British
and Irish Legal Information Institute
Freely Available British and Irish Public Legal Information
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
Information Commissioner's Office
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Information Commissioner's Office >> Department for Transport (Central government) [2019] UKICO fer0838246 (13 December 2019)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKICO/2019/fer0838246.html
Cite as: [2019] UKICO fer0838246, [2019] UKICO fer838246
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
Department for Transport
In three 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 High Speed 2 rail project. With regard to the first series of requests, the Department for Transport (DfT) provided information relevant to some of the requests. It originally relied on the exception under regulation 12(4)(b) to refuse to comply with four requests (manifestly unreasonable request). However, it subsequently complied with one of these but confirmed to the Commissioner that it was relying on 12(4)(b) with regard to another of the requests. DfT withheld other information under regulation 12(5)(e) (commercial interests) and regulation 13 (personal data).With regard to a second series of requests, DfT’s position is that it did not hold information within the scope of one of the requests at the time it was submitted. DfT released information it considered falls within the scope of the second request, having redacted some of the information under regulation 12(5)(e).With regard to the four parts of a third request, DfT released information relevant to two parts, and relied on regulation 12(5)(e) to withhold information relevant to the remaining two parts. The complainant considers: DfT holds information in relation to one of the first series of requests; is incorrectly relying on regulation 12(4)(b) with regard to three of the requests and did not provide adequate advice and assistance with regard to those requests. The complainant considers that DfT holds information within the scope of one of the second series of requests, and further information within the scope of the remaining request. Finally, the complainant is dissatisfied with DfT’s reliance on regulation 12(5)(e) to withhold information relating to request 3. The Commissioner’s decision is as follows: On the balance of probabilities, DfT has complied with regulation 5(1) but breached regulation 5(2) with regard to request 2.2. DfT can rely on regulation 12(4)(a) with regard to requests 1.10 and 2.1 because, on the balance of probabilities, it did not hold the specific information requested at the time the complainant submitted these requests. DfT can rely on regulation 12(4)(b) to refuse to comply with requests 1.4, 1.5, 1.8 and 1.11 by virtue of cost, and the public interest favours maintaining this exception. With regard to the 12(4)(b) exception, DfT offered the complainant adequate advice and assistance and complied with…EIR 12(4)(a): Complaint not upheld EIR 9: Complaint not upheld EIR 11: Complaint not upheld EIR 12(4)(b): Complaint not upheld EIR 5: Complaint partly upheld EIR 14: Complaint upheld EIR 12(5)(e): Complaint not upheld
Decision notice: fer0838246