Decision notices
Showing 1 to 25 of 11,788
General Pharmaceutical Council
24 Aug 2018, Health
The complainant requested from the General Pharmaceutical Council (GPhC) information relating to her own property. The GPhC disclosed some information, but the complainant believed that further information was held. Whilst it was not cited by the GPhC, the Commissioner has exercised her discretion and considered the exemption provided by section 40(1) (personal data of the requester) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s conclusion is that all of the information falling within the scope of the request is the complainant’s own personal data and so is exempt under section 40(1). Therefore, the GPhC was not obliged to disclose the requested information to the complainant under the FOIA.
FOI 40: Complaint not upheld
Enfield London Borough Council
24 Aug 2018, Local government
The complainant requested information relating to a contract for the construction of a cycle lane. The Commissioner’s decision is that the London Borough of Enfield (“the London Borough of Enfield”) has provided all the information it holds within the scope of the request. However, it failed to issue an adequate refusal notice and has therefore breached Regulation 14 of the EIR. The Commissioner does not require the London Borough to take any further steps.
EIR 14: Complaint upheld EIR 5: Complaint not upheld
Dartford Borough Council
24 Aug 2018, Local government
The complainant has requested information relating to Dartford Borough Council’s Warmer Streets Project. Dartford Borough Council (‘the Council’) provided some information and stated other information was not held. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the Council does not hold any additional information relevant to the request. The Commissioner does not require any steps to be taken.
FOI 1: Complaint not upheld
Ashurst Parish Council
24 Aug 2018, Local government
The complainant requested from Ashurst Parish Council (the Council) information regarding documents in the SWAB Drop box facility. ‘SWAB’ is an acronym for Steyning, Wilston, Ashurst and Bramber parish councils, a cluster of four parish councils which worked together to produce the Neighbourhood Plan. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council failed to respond to the request within the statutory time limit of 20 working days and has therefore breached section 10 (time for compliance) of the FOIA. As the requested information has now been provided, the Commissioner does not require the Council to take any further steps.
FOI 10: Complaint upheld
Birmingham City Council
24 Aug 2018, Local government
The complainant requested information from Birmingham City Council (“the Council”) about the way in which ‘exceptional circumstances’ are determined for adults who have been awarded direct payments. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the Council has provided the complainant with all of the information which it holds falling within the scope of the request. The Commissioner does not require the Council to take any steps.
FOI 1: Complaint not upheld
Crown Prosecution Service
24 Aug 2018, Police and criminal justice
The complainant requested a copy of an audit report dated 2009 relating to forensic medical records. The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) withheld the report in its entirety citing section 36(2)(c) (prejudice to effective conduct of public affairs) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that section 36(2)(c) was engaged but that the public interest favours releasing the requested information. She also found a procedural breach. The Commissioner requires the CPS to take the following step to ensure compliance with the legislation - disclose the withheld report to the complainant.
FOI 17: Complaint upheld FOI 36: Complaint upheld
Sheffield City Council
23 Aug 2018, Local government
The complainant has requested information relating to the execution of a private finance initiative contract. Sheffield City Council (“the Council”) refused to comply with the request on the grounds that it was vexatious within the meaning of section 14 of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council was entitled to rely on section 14 of the FOIA to refuse to comply with the request.
FOI 14: Complaint not upheld
Sheffield City Council
23 Aug 2018, Local government
The complainant has requested information relating to the awarding of a private finance initiative contract. Sheffield City Council (“the Council”) refused to comply with the request on the grounds that it was vexatious within the meaning of section 14 of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council was entitled to rely on section 14 of the FOIA to refuse to comply with the request.
FOI 14: Complaint not upheld
Cabinet Office
23 Aug 2018, Central government
The complainant has requested information on the reversibility of the United Kingdom’s (‘UK’) Article 50 notification of the intention to withdraw from the European Union (‘EU’). The Commissioner’s decision is that the Cabinet Office has appropriately applied FOIA section 27(4)(a) (International relations) to refuse to confirm or deny holding information in the scope of the request. She considers that the public interest favours maintaining the exclusion. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps to ensure compliance with the legislation.
FOI 27: Complaint not upheld
Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government
23 Aug 2018, Central government
The complainant has requested from the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG) 1 a copy of the index of the retained casework for land and properties belonging to a number of public authorities. The Commissioner’s view is that the complainant’s request was not sufficiently clear, therefore MHCLG was under an obligation under regulation 9 of the EIR to contact the complainant and seek clarification of the request. In failing to do so, MHCLG breached regulation 9 of the EIR. It is now required to remedy this breach by contacting the complainant and seeking clarification about his request. The Commissioner requires MHCLG to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. Write to the complainant seeking clarification of his request for “a copy of just the index of the retained casework”. MHCLG must take these steps within 35 calendar days of the date of this decision notice. Failure to comply may result in the Commissioner making written certification of this fact to the High Court pursuant to section 54 of the FOIA and may be dealt with as a contempt of court. 1 At the time of the request, Department for Communities and Local Government. For the purpose of this Decision Notice, the Commissioner will use the acronym MHCLG, except when quoting parts of the original correspondence.
EIR 9(1): Complaint upheld
Cabinet Office
23 Aug 2018, Central government
The complainant has requested information on Cabinet minutes, telephone call records and meetings between United Kingdom (UK) Ministers and the United States of America (US) President at the time. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Cabinet Office has appropriately withheld the requested information in reliance of the exemptions at FOIA sections 27(1)(a), (c) & (d), 27(2) and 35(1)(a) & (b). The Commissioner finds the Cabinet Office in breach of section 17(1) of the FOIA for relying in its submission to the Commissioner, on exemptions not relied on in its refusal notice to the complainant. The Commissioner does not require the Cabinet Office to take any steps as a result of this notice.
FOI 35: Complaint not upheld FOI 27: Complaint not upheld
St George’s, University of London
23 Aug 2018, Education
The complainant has requested a copy of the interruptions policy that was in force during a specific time period. The Commissioner’s decision is that St George’s, University of London (“the University”) has disclosed all the information it holds within the scope of the request and has therefore complied with its Section 1 duty. However, it did not issue a response within 20 working days and therefore breached Section 10 of the FOIA. The Commissioner does not require the University to take further steps.
FOI 10: Complaint upheld FOI 1: Complaint not upheld
Environment Agency
23 Aug 2018, Central government
The complainant has requested information relating to the Environment Agency’s (EA) investigation into allegations made about a particular member of staff. The EA refused to disclose the information, citing regulations 13, 12(4)(e) and 12(5)(b) of the EIR. The Commissioner’s decision is that the EA is entitled to refuse to disclose the requested information under regulation 13 of the EIR. The Commissioner therefore does not require any further action to be taken.
FOI 13: Complaint not upheld
Sussex Police
22 Aug 2018, Police and criminal justice
The complainant has requested information relating to the football match between Brighton and Hove Albion and Crystal Palace on 28 November 2017 (the “Match”). Sussex Police failed to respond to this request for information and the Commissioner’s decision is that in doing so Sussex Police breached sections 1(1) and 10(1) of the FOIA. The Commissioner requires Sussex Police to respond to the request.
FOI 1(1): Complaint upheld FOI 10(1): Complaint upheld
Cabinet Office
22 Aug 2018, Central government
The complainant requested the briefing notes presented to the Prime Minister prior to her decision to invoke Article 50 of the Treaty of Lisbon. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Cabinet Office failed to respond to the request within 20 working days and has therefore breached Section 10 of the FOIA. The Commissioner requires the Cabinet Office to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: issue a substantive response, under the FOIA, to the request.
FOI 10: Complaint upheld
Hounslow London Borough Council
22 Aug 2018, Local government
The complainant requested information about policies regarding children in care. The Commissioner’s decision is that the London Borough of Hounslow (“the London Borough”) failed to respond to the request within 20 working days and has therefore breached Section 10 of the FOIA. The Commissioner requires the London Borough to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: issue a substantive response, under the FOIA, to the request.
FOI 10: Complaint upheld
Office of Rail and Road
22 Aug 2018, Central government
The complainant has requested information relating to rail replacement buses and coaches. The Office of Rail and Road (ORR) responded by confirming that it did not hold the requested information. However that response was not provided promptly or within the twenty working day period specified in section 10 of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the ORR has breached section 10 of the FOIA. However as the ORR has now provided a response the Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any further action in this matter.
FOI 10: Complaint upheld
University of Nottingham
22 Aug 2018, Education
The complainant has requested information on the correspondence from a named Professor. The University of Nottingham (the University) stated that the information was not held for the purposes of the FOIA under the provisions of section 3(2). The Commissioner’s decision is that the requested information is not held by the University for its own purposes and therefore falls outside the definition of information held for the purposes of FOIA under section 3(2). She requires no steps to be taken.
FOI 3: Complaint not upheld
University of Lancaster
22 Aug 2018, Education
The complainant has requested information on the correspondence from two named Professors. Lancaster University (the University) stated that the information was not held for the purposes of the FOIA under the provisions of section 3(2). The Commissioner’s decision is that the requested information is not held by the University for its own purposes and therefore falls outside the definition of information held for the purposes of FOIA under section 3(2). She requires no steps to be taken.
FOI 3: Complaint not upheld
Cardiff University
22 Aug 2018, Education
The complainant has requested information on the correspondence from two named Professors. Cardiff University (the University) stated that the information was not held for the purposes of the FOIA under the provisions of section 3(2). The Commissioner’s decision is that the requested information is not held by the University for its own purposes and therefore falls outside the definition of information held for the purposes of FOIA under section 3(2). She requires no steps to be taken.
FOI 3: Complaint not upheld
Cardiff University
22 Aug 2018, Education
The complainant has requested information on correspondence from two named Professors. The Cardiff University (the University) stated that the information was not held for the purposes of the FOIA under the provisions of section 3(2). The Commissioner’s decision is that the requested information is not held by the University for its own purposes and therefore falls outside the definition of information held for the purposes of FOIA under section 3(2). She requires no steps to be taken.
FOI 3: Complaint not upheld
General Medical Council
22 Aug 2018, Local government
The complainant has requested from the General Medical Council (‘the GMC’) information concerning Warwick Medical School. The GMC’s position is that it does not hold any relevant information. The Commissioner’s decision is as follows: The GMC does not hold the information the complainant has requested and has complied with section 1(1) of the FOIA. The GMC breached section 10(1) as it did not comply with section 1(1) within 20 working days. The Commissioner does not require the GMC to take any steps to ensure compliance with the legislation.
FOI 1: Complaint not upheld
Home Office
22 Aug 2018, Central government
he complainant has requested information regarding deportations. The Home Office disclosed some information and withheld the remainder under sections 31(1)(c) and (e) (law enforcement), 38(1)(a) and (b) (health and safety) and 40(2) (personal information) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Home Office has not applied sections 31(1)(c) and (e), 38 (1)(a) and (b) or 40(2) of the FOIA appropriately. The Commissioner also considers that the Home Office has breached sections 10(1) (time for compliance) and 17(1) and (3) (refusal of a request) of the FOIA. The Commissioner requires the Home Office to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. Disclose the withheld information in relation to question 3 of the request for information. The Home Office must take these steps within 35 calendar days of the date of this decision notice. Failure to comply may result in the Commissioner making written certification of this fact to the High Court pursuant to section 54 of the Act and may be dealt with as a contempt of court.
FOI 31: Complaint upheld FOI 17: Complaint upheld FOI 10: Complaint upheld FOI 40: Complaint upheld FOI 38: Complaint upheld
Cabinet Office
22 Aug 2018, Central government
The complainant submitted a request to the Cabinet Office seeking information about the process Sir Craig Oliver followed in seeking permission for his memoir Unleashing Demons: The Inside Story of Brexit. The Cabinet Office’s initial response to the complainant confirmed that it held some information falling within the scope of the request, albeit no actual information was disclosed. However, in its internal review response the Cabinet Office stated that it did not hold any information. The complainant argued that the Cabinet Office was likely to hold information falling within the scope his request. During the course of the Commissioner’s investigation, it became evident that there was a dispute between the Cabinet Office and the complainant as to how his request should be interpreted. The Commissioner has concluded that the complainant’s interpretation of the request, rather than the Cabinet Office’s interpretation, is the correct and objective one.
FOI 1: Complaint upheld
HS2 Ltd
22 Aug 2018, Education
The complainant has requested information on the cost differences between the route options that HS2 considered for the Sheffield Spur; specifically route options for connecting to the Erewash Valley line at Toton. HS2 has withheld this information under regulation 12(5)(e) of the EIR (confidentiality of commercial information). The Commissioner’s decision is that: HS2 is correct to withhold the requested information under regulation 12(5)(e) and the public interest favours maintaining the exception. The Commissioner does not require HS2 to take any steps to ensure compliance with the legislation.
EIR 12(5)(e): Complaint not upheld