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 >> Hastings Borough Council (Local government) [2021] UKICO IC-52107 (26 March 2021)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKICO/2021/ic-52107.html
Cite as: [2021] UKICO IC-52107
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
Hastings Borough Council
The complainant submitted a two-part request to Hastings Borough Council (the council) for certain information which it had received from a particular geotechnical company. The council confirmed that it did not hold information relevant to part 1 of the complainant’s request. It then went on to refuse part 2 of the request, referring to a letter which had previously been sent to the complainant by its legal department. At the internal review stage, the council maintained its previous position in relation to part 1 of the request. Whilst it now referred to section 12 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 as its basis for refusing part 2 of the request, it then went on to release the details of two reports to the complainant. During the course of the Commissioner’s investigation, the council then confirmed that it wished to rely on regulation 12(4)(b) when refusing to comply with part 2 of the request. The Commissioner is satisfied that, on the balance of probabilities, the council was correct when it said that it did not hold any information relevant to part 1 of the request. With regard to part 2 of the request, the Commissioner has determined that the council is entitled to rely on the exception at regulation 12(4)(b) of the EIR, and that the public interest rests in favour of maintaining this exception. However, the Commissioner finds that the council has breached regulation 14(3) of the EIR. This is because, in its internal review, it incorrectly referred to an exemption under the FOIA when responding to part 2 of the request. The council also failed to cite an exception when stating that it did not hold information relevant to part 1 of the request. Furthermore, as the council failed to provide its internal review response within the prescribed 40 day time period, it has also breached regulation 11(4) of the EIR. The Commissioner does not require the council to take any steps as a result of this decision notice.EIR 11(4): Complaint upheld EIR 12(4)(b): Complaint not upheld EIR 5: Complaint not upheld EIR 14(3): Complaint upheld
Decision notice: IC-52107