The complainant made a multi-part request relating to the contract for road maintenance between TfL and a named contractor. Ultimately TfL argued that it did not hold the information sought in requests 1, 2, 3, 4 and 10. It applied section 12 – the appropriate (cost) limit, to request 5, which it had previously refused under section 14 – vexatious, but later withdrew its application of section 12 to what the Commissioner found to be the objective interpretation of that request. TfL refused request 6, under section 43 – commercial interests. The Commissioner’s decision is that the public authority does not hold the information captured by requests 1, 2, 3 and 4. However, in respect of requests 1, 2 and 4, TfL did not clearly inform the complainant of this by the end of the internal review. This is a breach of section 1. TfL does hold information in respect of request 10, which, due to its interpretation of the request, it had originally said was not held. By not providing this information TfL breached section 1. The Commissioner finds that the information sought in request 6 is exempt from disclosure under section 43(2). The Commissioner requires the public authority to provide a fresh response to request 5 that does not rely on section 12. In respect of the information sought by request 10, which the Commissioner finds is held by the public authority, TfL is required to disclose that information.
FOI 43: Complaint not upheld FOI 1: Complaint partly upheld
[2019] UKICO fs50764553
Bailii
England and Wales
Information
Updated: 01 December 2021; Ref: scu.638759
