Tag: Information

Greater Manchester Police (Police and Criminal Justice): ICO 16 Nov 2016

The complainant has requested information about the number of referrals in respect of anti-fracking activism that Greater Manchester Police (‘GMP’) has made to the government counter terrorism programme, Channel. GMP would neither confirm nor deny holding information, citing sections 24(2) (national security) and 31(3) (law enforcement). The Commissioner’s decision is that section 24(2) is engaged and that the public interest favours maintaining the exclusion of the duty to confirm or deny whether information is held. The Commissioner does not require any steps to be taken.
FOI 24: Not upheld

Citations:

[2016] UKICO FS50633637

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 28 January 2022; Ref: scu.572978

Home Office (Central Government) FS50651253: ICO 10 Nov 2016

ICO The complainant requested information from the Home Office about investigations into alleged or suspected sexual offences at a named immigration centre. By the date of this notice, the Home Office has yet to provide a substantive response to this request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Home Office breached sections 1 and 10 of the FOIA in that it failed to provide a valid response to the request within 20 working days of receipt. She requires the MOJ to respond to the request in accordance with the obligations under the FOIA.
FOI 1: Upheld FOI 10: Upheld

Citations:

[2016] UKICO FS50651253

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 28 January 2022; Ref: scu.572989

Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Central Government): ICO 15 Nov 2016

ICO The complainant submitted a request to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) for information about the visits of delegations from foreign nations who were either guests of the UK Government or on a State visit. The FCO provided the requested information with the exception of the names of the hotels used by each of the delegations which was withheld on the basis of sections 24(1) (national security) and 43(2) (commercial interests) of FOIA. The Commissioner is satisfied that the withheld information is exempt from disclosure on the basis of section 24(1) and that in all the circumstances of the case the public interest favours maintaining the exemption.
FOI 24: Not upheld

Citations:

[2016] UKICO FS50641832

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 28 January 2022; Ref: scu.572975

Home Office (Central Government) FS50627846: ICO 10 Nov 2016

ICO The complainant requested a list of film and television projects the Home Office had communicated with during the period 2013 to 2015. The Home Office refused to confirm or deny whether it held this information and cited the exemptions provided by the following sections of the FOIA: 24(2) (national security), 38(2) (health and safety), 43(3) (prejudice to commercial interests). The Commissioner’s decision is that these exemptions are not engaged and the Home Office is now required to issue a fresh response to the request.
FOI 24: Upheld FOI 38: Upheld FOI 43: Upheld

Citations:

[2016] UKICO FS50627846

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 28 January 2022; Ref: scu.572985

Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs (Central Government): ICO 23 Nov 2016

ICO The complainant has requested information from the Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs (‘Defra’) for information relating to staff expenses. The Commissioner’s decision is that Defra has correctly applied section 14 of the FOIA to refuse to comply with the request. The Commissioner requires Defra to take no steps.
FOI 14: Not upheld

Citations:

[2016] UKICO FS50642242

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 28 January 2022; Ref: scu.572959

Department of Health (Central Government): ICO 1 Nov 2016

ICO The complainant made a freedom of information request to the Department of Health for a copy of the official ministerial diary of the Secretary of State Jeremy Hunt. The DoH refused the request under the exemption in section 35(1)(d) (operation of ministerial private office). The Commissioner’s decision is that section 35(1)(d) is engaged but the public interest in maintaining the exemption does not outweigh the public interest in disclosure. Whilst not relied upon by the DoH, the Commissioner also found that some of the information should be redacted under the section 40(2) exemption (personal information). The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. The DoH shall disclose the requested information to the complainant but may redact personal data under section 40(2) as described in paragraphs 39 and 40 below.
FOI 35: Upheld FOI 40: Not upheld

Citations:

[2016] UKICO FS50620879

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 28 January 2022; Ref: scu.572963

Department for Work and Pensions (Central Government) FS50605192: ICO 17 Nov 2016

The complainant has requested information regarding the Department for Work and Pensions’ Mandatory Reconsiderations process. The Commissioner’s decision is that Department for Work and Pensions correctly relied on section 12 (costs) to refuse to provide the sought information.
FOI 12: Not upheld

Citations:

[2016] UKICO FS50605192

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 28 January 2022; Ref: scu.572961

Department for Work and Pensions (Central Government) FS50617272: ICO 17 Nov 2016

The complainant has requested information regarding the dates and participants of Childcare Implementation Taskforce meetings. The Commissioner’s decision is that Department for Work and Pensions wrongly relied on sections 35(1)(a) and (b) to withhold the requested information from the complainant. The Commissioner requires the public authority to provide the complainant with the withheld information.
FOI 35: Upheld

Citations:

[2016] UKICO FS50617272

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 28 January 2022; Ref: scu.572962

Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Central Government) FS50635070: ICO 15 Nov 2016

ICO The complainant submitted a request to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) for information about any meetings and correspondence between the British High Commission in Nigeria and representatives of various organisations. The FCO disclosed the information it held which fell within the scope of the request but redacted certain parts of the information on the basis of sections 43(2) (commercial interests) and 40(2) (personal data) of FOIA. The Commissioner is satisfied that the FCO is entitled to rely on these exemptions, with the only exception being the name of particular third party which the Commissioner has concluded is not exempt from disclosure on the basis of section 40(2). The Commissioner requires the public authority to provide the complainant with a further copy of the requested information this time with the name of the third party identified in the confidential annex to this notice unredacted.
FOI 40: Partly upheld FOI 43: Not upheld

Citations:

[2016] UKICO FS50635070

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 28 January 2022; Ref: scu.572973

Cabinet Office (Central Government) FS50628485: ICO 8 Nov 2016

ICO The complainant submitted a request to the public authority for information relating to the expulsion of two Cuban diplomats from the United Kingdom in 1988. The public authority disclosed some of the information within the scope of the request during the course of the Commissioner’s investigation. The Commissioner has concluded that the public authority was entitled to withhold the remaining information in scope on the basis of the exemption at section 23(1) FOIA (information relating to security bodies).
FOI 23: Not upheld

Citations:

[2016] UKICO FS50628485

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 28 January 2022; Ref: scu.572944

Cabinet Office (Central Government) FER0586914: ICO 9 Nov 2016

ICO The complainant requested correspondence between the Prince of Wales and Tony Blair. The Cabinet Office refused the request under section 37(2) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the Act) as it considered the information – if held – would relate to communications with the heir to the throne. The Commissioner considers that the information is environmental and so should be considered under the EIR. The Cabinet Office provided submissions to the Commissioner to refuse the request under regulation 13(5), to neither confirm nor deny whether any relevant personal data was held. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Cabinet Office has not applied regulation 13(5) correctly. He also finds that the Cabinet Office breached regulation 14(2) because it did not issue its initial response within 20 working days. The Commissioner requires the public authority to confirm or deny what information is held in relation to the complainant’s request under the EIR.
FOI 37: Upheld EIR 13(5): Upheld EIR 14(2): Upheld

Citations:

[2016] UKICO FER0586914

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 28 January 2022; Ref: scu.572936

Cabinet Office (Central Government) FER0587279: ICO 9 Nov 2016

ICO The complainant requested correspondence between the Prince of Wales (the Prince) and Tony Blair. The Cabinet Office refused to confirm or deny whether relevant information relevant to the request was held under section 37(2) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the Act) because if any information was held it would relate to relate to communications with the heir to the Throne as per section 37(1)(aa). It also refused to confirm or deny whether any personal data in relation to environmental information was held under regulation 13(5)(a) of the EIR. For any information that is not environmental as per the EIR, the Commissioner considers that section the Cabinet Office is entitled to neither confirm nor deny whether information is held under section 37(2). He also finds that the Cabinet Office breached section 17(1) of the Act as it did not issue its refusal notice to the complainant within 20 working days following receipt of the request. For any information that is environmental as per the EIR, the Commissioner’s decision is that the Cabinet Office has not applied regulation 13(5) correctly. He also finds that the Cabinet Office breached regulation 14(2) because it did not issue its refusal to the complainant within 20 working days following receipt of the request. The Commissioner requires the public authority to confirm or deny what environmental information is held in relation to the complainant’s request under the EIR.
FOI 37: Not upheld FOI 17: Upheld EIR 14(2): Upheld

Citations:

[2016] UKICO FER0587279

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 28 January 2022; Ref: scu.572937

Cabinet Office (Central Government) FS50644184: ICO 3 Nov 2016

ICO The complainant made a request under the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the Act) regarding social media analysis. The Commissioner requires the public authority to issue a substantive response to the complainant under the Act by either complying with section 1(1) or issuing a valid refusal notice.
FOI 1: Upheld FOI 10: Upheld

Citations:

[2016] UKICO FS50644184

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 28 January 2022; Ref: scu.572949

Cheshire Constabulary (Police and Criminal Justice): ICO 15 Nov 2016

The complainant has requested information about the number of referrals in respect of anti-fracking activism that Cheshire Constabulary has made to the government counter terrorism programme, Channel. Cheshire Constabulary would neither confirm nor deny holding information, citing sections 24(2) (national security) and 31(3) (law enforcement). The Commissioner’s decision is that section 24(2) is engaged and that the public interest favours maintaining the exclusion of the duty to confirm or deny whether information is held. The Commissioner does not require any steps to be taken.
FOI 24: Not upheld

Citations:

[2016] UKICO FS50633653

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 28 January 2022; Ref: scu.572950

Cabinet Office (Central Government): ICO 10 Nov 2016

ICO The complainant requested information relating to the kidnapping and murder of British journalist and United Nations aid worker, Alec Collett in Lebanon in 1985.The Commissioner has concluded that the public authority was entitled to rely on the exclusions contained in sections 23(5) and 24(2) FOIA to neither confirm nor deny whether it holds any information within the scope of the request which would be exempt on the basis of sections 23(1) and 24(1) FOIA (Information relating to security bodies and National Security). The Commissioner has however also concluded that the public authority was not entitled to withhold information within the scope of the request on the basis of the exemptions contained in sections 27(1)(a), (c) and (d) FOIA (International relations).
FOI 23: Not upheld FOI 24: Not upheld FOI 27: Not upheld

Citations:

[2016] UKICO FS50627228

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 28 January 2022; Ref: scu.572942

Commissioner of The Metropolitan Police Service (Police and Criminal Justice): ICO 3 Nov 2016

The complainant has requested information about Trident referrals from the Metropolitan Police Service (the ‘MPS’). The MPS refused to confirm or deny whether they held information within the scope of this request and cited the exemptions provided by sections 23(5) (information relating to, or supplied by, security bodies), 24(2) (national security) and 31(3) (law enforcement) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that sections 23(5) and 24(2) were cited correctly so the MPS was not obliged to confirm or deny whether the requested information was held. No steps are required.
FOI 23: Not upheld FOI 24: Not upheld

Citations:

[2016] UKICO FS50616070

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 28 January 2022; Ref: scu.572953

Cabinet Office (Central Government) FS50632229: ICO 8 Nov 2016

ICO The complainant submitted a request to the public authority for the minutes (and related correspondence) of the Cabinet meeting in which the coalition government decided to veto the Commissioner’s decision in 2011 ordering the Department of Health to publish the NHS risk register. The Commissioner’s decision is that the public authority was entitled to rely on the exemption at section 35(1)(b) to withhold the information held within the scope of the request.
FOI 35: Not upheld

Citations:

[2016] UKICO FS50632229

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 28 January 2022; Ref: scu.572945

Cabinet Office (Central Government) FS50606089: ICO 8 Nov 2016

ICO The complainant submitted a request to the public authority for information relating to the funding of the charity Keeping Kids Company widely referred to as Kids Company. Some of the information within the scope of the request was revealed to the complainant following the application of section 21(1) FOIA (information accessible to an applicant by other means). The Commissioner has concluded that the public authority was entitled to withhold the remaining information in scope on the basis of the exemptions at sections 31(1)(g) and 31(2)(a), (b) and (d) FOIA (law enforcement).
FOI 31: Not upheld

Citations:

[2016] UKICO FS50606089

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 28 January 2022; Ref: scu.572939

BBC (Other) FS50644672: ICO 10 Nov 2016

ICO The complainant requested information about climate change meetings. The BBC explained the information was covered by the derogation and excluded from FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that this information was held by the BBC for the purposes of ‘journalism, art or literature’ and did not fall inside FOIA. He therefore upholds the BBC’s position and requires no remedial steps to be taken in this case.
FOI 1: Not upheld

Citations:

[2016] UKICO FS50644672

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 28 January 2022; Ref: scu.572933

Cabinet Office (Central Government) FS50588937: ICO 15 Nov 2016

ICO The complainant submitted a number of requests to the Cabinet Office about contracts it had entered into with Behavioural Insights Team (BIT). The complainant was dissatisfied with the Cabinet Office’s refusal to disclose the maximum day rates it would pay BIT staff. The Commissioner has concluded that this information is exempt from disclosure on the basis of section 43(2). The complainant also asked to know the number of BIT staff who were provided with the passes to access the Cabinet Office premises. The Cabinet Office refused to confirm or deny whether it held this information on the basis of sections 31(3) and 38(2) of FOIA. The Commissioner has concluded that neither of these two exemptions are engaged.
FOI 43: Not upheld FOI 38: Upheld FOI 31: Upheld

Citations:

[2016] UKICO FS50588937

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 28 January 2022; Ref: scu.572938

Cabinet Office (Central Government) FS50627946: ICO 30 Nov 2016

ICO The complainant submitted a request to the Cabinet Office for copies of correspondence relating to the decision to award Grenville Janner a life peerage in 1997. The Cabinet Office disclosed a small amount of information but sought to withhold the remainder on the basis of the following sections of FOIA: 37(1)(b) (honours information); 40(2) (personal data) and 41(1) (information provided in confidence). The Cabinet Office also refused to confirm or deny on the basis of section 23(5) whether it held any information from a section 23(3) body falling within the scope of this request. The Commissioner accepts that all of the withheld information falls within the scope of the section 37(1)(b), however in respect of the information concerning Lord Janner, she has decided that the public interest favours disclosure of this information. With regard to the remaining information contained in the correspondence which specifically refers to the nominations of other applicants, the Commissioner is satisfied that the public interest favours maintaining this exemption. In respect of the information concerning Lord Janner, the Commissioner is satisfied that sections 40 and 41 do not provide a basis to redact any information with the exception of a very small amount of information which she is satisfied is exempt from disclosure on the basis of section 40(2). Finally, the Commissioner agrees with the Cabinet Office’s reliance on section 23(5) in this case. The Commissioner requires the public authority to provide the complainant with copies of the information falling within the scope of his request. The only redactions which can be applied to this information are on the basis of sections 37(1)(b) and 40(2) to the information which is identified in the confidential annex, a copy which has been provided to the Cabinet Office only.
FOI 23: Not upheld FOI 37: Partly upheld FOI 40: Partly upheld FOI 41: Upheld

Citations:

[2016] UKICO FS50627946

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 28 January 2022; Ref: scu.572943

Cabinet Office (Central Government): ICO 1 Nov 2016

ICO The complainant has requested information relating to the Korea Post-Armistice Military Medals Review. The Cabinet Office argued that it did not hold some of the information within the scope of his requests for the purposes of FOIA. As regards the information it did hold, it argued that this was exempt under section 35 (formulation/development of government policy) and section 37 (honours information). It upheld this at internal review. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Cabinet Office does not hold much of the requested information for the purposes of FOIA. Some of the information it does hold has been correctly withheld under section 37(1)(b). This is detailed in a confidential annex to this Notice. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. The confidential annex to this notice sets out which information cannot be withheld under section 35(1)(a) nor under section 37(1)(b). The Cabinet Office must disclose this information. Provide the complainant with the link specified in the confidential annex to this notice.
FOI 3: Not upheld FOI 37: Partly upheld

Citations:

[2016] UKICO FS50620631

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 28 January 2022; Ref: scu.572940

BBC (Other) FS50648265: ICO 10 Nov 2016

ICO The complainant has requested a copy of the program ‘Two Culture Clash’ that was broadcast in 2004. The BBC explained that the information was covered by the derogation and excluded from FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that this information was held by the BBC for the purposes of ‘journalism, art or literature’ and did not fall within the scope of FOIA. She therefore upholds the BBC’s position and requires no remedial steps to be taken in this case.
FOI 1: Not upheld

Citations:

[2016] UKICO FS50648265

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 28 January 2022; Ref: scu.572934

Cabinet Office (Central Government) FS50623128: ICO 8 Nov 2016

ICO The complainant submitted a request to the public authority for the make and model of portable electronic devices such as laptops, tablets mobile phones used by very senior officials including then Prime Minister David Cameron. The Commissioner has concluded that the public authority was entitled to withhold the information requested on the basis of the exemption at section 24(1) FOIA (national security).
FOI 24: Not upheld

Citations:

[2016] UKICO FS50623128

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 28 January 2022; Ref: scu.572941

Cabinet Office (Central Government) FS50633149: ICO 30 Nov 2016

ICO The complainant submitted a request to the Cabinet Office for copies of correspondence relating to the decision to award Grenville Janner a life peerage in 1997. The Cabinet Office disclosed a small amount of information but sought to withhold the remainder on the basis of the following sections of FOIA: 37(1)(b) (honours information); 40(2) (personal data) and 41(1) (information provided in confidence). The Cabinet Office also refused to confirm or deny on the basis of section 23(5) whether it held any information from a section 23(3) body falling within the scope of this request. The Commissioner accepts that all of the withheld information falls within the scope of the section 37(1)(b), however in respect of the information concerning Lord Janner, she has decided that the public interest favours disclosure of this information. With regard to the remaining information contained in the correspondence which specifically refers to the nominations of other applicants, the Commissioner is satisfied that the public interest favours maintaining this exemption. In respect of the information concerning Lord Janner, the Commissioner is satisfied that sections 40 and 41 do not provide a basis to redact any information with the exception of a very small amount of information which she is satisfied is exempt from disclosure on the basis of section 40(2). Finally, the Commissioner agrees with the Cabinet Office’s reliance on section 23(5) in this case. The Commissioner requires the public authority to provide the complainant with copies of the information falling within the scope of his request. The only redactions which can be applied to this information are on the basis of sections 37(1)(b) and 40(2) to the information which is identified in the confidential annex, a copy which has been provided to the Cabinet Office only.
FOI 23: Not upheld FOI 37: Partly upheld FOI 40: Partly upheld FOI 41: Upheld

Citations:

[2016] UKICO FS50633149

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 28 January 2022; Ref: scu.572946

NHS Commissioning Board (NHS England) (Health (NHS)) FS50638234: ICO 6 Oct 2016

ICO The complainant has requested emails sent or received by particular named employees on particular subject matters. NHS England has failed to respond to this request for information. The Commissioner considers that NHS England breached section 10(1) FOIA in the handling of this request. The Commissioner requires the public authority to provide the complainant with a response to this request in accordance with its obligations under FOIA.
FOI 10: Upheld

Citations:

[2016] UKICO FS50638234

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 28 January 2022; Ref: scu.572897

NHS Commissioning Board (NHS England) (Health (NHS)) FS50643200: ICO 6 Oct 2016

ICO The complainant has requested emails sent or received by particular named employees on particular subject matters. NHS England has failed to respond to this request for information. The Commissioner considers that NHS England breached section 10(1) FOIA in the handling of this request. The Commissioner requires the public authority to provide the complainant with a response to this request in accordance with its obligations under FOIA.
FOI 10: Upheld

Citations:

[2016] UKICO FS50643200

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 28 January 2022; Ref: scu.572898

NHS Commissioning Board (NHS England) (Health (NHS)) FS50645803: ICO 6 Oct 2016

ICO The complainant has made a request for emails and information relating to a calculation made by Deloitte. NHS England has failed to respond to this request for information. The Commissioner considers that NHS England breached section 10(1) FOIA in the handling of this request. The Commissioner requires the public authority to provide the complainant with a response to this request in accordance with its obligations under FOIA. ,br />FOI 10: Upheld

Citations:

[2016] UKICO FS50645803

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 28 January 2022; Ref: scu.572899

Ministry of Justice (Central Government) FS50627200: ICO 4 Oct 2016

ICO The complainant requested information relating to the investigation into an allegation of legal aid fraud. The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) confirmed it held information within the scope of the request but refused to provide it citing sections 40(2) (personal information) and 31(1)(a) and (g) (law enforcement) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the MoJ correctly applied sections 40(2) and 31(1) of the FOIA. She requires no steps to be taken.
FOI 31: Not upheld FOI 40: Not upheld

Citations:

[2016] UKICO FS50627200

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 28 January 2022; Ref: scu.572894

Ministry of Justice (Central Government) FS50581196: ICO 4 Oct 2016

ICO The complainant submitted a multi-part request to the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) requesting information relating to a job re-grading exercise. Having initially cited other exemptions, the MoJ revisited the request during the course of the Commissioner’s investigation and cited section 12 of the FOIA (cost of compliance exceeds the appropriate limit). The Commissioner’s decision is that the MoJ correctly applied section 12. However, in failing to provide a response within 20 working days of the request, the MoJ breached section 10 of the FOIA. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken as a result of this decision.
FOI 10: Upheld FOI 12: Not upheld

Citations:

[2016] UKICO FS50581196

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 28 January 2022; Ref: scu.572893

General Medical Council (Local Government (Other)) FS50639366: ICO 24 Oct 2016

ICO The complainant requested information about the qualifications of a named doctor. The General Medical Council (GMC) withheld the information, citing the exemption under section 40(2) of the FOIA (third party personal data) as its basis for doing so. The Commissioner’s decision is that the GMC has correctly applied this exemption and does not need to take any further action.
FOI 40: Not upheld

Citations:

[2016] UKICO FS50639366

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 28 January 2022; Ref: scu.572875

East Devon District Council (Local Government (District Council)) FER0626901: ICO 25 Oct 2016

ICO The complainant has requested a copy of an agreement between East Devon District Council and a developer, Pegasus Life, in relation to a site at Knowle. East Devon District Council refused the request, citing section 43(2) of the FOIA and regulation 12(5)(e) of the EIR. The Commissioner’s decision is that East Devon District Council has failed to demonstrate that regulation 12(5)(e) is engaged. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. Disclose the requested information to the complainant. This decision notice is currently under appeal to the Tribunal.
EIR 12(5)(e): Upheld

Citations:

[2016] UKICO FER0626901

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 28 January 2022; Ref: scu.572868