publicly available and easily accessible, and therefore regulation 6(1)(b) is engaged. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: EIR 6.1.b - Complaint Not upheld
View PDF of Decision Notice FER0422597
Case Ref: FS50418661
Date: 04/04/2012
Public Authority: Crown Prosecution Service
Summary: The complainant has requested information about cases of abuse in the previous five years, involving ‘dysfunctional families’, where allegations are subsequently found to be false. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) was entitled to rely on section 12(2) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the Act), as to determine whether or not the information was held would exceed the appropriate limit. However, the CPS should have specifically cited section 12(2) in its refusal notice. The Commissioner does not require the CPS to take any steps.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 12 - Complaint Not upheld, FOI 17 - Complaint Upheld
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50418661
Case Ref: FS50423868
Date: 04/04/2012
Public Authority: Betsi Cadwaladr University Local Health Board
Summary: The complainant requested information about employees who had been suspended during a specified period. Betsi Cadwaladr Health Board (the Health Board’) provided some information, stating some information was not held and withheld other information under section 40(2) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Health Board correctly relied on section 40(2) of the FOIA for the non disclosure of the requested information. The Commissioner has, however, identified some procedural issues surrounding the Health Board’s handling of the request. The Commissioner requires no further action to be taken.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 10 - Complaint Upheld, FOI 40 - Complaint Not upheld
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50423868
Case Ref: FS50429444
Date: 04/04/2012
Public Authority: Bath and North East Somerset Council
Summary: The complainant has requested legal guidance held by the council relating to its application of vehicle weight restrictions to parts of the A36 for an 18 month trial period. The council refused the information on the grounds that the information was subject to legal professional privilege under section 42 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000. The Commissioner’s decision is that the requested information is environmental information as defined under section 2 of the Environmental Information Regulations 2004. Bath & North East Somerset Council (BATHNESS) was therefore not correct to consider the information under the Freedom of information Act. The Commissioner requires the public authority to consider the request in accordance with the Environmental Information Regulations 2004 and either to disclose the information or to issue a valid refusal notice.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 1 - Complaint Upheld
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50429444
Case Ref: FS50438931
Date: 04/04/2012
Public Authority: Carmarthenshire County Council
Summary: The complainant requested a breakdown of expenses claimed by a number of senior officers over the last five years. Carmarthenshire County Council (‘the Council’) refused to comply with the request as it would exceed the cost limit under section 12 of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council correctly refused the request under section 12 as compliance would exceed the appropriate cost limit. However, the Commissioner finds that the Council failed to comply with section 17(5) of the FOIA in that it did not cite section 12(1) within 20 working days of receipt of the request. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 12 - Complaint Not upheld, FOI 16 - Complaint Not upheld, FOI 17 - Complaint Upheld
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50438931
Case Ref: FS50418798
Date: 03/04/2012
Public Authority: Ministry of Defence
Summary: The complainant has requested the official précis of the proceedings of the board of inquiry into the loss of RAF flight Anson VL 312 on 20 February 1961 (the précis), an incident in which the complainant’s father was killed. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Ministry of Defence (MOD) should not have relied on the section 44(1) and 38(1) exemptions of the FOIA and so has not complied with its duty under section 1(1)(b) of the Act to disclose the information requested; he upholds the complaint. The Commissioner requires MOD to disclose the précis of the proceedings of the Board of Inquiry into the loss of Anson VL 312 on 20 February 1961 excluding the name of the author which is outside the scope of the complaint in this case.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 38 - Complaint Upheld, FOI 44 - Complaint Upheld
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50418798
Case Ref: FS50423537
Date: 03/04/2012
Public Authority: Michael Sobell Sinai School
Summary: The complainant has requested information concerning security refunds for the 2011/12 academic year from Michael Sobell Sinai School (the “school”). The Information Commissioner’s decision is that the school breached section 1(1), 10(1) and 16(1) but later correctly relied on section 1(3) of the FOIA after recognising its obligations. The Commissioner requires no remedial steps to be taken in this case.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 1 - Complaint Upheld, FOI 10 - Complaint Upheld, FOI 16 - Complaint Upheld
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50423537
Case Ref: FS50427243
Date: 03/04/2012
Public Authority: Valuation Office Agency
Summary: The complainant requested the sales values and dates of sales for a number of properties in Creech St Michael, Somerset. The Commissioner’s decision is that the public authority was entitled to withhold the information on the basis of section 44(1)(a) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (Act). The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps to ensure compliance with the legislation.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 44 - Complaint Not upheld
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50427243
Case Ref: FS50431394
Date: 03/04/2012
Public Authority: Sheffield City Council
Summary: On 26 November 2011 the complainant requested the names of two leaseholder members of an advisory group and a record of their attendance at advisory group meetings. Although the council subsequently disclosed the information to the complainant it did so outside of the 20 working day period required by the Act. The Commissioner’s decision is therefore that Sheffield City Council breached section 10(1) of the Act. However the Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 1 - Complaint Upheld, FOI 10 - Complaint Upheld
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50431394
Case Ref: FS50386722
Date: 02/04/2012
Public Authority: Welsh Assembly Government
Summary: The complainant requested information relating to the decision to bring in free admission to heritage sites to Welsh citizens under the age of 16 or over the age of 60. The Welsh Assembly Government (‘the Welsh Government’) disclosed some information but withheld other information under section 42 and 35 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (‘the Act’). The Commissioner’s decision is that the Welsh Government incorrectly withheld information which, although exempt, should be disclosed as the public interest favours disclosure. The Commissioner requires the public authority to disclose to the complainant the requested information which it has so far withheld, subject to the redactions as highlighted in the confidential annex.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 42 - Complaint Upheld
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50386722
Case Ref: FS50410964
Date: 02/04/2012
Public Authority: Department for Regional Development for Northern Ireland
Summary: The complainant has requested the following information: all legal advice sought or received by the Department of Regional Development, Northern Ireland Water, or the Panel charged with assessing, short listing, or interviewing applicants for the position of Non Executive Directors at Northern Ireland Water. All legal advice, notes and correspondence (internal and external) relating to the advice specifically sought in relation to my application for the position of Non Executive Director at Northern Ireland Water. In addition copies of all guidance given in relation to responding and justifying the refusal to interview, myself and the subsequent rejection of my appeal by the Panel. The Department of Regional Development (“DRD”) disclosed some of the information requested in part 2 of the complainant’s request, however it refused to disclose the information in part 1 of the request and the remainder of the information in part 2 of the request (“the withheld information”), citing the exemptions under sections 40(2)(b) (personal data) and 42(1) (legal professional privilege) as a basis for non-disclosure. The Commissioner’s decision is that the DRD has correctly applied the sections 40(2)(b) and 42(1) exemptions to the withheld information. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 40 - Complaint Not upheld, FOI 42 - Complaint Not upheld
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50410964
Case Ref: FS50419106
Date: 02/04/2012
Public Authority: Ministry of Justice
Summary: The complainant has requested a file recording a 1961 trial for a breach of the Official Secrets Act. Some of this file was withheld under the exemption provided by section 23(1) (information relating to, or supplied by, security bodies). The Commissioner’s decision is that the MoJ applied section 23(1) correctly and so it is not required to disclose any further parts of this file.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 23 - Complaint Not upheld
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50419106
Case Ref: FS50420415
Date: 02/04/2012
Public Authority: Portsmouth City Council
Summary: The complainant has requested details of the sale of council properties by Portsmouth City Council Asset Management Service, outside the right to buy process, to either council staff or elected members for the years 2003 and 2004. The Commissioner’s decision is that Portsmouth City Council correctly relied on section 12 of the Act not to comply with the complainant’s request for information.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 12 - Complaint Not upheld
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50420415
Case Ref: FS50422531
Date: 02/04/2012
Public Authority: Cabinet Office
Summary: The complainant requested Cabinet meeting minutes dating from 1984 and 1985 relating to the miners’ strike. The Cabinet Office refused to disclose this information and cited the exemption from the FOIA provided by section 35(1)(b) (information relating to Ministerial communications). The Commissioner’s decision is that the Cabinet Office has applied this exemption correctly and so it is not required to disclose this information.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 35 - Complaint Not upheld
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50422531
Case Ref: FS50423035
Date: 02/04/2012
Public Authority: Transport for London
Summary: The complainant made a number of requests for information to Transport for London (“TfL”) over a short period of time. TfL considered that all the requests were vexatious and relied on section 14(1) of the FOIA. The Commissioner considers that the requests were vexatious and that section 14(1) was correctly engaged. The Commissioner requires no remedial steps to be taken.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 14 - Complaint Not upheld
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50423035
Case Ref: FS50425384
Date: 02/04/2012
Public Authority: Home Office
Summary: The complainant requested information relating to an attempted murder. 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 24(2) (national security). The Information Commissioner’s decision is that the Home Office applied sections 23(5) and 24(2) correctly and so it is not required to confirm or deny if it holds information falling within the scope of the complainant’s request. However, the Commissioner also finds that the Home Office breached the requirement to provide advice and assistance imposed by section 16(1) in that it did not advise the complainant that requests for government information held elsewhere than the Home Office should be made to the appropriate government departments.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 16 - Complaint Upheld, FOI 23 - Complaint Not upheld, FOI 24 - Complaint Not upheld
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50425384
Case Ref: FS50425925
Date: 02/04/2012
Public Authority: Home Office
Summary: The complainant requested guidance, procedures and manuals held by the UK Border Agency (‘the UKBA’) providing instruction to officers conducting their duties within the jurisdiction of the law of Scotland. The Information Commissioner’s (‘the Commissioner’) decision is that the UKBA (an agency of the Home Office) breached section 1(1)(a) and (b) of the FOIA in not determining by the time of the internal review that information is held within the scope of the request and not determining whether that information should be provided. In responding to the complainant after 20 working days the UKBA also breached section 10(1) of the FOIA. The Commissioner requires the public authority to disclose the information held within the scope of the request in accordance with section 1 or provide a refusal notice in accordance with section 17(1).
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 1 - Complaint Upheld, FOI 10 - Complaint Upheld
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50425925
Case Ref: FS50426997
Date: 02/04/2012
Public Authority: Home Office
Summary: The complainant requested information related to applications made by two media organisations for birth, marriage and death certificates. The Commissioner’s decision is that the public authority was correct to deem the request vexatious within the meaning of section 14(1) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the Act). The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 14 - Complaint Not upheld
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50426997
Case Ref: FS50427962
Date: 02/04/2012
Public Authority: Home Office
Summary: The complainant requested information about an individual’s status with respect to UK citizenship. The Home Office refused to disclose the requested information citing the personal information exemption provided by section 40(2) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000. The Information Commissioner’s decision is that the Home Office acted correctly in refusing to disclose the information. He requires no steps to be taken.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 40 - Complaint Not upheld
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50427962
Case Ref: FS50434631
Date: 02/04/2012
Public Authority: Department for Education
Summary: The complainant has requested details of the measures in place to retain data relating to the work of the Department for Education (the “DfE”) from the private email accounts of its employees, including civil servants and special advisors, who subsequently leave the DfE. The complainant has not received a substantive response to this request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the DfE has breached section 10(1) of the FOIA by failing to respond to the complainant’s request promptly or at all within 20 working days. The Commissioner requires the DfE to state which information it holds within the scope of the complainant’s request and to communicate the information it holds to the complainant and/or issue a refusal notice in respect of all or the parts of the information it intends to withhold in accordance with section 17 of the FOIA.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 1 - Complaint Upheld, FOI 10 - Complaint Upheld
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50434631
Case Ref: FS50434634
Date: 02/04/2012
Public Authority: Department for Education
Summary: The complainant has requested details of communications between staff working in the IT department of the Department for Education (the “DfE”) in relation to the deletion of information from computers. The complainant has not received a substantive response to this request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the DfE has breached section 10(1) of the FOIA by failing to respond to the complainant’s request promptly or at all within 20 working days. The Commissioner requires the DfE to state which information it holds within the scope of the complainant’s request and to communicate the information it holds to the complainant and/or issue a refusal notice in respect of all or the parts of the information it intends to withhold in accordance with section 17 of the FOIA.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 1 - Complaint Upheld, FOI 10 - Complaint Upheld
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50434634
March
Case Ref: FS50425719
Date: 29/03/2012
Public Authority: Home Office
Summary: The complainant requested information relating to criminal records disclosure requests made to the Criminal Records Bureau (‘the CRB’). The Information Commissioner’s decision is that the CRB correctly relied on section 12(1) of the FOIA in relation to the request. The Commissioner finds, however, that the CRB breached section 16(1) of the FOIA by not providing appropriate advice and assistance. The Commissioner requires the public authority to contact the complainant to provide appropriate advice and assistance, such that the request may be clarified and refined in an attempt to provide some of the information sought. The CRB would thereby comply with its obligations under section 16(1) of the FOIA.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 12 - Complaint Not upheld, FOI 16 - Complaint Upheld
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50425719
Case Ref: FS50414083
Date: 28/03/2012
Public Authority: Stoke-on-Trent City Council
Summary: The complainant has requested any tender assessments or internal audit reports relating to contracts given to a specific company. The Commissioner’s decision is that Stoke-on-Trent City Council (‘the council’) has incorrectly applied the exemption where disclosure would prejudice the effective conduct of public affairs as the public interest in maintaining the exemption does not outweigh the public interest in disclosing the information. The Commissioner has also found a number of procedural breaches. The Commissioner requires the council to disclose the requested information.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 10 - Complaint Upheld, FOI 17 - Complaint Upheld, FOI 36 - Complaint Upheld
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50414083
Case Ref: FS50418600
Date: 28/03/2012
Public Authority: Portsmouth City Council
Summary: The complainant requested the council to disclose copies of the minutes and notes taken at two committee hearings which were held to consider his complaint about the conduct of a named councillor. The council responded and informed the complainant that this information is not held. The Commissioner’s decision in this case is that on the balance of probabilities the requested information is not held and therefore the council responded appropriately to this request. The Commissioner requires no further action to be taken.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 1 - Complaint Not upheld
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50418600
Case Ref: FS50419938
Date: 28/03/2012
Public Authority: Ministry of Justice
Summary: The complainant has requested information about the cost of the provision of Sky television to prisoners at HM Prison Dovegate, including the number of Sky channels they have access to, and the numbers of cells in the prison which have telephones within them. The Ministry of Justice confirmed that it does not hold any of the requested information, explaining that HMP Dovegate is a private contracted-out prison which is not covered by the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the ‘FOIA’). The Information Commissioner’s decision is that on the balance of probabilities, the Ministry of Justice does not hold any of the requested information. He requires no steps to be taken.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 1 - Complaint Not upheld
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50419938
Case Ref: FS50389441
Date: 27/03/2012
Public Authority: General Medical Council
Summary: The complainant has requested information about the training the General Medical Council (GMC) provides to Fitness to Practice panellists, specifically in the areas of human rights law and whistleblowing. The Commissioner’s decision is that the General Medical Council failed to respond to the request within the required time, but holds no further information in relation to the request. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps to ensure compliance with the legislation.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 10 - Complaint Upheld
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50389441
Case Ref: FS50397506
Date: 27/03/2012
Public Authority: Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs
Summary: The complainant requested evidence to support DEFRA’s decision to launch a non-formal consultation on proposals for a new English Scallop Order. DEFRA identified three pieces of information within the scope of the request and withheld them on the basis of regulation 12(4)(d), 12(4)(e) and 12(3). The complainant agreed not to pursue the release of the personal data withheld under regulation 12(3). The Commissioner’s decision is that DEFRA has incorrectly applied the internal communications and unfinished documents exceptions. The Commissioner requires the public authority to disclose the requested information with redactions for any third party personal data.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: EIR 12.4.d - Complaint Upheld, EIR 12.4.e - Complaint Upheld
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50397506
Case Ref: FS50419718
Date: 27/03/2012
Public Authority: Wandsworth Council
Summary: The complainant has requested all documents relating to the validity of a VAT clause within a lease. The Commissioner’s decision is that Wandsworth Council has correctly applied the exemption for legal professional privilege and the exemption where the cost of compliance exceeds the appropriate limit. However, the Commissioner found that Wandsworth Council took too long to respond to the request.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 10 - Complaint Upheld, FOI 12 - Complaint Not upheld, FOI 16 - Complaint Not upheld, FOI 42 - Complaint Not upheld
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50419718
Case Ref: FS50421212
Date: 27/03/2012
Public Authority: Sutton London Borough Council
Summary: The complainant requested information about bullying, harassment and compromise agreements at all schools within the London Borough of Sutton, with particular focus on one school. The Commissioner’s decision is that the London Borough of Sutton [the council] has provided the complainant with all of requested information that it holds relevant to the scope of the request. The Commissioner does not require the council to take any further action. This decision notice is currently under appeal to the Information Tribunal.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 1 - Complaint Not upheld
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50421212
Case Ref: FS50421538
Date: 27/03/2012
Public Authority: Islington Council
Summary: The complainant has requested information concerning repairs carried out by the London Borough of Islington (the council) on a specific property. The council refused the request on the grounds that it was the personal data of the occupier of that property and that disclosure would be unfair. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council was correct to refuse the request as the exemption provided by section 40(2) of the FOIA was engaged. The council is not, therefore, required to disclose this information.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 40 - Complaint Not upheld
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50421538
Case Ref: FS50422800
Date: 27/03/2012
Public Authority: Camden Council
Summary: The complainant has requested copies of emails received or sent by a named councillor on his camden.gov.uk email address on a specified date. The London Borough of Camden (the council) disclosed some emails, but withheld some other emails on the grounds that they were personal data. The Commissioner’s decision is that the withheld emails are not held by the council and do not fall to be disclosed under FOIA. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 3 - Complaint Not upheld
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50422800
Case Ref: FS50426575
Date: 27/03/2012
Public Authority: Office of Gas and Electricity Markets
Summary: The complainant has requested the name of the hotel where the Chief Executive of Ofgem stayed on specific dates, as well as the times on which he checked in and out of the hotel. Ofgem withheld the name of the hotel under the health and safety exemption (section 38) and the exemption for third party personal information (section 40(2)). It also informed the complainant that it did not hold recorded information showing the check in and check out times. The Commissioner’s decision is that Ofgem has correctly relied upon section 40(2) to withhold the name of the hotel. He is also satisfied that Ofgem does not hold any recorded information showing the check in and check out times of the Chief Executive.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 40 - Complaint Not upheld
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50426575
Case Ref: FS50428373
Date: 27/03/2012
Public Authority: Lewisham London Borough Council
Summary: The complainant requested copies of instructions and legal opinions relating to a proposal to hold a musical event on Blackheath Common and information relating to the circumstances in which the decision to obtain a second opinion was taken. The London Borough of Lewisham (the “council”) confirmed that it did not hold any information relating to the circumstances in which the decision to seek a second opinion was taken. It refused to provide the requested instructions and opinions because it considered that these were subject to legal professional privilege and were exempt under section 42(1) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council has correctly applied section 42(1) of the FOIA to withhold the legal instructions and advice identified in the request. In providing information relating to the circumstances in which a second opinion was sought outside the statutory 20 working days, the council breached section 10(1) of the FOIA. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 10 - Complaint Upheld, FOI 42 - Complaint Not upheld
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50428373
Case Ref: FS50430276
Date: 27/03/2012
Public Authority: Bolton Council
Summary: The complainants requested background information about the way the public authority had dealt with one of their requests. The public authority provided some information and also relied on the exemption at section 36 of the FOIA. The complainants raised various issues to do with the handing of their request. The Information Commissioner’s decision is that the public authority dealt appropriately with the request. He requires no steps to be taken.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 36 - Complaint Not upheld
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50430276
Case Ref: FS50435026
Date: 27/03/2012
Public Authority: Insolvency Service
Summary: The complainant has requested a copy of the Enforcement Investigation Guide (EIG) from the Insolvency Service. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Insolvency Service has not successfully engaged section 22 of the Act in relation to the EIG. The Commissioner requires the Insolvency Service to disclose the EIG to ensure compliance with the legislation.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 22 - Complaint Upheld
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50435026
Case Ref: FER0387012
Date: 26/03/2012
Public Authority: University of East Anglia
Summary: The complainant made a request to the University of East Anglia (UEA) for information held by the Independent Climate Change Email Review. The UEA refused the request under regulation 12(4)(a) on the basis that it did not hold the requested information. The Commissioner has investigated the complaint and upheld the UEA’s application of regulation 12(4)(a). The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: EIR 12.4.a - Complaint Not upheld
View PDF of Decision Notice FER0387012
Case Ref: FS50392220
Date: 26/03/2012
Public Authority: Department for Education
Summary: The complainant requested copies of proposal forms for Free Schools, together with copies of communications between the Department for Education (the “DfE”) and several third parties. The DfE disclosed some information. However, it also withheld some information under the future publication exemption (section 22); the formulation of government policy exemption (section 35(1)(a)); the effective conduct of public affairs exemption (sections 36(2)(b)(i), 36(2)(b)(ii) and 36(2)(c)); the third party personal information exemption (sections 40(2) with 40(3)(a)(i)); and the commercial interests exemption (section 43(2)). The Commissioner’s decision is that the DfE has correctly relied upon sections 22, 35(1)(a), 36(2)(c), and 40(2) with 40(3)(a)(i) to withhold the outstanding information. The Commissioner does not require any steps to be taken.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 22 - Complaint Not upheld, FOI 35 - Complaint Not upheld, FOI 36 - Complaint Not upheld, FOI 40 - Complaint Not upheld
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50392220
Case Ref: FS50405530
Date: 26/03/2012
Public Authority: Ministry of Defence
Summary: The complainant requested information about the review of the system for awarding military medals, which is being conducted by the Ministry of Defence (the MoD). The MoD provided some information and exempted some under section 35(1)(a), 35(1)(b), 36(2)(a)(i), 37(1)(a) and 40(2). The Commissioner’s decision is that the MoD exceeded the permitted 20 day period for issuing a refusal notice but that the complainant was not entitled to the withheld information because it was exempt and, where relevant, the public interest favours maintaining the exemption.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 22 - Complaint Not upheld, FOI 35 - Complaint Not upheld, FOI 36 - Complaint Not upheld, FOI 37 - Complaint Not upheld
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50405530
Case Ref: FS50410847
Date: 26/03/2012
Public Authority: Cornwall Council
Summary: The complainant requested the names of councillors from Cornwall Council (the council) who had had to be taken to court to force payment of council tax in the previous two years. The Information Commissioner’s (the Commissioner’s) decision is that the council was correct to withhold the information under section 40(2) of the FOIA. The Commissioner does not require the council to take any steps.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 40 - Complaint Not upheld
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50410847
Case Ref: FS50411975
Date: 26/03/2012
Public Authority: Department for Culture Media and Sport
Summary: The complainant requested information relating to discussions between Sport England and the British Judo Association (the BJA) in light of his disagreement with the BJA over its policy in connection with judo coaches from non-affiliate judo centres obtaining a UKCC qualification. The Commissioner’s decision is that the requested information engaged sections 36(2) (b) and (c) but in all the circumstances of the case, the public interest in maintaining the exemption did not outweigh the public interest in disclosure.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 36 - Complaint Upheld
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50411975
Case Ref: FS50414026
Date: 26/03/2012
Public Authority: Ministry of Justice
Summary: The complainant requested details of a named solicitor’s qualifications. The Information Commissioner’s decision is that the Ministry of Justice (the MOJ) correctly identified the information as personal data of a third party and withheld it as such under section 40(2) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the FOIA). The Information Commissioner does not require the MOJ to take any remedial steps.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 40 - Complaint Not upheld
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50414026
Case Ref: FS50421144
Date: 26/03/2012
Public Authority: Department for Culture Media and Sport
Summary: The complainant requested copies of communications between Sport England and the Department for Culture, Media and Sport in connection with his ongoing disagreement with British Judo Association (the BJA) over a fee requirement for judo coaches from non-affiliate judo centres wishing to obtain a UKCC qualification.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 14 - Complaint Upheld
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50421144
Case Ref: FS50423112
Date: 26/03/2012
Public Authority: Royal Cornwall Hospitals NHS Trust
Summary: The complainant requested a copy of the Employment Tribunal’s judgment involving the former Chief Executive of the Royal Cornwall Hospitals NHS Trust (the Trust). The Commissioner’s decision is that the Trust did not deal with the request for information in accordance with the FOIA as it failed to provide a response to the request within the statutory time frame of 20 working days. As a response has now been provided, the Commissioner requires no steps to be taken.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 1 - Complaint Upheld, FOI 10 - Complaint Upheld
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50423112
Case Ref: FS50424760
Date: 26/03/2012
Public Authority: Ministry of Justice
Summary: The complainant requested details of the outcome of First-tier Tribunal (Social Security) cases where the medical representative was a named individual. The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) refused this request and cited the exemptions provided by sections 32(1)(a) and 32(1)(c)(ii) (court records) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the MoJ applied these exemptions correctly and so it is not required to disclose this information.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 32 - Complaint Not upheld
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50424760
Case Ref: FS50424813
Date: 26/03/2012
Public Authority: University of Cambridge
Summary: The complainant requested the ethnic minority data of applicants for a diploma course offered by the University of Cambridge’s Institute of Continuing Education from 1999 to 2004. The University stated that it did not retain the data and was unable to fulfil the complainant’s request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the University of Cambridge has correctly stated that it does not hold the data.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 1 - Complaint Not upheld
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50424813
Case Ref: FS50425712
Date: 26/03/2012
Public Authority: Greater Manchester Police
Summary: The complainant requested information relating to the media strategy of Greater Manchester Police in relation to the August riots. GMP initially refused to disclose the information requested and cited a number of exemptions. During the Information Commissioner’s investigation GMP withdrew reliance on these exemptions in relation to the majority of the information and this information was disclosed. This decision notice concerns any procedural breaches in the handling of this request and the Commissioner’s decision is that GMP breached the FOIA by failing to provide a valid response to the request within 20 working days of receipt and by failing to identify all information it held that fell within the scope of the request.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 1 - Complaint Upheld, FOI 10 - Complaint Upheld
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50425712
Case Ref: FS50427470
Date: 26/03/2012
Public Authority: Security Industry Authority
Summary: Following a previous related complaint to the Information Commissioner, the complainant requested information about the investigation or other use made by the Security Industry Authority (SIA) of intelligence he had provided to it. The Information Commissioner’s decision is that SIA was correct to rely on section 30(3) to refuse to confirm or deny whether it held any relevant information and the balance of the public interest favoured maintaining the exemption. The Information Commissioner does not require any steps to be taken to ensure compliance with the legislation.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 30 - Complaint Not upheld
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50427470
Case Ref: FS50428805
Date: 26/03/2012
Public Authority: Royal Mail
Summary: The complainant has requested from Royal Mail Group Ltd (Royal Mail) the names of current and past sub-postmasters and other officials of her local post office and sorting office. The Commissioner’s decision is that Royal Mail correctly applied section 40(2) of the FOIA to the request. He does not require Royal Mail to take any further action.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 40 - Complaint Not upheld
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50428805
Case Ref: FS50435142
Date: 26/03/2012
Public Authority: Law Commission
Summary: The complainant requested information concerning the rights of mental health patients. The Law Commission did not regard the request as valid for the purposes of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Law Commission has breached the FOIA in that the request was valid and so should have been responded to in accordance with the requirements of section 1 of the FOIA. The Commissioner requires the public authority to provide to the complainant a response to her request that is compliant with section 1 of the FOIA.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 1 - Complaint Upheld
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50435142
Case Ref: FS50323522
Date: 22/03/2012
Public Authority: Natural England
Summary: The complainant has requested information regarding the definition of a “badger sett in current use”, in relation to the Protection of Badgers Act 1992. Natural England provided a response to the complainant. However, the complainant argued that Natural England had not provided the information he had requested. The Commissioner’s decision is that Natural England did provide the requested information. Therefore the Commissioner does not require Natural England to take any steps.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 1 - Complaint Not upheld
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50323522
Case Ref: FS50398285
Date: 22/03/2012
Public Authority: University of Manchester
Summary: The complainant made a request to the University of Manchester (the University) for details of the salary agreed between the University and Professor Colm Toibin, Professor of Creative Writing at the University’s Centre for New Writing. The University withheld all salary information relating to Professor Toibin using the exemption in section 40(2) (personal information) and, latterly, the exemption section 43(2) (commercial interests). The Information Commissioner’s decision is that the University incorrectly applied both the section 40(2) exemption and the section 43(2) exemption to the information in this case. The complaint is therefore upheld. The Information Commissioner (the Commissioner) requires the University to disclose to the complainant the amount of Professor Toibin’s salary to within the nearest £5,000.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 40 - Complaint Upheld, FOI 43 - Complaint Upheld
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50398285
Case Ref: FS50408377
Date: 22/03/2012
Public Authority: Birmingham City Council
Summary: The complainant has requested information relating to an application for discretionary relief from non-domestic rates for a specified commercial property. Information was disclosed, with names of some individuals contained in the information redacted, applying the provisions of the exemption at section 40 of FOIA to comply with the requirements of the Data Protection Act 1998 (the DPA). Further information was redacted, citing the exemption at section 31 of FOIA which relates to law enforcement. The complainant has appealed Birmingham City Council’s use of the exemptions at sections 31 and 40 of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that Birmingham City Council has correctly withheld the personal data, redacted from the information disclosed to the complainant under section 40, but the exemption at section 31 is not engaged. The Commissioner requires the public authority to disclose the information redacted under the provisions of section 31(1)(a) of FOIA.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 31 - Complaint Upheld, FOI 40 - Complaint Not upheld
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50408377
Case Ref: FS50419791
Date: 22/03/2012
Public Authority: Avon and Somerset Police Authority
Summary: The complainant requested a copy of a company’s (Southwest One) Board Minutes from April 2010 to the end of March 2011 held by the Avon and Somerset Police Authority (“Avon and Somerset”). The police authority though holding the minutes relied on section 41 not to communicate them to the complainant. The Commissioner’s decision is that Avon and Somerset correctly relied on section 41 not to communicate the withheld information to the complainant. This decision notice is currently under appeal to the Information Tribunal.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 41 - Complaint Not upheld
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50419791
Case Ref: FS50424662
Date: 22/03/2012
Public Authority: Information Commissioner
Summary: The complainant requested a copy of the ICO’s current service standards. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Information Commissioner’s Office (the ICO) has failed to provide a response within the 20 working days required by the FOIA thereby breaching section 10(1). As a response has now been provided, the Commissioner requires no steps to be taken.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 1 - Complaint Upheld, FOI 10 - Complaint Upheld
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50424662
Case Ref: FER0413107
Date: 21/03/2012
Public Authority: Office of Communications
Summary: The complainant requested the following: “Due to the continued significant radio spectrum pollution already causing problems both in the UK and overseas could Ofcom please respond expeditiously and in full to the following questions concerning the most recent thirty cases involving Power Line Technology (PLT). The Office of Communications (Ofcom) provided some of the requested information for each of the cases it considered to be within the scope of the complainant’s request. It refused to provide information in relation to questions 3, 4 and 5 of the request under regulation 12(4)(b) of the EIR (manifestly unreasonable) and refused to provide case reference numbers under regulation 12(3) (third party personal data). The Information Commissioner (the Commissioner) considers that the complainant’s request can be read objectively in two ways and that Ofcom failed to consider the complainant’s alternative objective reading of the request. The Commissioner also considers that Ofcom was incorrect to apply the exceptions under regulation 12(3) and regulation 12(4)(b) of the EIR to the relevant parts of the complainant’s request.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: EIR 5.1 - Complaint Upheld, EIR 5.2 - Complaint Upheld, EIR 12.3 - Complaint Upheld, EIR 12.4.b - Complaint Upheld
View PDF of Decision Notice FER0413107
Case Ref: FS50406815
Date: 21/03/2012
Public Authority: Crown Prosecution Service
Summary: The complainant had requested information relating to his conviction for murder, held by the Crown Prosecution Service (“CPS”) .The CPS relied on, sections 30 (1)(c) (information held for the purposes of a criminal investigation) and 40 (1) (complainant’s personal data). The Commissioner’s decision is that the Crown Prosecution Service correctly relied on sections 30 (1)(c) and 40 (1) to withhold the requested information. The Commissioner also decided that the CPS were correct not to respond to two requests. This decision notice is currently under appeal to the Information Tribunal.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 30 - Complaint Not upheld, FOI 40 - Complaint Not upheld
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50406815
Case Ref: FS50414353
Date: 21/03/2012
Public Authority: Intellectual Property Office
Summary: The complainant has requested the UK Government’s submissions to the Court of Justice of the European Union (“CJEU”) in Case C-34/10 Brüstle v Greenpeace eV (the “Brüstle case”). This case dealt with the patenting of procedures relating to human embryonic stem cell research. The Intellectual Property Office (“IPO”) refused to provide this citing the FOIA exemptions for court records, for likely prejudice to international relations and for the formulation and development of government policy as its basis for doing so. It subsequently disclosed the information to the complainant after the CJEU issued its judgment in the Brüstle case. The Commissioner’s decision is that in failing to provide the requested information within 20 working days, the IPO contravened the requirements of section 10(1) of the FOIA.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 1 - Complaint Upheld, FOI 10 - Complaint Upheld
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50414353
Case Ref: FS50426474
Date: 21/03/2012
Public Authority: Alder Hey Childrens NHS Foundation Trust
Summary: The complainant has requested a copy of the Alder Hey Centre report. Alder Hey Children’s Centre NHS Foundation Trust (the Trust) refused to provide a copy of the report under section 31 and section 36 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA). The Commissioner’s decision is that the Trust has correctly applied sections 36(2)(b)(i) and (ii) to withhold the requested information. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 36 - Complaint Not upheld
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50426474
Case Ref: FS50397683
Date: 20/03/2012
Public Authority: Kings College Cambridge
Summary: The complainant made a number of requests to King’s College Cambridge (the “College”). The College withheld some information under the prejudice to effective conduct of public affairs exemption (sections 36(2)(b)(i) and (ii)), and the legal professional privilege exemption (section 42(1)). In relation to some of the requests it also stated that no further information was held. During the investigation it confirmed that further information was held, some of which it was now prepared to disclose. In relation to the outstanding information it confirmed that it was also withholding it under the third party personal information exemption (section 40(2)). The Commissioner’s decision is that the College has correctly relied upon sections 40(2) and 42(1) to withhold some information. He is also satisfied that it does not hold any relevant information in relation to one part of the requests. However, he has also decided that some of the information is not exempt under these exemptions. Finally, the Commissioner is also not satisfied that further relevant information is not held in relation to one of the requests.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 40 - Complaint Partly Upheld, FOI 42 - Complaint Partly Upheld
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50397683
Case Ref: FS50401991
Date: 20/03/2012
Public Authority: Cabinet Office
Summary: The complainant requested information relating to discussions between the then UK Prime Minister Tony Blair and the then US President George Bush – papers referred to by Sir John Chilcot of the Chilcot Inquiry. The Cabinet Office withheld the information citing international relations (section 27), formulation of government policy (section 35) and prejudice to the effective conduct of public affairs (section 36). The Information Commissioner’s decision is that the Cabinet Office correctly applied section 27 in relation to the majority of the information. However, he finds that the exemption cited in relation to one document is not engaged.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 27 - Complaint Partly Upheld
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50401991
Case Ref: FS50403760
Date: 20/03/2012
Public Authority: Cabinet Office
Summary: The complainant requested information relating to discussions between the then UK Prime Minister Tony Blair and the then US President George Bush – papers referred to by Sir John Chilcot of the Chilcot Inquiry. The Cabinet Office withheld the information citing international relations (section 27), formulation of government policy (section 35) and prejudice to the effective conduct of public affairs (section 36). The Information Commissioner’s decision is that the Cabinet Office correctly applied section 27 in relation to the majority of the information. However, he finds that the exemption cited in relation to one document is not engaged.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 27 - Complaint Partly Upheld
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50403760
Case Ref: FS50416111
Date: 20/03/2012
Public Authority: Cabinet Office
Summary: The complainant requested information relating to discussions between the then UK Prime Minister Tony Blair and the then US President George Bush – papers referred to by Sir John Chilcot of the Chilcot Inquiry. The Cabinet Office withheld the information citing international relations (section 27), formulation of government policy (section 35) and prejudice to the effective conduct of public affairs (section 36). The Information Commissioner’s decision is that the Cabinet Office correctly applied section 27 in relation to the majority of the information. However, he finds that the exemption cited in relation to one document is not engaged.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 27 - Complaint Partly Upheld
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50416111
Case Ref: FS50419763
Date: 20/03/2012
Public Authority: London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority
Summary: The complainant requested a range of information relating to AssetCo London Ltd’s management of London Fire Brigade’s fleet of vehicles. London Fire Brigade is run by the London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority (LFEPA), who are the relevant public authority for the purposes of Schedule One of the FOIA (Schedule One, paragraph 20). LFEPA provided some of the requested information but refused to provide the specific values of payment ‘abatements’ applied in instances where AssetCo London Ltd failed to repair or replace vehicles within the contractual time limits. LFEPA argued that disclosing this information would prejudice the commercial interests of both parties. 0The relevant exemption to disclosure is provided by section 43(2) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that LFEPA failed to respond to the request within the statutory time limit and that it incorrectly applied section 43(2) to withhold the value of payment abatements. The Commissioner requires LFEPA to disclose the withheld information.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 43 - Complaint Upheld
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50419763
Case Ref: FS50421900
Date: 20/03/2012
Public Authority: Coventry City Council
Summary: The complainant requested Coventry City Council (the council) to provide him with several court orders. The council refused the requested information under section 32 (court records) and section 40 (personal data). The Commissioner’s decision is that the council correctly applied the exemption for court records to the complainant’s request. He requires no steps to be taken. However, the council has breached the requirements of section 1(1) in relation to one part of the request where the information was ‘not held’ at the time of the request. The council has also breached section 10(1) of FOIA because it failed to tell the complainant about this within 20 working days of his request.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 1 - Complaint Partly Upheld, FOI 10 - Complaint Upheld
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50421900
Case Ref: FS50427885
Date: 20/03/2012
Public Authority: Local Government Ombudsman
Summary: The complainant has requested a copy of the legal advice provided to the Local Government Ombudsman (the “Ombudsman”) by Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council (the “Council”) during the course of an investigation of a complaint made about the Council. The Commissioner’s decision is that the requested information is subject to the exception provided by regulation 12(5)(b) (course of justice) of the EIR. He does not therefore require the Ombudsman to take any steps as a result of this notice. This decision notice is currently under appeal to the Information Tribunal.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: EIR 12.5.b - Complaint Not upheld
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50427885
Case Ref: FER0400055
Date: 19/03/2012
Public Authority: New Forest District Council
Summary: The complainant requested correspondence held by the authority which was produced or received by a councillor relating to a licensing application for holding public events in a converted barn in part of the New Forest. The council disclosed some information which it said it did hold. However it also claimed that it did not hold information in relation to the councillor’s correspondence when she was not acting on behalf of the authority. The Commissioner’s decision is that the New Forest District Council was correct to state that it did not hold further relevant information in this instance. However it breached Regulation 14(3) when responding to the complainant as the information is environmental information and the council should therefore have responded under the EIR and applied Regulation 12(4)(a) (information not held). The Commissioner therefore does not require the council to take any steps.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: EIR 12.4.a - Complaint Not upheld, EIR 14.3 - Complaint Upheld
View PDF of Decision Notice FER0400055
Case Ref: FS50391208
Date: 19/03/2012
Public Authority: Office of Fair Trading
Summary: The complainant has requested information from the Office of Fair Trading (the “OFT”) relating to its investigation of Ryanair’s acquisition of Aer Lingus shares, and the involvement of the OFT Chief Executive, Aer Lingus and the government of the Republic of Ireland. The OFT refused to provide some of the requested information and refused to confirm or deny whether some of the requested information was held, citing the international relations exemption (section 27); the law enforcement exemption (section 31); the third party personal information exemption (section 40(2)); the legal professional privilege exemption (section 42); and the statutory prohibition on disclosure exemption (section 44). In addition to this, during the course of the investigation the OFT also relied upon the exemption for information that is accessible by other means (section 21). The Commissioner’s decision is that: Request (1) – The OFT correctly relied upon sections 27(1)(b), 42(1) and 21 to withhold this information; Request (2) – The OFT correctly relied upon section 40(2) to withhold this information; Request (4) – The OFT correctly relied upon section 42(1) to withhold this information; Requests (5) to (12) – The OFT correctly relied upon section 44(2) to refuse to confirm or deny whether any relevant information was held.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 21 - Complaint Not upheld, FOI 27 - Complaint Not upheld, FOI 40 - Complaint Not upheld, FOI 42 - Complaint Not upheld, FOI 44 - Complaint Not upheld
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50391208
Case Ref: FS50402281
Date: 19/03/2012
Public Authority: Dyfed Powys Police
Summary: The complainant requested the current rank and role of a named individual including possible roles as a support officer or probationer. Dyfed Powys Police (DPP) refused to confirm or deny if it held this information and cited the exemption provided by section 40(5) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (‘the Act’). The Commissioner’s decision is that DPP applied section 40(5) correctly and is not therefore required to confirm or deny whether it holds the requested information.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 40 - Complaint Not upheld
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50402281
Case Ref: FS50421888
Date: 19/03/2012
Public Authority: Nursing and Midwifery Council
Summary: The complainant requested information from the Nursing and Midwifery Council (the NMC) in relation to an investigation into the fitness to practice of a named midwife. The Commissioner’s decision is that the NMC breached section 17 of the FOIA by not informing the complainant within the statutory time for compliance of its reliance on section 40(5) of the FOIA, to neither confirm nor deny whether information was held. However, he does not require the NMC to take any further action.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 17 - Complaint Upheld
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50421888
Case Ref: FS50427590
Date: 19/03/2012
Public Authority: Thames Valley Police
Summary: The complainant requested a copy of correspondence about a specific issue between Thames Valley Police and a supplier of a computer forensics tool. Thames Valley Police initially refused to confirm or deny holding any information within the scope of the request. During the course of the Information Commissioner’s investigation, Thames Valley Police disclosed some information to the complainant. The complainant alleged that further information was held. However, the Information Commissioner is satisfied that, on the balance of probabilities, no further relevant information is held. The Information Commissioner requires no steps to be taken.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 1 - Complaint Not upheld
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50427590
Case Ref: FS50427778
Date: 19/03/2012
Public Authority: Acklam Grange School
Summary: The complainant has requested information relating to the design, construction and use of on-site parking facilities from the period from 1 September 2008 to date. The School refused to provide the requested information under regulation 12(4)(b) and 12(4)(e) of the Environmental Information Regulations 2004 (EIR). The Commissioner’s decision is that Acklam Grange School (the School) has correctly applied regulation 12(4)(b) EIR. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: EIR 12.4.b - Complaint Not upheld
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50427778
Case Ref: FS50434072
Date: 19/03/2012
Public Authority: Snowdonia National Park Authority
Summary: The complainant requested a copy of a Section 106 Agreement for a particular property. Snowdonia National Park Authority (‘the Authority’) provided the information in Welsh. The complainant asked for the document to be translated into English. The Authority stated it did not hold the requested information in English and it was not required under the FOIA to translate information into alternative languages. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Authority should have handled the request under the EIR as opposed to the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Authority complied with regulation 5 of the EIR as it provided the recorded information held relevant to the request. The Commissioner is also satisfied that the Authority was under no obligation to translate the document into English, and as such regulation 6(1) of the EIR does not apply. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: EIR 5 - Complaint Not upheld
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50434072
Case Ref: FS50434947
Date: 19/03/2012
Public Authority: Newport City Council
Summary: The complainant requested information regarding the cost of employing barristers’ chambers or solicitors at employment tribunals for all staff over a period of nine years. Newport City Council (‘the Council’) failed to respond to the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council failed to respond to the request and therefore breached its obligations under section 10 of the FOIA. The Commissioner requires the public authority to provide a substantive response to the complainant either disclosing the information or issuing a valid refusal compliant with section 17 of the FOIA.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 1 - Complaint Upheld, FOI 10 - Complaint Upheld
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50434947
Case Ref: FS50417990
Date: 15/03/2012
Public Authority: Department of Finance and Personnel NI
Summary: The complainant requested information relating to the number of employment tribunal claims brought against Northern Ireland civil service departments from 2000 onwards, defended as well as undefended. The Information Commissioner’s decision is that the Department of Finance and Personnel for Northern Ireland (DFPNI) was incorrect to claim a reliance on section 14 of FOIA. The Information Commissioner therefore requires DFPNI to either disclose the information or issue a valid refusal notice citing a valid exemption in accordance with FOIA.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 14 - Complaint Upheld
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50417990
Case Ref: FS50419647
Date: 15/03/2012
Public Authority: Department for Transport
Summary: The complainant has requested information about risk assessments conducted by the DFT that demonstrate the need for compulsory body scanners at UK airports. The Commissioner’s decision is that the DFT was correct to withhold the information on the basis of section 24(1) and to neither confirm nor deny that the risk assessment showed the UK to be at a greater or lesser risk of terrorist attack than the rest of the EU by virtue of section 24(2). The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 24 - Complaint Not upheld
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50419647
Case Ref: FS50398098
Date: 14/03/2012
Public Authority: Export Credits Guarantee Department
Summary: The complainant requested information about projects supported by the Export Credits Guarantee Department (ECGD) but not disclosed in its Annual Review and Resource Accounts for the financial years 2007/08, 2008/09 and 2009/10. The ECGD disclosed some information but withheld the remainder citing international relations (section 27) and commercial interests (section 43) of the FOIA. The Information Commissioner’s decision is that the ECGD correctly applied section 27 to all of the withheld information. He requires no steps to be taken.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 27 - Complaint Not upheld
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50398098
Case Ref: FS50413452
Date: 14/03/2012
Public Authority: Lancashire Constabulary
Summary: The complainant made a request for information about the Constabulary’s response to a spate of thefts of cabling in his local area. He was particularly interested in the investigations it conducted and the extent to which it had publicised the thefts. The Constabulary addressed the complainant’s general concerns in its response, but failed to respond to his specific request for information. After the Information Commissioner’s intervention the Constabulary disclosed the information it held which was relevant to the request. The Information Commissioner’s decision is that Lancashire Constabulary holds information which it failed to confirm it holds and failed to disclose to the complainant by the completion of the internal review or the time for statutory compliance. This is a breach of sections 1(1)(a), 1(1)(b) and 10(1) of FOIA. Since this information was supplied during the investigation the Information Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. This decision notice is currently under appeal to the Information Tribunal.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 1 - Complaint Upheld, FOI 10 - Complaint Upheld
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50413452
Case Ref: FS50413459
Date: 14/03/2012
Public Authority: Devon and Cornwall Constabulary
Summary: The complainant submitted a request to Devon and Cornwall Police (the Police) asking for the number of times a day a safety camera at a particular location in Cornwall had been activated. The Police refused to provide this information on the basis that it was exempt from disclosure under the law enforcement exemption (section 31) and the health and safety exemption (section 38) of the Freedom of Information Act. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Police are entitled to withhold this information.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 31 - Complaint Not upheld
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50413459
Case Ref: FS50416428
Date: 14/03/2012
Public Authority: Liverpool Womens NHS Foundation Trust
Summary: The complainant has requested any legal advice received by the Trust from Timothy Pitt-Payne QC on the issue of ‘gagging orders’. The Trust identified information within the scope of the request but withheld this on the basis that information was legally professionally privileged and therefore exempt under section 42 of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision, after considering the public interest test, is that the Trust has correctly applied this exemption and the public interest favours withholding the requested information. This decision notice is currently under appeal to the Information Tribunal.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 42 - Complaint Not upheld
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50416428
Case Ref: FS50421361
Date: 14/03/2012
Public Authority: Metropolitan Police Service
Summary: The complainant has requested information about a crime of which he was allegedly the victim. The public authority refused to confirm or deny holding any information by virtue of section 40(5)(b). Following internal review it also added the exemption at section 30(3). The Information Commissioner considers that any information, if held, would be the complainant’s ‘personal data’ as it would all relate to an alleged crime against him. If held, it would therefore be absolutely exempt under the Act by virtue of the exemption at section 40(1). The exemption provided by section 40(5)(b)(i) means that the public authority is not required to confirm or deny whether it holds any information under the Act. As the Information Commissioner finds that this has been correctly cited he has not considered 30(3). The Information Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 40 - Complaint Not upheld
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50421361
Case Ref: FS50424496
Date: 14/03/2012
Public Authority: Avon and Somerset Constabulary
Summary: The complainant has requested information which relates to a series of complaints which he made about the public authority. The Information Commissioner has previously concluded that his latest requests are ‘vexatious’. The public authority did not respond to this request. It later confirmed to the Information Commissioner that this was on the basis that the request was a further ‘vexatious’ one and that it did not therefore need to provide a response. The Information Commissioner’s decision is that the public authority was correct. He does not require the public authority to take any steps. This decision notice is currently under appeal to the Information Tribunal.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 14 - Complaint Not upheld
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50424496
Case Ref: FS50426423
Date: 14/03/2012
Public Authority: Wolverhampton City Council
Summary: The complainant requested information in respect of Wolverhampton City Council’s (WCC) expenditure on Adopted Child Support Allowance, grants to adoptive parents and reimbursement of costs for prospective adoptive parents for the financial year from 2010-2011. The Commissioner’s decision is that WCC did not deal with the request in accordance with the Freedom of Information Act, 2000 (‘the Act’). The Commissioner requires the public authority to comply with section 1(1) of the Act by either: confirming whether the requested information is held, and if so, disclosing it to the applicant, or issuing a valid refusal notice in accordance with section 17.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 1 - Complaint Upheld
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50426423
Case Ref: FS50432444
Date: 14/03/2012
Public Authority: Bank of England
Summary: The complainant has requested confirmation of any conditions or controls attached to the Bank of England (BoE)’s purchasing of assets, with particular reference made to the Royal Bank of Scotland (RBS) and other financial institutions. The Commissioner’s decision is that the requested information, to the extent that it is held, relates to the ‘monetary policy’ of the BoE and does not fall under FOIA. He does not therefore require the BoE to take any further steps as a result of this notice.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 1 - Complaint Not upheld
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50432444
Case Ref: FER0389930
Date: 13/03/2012
Public Authority: Wigan Metropolitan Borough Council
Summary: The complainant requested access to view information on site regarding an agreement for a named property and subsequently requested a copy of the information he had viewed. The Information Commissioner’s decision is that Wigan Metropolitan Borough Council (WMBC) breached regulation 8(3) of the Environmental Information Regulations 2004 (EIR) by imposing an unreasonable charge for the provision of environmental information. The Information Commissioner also found that WMBC breached regulations 11(3) and 11(4) by failing to consider the representations put forward by the complainant within the statutory timescale laid down by the EIR. The Information Commissioner does not require WMBC to take any remedial steps.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: EIR 8.3 - Complaint Upheld, EIR 11.3 - Complaint Upheld, EIR 11.4 - Complaint Upheld
View PDF of Decision Notice FER0389930
Case Ref: FER0412097
Date: 13/03/2012
Public Authority: Barnet London Borough Council
Summary: The complainant requested copies of all written correspondence and/or related information between the London Borough of Barnet and the North London Waste Authority relating to the existing Hendon Waste Transfer Station and its future land use, or any proposed or potential land sale, and any cross reference to any correspondence between the BXC [Brent Cross Cricklewood] Partners or LB Barnet. The Commissioner’s decision is that the London Borough of Barnet (the council) has breached regulation 11(3) of the EIR as it failed to respond to the complainant’s request for an internal review within 40 working days. The Commissioner is satisfied that the council has complied with regulation 12(4)(a) as it has provided the complainant with all of the information it holds that is relevant to the request. In addition to this, the complainant submitted a further expanded request to the council which it has not yet responded to, which is in breach of regulation 5(2). The Commissioner requires the public authority to respond to the request submitted on 6 April 2011.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: EIR 5.2 - Complaint Upheld, EIR 11.3 - Complaint Upheld, EIR 12.4.a - Complaint Not upheld
View PDF of Decision Notice FER0412097
Case Ref: FS50369095
Date: 13/03/2012
Public Authority: Craigavon Borough Council
Summary: The complainant requested a copy of all information and documentation relating to the “Heaton Report,” a report about human resources and management issues across Craigavon Borough Council’s (“the Council’s”) leisure sites. The Council initially refused to disclose this under section 40 of FOIA (personal data of third parties), however it eventually, following the Commissioner’s intervention, disclosed a copy of the Heaton Report itself to the complainant. It stated to the Commissioner that it did not hold any further information relevant to the complainant’s request, however upon further searching it located one further relevant document (“the withheld information”), which it withheld under section 40(2) and section 36(2)(c) (disclosure would otherwise prejudice the effective conduct of public affairs) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that Craigavon Borough Council has correctly applied the section 36(2)(c) exemption to the withheld information. He has not considered the application of section 40(2) as he is of the view that section 36(2)(c) covers the entirety of the withheld information. He is also satisfied that the Council holds no further information relevant to the complainant’s request, other than that which has already been disclosed to the complainant.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 36 - Complaint Not upheld
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50369095
Case Ref: FS50371302
Date: 13/03/2012
Public Authority: Ministry of Justice
Summary: The complainant requested a copy of the ‘Use of Force’ training manual along with related information concerning where the techniques were permitted to be used and by whom. The Information Commissioner considers that the related information is detailed within the manual. The Information Commissioner’s decision is that the Ministry of Justice (MOJ) has withheld some of the requested information incorrectly. The Information Commissioner requires the public authority to disclose the withheld information.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 31 - Complaint Partly Upheld
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50371302
Case Ref: FS50378706
Date: 13/03/2012
Public Authority: Home Office
Summary: The complainant has requested: “minutes of the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) Road Policing Enforcement Technology Committee meetings held from the beginning of 2006 to the present date”. The request was made on 21 May 2010. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Home Office (HO) has partly complied with FOIA in withholding some of the requested information relying on sections 41(1), 42(1), 43(2) and 40(2) of the Act, but has incorrectly relied upon sections 31(1)(a), 40(2), 41(1) and 43(2) of the Act to withhold some of the requested information which the HO should have disclosed. The Commissioner requires the HO to disclose the information specified in the confidential schedule annexed to this notice, to ensure compliance with the legislation.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 10 - Complaint Upheld, FOI 31 - Complaint Upheld, FOI 40 - Complaint Partly Upheld, FOI 41 - Complaint Partly Upheld, FOI 42 - Complaint Partly Upheld, FOI 43 - Complaint Partly Upheld
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50378706
Case Ref: FS50406166
Date: 13/03/2012
Public Authority: Sheffield Homes
Summary: The complainant requested information about the policy and/or procedure used by Sheffield Homes for dealing with requests for compensation due to a failure to attend a tenant’s property for a pre-arranged appointment. The Commissioner’s decision is that Sheffield Homes has supplied the complainant with all of the requested information. The information was not supplied within 20 working days and therefore Sheffield Homes has breached section 10. The Commissioner does not require Sheffield Homes to take any further action.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 10 - Complaint Upheld
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50406166
Case Ref: FS50415265
Date: 13/03/2012
Public Authority: Department for Employment and Learning
Summary: The complainant has requested a number of pieces of information relating to the Office of Industrial Tribunals and the Fair Employment Tribunal (OITFET). The Department for Employment & Learning Northern Ireland (DEL) refused to comply with the requests relying upon section 14 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA). The Commissioner’s decision is that DEL has correctly applied section 14(1) FOIA. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 14 - Complaint Not upheld
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50415265
Case Ref: FS50419564
Date: 13/03/2012
Public Authority: Home Office
Summary: The complainant requested information concerning guidance on the acceptable use of force and constraint given by UK Border Agency to contractors escorting deportations. The Home Office disclosed a redacted copy of a manual setting out what force could be used, and cited the exemptions provided by the following sections of the FOIA in relation to the redactions: 31(1)(f) (maintenance of security and good order in prisons), 38(1)(a) (endangerment to health) and 38(1)(b) (endangerment to safety). The Information Commissioner’s decision is that the Home Office has withheld some of the information requested incorrectly. It also breached section 16(1) of the FOIA in that it did not advise the complainant of where information falling within the scope of her request was publicly available.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 16 - Complaint Upheld, FOI 31 - Complaint Partly Upheld
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50419564
Case Ref: FS50420249
Date: 13/03/2012
Public Authority: London Development Agency
Summary: The complainant requested information relating to the amounts deducted from compensation paid to residents of Clays Lane estate in Stratford East London following the enforcement of a Compulsory Purchase Order. The complainant also requested minutes of meetings held with one of the resident groups. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on a balance of probabilities, the public authority did not hold information relevant to items i and ii of the request. The public authority however held information within the scope of item iii of the request which has since been disclosed to the complainant. The Commissioner subsequently finds that, on a balance of probabilities, the public authority does not hold additional information within the scope of item iii. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps to ensure compliance with the legislation.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 1 - Complaint Not upheld
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50420249
Case Ref: FS50420869
Date: 13/03/2012
Public Authority: Independent Police Complaints Commission
Summary: The complainant requested information from the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) relating to complaints he had made and with respect to his ability to communicate with the IPCC. The IPCC refused either to confirm or deny holding information within the scope of the request citing personal information. The Information Commissioner’s decision is that the IPCC was correct to neither confirm nor deny holding information within the scope of the request. He requires no steps to be taken.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 40 - Complaint Not upheld
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50420869
Case Ref: FS50421454
Date: 13/03/2012
Public Authority: Home Office
Summary: The complainant has requested information held by the Home Office (HO) following his arrest by the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) and his application for the destruction of the DNA samples that were taken from him by MPS at the time of his arrest, along with the total destruction of all relevant records of the DNA samples, and connected proceedings. The Information Commissioner’s decision is that HO has not complied with section 1(1) FOIA in that it wrongly relied on section 14(1) FOIA when responding to the complainant’s information request. HO had also breached section 17(5) FOIA by not providing the complainant with a refusal notice within the time set out in section 10(1) of that Act. The Information Commissioner requires HO to either disclose the information requested or issue a refusal notice complying with section 17(1) FOIA.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 1 - Complaint Upheld, FOI 10 - Complaint Upheld, FOI 14 - Complaint Upheld, FOI 17 - Complaint Upheld
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50421454
Case Ref: FS50425431
Date: 13/03/2012
Public Authority: Northumbria Police
Summary: The complainant requested information about CCTV cameras at Whitley Bay. The public authority initially advised the complainant that his request was vexatious. During the course of the Information Commissioner’s investigation the public authority undertook an internal review and went on to disclose all of the requested information which it held. As the information has now been provided the Information Commissioner has not considered whether or not the exemption cited was properly engaged. He has decided that the public authority’s handling of the request resulted in procedural breaches of the Act, as explained in this Notice. The Information Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 1 - Complaint Upheld, FOI 10 - Complaint Upheld
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50425431
Case Ref: FER0377581
Date: 12/03/2012
Public Authority: Health and Safety Executive
Summary: The complainant has requested information about the proposed expansion of Lydd Airport. The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) disclosed some of the requested information to the complainant. However it made one redaction and withheld 3 full pages of one of the requested documents under regulation 12(5)(a) of the Environmental Information Regulations 2004 (EIR). It made two further redactions to the same document under regulation 13 EIR. The Commissioner’s decision is that the HSE has correctly applied regulation 12(5)(a) and regulation 13 EIR. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: EIR 12.5.a - Complaint Not upheld, EIR 13 - Complaint Not upheld
View PDF of Decision Notice FER0377581
Case Ref: FER0399076
Date: 12/03/2012
Public Authority: Westminster City Council
Summary: The complainant has requested information concerning the review of the licence of a nightclub which had been the subject of noise pollution complaints. Westminster City Council (the Council) refused to disclose this information and cited the exception from the EIR provided by regulation 12(5)(b) (adverse effect on the course of justice). Apart from in relation to communications between the Council and the complainant, the Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has applied this exception correctly and so it is not required to disclose the information. In relation to correspondence between the Council and the complainant, the decision of the Commissioner is that the exception is not engaged. The Council also breached the requirements of the EIR in that it did not respond to the request within 20 working days of receipt and it should ensure that it has appropriate procedures in place to respond to requests promptly. The Commissioner requires the public authority to disclose to the complainant the information in relation to which the Commissioner has found that regulation 12(5)(b) is not engaged, that is all information within the scope of the request that records communications between the Council and the complainant.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: EIR 12.5.b - Complaint Partly Upheld, EIR 11.4 - Complaint Upheld, EIR 14.2 - Complaint Upheld
View PDF of Decision Notice FER0399076
Case Ref: FER0406438
Date: 12/03/2012
Public Authority: Northern Ireland Water
Summary: The complainant has requested information relating to NI Water’s sewer upgrade project within the Stranmillis Road/Richmond Park area of Belfast. The Commissioner’s decision is that Northern Ireland Water (NI Water) has correctly applied the exception under regulation 12(5)(b) of the EIR (adverse effect on the course of justice) and requires no steps to be taken. This decision notice is currently under appeal to the Information Tribunal.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: EIR 12.5.b - Complaint Not upheld
View PDF of Decision Notice FER0406438
Case Ref: FS50371156
Date: 12/03/2012
Public Authority: Nottingham City Council
Summary: The complainant requested documents relating to the council’s communication strategy between 2006 and 2007. The Commissioner’s decision is that Nottingham City Council (the council) has failed to satisfy him, based on a balance of probabilities, that it has disclosed all recorded information within the scope of the complainant’s request. He also finds that the council has breached section 10(1) of the Act. The Commissioner requires Nottingham City Council to carry out further searches and enquiries of the type it did in relation to the complainant’s initial request (as listed in its letter dated 25 October 2010) in respect of the complainant’s new and extended request and then disclose any recorded information found or issue a refusal notice; and to carry out further enquiries including asking those individuals in respect of whose email accounts the council does not have access to carry out searches of their gmail accounts to ascertain whether they hold any recorded information falling within the scope of the complainant’s request and if so, to disclose any such information to the complainant or issue a valid refusal notice.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 1 - Complaint Upheld, FOI 3 - Complaint Upheld, FOI 10 - Complaint Upheld
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50371156
Case Ref: FS50371164
Date: 12/03/2012
Public Authority: Nottingham City Council
Summary: The complainant has requested correspondence between named individuals in relation to an earlier information request. The Commissioner’s decision is that Nottingham City Council (the council) has failed to satisfy him, based on a balance of probabilities, that it has disclosed all recorded information held within the scope of the complainant’s request. He also finds that the council breached sections 1(1) and 10(1) of the Act. The Commissioner requires Nottingham City Council to retrieve the email dated 25 October 2010 from its archive and disclose a copy to the complainant or issue a refusal notice; to carry out further enquiries including asking those relevant individuals to whose email accounts the council does not have access to carry out searches of their gmail accounts to ascertain whether they hold any recorded information falling within the scope of the complainant’s request and if so, to disclose that information to the complainant or issue a valid refusal notice; and to disclose to the complainant a copy of the email dated 20 October 2010 or issue a valid refusal notice.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 1 - Complaint Upheld, FOI 3 - Complaint Upheld, FOI 10 - Complaint Upheld
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50371164
Case Ref: FS50408845
Date: 12/03/2012
Public Authority: Upshire Primary Foundation School
Summary: Between 31 January and 10 August 2011 the complainant submitted 16 requests for information to the school. The school dealt with some of the requests. It later stated that subsequent requests were vexatious but did not specify which section of the legislation it was applying. The Information Commissioner considers that the FOIA applies to most of the requests, apart from 2 points in a request of 30 March 2011, to which the EIR applies. The school subsequently applied section 14 to the FOIA requests and regulation 12(4)(b) of the EIR to points 3 and 5 of one of the requests, appropriately. However, the school has breached section 17(5) of the FOIA and regulations 5, 11 and 14 of the EIR.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 14 - Complaint Not upheld, FOI 17 - Complaint Upheld, EIR 5 - Complaint Upheld, EIR 11 - Complaint Upheld, EIR 12.4.b - Complaint Not upheld, EIR 14 - Complaint Upheld
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50408845
Case Ref: FS50408858
Date: 12/03/2012
Public Authority: Upshire Primary Foundation School
Summary: Between 31 January and 10 August 2011 the complainant submitted 16 requests for information to the school. The school dealt with some of the requests. It later stated that subsequent requests were vexatious but did not specify which section of the legislation it was applying. The Information Commissioner considers that the FOIA applies to most of the requests, apart from 2 points in a request of 30 March 2011, to which the EIR applies. The school subsequently applied section 14 to the FOIA requests and regulation 12(4)(b) of the EIR to points 3 and 5 of one of the requests, appropriately. However, the school has breached section 17(5) of the FOIA and regulations 5, 11 and 14 of the EIR.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 14 - Complaint Not upheld, FOI 17 - Complaint Upheld, EIR 5 - Complaint Upheld, EIR 11 - Complaint Upheld, EIR 12.4.b - Complaint Not upheld, EIR 14 - Complaint Upheld
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50408858
Case Ref: FS50408927
Date: 12/03/2012
Public Authority: Upshire Primary Foundation School
Summary: Between 31 January and 10 August 2011 the complainant submitted 16 requests for information to the school. The school dealt with some of the requests. It later stated that subsequent requests were vexatious but did not specify which section of the legislation it was applying. The Information Commissioner considers that the FOIA applies to most of the requests, apart from 2 points in a request of 30 March 2011, to which the EIR applies. The school subsequently applied section 14 to the FOIA requests and regulation 12(4)(b) of the EIR to points 3 and 5 of one of the requests, appropriately. However, the school has breached section 17(5) of the FOIA and regulations 5, 11 and 14 of the EIR.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 14 - Complaint Not upheld, FOI 17 - Complaint Upheld, EIR 5 - Complaint Upheld, EIR 11 - Complaint Upheld, EIR 12.4.b - Complaint Not upheld, EIR 14 - Complaint Upheld
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50408927
Case Ref: FS50429552
Date: 12/03/2012
Public Authority: Sheffield Homes
Summary: The complainant has asked Sheffield Homes for information and clarification about a Tenant Participation Agreement and related consultation meetings. The Commissioner’s decision is that Sheffield Homes did not deal with the request for information in accordance with the FOIA as it failed to provide a response to the request within the statutory time frame of 20 working days. As a response has now been provided, the Commissioner requires no steps to be taken.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 10 - Complaint Upheld
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50429552
Case Ref: FS50430369
Date: 12/03/2012
Public Authority: Her Majestys Revenue and Customs
Summary: The complainant has requested information from HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) about a named company concerning dividends, remuneration and benefits received by its directors. HMRC stated that the information, if held, would be exempt under section 44(1)(a) of the FOIA and explained that the duty to confirm or deny whether the information is held does not arise under section 44(2). The Commissioner’s decision is that HMRC was correct to refuse to confirm or deny that it holds the requested information under section 44(2) of the FOIA. This decision notice is currently under appeal to the Information Tribunal.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 44 - Complaint Not upheld
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50430369
Case Ref: FS50435672
Date: 12/03/2012
Public Authority: Upshire Primary Foundation School
Summary: Between 31 January and 10 August 2011 the complainant submitted 16 requests for information to the school. The school dealt with some of the requests. It later stated that subsequent requests were vexatious but did not specify which section of the legislation it was applying. The Information Commissioner considers that the FOIA applies to most of the requests, apart from 2 points in a request of 30 March 2011, to which the EIR applies. The school subsequently applied section 14 to the FOIA requests and regulation 12(4)(b) of the EIR to points 3 and 5 of one of the requests, appropriately. However, the school has breached section 17(5) of the FOIA and regulations 5, 11 and 14 of the EIR.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 14 - Complaint Not upheld, FOI 17 - Complaint Upheld, EIR 5 - Complaint Upheld, EIR 11 - Complaint Upheld, EIR 12.4.b - Complaint Not upheld, EIR 14 - Complaint Upheld
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50435672
Case Ref: FS50435674
Date: 12/03/2012
Public Authority: Upshire Primary Foundation School
Summary: Between 31 January and 10 August 2011 the complainant submitted 16 requests for information to the school. The school dealt with some of the requests. It later stated that subsequent requests were vexatious but did not specify which section of the legislation it was applying. The Information Commissioner considers that the FOIA applies to most of the requests, apart from 2 points in a request of 30 March 2011, to which the EIR applies. The school subsequently applied section 14 to the FOIA requests and regulation 12(4)(b) of the EIR to points 3 and 5 of one of the requests, appropriately. However, the school has breached section 17(5) of the FOIA and regulations 5, 11 and 14 of the EIR.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 14 - Complaint Not upheld, FOI 17 - Complaint Upheld, EIR 5 - Complaint Upheld, EIR 11 - Complaint Upheld, EIR 12.4.b - Complaint Not upheld, EIR 14 - Complaint Upheld
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50435674
Case Ref: FS50435687
Date: 12/03/2012
Public Authority: Upshire Primary Foundation School
Summary: Between 31 January and 10 August 2011 the complainant submitted 16 requests for information to the school. The school dealt with some of the requests. It later stated that subsequent requests were vexatious but did not specify which section of the legislation it was applying. The Information Commissioner considers that the FOIA applies to most of the requests, apart from 2 points in a request of 30 March 2011, to which the EIR applies. The school subsequently applied section 14 to the FOIA requests and regulation 12(4)(b) of the EIR to points 3 and 5 of one of the requests, appropriately. However, the school has breached section 17(5) of the FOIA and regulations 5, 11 and 14 of the EIR.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 14 - Complaint Not upheld, FOI 17 - Complaint Upheld, EIR 5 - Complaint Upheld, EIR 11 - Complaint Upheld, EIR 12.4.b - Complaint Not upheld, EIR 14 - Complaint Upheld
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50435687
Case Ref: FS50435770
Date: 12/03/2012
Public Authority: Upshire Primary Foundation School
Summary: Between 31 January and 10 August 2011 the complainant submitted 16 requests for information to the school. The school dealt with some of the requests. It later stated that subsequent requests were vexatious but did not specify which section of the legislation it was applying. The Information Commissioner considers that the FOIA applies to most of the requests, apart from 2 points in a request of 30 March 2011, to which the EIR applies. The school subsequently applied section 14 to the FOIA requests and regulation 12(4)(b) of the EIR to points 3 and 5 of one of the requests, appropriately. However, the school has breached section 17(5) of the FOIA and regulations 5, 11 and 14 of the EIR.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 14 - Complaint Not upheld, FOI 17 - Complaint Upheld, EIR 5 - Complaint Upheld, EIR 11 - Complaint Upheld, EIR 12.4.b - Complaint Not upheld, EIR 14 - Complaint Upheld
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50435770
Case Ref: FER0422241
Date: 08/03/2012
Public Authority: Bolton Council
Summary: The complainant submitted 2 requests to Bolton Metropolitan Borough Council (the “council”) asking for a range of information relating to properties in a residential cul-de-sac in Bolton. In relation to the first request, the public authority provided some information and confirmed that further information was not held. In relation to the second request, the council refused to provide some information in the format requested because it considered that the information was already publically available and easily accessible to the complainant in another format. Other elements of the request were also refused because the council considered that disclosure of the information would result in a breach of principle 1 of the Data Protection Act 1998 (DPA). The Commissioner’s decision is that the council has provided all the relevant information it holds and correctly refused information under regulation 13 of the EIR. The Commissioner has also decided that the council correctly extended the time for responding to the requests under regulation 7(1) but that in providing some information after 40 working days it did not comply with regulation 5(1). The Commissioner does not require the council to take any steps. This decision notice is currently under appeal to the Information Tribunal.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: EIR 5.1 - Complaint Upheld, EIR 7.1 - Complaint Not upheld, EIR 13 - Complaint Not upheld
View PDF of Decision Notice FER0422241
Case Ref: FS50408621
Date: 08/03/2012
Public Authority: Enfield London Borough Council
Summary: The complainant requested information about costs and income over a three-year period for the London Borough of Enfield’s Education Lettings Service. The public authority responded and withheld some of the information under the exemption for commercial interests. The complainant made further submissions, to which the London Borough of Enfield (the ‘Council’) responded. It later applied the personal data exemption to the complainant’s subsequent request for information about a monetary sum in the information provided. With the exception of disclosing further details about the monetary sum, and the breakdown for individual schools withheld under the exemption for commercial interests, the Information Commissioner finds that the Council had provided all the requested information prior to the Information Commissioner’s involvement. It is not required to take any steps. The Information Commissioner has also decided that while the initial response was provided within the statutory 20 working days’ time limit, the Council failed to respond to part of the complainant’s later request within the required timeframe in breach of section 10(1) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the ‘FOIA’). The Council must ensure that this delay is not repeated in the future.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 10 - Complaint Upheld
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50408621
Case Ref: FS50397216
Date: 07/03/2012
Public Authority: BBC
Summary: The complainant has requested specific information about TV Licence enforcement. The BBC provided him with general information, but the complainant was not happy with the answer to three of his questions. The BBC explained that it did not hold any further relevant recorded information that could address those enquiries. During the course of his investigation, the BBC provided a further detailed explanation about the issues of concern as an attempted informal resolution to the complaint. The complainant accepted the content of the explanation, but still wanted a decision notice. The Commissioner finds that the BBC did not on the balance of probabilities hold any further relevant recorded information that answered the remaining three questions. He requires no remedial steps to be taken.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 1 - Complaint Not upheld
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50397216
Case Ref: FS50412068
Date: 07/03/2012
Public Authority: Department for Communities and Local Government
Summary: The complainant requested correspondence held by the Department for Communities and Local Government (“the DCLG”) relating to ownership of the CON29 enquiries form, and information about the formation of a working group to review the questions on the current version of the form. The DCLG responded that it did not hold any information on the latter point and refused to disclose information about the CON29 form, citing the exemption at section 42(1). During the Information Commissioner’s investigation it substituted section 41(1) for section 42(1) in respect of some of that information. The Information Commissioner’s decision is that the DCLG withheld some of the information correctly under the exemptions at section 41(1) and 42(1). However, some of the information was not covered by the exemption at section 41(1). The DCLG also breached section 17(1) of the Act by introducing an exemption during the investigation which it had not specified on a refusal notice or during the internal review. The Information Commissioner accepts that the DCLG did not hold any information in respect of the second part of the request. However, by failing to confirm to the complainant that it did not hold the information within the statutory time for compliance it breached section 10(1). The Information Commissioner requires the DCLG to disclose the information which is not covered by section 41(1) (bundles 3, 4 and 10) to the complainant.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 10 - Complaint Upheld, FOI 17 - Complaint Upheld, FOI 41 - Complaint Partly Upheld, FOI 42 - Complaint Not upheld
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50412068
Case Ref: FS50413915
Date: 07/03/2012
Public Authority: Department for Work and Pensions
Summary: The complainant made a request for information under FOIA on 1 July 2011. He received no response and referred the case to the Information Commissioner (‘the Commissioner’). After the Commissioner’s intervention, the DWP issued a full response on 19 October 2011. The complainant requested that a decision notice was issued. The Commissioner finds a breach of section 10(1) of FOIA. He requires no remedial steps to be taken in this case.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 10 - Complaint Upheld
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50413915
Case Ref: FS50422850
Date: 07/03/2012
Public Authority: East of England Strategic Health Authority
Summary: The complainant has requested information about his complaints that focussed around the defects in the appointment process of appointing an individual as Chief Executive at a Hospital Trust and alleged defects in the investigation that was undertaken by the public authority about them. The public authority did not answer the request in 20 working days and a complaint was referred to the Information Commissioner (‘the Commissioner’). After the Commissioner’s intervention, the public authority then provided a response and provided the complainant with some information that was relevant to the request. The complainant contended that there was further relevant recorded information held and the investigation focussed on this. After conducting a detailed investigation, the Commissioner has decided that on the balance of probabilities there was no further relevant recorded information held by the public authority. However, he has found procedural breaches of sections 1(1)(a), 1(1)(b) and 10(1). He considers that there are no remedial steps that can be taken to remedy these breaches and he has therefore not ordered any.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 1 - Complaint Upheld, FOI 10 - Complaint Upheld
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50422850
Case Ref: FS50409923
Date: 06/03/2012
Public Authority: Down District Council
Summary: The complainant has requested a copy of the Business Plan and associated correspondence relating to the Magnus Viking Association’s (MVA) proposal to create a Viking re-enactment centre at Delamont Park, Killyleagh, County Down. The Commissioner’s decision is that the exception as set out in regulation 12(5)(e) of the EIR applies to the requested information and requires no steps to be taken. This decision notice is currently under appeal to the Information Tribunal.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: EIR 12.5.e - Complaint Not upheld
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50409923
Case Ref: FS50427467
Date: 06/03/2012
Public Authority: Land Registry
Summary: The complainant has requested information from Land Registry about the initial and subsequent sales of flats in a specified housing development dating from 1991, together with sales completion dates. Land Registry advised the complainant that the requested information was available in hard copy or via its website on payment of a fee, but failed to reference any exemption under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA). Land Registry has confirmed it was relying on section 21 of the FOIA in that the information is reasonably accessible to the complainant. The Information Commissioner’s decision is that Land Registry was correct in considering that the requested information is reasonably accessible via the means specified to the complainant; however Land Registry breached the FOIA by failing to respond to the request under the FOIA and by not issuing a valid refusal notice. The Information Commissioner requires no steps to be taken. This decision notice is currently under appeal to the Information Tribunal.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 21 - Complaint Not upheld
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50427467
Case Ref: FER0365518
Date: 05/03/2012
Public Authority: East Staffordshire Borough Council
Summary: The complainant requested copies of all internal correspondence regarding Longcroft Farm from East Staffordshire Borough Council (ESBC). The authority provided some information relevant to the request however the complainant was concerned that ESBC had not provided all of the information. During the Commissioner’s investigation of this complaint ESBC has consistently refused to accept that it was a separate request to a previous and related request from the complainant originating in July 2009. The Commissioner therefore had no option but to rely on his powers under section 51(1)(a) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (‘the Act’) and issue an information notice instructing ESBC to provide all information up to September 2010. ESBC appealed the information notice to the First-tier Tribunal who dismissed the appeal and ordered ESBC to comply with the Commissioner’s notice. ESBC subsequently sent the Commissioner information in January and February 2012 but refused to confirm whether it was relying on any of the exceptions for all or part of the information stating that it had not been possible within the time available. It further stated that in any event, it is not apparently what is required on the face of the information notice. It also confirmed it was in the process of collating further information falling within the scope of the request which it would send to the Commissioner in due course. The Commissioner’s decision is that ESBC has not met the requirements of regulation 5 of the EIR as it failed to identify all information falling within the scope of the request and to consider the information to determine whether an exception or exceptions apply to any or all of the information. The Commissioner requires the public authority to either provide all information falling within the scope of the request to the complainant or issue a valid refusal notice in compliance with regulation 14 of the EIR.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: EIR 5 - Complaint Upheld
View PDF of Decision Notice FER0365518
Case Ref: FS50408623
Date: 05/03/2012
Public Authority: East Staffordshire Borough Council
Summary: The complainant requested the Home Office to release the names of its staff involved in an immigration decision regarding the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Home Office’s reliance on section 40(2), not to release the names, was correct. However the Commissioner, on a balance of probabilities, finds that the Home Office is unlikely to have informed the complainant of the totality of the requested information it holds. He therefore directs that the Home Office informs the complainant whether it holds additional information and, if it does, provide him (i.e. the complainant) with the additional information or issue a valid refusal notice compliant with section 17 of the Act.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 1 - Complaint Partly Upheld, FOI 40 - Complaint Not upheld
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50408623
Case Ref: FS50411493
Date: 05/03/2012
Public Authority: Equality and Human Rights Commission
Summary: The complainant asked the Equality and Human Rights Commission (‘the EHRC’) for information about the number of ‘requests for assistance’ made by Irish people and their outcome. The EHRC explained that they could not work out this information without doing work beyond the costs limit and applied section 12(1) of FOIA [‘the costs limit’]. The complainant referred a complaint to the Information Commissioner (‘the Commissioner’). The Commissioner’s decision is that the EHRC applied section 12(1) appropriately in this case. However, it failed to offer reasonable advice and assistance and so breached the requirements of section 16(1). The Commissioner has considered what would constitute reasonable advice and assistance and has concluded that there are only two possible options. He has elected to say what they are in this decision notice and therefore used his discretion not to order any remedial steps in this case.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 12 - Complaint Not upheld, FOI 16 - Complaint Upheld
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50411493
Case Ref: FS50413081
Date: 05/03/2012
Public Authority: Exeter City Council
Summary: The complainant requested a list of all the residential and business properties owned or leased by Exeter City Council (“the Council”). The Council provided the information relating to business properties and withheld the information relating to residential properties. The Information Commissioner’s (“the Commissioner”) decision is that the Council incorrectly withheld the requested information relating to residential properties. The Commissioner requires the public authority to disclose the requested withheld information to the complainant. The Council may exclude from the list of addresses any property which is used to house individuals requiring protection in a secret or confidential location and which is owned by the Council for this purpose. This decision notice is currently under appeal to the Information Tribunal.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 40 - Complaint Upheld
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50413081
Case Ref: FS50413463
Date: 05/03/2012
Public Authority: Brent Council
Summary: The complainant requested information held by Brent Council (‘the Council’) regarding the Council’s Libraries Transformation Project concerning library provision in the London Borough of Brent. The Information Commissioner’s (‘the Commissioner’) decision is that the Council appropriately refused the request on the grounds of the costs of compliance under section 12(1) of the FOIA. However the Commissioner has also decided that the Council failed to provide appropriate advice and assistance to the complainant in order for him to be able to submit a refined or revised request. It therefore breached section 16(1) of the FOIA. In addition the Council breached section 17(5) in issuing a late refusal notice. The Commissioner requires the Council to provide the complainant with advice and assistance in accordance with the section 45 Code of Practice, to enable him to submit a refined his request which may fall within the costs limit.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 12 - Complaint Not upheld, FOI 16 - Complaint Upheld, FOI 17 - Complaint Upheld
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50413463
Case Ref: FS50414427
Date: 05/03/2012
Public Authority: BBC
Summary: The complainant requested a copy of the ‘national database of addresses’ referred to on the TV licensing website. This is known as the ‘TVL database’. He also specified a preference as to format. The BBC refused to provide the information and in its refusal notice considered that sections 12(1) [the costs limits] and 40(2) [personal data] were appropriate exemptions. In its internal review, it also relied upon section 43(2) [commercial interests] and 44(1)(a) [statutory bar]. The complainant then made a complaint to the Information Commissioner (‘the Commissioner’). During the course of his investigation, the complainant confirmed that his complaint concerned only the address fields of the database. The BBC also applied section 21(1) to the information that was available from Royal Mail. After careful consideration, the Commissioner considers that section 43(2) exemption was correctly engaged to the information within the scope of the complaint. However, he has found procedural breaches of sections 10(1), 17(1)(b), 17(1)(c) and 17(3). The Commissioner requires no remedial steps to be taken in this case.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 10 - Complaint Upheld, FOI 17 - Complaint Upheld, FOI 43 - Complaint Not upheld
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50414427
Case Ref: FS50419726
Date: 05/03/2012
Public Authority: Great Yarmouth and Waveney Primary Care Trust
Summary: The complainant made three requests to the Trust. He asked for information including some practice’s policies on prescribing generic drugs, the incentives around them and other connected staffing details. The Trust answered two of the requests and applied section 14(2) [repeated request] to the third request. It also explained that it would not answer any other questions of this nature in future. The complainant was not happy with either the answers that he received, or the application of section 14(2) and referred his complaint to the Information Commissioner (‘the Commissioner’). During the investigation, the Trust applied section 14(1) [vexatious requests] to the three requests in question. Having considered both sides’ arguments, the Commissioner considers that the Trust was entitled to apply section 14(1) in this case as the requests were vexatious. However, he did find a procedural breach of section 17(5) because the Trust never issued a refusal notice to the complainant informing him it was relying on this exemption. He also finds that the refusal notice it did issue was not specific enough to comply with section 17(6) and stop it needing to issue a response in the future. He requires no remedial steps to be taken in this case because this notice explains why the requests could be objectively seen as being vexatious.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 14 - Complaint Not upheld, FOI 17 - Complaint Upheld
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50419726
Case Ref: FS50425715
Date: 05/03/2012
Public Authority: Dr Tim Worden
Summary: The complainant has requested when an individual Doctor at the ‘the Docs’ practice was absent between two dates. The practice (on its doctors’ behalf) replied that it consider that the request was vexatious and applied section 14(1) to it. The complaint was made to the Commissioner. During the course of his investigation, the practice also applied section 40(2) [third party personal data]. The Commissioner finds that section 14(1) was applied inappropriately and that a reasonable public authority could not find the request vexatious. However, he has found that section 40(2) [third party personal data] was appropriately applied in this case. He has also found procedural breaches under section 17(1) and 17(1)(b). He requires no remedial steps to be taken in this case because they are not possible to remedy through remedial steps.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 14 - Complaint Upheld, FOI 17 - Complaint Upheld, FOI 40 - Complaint Not upheld
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50425715
Case Ref: FS50428735
Date: 05/03/2012
Public Authority: Southern Education and Library Board
Summary: The complainant requested under FOIA the minutes of a meeting that occurred on 5 May 2011. This meeting concerned an individual making allegations about their treatment at a school. The Southern Education and Library Board (‘the SLB’) refused to provide the information applying section 40 [personal data]. It maintained its view at internal review. It also privately provided the complainant with his own personal data, which were extracts of the said minutes. The complainant referred the case to the Information Commissioner (‘the Commissioner’). The Commissioner finds that section 40(1) [first party personal data] was appropriately applied to the complainant’s own personal data and that section 40(2) [third party personal data] was appropriately applied to the rest of the information which was someone else’s personal data. He has found procedural breaches of sections 17(1), 17(1)(b) and 17(1)(c) but requires no remedial steps to be taken.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 17 - Complaint Upheld, FOI 40 - Complaint Not upheld
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50428735
Case Ref: FS50433371
Date: 05/03/2012
Public Authority: Dr Barbara Allan
Summary: The complainant has requested when an individual Doctor at the ‘the Docs’ practice was absent between two dates. The practice (on its doctors’ behalf) replied that it consider that the request was vexatious and applied section 14(1) to it. The complaint was made to the Commissioner. During the course of his investigation, the practice also applied section 40(2) [third party personal data]. The Commissioner finds that section 14(1) was applied inappropriately and that a reasonable public authority could not find the request vexatious. However, he has found that section 40(2) [third party personal data] was appropriately applied in this case. He has also found procedural breaches under section 17(1) and 17(1)(b). He requires no remedial steps to be taken in this case because they are not possible to remedy through remedial steps.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 14 - Complaint Upheld, FOI 17 - Complaint Upheld, FOI 40 - Complaint Not upheld
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50433371
Case Ref: FS50433373
Date: 05/03/2012
Public Authority: Dr Matthew Joslin
Summary: The complainant has requested when an individual Doctor at the ‘the Docs’ practice was absent between two dates. The practice (on its doctors’ behalf) replied that it consider that the request was vexatious and applied section 14(1) to it. The complaint was made to the Commissioner. During the course of his investigation, the practice also applied section 40(2) [third party personal data]. The Commissioner finds that section 14(1) was applied inappropriately and that a reasonable public authority could not find the request vexatious. However, he has found that section 40(2) [third party personal data] was appropriately applied in this case. He has also found procedural breaches under section 17(1) and 17(1)(b). He requires no remedial steps to be taken in this case because they are not possible to remedy through remedial steps.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 14 - Complaint Upheld, FOI 17 - Complaint Upheld, FOI 40 - Complaint Not upheld
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50433373
Case Ref: FS50422276
Date: 01/03/2012
Public Authority: Department for Education
Summary: The complainant made a request under Freedom of Information Act (“the Act”) to the Department for Education (DfE) for details of emails sent by the Secretary of State for Education Michael Gove to a named individual. In response the DfE said that it held no information falling within the scope of the request. The complainant asked the Commissioner to review the DfE’s handling of his request and provided the Commissioner with a copy of an email sent from a private email account. He alleged that details of this email would fall within the scope of the request. The Commissioner has reviewed this email and found that whilst it was sent from a private email account it was held on behalf of the DfE for the purposes of the Act. By failing to disclose details of the email the DfE breached section 1 of the Act. Although the complainant already has the requested information, this is not as a result of official disclosure by the DfE. In order to comply with the requirements of the Act, the DfE must disclose to the complainant the information falling within the scope of his request of 1 August 2011; or issue a valid refusal notice in accordance with the provisions of section 17 of the Act. This decision notice is currently under appeal to the Information Tribunal.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 1 - Complaint Upheld
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50422276
Case Ref: FS50422684
Date: 01/03/2012
Public Authority: Crown Prosecution Service
Summary: The complainant, a firm of solicitors acting on behalf of an applicant, requested a copy of what it described as a named investigator’s report (the report) from the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS). The complainant asserted that the report existed and was held by CPS in connection with criminal proceedings taken against the applicant. CPS neither confirmed nor denied holding the report. The Commissioner’s decision is that CPS has complied with FOIA in neither confirming nor denying, under section 30(3) FOIA, whether it did nor did not hold the report. The Commissioner did not require CPS to take any remedial steps to ensure compliance with the legislation.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 30 - Complaint Not upheld
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50422684
Case Ref: FER0408711
Date: 01/03/2012
Public Authority: University of East Anglia
Summary: The complainant has requested various specified emails and attachments and information in relation to these. The University of East Anglia (UEA) provided a response to the complainant in which it provided him with some of the information he had requested, but refused to provide the information requested at points 3 of the request under regulation 12(5)(a) and regulation 12(5)(f) and the information requested at point 4 of the request under regulation 13(1). The Commissioner’s decision is that UEA has correctly applied regulation 12(5)(a), and regulation 13 in this case. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken. This decision notice is currently under appeal to the Information Tribunal.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: EIR 12.5.a - Complaint Not upheld, EIR 13 - Complaint Not upheld
View PDF of Decision Notice FER0408711
Case Ref: FS50412840
Date: 01/03/2012
Public Authority: Department for Education
Summary: The complainant has requested the proposal form for the Three Valleys Independent Academy, together with copies of representations of support for this proposal, with the names and addresses of the supporters omitted. The Department for Education (the “DfE”) withheld the former under the effective conduct of public affairs exemption (section 36(2)(c)), and the latter on the grounds that the provision of this information would exceed the appropriate cost limit (section 12). The Commissioner’s decision is that the DfE has correctly relied upon section 36(2)(c) to withhold the proposal form. However, he has also decided that it cannot rely upon section 12 in order to withhold copies of representations of support for this proposal, with the names and addresses of the supporters redacted. The Commissioner requires the DfE to disclose copies of representations of support for this proposal, with the names and addresses (including email addresses) of third party individuals redacted.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 12 - Complaint Upheld, FOI 36 - Complaint Not upheld
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50412840
February
Case Ref: FER0429103
Date: 29/02/2012
Public Authority: South Ribble Borough Council
Summary: The complainant has requested South Ribble Borough Council (‘the council’) to release copies of all internal and external legal advice it received in respect of a particular planning application when the application was subject to a planning inquiry and later judicial proceedings. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council has correctly withheld the requested information under regulation 12(5)(b) of the EIR. The Commissioner requires no further steps to be taken.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: EIR 12.5.b - Complaint Not upheld
View PDF of Decision Notice FER0429103
Case Ref: FS50389377
Date: 29/02/2012
Public Authority: Tenant Services Authority
Summary: The complainant requested information from the Tenant Services Authority (‘the TSA’) relating to the TSA’s investigation of his allegations concerning an organisation and its parent company. The Information Commissioner’s (‘the Commissioner’) decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the TSA has provided the complainant with all the information it holds relevant to his requests. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken by the public authority. This decision notice is currently under appeal to the Information Tribunal.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 1 - Complaint Not upheld
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50389377
Case Ref: FS50421662
Date: 29/02/2012
Public Authority: Hampshire Constabulary
Summary: The complainant requested information relating to the retention of human tissue samples. The Information Commissioner’s decision is that Hampshire Constabulary incorrectly applied section 12 (the costs exemption). The Information Commissioner requires the public authority to reconsider the request and either comply with section 1(1) of the FOIA (by disclosing the requested information) or issue a refusal notice compliant with section 17.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 12 - Complaint Upheld
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50421662
Case Ref: FS50422017
Date: 29/02/2012
Public Authority: BBC
Summary: The complainant has requested information about the costs of a particular Panorama television programme. The BBC explained the information was covered by the derogation and excluded from the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that this information is held by the BBC genuinely for the purposes of ‘journalism, art or literature’ and does not fall under the FOIA. He therefore upholds the BBC’s position and requires no steps to be taken.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50422017
Case Ref: FS50372463
Date: 28/02/2012
Public Authority: Department for Communities and Local Government
Summary: The complainant requested information concerning the ceasing of grant funding to Planning Aid. The Commissioner’s decision is that by withholding the information under s35(1)(a) the DCLG did not deal with the request for information in accordance with the Act. He requires the DCLG to disclose the withheld information to the complainant. This decision notice is currently under appeal to the Information Tribunal.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 35 - Complaint Upheld
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50372463
Case Ref: FS50390437
Date: 28/02/2012
Public Authority: Arts and Humanities Research Council
Summary: The complainant requested information relating to a Delivery Plan and funding settlement agreed between the Arts and Humanities Research Council (the AHRC) and the Department for Business Innovation & Skills (BIS). The Commissioner’s decision is that the exemptions at sections 36(2)(b) and 36(2)(c) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the Act) were correctly engaged but in all the circumstances of the case, the public interest in maintaining the exemptions did not outweigh the public interest in disclosure in respect of most of the withheld information. The Commissioner requires the AHRC to disclose all of the withheld information excluding the information specifically marked as withheld in the confidential annex to be disclosed only to the AHRC. This decision notice is currently under appeal to the Information Tribunal.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 36 - Complaint Partly Upheld
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50390437
Case Ref: FS50407932
Date: 28/02/2012
Public Authority: Police Service of Northern Ireland
Summary: The complainant has requested the locations of fixed number plate recognition cameras operated by the Police Service of Northern Ireland (the PSNI). The PSNI refused the request under sections 24(1) and 31(1)(a), (b) and (c) of the Act. The Commissioner’s decision is that the PSNI was entitled to rely on section 31 as a basis for withholding the requested information.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 31 - Complaint Not upheld
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50407932
Case Ref: FS50419596
Date: 28/02/2012
Public Authority: City of Westminster Council
Summary: The complainant has requested information relating to the funding of a particular employees salary and the operation of various schemes run by the parking services department. In relation to part 1 of the request, the Commissioner’s decision is that the City of Westminster dealt with the request in accordance with the FOIA. In relation to part 2d of the request, including clarified requests a) and b), the Commissioner’s decision is that the City of Westminster did not deal with the request in accordance with section 1(1)(a), section 1(1)(b) and section 10(1) of the FOIA. In relation to part 2d – c) of the request, the Commissioner’s decision is that the City of Westminster failed to provide a response to the request within the statutory time frame of 20 working days. In relation to parts 3a and 3b of the request, the Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the City of Westminster does not hold the requested information. The Commissioner requires the public authority to respond to part 2d – clarified requests a) and b) in accordance with the requirements of the FOIA and to respond to part 2d – c) of the request in accordance with the requirements of the FOIA.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 1 - Complaint Partly Upheld, FOI 10 - Complaint Partly Upheld
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50419596
Case Ref: FS50423398
Date: 28/02/2012
Public Authority: Holme Valley Parish Council
Summary: The complainant requested information relating to Holme Valley Parish Council (“the council”) claiming ownership of various plots of land, the majority of which used to be stone quarries. The council said that it did not hold any relevant information. It said that all relevant records had been transferred to a land charity of which it was the sole trustee and this meant that the information was outside the scope of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (“the FOIA”). The Commissioner’s decision is that the request should be considered under the terms of the Environmental Information Regulations 2004 (“the EIR”) rather than the FOIA. He considered that the council incorrectly said that it did not hold any relevant information. The Commissioner found that some information was held by the authority itself. On the balance of probabilities, the Commissioner also decided that other information is likely to be held by a third party on behalf of the council. The Commissioner therefore considers that the council breached its obligations under regulation 5(1) and 5(2) of the EIR to make information available within 20 working days.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: EIR 5.1 - Complaint Upheld, EIR 5.2 - Complaint Upheld
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50423398
Case Ref: FS50424503
Date: 28/02/2012
Public Authority: Home Office
Summary: The complainant requested information recording contact between the Home Office and Northumbria Police concerning an attempted murder. No response was provided to this request and the Home Office stated that it had no record of having received it. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the Home Office did receive this information request and it has breached sections 1 and 10 of the FOIA by failing to respond to it. The Commissioner requires the public authority to provide to the complainant a response to her information request. This response should confirm or deny whether any information is held that falls within the scope of this request. For any information that is held, this should either be disclosed or the complainant should be provided with valid reasoning for why it will not be disclosed.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 1 - Complaint Upheld, FOI 10 - Complaint Upheld
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50424503
Case Ref: FER0400054
Date: 27/02/2012
Public Authority: New Forest National Park Authority
Summary: The complainant has requested copies of a legal file on a criminal prosecution which was begun by the New Forest National Park Authority against a company. The NFPNA stated that the information was exempt under Regulations 12(5)(b) (course of justice), 13, (personal data) and 12(4)(e) (internal communications). The Commissioner’s decision is that New Forest National Park Authority has correctly applied the exceptions in Regulation 12(5)(b) and regulation 13 to the information. Having found this he has not gone on to consider the application or Regulation 12(4)(e).
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: EIR 12.5.b - Complaint Not upheld, EIR 13 - Complaint Not upheld
View PDF of Decision Notice FER0400054
Case Ref: FER0424677
Date: 27/02/2012
Public Authority: Mid Suffolk District Council
Summary: The complainant requested information relating to planning decision notices. The council provided all the information that it held. The complainant was not satisfied that this was the case. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the council has provided all the recorded information that it held. The Commissioner does not require any steps to be taken.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 1 - Complaint Not upheld
View PDF of Decision Notice FER0424677
Case Ref: FS50386292
Date: 27/02/2012
Public Authority: South Yorkshire Police
Summary: The complainant has requested a wide range of information about various historical incidents involving his wife and subsequent related investigations involving a named police officer and others. The Commissioner’s decision is that South Yorkshire Police correctly dealt with the request as vexatious relying on section 14(1) of FOIA. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps to ensure compliance with the legislation.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 14 - Complaint Not upheld
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50386292
Case Ref: FS50395593
Date: 27/02/2012
Public Authority: Basildon District Council
Summary: The complainant requested information from Basildon Council (the council) relating to the registration of a named property as ‘unfit for human habitation’. The council argued that it did not have to comply with the request because it was vexatious and repeated under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (“the FOIA”).The Commissioner’s decision is that the council correctly determined that the request was vexatious under the FOIA. There are no steps to be taken. This decision notice is currently under appeal to the Information Tribunal.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 14 - Complaint Not upheld
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50395593
Case Ref: FS50399683
Date: 27/02/2012
Public Authority: Basildon District Council
Summary: The complainant requested photographs, records and notes relating to a survey carried out in 1978 by officials from Basildon Council (the council). He also requested other information relating to several named properties ranging over a number of years. The council argued that it did not have to comply with the requests because the requests were vexatious and repeated under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (“the FOIA”) or manifestly unreasonable under the Environmental Information Regulations 2004 (“the EIR”). The Commissioner’s decision is that the council correctly determined that the requests were vexatious under the FOIA or manifestly unreasonable under the EIR. There are no steps to be taken. However, the council breached regulation 14(2) by failing to provide a refusal notice citing the exception at regulation 12(4)(b) within the statutory time for compliance. This decision notice is currently under appeal to the Information Tribunal.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 14 - Complaint Not upheld, EIR 12.4.b - Complaint Not upheld, EIR 14.2 - Complaint Upheld
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50399683
Case Ref: FS50401952
Date: 27/02/2012
Public Authority: Welwyn Hatfield Borough Council
Summary: The complainant has requested information from Welwyn Hatfield Borough Council in connection with certain enactments and legal matters. The public authority was unable to determine what the information described in the request might be, and requested clarification from the complainant. Having received the complainant’s response, it has disclosed information to him. The complainant is not satisfied with the response to his request and has complained to the Information Commissioner that information he requested has not been disclosed. The Commissioner’s decision is that the public authority has responded to the complainant’s request as far as it is able, given the nature of the initial request and the clarification it has obtained from the complainant. He requires no further action to be taken.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 1 - Complaint Not upheld
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50401952
Case Ref: FS50407172
Date: 27/02/2012
Public Authority: Department for Communities and Local Government
Summary: The complainant requested information relating to the legal advice sought on a particular case and the details of the members of staff within the Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) who had been consulted in relation to a previous request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the DCLG failed to comply with the timelines for dealing with the request and in so doing breached 17(3) of FOIA. The Information Commissioner does not require any steps to be taken; however, he draws the attention of DCLG to its obligations under FOIA in respect of what is reasonable when extending the time to consider the public interest.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 17 - Complaint Upheld
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50407172
Case Ref: FS50411835
Date: 27/02/2012
Public Authority: Department for Transport
Summary: The complainant requested information from the Department for Transport (the ‘DfT’) on the use of airport security scanners (‘scanners’) at airports in the UK. Specifically, the complainant sought information on whether certain airports had made representations to the DfT on whether an alternative to passing through scanners should be offered to passengers. The complainant also requested information as to the DfT’s intentions in respect of continuing to use the scanners at Manchester Airport. The Commissioner’s decision is that the DfT was entitled to refuse the request under section 14(1) of the FOIA on the grounds that it was vexatious. He does not require the DfT to take any further action.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 14 - Complaint Not upheld
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50411835
Case Ref: FS50416095
Date: 27/02/2012
Public Authority: Department for Culture Media and Sport
Summary: The complainant requested a copy of the agreement between The Royal Parks (TRP) and the London Organising Committee of the Olympic and Paralympic Games (LOCOG) regarding the equestrian and modern pentathlon test events held in Greenwich Park in July 2011. TRP provided a copy of the agreement but redacted a number of small sections on the basis that disclosure of these sections would prejudice not only its commercial interests but also those of LOCOG and other third parties. The Commissioner’s decision is that TRP is entitled, under the terms of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), to withhold the redacted information as it is exempt from disclosure on the basis of section 43(2). Furthermore, the Commissioner is satisfied that in all the circumstances of the case the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosure.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 43 - Complaint Not upheld
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50416095
Case Ref: FS50422240
Date: 27/02/2012
Public Authority: Southwark Council
Summary: The complainant requested the full medical reasons for moving overcrowded households from band 3 to band 2 from Southwark Council (the council) during a specified period of time. The council withheld the information under section 12 of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council has correctly applied section 12. He requires no steps to be taken in this case. However, the Commissioner finds that the public authority failed to comply with section 17(5) of the FOIA in that it did not cite section 12(1) within 20 working days of receipt of the request.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 12 - Complaint Not upheld, FOI 17 - Complaint Upheld
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50422240
Case Ref: FS50426486
Date: 27/02/2012
Public Authority: Ministry of Justice
Summary: The complainant has requested information from the Ministry of Justice about the usage of Wakefield County Court and disabled access. The Ministry of Justice advised it would deal with his request as “official correspondence” because it considered his questions to be asking for more general information, as opposed to recorded information under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the ‘FOIA’). It informed the complainant that his request would be passed to the MOJ’s general enquiries department to forward to the relevant business unit for a response. The complainant requested an internal review. To date, there is no evidence that the Ministry of Justice has responded either to the internal review request or by way of “official correspondence”. The Information Commissioner’s decision is that the Ministry of Justice breached the FOIA by failing to recognise the request as valid under the FOIA and failing to respond to it within the statutory timeframe. The Information Commissioner requires the public authority to respond to the complainant confirming or denying whether information is held.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 1 - Complaint Upheld
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50426486
Case Ref: FS50428050
Date: 27/02/2012
Public Authority: Rochdale Metropolitan Borough Council
Summary: The complainant requested any information held by the council in relation to gates which had been erected on a lane near Alkrington Hall in Middleton, Manchester.1he Commissioner’s decision is that the council applied the Freedom of Information Act when considering the request but the information was in fact environmental information. The council should therefore have considered the information under the Environmental Information Regulations 2004. The Commissioner requires the public authority to consider the request for information under the Environmental Information Regulations 2004 and to issue a valid refusal notice or to disclose the relevant information.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 1 - Complaint Upheld
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50428050
Case Ref: FS50411386
Date: 23/02/2012
Public Authority: Bury Metropolitan Borough Council
Summary: The complainant has requested various pieces of information about the public authority’s running of the Longfield Suite, an entertainment facility maintained by Bury Council. The request was refused as vexatious by Bury Council. The Commissioner’s decision is that Bury Council has correctly applied section 14(1) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 in refusing the complaint’s request as vexatious. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps. This decision notice is currently under appeal to the Information Tribunal.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 14 - Complaint Not upheld
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50411386
Case Ref: FS50418043
Date: 23/02/2012
Public Authority: Forest Heath District Council
Summary: The complainant had requested the legal advice from Forest Heath District Council (the council) that had been provided in respect of the report and the interpretation of the standards committee assessment and review procedure, received by the committee on 7 March 2011. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council correctly applied section 42(1) – legal professional privilege - to the requested information and requires no further steps to be taken. However, the council breached section 17(3) by taking more than 20 working days after the refusal notice was issued to provide its public interest arguments for maintaining the exemption.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 17 - Complaint Upheld, FOI 42 - Complaint Not upheld
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50418043
Case Ref: FS50421199
Date: 23/02/2012
Public Authority: Manchester City Council
Summary: The complainant has requested an internal audit report produced as a result of a whistle blowing allegation against a residents association. The Commissioner’s decision is that Manchester City Council has correctly applied the exemption for personal data and is therefore entitled to withhold the requested information.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 40 - Complaint Not upheld
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50421199
Case Ref: FS50426191
Date: 23/02/2012
Public Authority: East Lindsey District Council
Summary: The complainant has requested the names of the members of a Standards Committee Local Assessment Review Panel and the Chairman whose signature is on a specific decision notice. The Commissioner’s decision is that East Lindsey District Council has incorrectly applied the exemption where disclosure would, or would be likely to, inhibit the free and frank exchange of views for the purposes of deliberation and the exemption where disclosure would otherwise prejudice the effective conduct of public affairs as the public interest in maintaining the exemption does not outweigh the public interest in disclosing the information. The Commissioner requires the public authority to disclose the requested information.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 36 - Complaint Upheld
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50426191
Case Ref: FS50426571
Date: 23/02/2012
Public Authority: Bretforton Parish Council
Summary: The complainant has requested a copy of a page of a deaths register. The Commissioner’s decision is that Bretforton Parish Council has breached the Act in that it did not respond to the complainant within 20 working days. The Commissioner has also decided that the council was however correct to rely upon the exemption in section 21 of the Act.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 10 - Complaint Upheld, FOI 21 - Complaint Not upheld
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50426571
Case Ref: FER0389936
Date: 22/02/2012
Public Authority: Wigan Metropolitan Borough Council
Summary: The complainant requested access to view electronic records for three named properties in relation to questions contained within the con29 form (which relates to environmental property questions). The Information Commissioner’s decision is that Wigan Metropolitan Borough Council (WMBC) breached regulation 5(1) of the Environmental Information Regulations (EIR) by failing to make the requested information available and regulation 5(2) by failing to respond within 20 working days.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: EIR 5.1 - Complaint Upheld, EIR 5.2 - Complaint Upheld
View PDF of Decision Notice FER0389936
Case Ref: FS50358750
Date: 22/02/2012
Public Authority: Department for Education
Summary: The complainant requested the release of documents in which corporal punishment was discussed in relation to part-time education providers between 3 August 2007 and 26 November 2008. The Department for Education (“DfE”) disclosed some information but withheld the remainder under sections 35, 36, 40 and 42 of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the DfE has correctly applied sections 36 and 42 to the information that it withheld under those exemptions. However, it has incorrectly applied section 35. In addition, it breached section 17 by failing to provide a refusal notice within 20 working days of receipt of the request. The Commissioner requires the public authority to disclose to the complainant the information to which it applied section 35 except for the personal data of junior officials.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 17 - Complaint Upheld, FOI 35 - Complaint Upheld, FOI 36 - Complaint Not upheld, FOI 42 - Complaint Not upheld
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50358750
Case Ref: FS50385041
Date: 22/02/2012
Public Authority: Royal Mail
Summary: The complainant requested the following information: approximately how many “Clearance Fees” (whether the amount was for £8.00 or £13.50) were requested/charged by Parcelforce in 2010? And what is Parcelforce’s current policy/position regarding parcel recipients who agree to pay all HMRC customs charged, but dispute paying an administrative fee? Royal Mail disclosed the information requested in part 2 of the complainant’s request, however it refused to disclose the information requested in part 1 (the withheld information), citing the exemption at 43(2) of the FOIA (commercial interests) as a basis for non-disclosure. The Information Commissioner’s decision is that Royal Mail correctly applied the section 43(2) exemption to the withheld information and requires no steps to be taken.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 43 - Complaint Not upheld
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50385041
Case Ref: FS50394530
Date: 22/02/2012
Public Authority: National School of Government
Summary: The complainant has requested information concerning the secondment to another organisation of an employee of the National School of Government (NSG). NSG refused this request, citing the exemption provided by section 40(2) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that NSG has applied the exemption provided by section 40(2) correctly and so it is not required to disclose this information. This decision notice is currently under appeal to the Information Tribunal.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 40 - Complaint Not upheld
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50394530
Case Ref: FS50414537
Date: 22/02/2012
Public Authority: Leicester City Council
Summary: The complainant requested a copy of the accounts provided to Leicester City Council (“the council”) by Leicester Hindu Festival Council. The council refused to provide the information on the basis that it had been provided to it in confidence and it was therefore exempt under section 41(1) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (“the FOIA”). The Commissioner’s decision is that the information was correctly withheld. He does not require the council to take any steps.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 41 - Complaint Not upheld
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50414537
Case Ref: FS50414872
Date: 22/02/2012
Public Authority: Surrey and Sussex Healthcare NHS Trust
Summary: The complainant requested the number of formal and informal complaints made to Surrey and Sussex Healthcare NHS Trust (the Trust) relating to her father’s care at East Surrey Hospital. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Trust has provided the requested information concerning formal complaints to the complainant. However in failing to provide the information which it held within 20 working days, the Trust has breached section 1(1)(b) and section 10(1) of the FOIA. In failing to confirm that it does not hold information concerning informal complaints within 20 working days, the Trust has also breached section 1(1)(a) and section 10(1) of the FOIA.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 1 - Complaint Upheld, FOI 10 - Complaint Upheld
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50414872
Case Ref: FS50421841
Date: 22/02/2012
Public Authority: Derbyshire County Council
Summary: The complainant requested information relating to SEN statements for post-16 education. The council refused to supply the information on the basis that the exclusion under section 12 relating to the £450 cost limit applied. The Commissioner’s decision is that Derbyshire County Council (“the council”) correctly applied section 12 however it did not provide reasonable advice and assistance in accordance with its duty under section 16. The Commissioner also found that the council breached its duty under section 10(1) to respond within 20 working days to requests for information and state, in accordance with section 1(1)(a), whether the requested information is held. The Commissioner requires the public authority to provide reasonable advice and assistance to the requester in line with the obligation under section 16 and guidance provided by the Code of Practice under section 45.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 10 - Complaint Upheld, FOI 12 - Complaint Not upheld, FOI 16 - Complaint Upheld
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50421841
Case Ref: FS50390124
Date: 21/02/2012
Public Authority: British Waterways
Summary: The complainant requested considerable information about British Waterway’s policies about continuous cruising and the numbers, dates and locations of boat sightings that it made. British Waterways provided a small amount of information in response, but didn’t address some of the requests and didn’t explain why it had applied exemptions. The Commissioner corresponded with British Waterways and as a result it provided a detailed internal review that provided some information and explained accurately why other information was considered exempt. The complainant asked the Commissioner to issue a formal decision notice about the delays that she experienced. The Commissioner finds that the delays that were experienced constituted a breach of sections 10(1) and 17(1). However, he does not require any remedial steps to be taken in this case because British Waterways have put things right.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 10 - Complaint Upheld, FOI 17 - Complaint Upheld
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50390124
Case Ref: FS50427699
Date: 21/02/2012
Public Authority: University of Manchester
Summary: The