In two series of requests, the complainant – a firm of solicitors acting on behalf of a client – has requested information associated with the relocation of a Heathrow Express depot as part of the HS2 rail project. With regard to the first series of requests, HS2 released information relevant to some of the requests, withholding some under regulation 12(5)(e)(commercial confidentiality). HS2 said it did not hold other information. Finally, HS2 relied on the exception under regulation 12(4)(b) to refuse to comply with one request (manifestly unreasonable request). It voluntarily provided the complainant with a small amount of relevant information outside of the EIR. With regard to two further requests, HS2 indicated it does not hold information falling within the scope of request 2.1 and has relied on regulation 12(4)(b) to refuse to comply with request 2.2. The complainant considers: HS2 holds information in relation to five of the requests; incorrectly relied on regulation 12(4)(b) with regard to request 1.4 and offered inadequate advice and assistance with regard to that request; and incorrectly relied on regulation 12(5)(e) with regard to request 1.9. They are also dissatisfied with the length of time it took HS2 to carry out an internal review of its response to these requests. The complainant is dissatisfied with the length of time it took HS2 to provide a response to the second set requests. They are also dissatisfied with its reliance on regulation 12(4)(b) with regard to request 2.2 and the advice and assistance it provided in relation to that request. The Commissioner’s decision is as follows: HS2 can rely on regulation 12(4)(a) with regard to requests 1.5, 1.6, 1. 7, 1.8 and 1.10 because, on the balance of probabilities, HS2 did not hold this information at the time the complainant submitted these requests. HS2 can rely on regulation 12(4)(b) to refuse to comply with request 1.4 and request 2.2 by virtue of cost, and the public interest favours maintaining this exception. HS2 provided adequate advice and assistance with regard to requests 1.4 and 2.2 and, as such, complied with regulation 9(1). HS2 can rely on regulation 12(5)(e) to refuse to disclose information falling within the scope of request 1.9, and the public interest favours maintaining this exception. HS2 breached regulation 11(4) as it did not provide an internal review of its response to first series of requests within 40 working days of the request for one. With regard to requests 1.5 – 1.8, 1.10, 2.1 and 2.2, HS2 . .
EIR 9: Complaint not upheld EIR 12(4)(a): Complaint not upheld EIR 12(4)(b): Complaint not upheld EIR 11: Complaint upheld EIR 14: Complaint upheld EIR 12(5)(e): Complaint not upheld
Citations:
[2019] UKICO fer0838245
Links:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Information
Updated: 24 November 2022; Ref: scu.650418