28 Feb 2024Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information regarding murders which had occurred within a year. The Commissioner’s decision is that the above public authority (“the public authority”) breached section 10(1) of FOIA by failing to confirm or deny holding the requested information, and section 17(1) by failing to issue an appropriate refusal notice within the statutory time frame of 20 working days. The Commissioner does not require further steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10(1); FOI 17
View Greater Manchester Police
28 Feb 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information relating to damaged ULEZ cameras. Transport for London (“the public authority”) refused the request, citing regulation 12(5)(b). The Commissioner’s decision is that the requested information is exempt from disclosure under regulation 12(5)(b). The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(b)
View Transport for London
28 Feb 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested legal advice in relation to the handling of a previous request for information. Northumberland County Council (the Council) withheld the information requested under section 42 (legal professional privilege). The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council correctly applied section 42 to the request. He does not require any steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 42
View Northumberland County Council
28 Feb 2024Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information about the removal of an automatically generated response which the council previously used to send in response to emails it received from the Whatdotheyknow website. Cherwell District Council (“the council”) said that no information is held by it. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council was correct to state that no information is held by it. The council has therefore decided that the council’s response complied with the requirements of section 1 of FOIA. However the Commissioner has also decided that the council did not comply with the requirements of section 10 of FOIA. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10
View Cherwell District Council
27 Feb 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested from Homes England information relating to home valuations. The above public authority (“the public authority”) relied on section 12 of FOIA (cost of compliance) to refuse the request.The Commissioner’s decision is that the public authority was entitled to rely on section 12(1) of FOIA to refuse the request. The Commissioner also finds that the public authority complied with its section 16 obligation to offer advice and assistance.The Commissioner does not require further steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12; FOI 16
View Homes England
27 Feb 2024Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested from the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) information about enforcement action taken under the Senior Managers and Certification Regime (SMCR). The FCA refused to comply with the request on the basis that it was vexatious under section 14(1) of FOIA.The Commissioner’s decision is that the FCA was not entitled to rely on section 14(1) when refusing to provide the requested information. The Commissioner requires the FCA to provide the requested information or issue an appropriate refusal notice which does not rely on section 14(1).
Exemptions cited: FOI 14(1)
View Financial Conduct Authority
27 Feb 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested correspondence between the Badsworth Parish Council (“the council”) and specified other parties. The council initially responded stating that it did not hold any information. During the course of the Commissioner's investigation, it located information and disclosed this to the complainant. The complainant, however, considers that further information is held by the council. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the council does not hold any further information falling within the scope of the request. However, the Commissioner has also decided that the council did not comply with the requirements of section 10 of FOIA as it did not provide the information it held to the complainant within 20 working days of receiving the request for information. The Commissioner does not require the council to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
27 Feb 2024Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information on the interactions between Ministers of the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) and the Daily Telegraph. DWP relied on section 14(1) to refuse to comply with the request as it considered the request was vexatious. The Commissioner’s decision is that the request is not vexatious and DWP is not therefore entitled to rely on section 14(1). The Commissioner requires DWP to issue a fresh response to the request which does not rely on section 14(1). The public authority must take these steps within 35 calendar days of the date of this decision notice. Failure to comply may result in the Commissioner making written certification of this fact to the High Court pursuant to section 54 of FOIA and may be dealt with as a contempt of court.
Keywords/themes: Burden, speculative request, fishing expedition
Exemptions cited: FOI 14
View Department for Work and Pensions
27 Feb 2024Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from London Borough of Hackney (the Council), relating to Councillors personal declaration of interests’ forms. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council breached section 10(1) of FOIA by failing to provide a valid response to the request within the statutory time frame of 20 working days. The Commissioner does not require further steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10(1)
View London Borough of Hackney
27 Feb 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested copies of communications sent by a named councillor to various third parties. Cardiff Council (the Council) stated that the information requested was not held. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the Council does not hold any information within the scope of the request. The Commissioner does not require any steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 3
View Cardiff Council
27 Feb 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about staffing and safeguarding procedures. Thomas Coram School (“the School”) provided most of the information, but withheld part of it. During the course of the Commissioner’s investigation, the School advised it considered the remaining information exempt under section 40(2) of FOIA.The Commissioner’s decision is that the School is only entitled to rely on section 40(2) to withhold some of the remaining information. The Commissioner requires the School to disclose the salary ranges in £5,000 bands of the roles identified by the complainant.
Keywords/themes: Salaries
Exemptions cited: FOI 40(2)
27 Feb 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information relating to exposure to hydrogen sulphide (H2S). Newcastle Under Lyme Borough Council (the Council) refused the request, citing regulation 12(4)(b) of the EIR (manifestly unreasonable) as its basis for doing so, on the grounds that to comply with the request would incur an unreasonable burden on its resources. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council was entitled to rely on regulation 12(4)(b) to refuse the request. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(b)
View Newcastle under Lyme Borough Council
27 Feb 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information regarding complaints made about a named registrant. The Commissioner’s decision is that the HCPC is entitled to rely on section 40(5)(b) of FOIA to refuse to confirm or deny whether it holds the information. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40(5)
View Health and Care Professions Council
27 Feb 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to a statement made by the Chief Executive Officer of the Post Office to the Commons Business and Trade Select Committee hearing, about being frustrated by the lack of former sub postmasters, prosecuted using Horizon data, that have come forward to have their convictions reviewed for potential appeal. The Post Office Limited (“the Post Office”) relied on section 12 of FOIA (cost of compliance) to refuse the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Post Office was entitled to rely on section 12(1) of FOIA to refuse the request. The Commissioner also finds that the Post Office complied with its obligation under section 16 to offer advice and assistance. The Commissioner does not require the Post Office to take any further steps as a result of this decision notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12; FOI 16
View Post Office Ltd
26 Feb 2024Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information from Devon County Council (“the Council”) relating to the maintenance of a specific road. The Council disclosed some information within the scope of the request. The complainant believes the Council holds additional information within the scope of the request. The Council’s position was that it had disclosed all of the information it held within the scope of the request, however, during the course of the Commissioner’s investigation is has identified some further information which it had not disclosed. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council did not comply with regulation 5(1) of the EIR as it did not disclose all of the information it held within the scope of the request. The Commissioner is, however, satisfied that, on the balance of probabilities, the Council has now identified all of the information it holds within the scope of the request. The Commissioner also finds that the Council failed to respond to the request within 20 working d
Exemptions cited: EIR 5(1); EIR 5(2)
View Devon County Council
26 Feb 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested statistical information from Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC) relating to deaths in custody investigations and their outcomes from year 2009/10 to the most recent available data. The (IOPC) refused to comply with the request citing section 12 (cost limit) of FOIA.The Commissioner’s decision is that the IOPC was entitled to refuse to comply with the request in accordance with section 12(1) of FOIA. The Commissioner also finds that the IOPC complied with its obligations under section 16 to offer advice and assistance. The Commissioner does not require the IOPC to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12(1); FOI 16
View Independent Office for Police Conduct
26 Feb 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
Summary wording for website: The complainant has requested an unredacted planning application and correspondences from the London Borough of Ealing (‘the Council’). The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has correctly relied on regulation 13(1) of the EIR to withhold the requested information. The Commissioner does not require further steps. Information Tribunal FT/EA/2024/0097 Under Appeal.
Exemptions cited: EIR 13
View Ealing Council
26 Feb 2024Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to a complaint. The Financial Ombudsman Service (“the public authority”) handled the request as a subject access request (‘SAR’). The Commissioner’s decision is that the public authority was correct to handle the request as a SAR and any other information is exempt under section 21 (information reasonably accessible to applicant via other means) or section 40(2) (personal information). The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 17; FOI 21; FOI 40(1); FOI 40(2)
26 Feb 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council (“the Council”) about the specialisms of 1063 named social workers. The Council refused to provide the requested information, citing section 40(2) of FOIA (personal information) as its basis for doing so.
The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council is entitled to withhold the requested information under section 40(2) of FOIA.
The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40(2)
View City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council
26 Feb 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council (“the Council”) about the action the Council had taken to establish whether an unauthorised business was being run at a particular address. The Council has refused to confirm or deny whether it holds information which falls within the scope of the request, citing section 40(5) as its basis for doing so. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council is entitled to rely on section 40(5) to refuse to confirm or deny whether it holds information which falls within the scope of the request.The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40(5)(b)(a)(i)
View Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council
26 Feb 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested a copy of the register of land and building assets. Following a decision notice the Commissioner issued on 7 August 2023, the Council issued a fresh response to the request and disclosed additional information. The complainant considered that the Council held additional information which it had not disclosed. During the course of the Commissioner’s investigation, the Council confirmed that it did hold additional information relevant to the request, however, it advised that compliance with the request would exceed the appropriate limit and as such it was now relying on section 12 (cost limit) of the FOIA to refuse the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council was entitled to rely on section 12(1) to refuse the request for that information. The Commissioner also finds that the Council complied with its obligations under section 16 to offer advice and assistance The Commissioner does not require any steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12; FOI 16
View Breckland Council
26 Feb 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested the legal fees for a specific case brought against Berry Pomeroy Parish Council (the council). The council stated that it did not hold the requested information. The Commissioner’s decision is that the requested information is not held by the council. The Commissioner does not require the council to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
26 Feb 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested various information relating to Automated Facial Recognition (AFR) identifications. South Wales Police (SWP) refused to comply with the request citing section 12 (cost limit) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that SWP was entitled to refuse to comply with the request in accordance with section 12(1) of FOIA. The Commissioner also finds that SWP complied with its obligations under section 16 to offer advice and assistance. The Commissioner does not require any steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12; FOI 16
View South Wales Police
26 Feb 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested copies of correspondence and communications held by the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (DLUHC) which were sent between HRH The Prince of Wales (or officials acting on his behalf), and the Secretary of State, about homelessness, housing and the Homewards initiative. The DLUHC withheld the information identified as being relevant to the request under section 37(1)(aa)(communications with the heir to the throne) and section 40(2) (personal information) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the DLUHC was correct to have determined that the information held that is relevant to the request is not environmental information, and should be considered under FOIA. Furthermore, the Commissioner finds that the DLUHC is entitled to rely on section 37(1)(aa) of FOIA as its basis for withholding this information.
Exemptions cited: FOI 37(1)(aa)
View Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government
23 Feb 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information from the Department for Energy Security & Net Zero (DESNZ) regarding a copy of the plan to meet the UK’s 2050 net zero commitment. DESNZ provided the complainant with links to the requested information and advised that no further information was held. The Commissioner’s decision is that on the balance of probabilities DESNZ does not hold a copy of a plan or any further information in relation to the request. The Commissioner does not require any steps as a result of this decision notice.
Exemptions cited: EIR 5(1)
View Department for Energy Security and Net Zero
23 Feb 2024Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information on export licence applications made by named companies. DBT refused the request on the grounds that it was vexatious, as set out in FOIA section 14(1). At the same time DBT also applied section 14(1) to three other requests made before and after that request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the requests are not vexatious. He has also determined that DBT is in breach of FOIA section 17 for failing to provide its response to two of the four requests within 20 working days of the date of receipt of the requests for information. The Commissioner requires DBT to issue a fresh response to the requests under FOIA without relying on section 14(1). The public authority must take these steps within 35 calendar days of the date of this decision notice. Failure to comply may result in the Commissioner making written certification of this fact to the High Court pursuant to section 54 of the Act and may be dealt with as a contempt of court.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14(1); FOI 17
View Department for Business and Trade
23 Feb 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from Hyndburn Borough Council (“the Council”) relating to caravan sites.The Commissioner’s decision is that on the balance of probabilities, the Council does not hold information within the scope of the request.The Commissioner does not require the Council to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Hyndburn Borough Council
23 Feb 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about the United Kingdom’s armed forces operations in the Black Sea and Ukraine.The Commissioner’s decision is that the Ministry of Defence was entitled to rely on section 26 (Defence) of FOIA to withhold the military information requested in parts one and three of the request for information from the complainant. The Commissioner also decided that, on the balance of probabilities, the Ministry of Defence does not hold the financial information within scope of parts two, three, four and five of the request .The Commissioner does not require any steps as a result of this decision notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 26
View Ministry of Defence
23 Feb 2024Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested all correspondence relating to particular planning applications. The Council responded with some information redacted in reliance of EIR regulation 13 – personal information. The Council relied on regulation 12(4)(e) – internal communications to withhold further information. The Council relied on the same exceptions to withhold further information found during the course of the Commissioner’s investigation. The Council also relied on FOIA section 21 to refuse to provide information already in the public domain. The Commissioner’s decision is that regulation 12(4)(e) is engaged but the public interest favours disclosure. The Council was not correct in citing FOIA section 21 although it had complied with its duties under regulation 5 by directing the applicant to its website. To ensure compliance with the legislation the Commissioner requires the Council to disclose the withheld internal communications including senior officers’ names but with redactions for
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(e); EIR 13(1)
View London Borough of Hounslow
23 Feb 2024Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from Epsom and St Helier University Hospitals NHS Trust (the Trust) about applicants for jobs. The Trust provided some information but cited section 12 (cost of compliance exceeds appropriate limit) of FOIA to part of the request. Much later the Trust questioned the accuracy of the information it had provided and concluded that section 12 applied to the whole request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Trust has cited section 12(1) of FOIA appropriately. He has found a breach of section 16(1) of FOIA in the Trust’s original response to the complainant. However, he accepts that the Trust is now unable to offer any meaningful advice and assistance, given the history and context of the request. The Commissioner has also decided that the Trust breached sections 1(1), 10(1) and 17(5) of FOIA in terms of the timeliness of its response. The Commissioner does not require further steps. Information Tribunal FT/EA/2024/0103 appeal allowed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1(1); FOI 10(1); FOI 12; FOI 16; FOI 17
View Epsom and St Helier University Hospitals NHS Trust
22 Feb 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from NHS Coventry and Warwickshire Integrated Care Board (‘the ICB’), relating to the South Warwickshire Community Hospital Bed Review. The ICB cited section 22 of FOIA and refused to provide the requested information because it was intended for future publication. The Commissioner’s decision is that the ICB was correct to apply section 22 of FOIA at the time of the request. No steps are required as a result of this notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 22
View NHS Coventry and Warwickshire ICB
22 Feb 2024Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested various information in respect of staff on specified levels/grades at Bradford Children and Families Trust (‘the Trust’). The Trust provided most of the information but refused to provide information in respect of the staff on Band levels citing section 12 (cost of compliance exceeds appropriate limit) FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Trust has failed to demonstrate that section 12 applies to the request.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12
View BCADS Children & Families
22 Feb 2024Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to suspicions of fraud from Cambridgeshire Constabulary (the Constabulary). The Commissioner’s decision is that the Constabulary was entitled to rely on section 12(1) to refuse the request. The Commissioner also finds that the public authority did not comply with its section 16 obligation to offer advice and assistance. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: Provide the complainant with appropriate advice and assistance to help them submit a request that falls within the appropriate limit. he public authority must take these steps within 35 calendar days of the date of this decision notice. Failure to comply may result in the Commissioner making written certification of this fact to the High Court pursuant to section 54 of the Act and may be dealt with as a contempt of court.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12; FOI 16
View Cambridgeshire Constabulary
22 Feb 2024Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from Cambridgeshire Constabulary (the Constabulary) relating to fraud reports. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Constabulary was entitled to rely on section 12(1) when refusing to provide the requested information. The Commissioner also finds that the Constabulary did not comply with its section 16 obligation to offer advice and assistance. The Commissioner requires the Constabulary to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. Provide the complainant with appropriate advice and assistance to help them submit a request that falls within the appropriate limit.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12; FOI 16
View Cambridgeshire Constabulary
22 Feb 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to the Cabinet Office seeking copies of Dominic Cummings' diary appointments from April through to June 2020. The Cabinet Office refused the request on the basis of section 14(1) (vexatious) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Cabinet Office were entitled to refuse the request on the basis of section 14(1).
Exemptions cited: FOI 14(1)
View Cabinet Office
22 Feb 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about the revenue generated by the London Ultra Low Emission Zone (ULEZ). Transport for London (“TfL”) relied on section 12 of FOIA (cost of compliance) to refuse the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that TfL was entitled to rely on section 12(1) of FOIA to refuse the request. The Commissioner also finds that TfL complied with its obligation under section 16 to offer advice and assistance. The Commissioner does not require TfL to take any further steps as a result of this decision notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12; FOI 16
View Transport for London
22 Feb 2024Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The public authority has failed to respond to this request within 20 working days, as specified under FOIA. The Commissioner requires it to provide the complainant with a response to this request within 35 calendar days in accordance with its obligations under FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Home Office
22 Feb 2024Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested correspondence sent by HM Treasury (“HMT”) to the polling company Hanbury Strategy regarding polling questions for a specific time period. HMT refused to provide it citing 35(1)(a) (formulation/development government policy), section 43(2) (commercial interests) and section 40(2) (personal data). HMT upheld this at internal review. The Commissioner’s decision is that the information which HMT cited was exempt under section 43(2) is out of the scope of the request. HMT is not entitled to rely on section 35(1)(a) in respect of some of the withheld information but is entitled to rely on section 35(1)(a) for other parts of it. HMT is also entitled to rely on section 40(2) for the personal data within the withheld information.The Commissioner requires HMT to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: Disclose the information set out in the Confidential Annex to this Notice.The public authority must take these steps within 35 calendar da
Exemptions cited: FOI 35; FOI 40
View HM Treasury
22 Feb 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested copies of the CCTV and other evidence used to convict the “kill the bill” demonstrators who took part in the protest on 21 March 2021. Avon and Somerset Police refused to disclose the requested information citing section 30(1)(a)(b) and (c) of the FOIA. The Commissioner has used his discretion to apply section 40(2) – (third party personal data) of FOIA to the requested information. The Commissioner considers that the information is exempt from disclosure under section 40(2) and does not require the public authority to take any steps as a result of this decision notice.Keywords/themes: kill the billdemonstrators protest
Exemptions cited: FOI 40(2)
View Avon and Somerset Police
22 Feb 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information relating to updates around litigation for the New Royal Hospital. Liverpool University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust (the Trust) withheld the information requested under regulation 12(5)(b) of EIR. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Trust was entitled to rely on regulation 12(5)(b) – course of justice, and the balance of the public interest lies in maintaining the exception. The Commissioner does not require any steps to be taken as a result of this decision.
Keywords/themes: New Royal Liverpool Hospital
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(b)
View Liverpool University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust
22 Feb 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to the Bank of England (the Bank) seeking the amount it had spent on third party fees in respect of an Employment Tribunal claim which he had brought against the Bank. The Bank confirmed that it held the requested information but refused to provide this as it considered it to be exempt from disclosure on the basis of section 43(2) (commercial interests) of FOIA. During the course of the Commissioner’s investigation, the Bank withdrew its reliance on section 43(2) and instead argued that the withheld information was exempt from disclosure on the basis of section 36(2)(c). The Commissioner’s decision is that the withheld information is exempt from disclosure on the basis of section 36(2)(c) and that in all the circumstances of the case the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosure of the information.
Exemptions cited: FOI 36(2)(c)
View Bank of England
21 Feb 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to candidates who identified themselves as Muslim in various selection exercises. The Judicial Appointments Commission (the JAC) denied holding some of the requested information. While it provided some information within the scope of the request, it refused to provide numbers for specific exercises, citing section 40(2) (personal information) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the JAC was entitled to withhold the information by virtue of section 40(2) (personal information) of FOIA. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken as a result of this decision. Information Tribunal FTT FT/EA/2024/0075 under appeal.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View Judicial Appointments Commission
21 Feb 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to the visa application file for a named individual. The Home Office neither confirmed nor denied holding the requested information, citing section 40(5) (personal information) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Home Office was entitled to rely on section 40(5B)(a)(i) to refuse to confirm or deny whether they hold any information falling within the scope of the request. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40(5)
View Home Office
21 Feb 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has asked the Crown Prosecution Service (‘the CPS’) for information about the salary of the Independent Assessor of Complaints (‘the IAC’). The CPS refused to disclose some information, citing section 40(2) (Personal information) of FOIA. During the Commissioner’s investigation, it said it did not hold other information specified in the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that section 40(2) was correctly engaged and that, on the balance of probabilities, the CPS does not hold the other information. However, by failing to tell the complainant in its refusal notice that it did not hold the other information, it breached section 1(1)(a) of FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 40
View Crown Prosecution Service
21 Feb 2024Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested various information regarding the Chief Executive and the Leader of Cornwall Council (‘the Council’) mentioning the word ‘referendum’. The Council provided some information but withheld the rest citing section 40(2) (personal information) and section 36(2)(b)(i) and (ii) and section 36(2)(c) (prejudice to the effective conduct of public affairs). It also confirmed that it had identified all relevant information falling within the scope of the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has not complied with its obligations under section 1(1) FOIA, breached section 10(1) and was entitled to rely on sections 36(2)(b)(i) and (ii) FOIA to withhold the information.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10(1); FOI 36(2)
View Cornwall Council
21 Feb 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from the Cabinet Office. The Cabinet Office has cited sections 23(1), 26(1)(b) and 27(1) of FOIA as a basis for non-disclosure. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Cabinet Office has correctly applied section 23(1) of FOIA, which applies to the entirety of the requested information.Therefore the Commissioner requires no steps to be taken by the Cabinet Office.
Exemptions cited: FOI 23
View Cabinet Office
20 Feb 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information held by Devon County Council (the council) relating to speed restrictions, and any calming measures, in place at a specified road in the local area. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the council has provided all the information that it holds that is relevant to the complainant’s request, and has therefore complied with section 1(1) of FOIA. Where the requested information could be categorised as environmental information, the Commissioner is satisfied that the council has also complied with regulation 5(1) of the EIR. The Commissioner does not require the council to take further steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 5(1); FOI 1(1)
View Devon County Council
20 Feb 2024Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information regarding the Lower Thames Crossing project. The Commissioner’s decision is that the appropriate legislation is the Environmental Information Regulations (EIR) and that the Cabinet Office is not entitled to rely on regulation 12(4)(e), internal communications, or 12(5)(f), interests of the person who provided the information, to withhold this information. The Commissioner requires the Cabinet Office to disclose the requested information. The public authority must take these steps within 35 calendar days of the date of this decision notice. Failure to comply may result in the Commissioner making written certification of this fact to the High Court pursuant to section 54 of the Freedom of Information Act and may be dealt with as a contempt of court. Information Tribunal FT/EA/2024/0100 appeal withdrawn.
Exemptions cited: EIR 11; EIR 12(4)(e); EIR 12(5)(f); EIR 2
View Cabinet Office
20 Feb 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to a review of what personal information is shared in the event of road traffic collisions. Thames Valley Police (‘TVP’) provided a number of responses throughout the course of the request and the Commissioner’s investigation, which are set out in this notice. Ultimately, it cited section 14(1) of FOIA – vexatious request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the request was vexatious under section 14(1) of FOIA. The Commissioner does not require any steps as a result of this notice. Information Tribunal FT/EA/2024/0101 under appeal.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14
View Thames Valley Police
20 Feb 2024Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information held by Plymouth City Council (the council) about Special Safety Certificates issued for the Muse concert and Rod Stewart concert which took place at Plymouth Argyle’s football stadium, Home Park, in May and June 2023. The council provided the complainant with some information in response to their request, and advised that it considered the remaining information to be exempt from disclosure under section 38(1)(b) (endangerment to the safety of any individual) of FOIA. The complainant raised concerns with the Commissioner about the council’s decision to withhold the documents attached to Appendix 1 of the Special Safety Certificate for the Muse concert. The council agreed to review this information and then released some additional information to the complainant. The council confirmed it had made some redactions to the documents released under section 38(1)(b), and section 40 (third party personal information) of FOIA. The complainant has not contes
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 38
View Plymouth City Council