Freedom of information in the United Kingdom

The complainant requested information about a particular right of way. The Council stated that as it had previously provided information in response to an earlier request in 2015 it would only consider information which had been produced since the previous request. The Council provided some information and withheld other information under sections 40(2) and 42 of the FOIA. During the course of the Commissioner’s investigation the Council acknowledged that the request should have been considered under the EIR and disclosed some additional information. The Council maintained that the remaining information held relevant to the request was exempt under regulations 13 and 12(5)(b) of the EIR. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has correctly applied regulations and 12(5)(b) and 13 to the remaining withheld information. She does not require any steps to be taken.

The complainant has requested information relating to the councils monitoring of windfall developments. The council provided some information however it refused other information on the basis that the exception in Regulation 12(4)(e) of the EIR applied. During the course of the Commissioner's investigation it also applied Regulation 12(4)(d) to withhold the information. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council was not correct to apply Regulation 12(4)(d) to the information, She has also decided that although Regulation 12(4)(e) is engaged, the public interest in the disclosure of the information outweighs that of the exceptions being maintained. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. To disclose a copy of the withheld information to the complainant.

The complainant has requested correspondence between the University of Essex (the University) and eight named individuals and organisations. The University denied holding correspondence with all but three of the named organisations. In respect of these three organisations the University provided a limited amount of its correspondence with one, from which personal data had been redacted under section 40 of the FOIA but withheld the remaining information under section 34 – parliamentary privilege. The complainant has not contested the application of section 40. In respect of the second body, it withheld the information in its entirety under section 30 – investigations and section 31 – law enforcement. It advised the complainant that it was still considering whether to disclose the information it held in respect of the third body, the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO). The Commissioner’s decision is that whilst the University denied holding correspondence with five individuals/organisations, it is highly likely, that at the time of the request, there was at least some information held on its behalf by an academic. However, during the course of the Commissioner’s investigation it became clear that the University was unable to access or recover this information and consequently the Commissioner is unable to order any meaningful steps. The Commissioner also finds that the University is entitled to withhold the information to which it applied section 34. However it is not entitled to withhold the information to which it has applied section 30 and section 31. Some of the information to which it has applied those exemptions can though be withheld under section 40. The University cannot withhold the correspondence with the ICO, apart from a limited amount of information which is exempt under section 40. The Commissioner requires the public authority to disclose the information withheld under sections 30 and 31 and the correspondence with the ICO apart from that which is exempt under section 40. The Commissioner has produced a confidential annex to identify the personal data in question. This annex will be provided exclusively to the University.

The complainant has made three requests for information with regards to emails and meetings between the planning department and other departments/ officers at East Northamptonshire Council (the council) and copies of certain rules and regulations. The council refused the requests under regulation 12(4)(b) as it considered them to be manifestly unreasonable. The Commissioner’s decision is that regulation 12(4)(b) of the EIR is engaged. The Commissioner does not require the council to take any steps.