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 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 Information Tribunal FT/EA/2024/0100 appeal withdrawn.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 copies of impact assessments that the UK government made available to the United Nations (UN) in respect of a specific report. The Cabinet Office withheld the information requested under section 27 (international relations). During the course of the Commissioner’s investigation the Cabinet Office confirmed that the information requested was publicly available. Following this disclosure the complainant suggested that additional information may be held by the Cabinet Office. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Cabinet Office has complied with its obligations under section 1 of the FOIA. The Commissioner does not require any steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Cabinet Office
20 Feb 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to the issuing of COVID-19 vaccine exemption certificates. Cabinet Office refused to provide the information citing section 42(1) of FOIA (legal professional privilege) as its basis for doing so.The Commissioner’s decision is that Cabinet Office was entitled to rely on section 42 to withhold the requested information and he does not require the public authority to take any further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 42
View Cabinet Office
20 Feb 2024Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from Bolton Council (“the Council”) relating to Councillors who are in council tax arrears.The Commissioner’s decision is that is that Council is not entitled to rely on section 40(2) (personal information) of FOIA to refuse to provide the withheld information.The Commissioner requires the Council to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation.Disclose the withheld informationThe Council 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 40(2)
View Bolton Council
19 Feb 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information regarding funding of developments for Skegness Town Council. The Department for Levelling Up, Housing & Communities (DLUHC) refused the request citing section 12 (cost of compliance) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the DLUHC was entitled to rely on section 12 of FOIA, in response to the request. It has also complied with its duty to provide advice and assistance in line with the requirements of section 16 of FOIA. The Commissioner does not require any steps as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12(1)
View Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government
19 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(1)
View Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office
19 Feb 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to meetings attended by Carrie Johnson (née Symonds) during the period 15 April 2020 and 15 June 2020. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the Cabinet Office does not hold information within scope of the request. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Cabinet Office
19 Feb 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information about road works. The London Borough of Barking and Dagenham (“the Council”) provided a narrative response but stated that it did not hold recorded information within scope of the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council does not hold recorded information within scope of the request. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(a)
View Barking and Dagenham Council
19 Feb 2024Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about gender identity services at Sheffield Health and Social Care NHS Foundation Trust (SHSC). SHSC provided some information but stated that it did not hold information relating to parts two and three of the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that SHSC does not hold the requested information at parts two and three, on the balance of probability. However, the Commissioner has recorded a breach of sections 1 and 10 of FOIA as SHSC responded and provided information to which the complainant was entitled outside the statutory timeframe.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1(1); FOI 10
View Sheffield Health and Social Care Trust
19 Feb 2024Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested specified internal guidance from the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP). The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, DWP does not hold further information to that provided to the complainant. The Commissioner does find, however, that DWP breached section 10(1) as it provided some of the requested information outside of the statutory timeframe. The Commissioner does not require DWP to take any further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10
View Department for Work and Pensions
19 Feb 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from the BBC about BBC Northampton listening figures. The BBC responded that the requested information was covered by the derogation and hence excluded from FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that this information, if held at all, is held by the BBC for the purposes of journalism, art or literature and so is not covered by FOIA. He therefore upholds the BBC’s position and requires no steps to be taken in this case.
Exemptions cited: FOI 3
View BBC
19 Feb 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to certificates issued under section 275 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992.The Cabinet Office initially relied on sections 23(5) (security bodies) and 24(2) (national security) of FOIA to neither confirm nor deny that it held the information. At internal review, it amended its position to rely on section 12(2) (cost limit) of FOIA to refuse the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Cabinet Office was entitled to refuse to comply with the request in accordance with section 12(2).The Commissioner also finds that the Cabinet Office has complied with its obligations under section 16 of FOIA to offer advice and assistance.The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12(2)
View Cabinet Office
19 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(1)
View Merseyside Police
19 Feb 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested correspondence between the then Prince of Wales and Tony Blair regarding the foot and mouth disease crisis. The Cabinet Office (“CO”) denied holding any environmental information within the scope of the request. It refused to confirm or deny whether it held any non-environmental information within the scope of the request and cited the relevant provisions of section 37 (Communications with the Sovereign etc) of FOIA. It upheld this at internal review. The Commissioner’s decision is that the CO is correct when it says it holds no environmental information within the scope of the request. He has also decided that the CO is entitled to rely on section 37(2) as its basis for doing refusing to confirm or deny whether it holds non-environmental information within the scope of the request by virtue of section 37(1)(aa). However, the CO failed in its obligations to the complainant under section 16 of FOIA to provide adequate advice and assistance. It also failed t
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(a); FOI 37(2)
View Cabinet Office
19 Feb 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant asked for information in relation to pre-application planning advice from Cumberland Council (the Council). The Council refused to provide the requested information citing regulations 12(5)(d) – confidentiality of proceedings and 12(5)(f) – interests of the person providing the information, of EIR. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council is entitled to rely on regulation 12(5)(d) in the circumstances of this case and he considers that the balance of the public interest favours maintaining the exception. The Commissioner does not require the Council to take any steps as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(d)
View Cumberland Council
19 Feb 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested communications sent to and received by a named Professor that relate to Queen’s University Belfast. The University of Birmingham (“the University”) refused to comply with the request, citing section 12(1) (cost of compliance) of FOIA as it basis for doing so.The Commissioner’s decision is that the University was entitled to rely on section 12(1) of FOIA to refuse to comply with the request. The Commissioner also finds that the University complied with its obligations under section 16 to offer advice and assistance.The Commissioner does not require the University to take any further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12; FOI 16
19 Feb 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from the BBC about downloads of the BBC iPlayer Apple TV app and user figures. The BBC responded that the requested information was covered by the derogation and hence excluded from FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that this information, if held at all, is held by the BBC for the purposes of journalism, art or literature and so is not covered by FOIA. He therefore upholds the BBC’s position and requires no steps to be taken in this case.
Exemptions cited: FOI 3
View BBC
19 Feb 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant made a 12-part request for information linked to an investigation into the conduct of several senior staff members. Stockton-on-Tees Borough Council (the ‘Council’) initially refused to respond to the request in its entirety on the basis that it was vexatious under section 14(1) of FOIA. Following an internal review, the Council partly revised its position and responded to the majority of the request, but it maintained that section 14(1) applied to parts 4, 5 and 6. The complainant is only concerned with the Council’s reliance on section 14(1) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the request was vexatious, based on the oppressive burden that complying with the request would impose, and therefore the Council was entitled to rely upon section 14(1) of FOIA to refuse it. The Commissioner does not require any steps as a result of this notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14
View Stockton-on-Tees Council
16 Feb 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested historical files relating to a number of meetings. The Cabinet Office refused the request, applying the exemption in section 23(1), section 24(1), and section 27(1) of the Act (information supplied by security bodies, national security, and international relations). The Commissioner’s decision is that the Cabinet Office was correct to apply section 23(1) and 24(1), in the alternative, to withhold the information from disclosure. The Commissioner does not require the Cabinet Office to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 23; FOI 24
View Cabinet Office
16 Feb 2024Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information held by Oxford Direct Services Limited (ODSL) which form communications between ODSL and Oxford City Council (the council) about the payment of dividends. ODSL referred the complainant to two recent requests that they had made, stating that it considered that all the information held relating to dividend payments had been released in response to those requests. It also provided the complainant with explanations about payments. During the course of the Commissioner’s investigation, ODSL provided the complainant with copies of emails, redacting some information under section 40(2) (third party personal information) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that ODSL is entitled to rely on section 40(2) of FOIA as its basis for withholding third party personal information. However, he has found a breach of section 10(1) of FOIA as ODSL failed to provide the complainant with the emails relevant to their request within the required 20 working days.The Com
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10; FOI 40
16 Feb 2024Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to the Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office (FCDO) for information relating to a trip the Prime Minister's trade envoy to Mongolia made in April 2023. The FCDO initially confirmed that it held the requested information and extended the time it needed to consider the balance of the public interest test, but subsequently refused the request on the basis of section 14(1) (vexatious) of FOIA given the burden in complying with it. The Commissioner’s decision is that the FCDO is entitled to refuse the request on the basis of section 14(1) of FOIA. However, it breached section 17(5) of FOIA by issuing its refusal notice citing this provision of the legislation late. The Commissioner has also concluded that it would have been reasonable for the FCDO to provide the complainant with additional advice and assistance to help him frame a request that is not potentially burdensome.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14; FOI 16; FOI 17
View Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office
16 Feb 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested confirmation as to whether a number of individuals are employed by the Metropolitan Police Service (the “MPS”) and whether it knew the location of one individual in particular. The Commissioner’s decision is that the MPS was entitled to rely on section 40(5B) (personal information) of FOIA when refusing to confirm or deny holding the requested information. To the extent that any of the data, if held, would relate to the requester, the MPS was entitled to rely on section 40(5A) to refuse to confirm or deny holding this potential element of the requested information. The Commissioner does not require further steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View Metropolitan Police Service
16 Feb 2024Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from Royal Borough of Greenwich (“the Council”) relating to payments to Phil Jones Associates and correspondence. The Council refused to comply with the request citing section 12 (cost limit) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council was not entitled to refuse to comply with the request in accordance with section 12(1) of FOIA. The Commissioner requires the Council issue a fresh response to the request that does not rely on section 12, provide advice and assistance to the complainant to assist in submitting a request falling within the appropriate limit. provide advice and assistance to the complainant to assist in submitting a request falling within the appropriate limit.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12
View Royal Borough of Greenwich
16 Feb 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to the Animals in Science Committee and its work. The Animals in Science Committee (“the public authority”) disclosed some information but withheld other information under section 36(2)(b)(ii) (prejudice to the effective conduct of public affairs) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the public authority was correct to withhold the information it did under section 36(2)(b)(ii). The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 36
View Animals in Science Committee
15 Feb 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant submitted a request to Historic England seeking information it held about chemical as the Sutton Walls site. Historic England located one letter falling within the scope of the request but withheld this on the basis of regulation 12(5)(f) (interests of the person who provided the information to the public authority) of the EIR. Historic England withdrew its reliance on this exception during the course of the Commissioner’s investigation and disclosed the letter to the complainant. The complainant subsequently argued that Historic England was likely to hold further information falling within the scope of his request. The Commissioner’s decision is that on the balance of probabilities Historic England does not hold any further information falling withing the scope of the request beyond the letter that has now disclosed to the complainant.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(a)
View Historic England
15 Feb 2024Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested a copy of a retained file, and related information, from the Cabinet Office. The Cabinet Office disclosed parts of the file. It withheld some information, citing sections 23(1) (Information supplied by, or relating to, bodies dealing with security matters) or 24(1) (National security) in the alternative, of FOIA. It refused to disclose the related information, citing sections 36(2)(b)(i), (ii) and (2)(c) (Prejudice to effective conduct of public affairs) and section 40 (Personal information) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Cabinet Office was entitled to apply sections 23(1) or 24(1) in the alternative, to withhold parts of the file. He also finds that sections 36(2)(b)(i) and (ii) were correctly applied to withhold the related information. However, the Cabinet Office did not complete its deliberations on the balance of the public interest within a reasonable time, and therefore breached section 17(3) of FOIA. Information Tribunal FT/EA/2024/00
Exemptions cited: FOI 17; FOI 23; FOI 24; FOI 36
View Cabinet Office
15 Feb 2024Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested from Oxford Direct Services Limited (‘ODSL’) information relating to the furloughing of specified staff within 2020. ODSL initially argued that it did not hold any information falling within the scope of the request. During the course of the Commissioner's investigation, however, ODSL located and disclosed some information but it argues that no further relevant information is held by it. The Commissioner’s decision is that on a balance of probabilities, ODSL has now complied with section 1 of FOIA. However, he has also decided that ODSL did not comply with the requirements of section 10 of FOIA as it did not disclose the information which it did hold within 20 working days of receiving the request for information. The Commissioner does not require ODSL to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10
15 Feb 2024Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about a fatal car crash from Lancashire Constabulary. Lancashire Constabulary refused to provide a report it had written for the Coroner, citing section 32(1) (Court records) of FOIA; this was not challenged by the complainant. Regarding the additional information sought, it advised that this was not held.
The Commissioner’s decision is that Lancashire Constabulary interpreted the wording of the request too narrowly and that two items it located do fall within the scope of the request. In failing to recognise this, it breached section 8 of FOIA. Based on the civil standard of the balance of probability, the Commissioner finds no further information is held.
The Commissioner requires Lancashire Constabulary to disclose the email and attachment described in paragraph 28, or issue a valid refusal explaining why they, or any of their content, are exempt from disclosure.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 8
View Lancashire Constabulary
15 Feb 2024Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to the London Borough of Brent (the council) for information relating to the identity of a freeholder.
The Commissioner’s decision is that the council was entitled to refuse part two of the request under section 21 (information readily available), and correctly relied upon section 40(5) of FOIA to refuse to confirm or deny whether it held the information, in relation to part three of the request. However, in failing to issue an appropriate refusal notice confirming the exemptions, which it ultimately came to rely upon, the Commissioner has determined that the council has breached section 17(1) of FOIA.
The Commissioner does not require further steps as a result of this decision notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 17; FOI 21; FOI 40
View London Borough of Brent
15 Feb 2024Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to the Cabinet Office seeking information it held relating to a visit to the University of Southampton in March 2018 concerning the diaries and letters of the 1st Earl and Countess Mountbatten. The Cabinet Office disclosed some information to the complainant but sought to withhold additional information on the basis of sections 40(2) (personal data) and 41(1) (information provided in confidence) of FOIA. The complaiant challenged the Cabinet Office’s decision to withhold information and argued that additional information was likely to be held falling within the scope of his request. During the course of the Commissioner’s investigation the Cabinet Office withdrew its reliance on section 41(1) and located additional information falling within the scope of the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the Cabinet Office has now located all of the information falling within the scope of the request. The Commissioner
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 40
View Cabinet Office
15 Feb 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (DLUHC) relating to communications between Jacob Young MP and the Mayor of Tees Valley.
The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the DLUHC does not hold information within the scope of the request.
The Commissioner does not require the DLUHC to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government
15 Feb 2024Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from the BBC about communications between BBCNI and the Department of Health relating to what material BBCNI broadcasts or publishes. The BBC responded that the requested information was covered by the derogation and hence excluded from FOIA.
The Commissioner’s decision is that this information, if held at all, is held by the BBC for the purposes of journalism, art or literature and so is not covered by FOIA. He therefore upholds the BBC’s position. However, the Commissioner finds that the BBC breached section 10(1) of FOIA as it failed to confirm whether or not the requested information was held for the purposes of FOIA within the statutory 20 working days.
The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken in this case.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 3
View BBC
15 Feb 2024Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested from The Royal Parks (TRP) information relating to residential lodges. TRP provided some of the information and relied on section 12 of FOIA (cost of compliance exceeds the appropriate limit) to refuse the remaining parts of the request.
The Commissioner’s decision is that TRP was not entitled to rely on section 12(1) of FOIA to refuse parts of the request. The Commissioner also finds that TRP failed to provide reasonable advice and assistance in accordance with section 16 of FOIA to assist the complainant in refining their request.
The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. Issue a fresh response to questions five, six and eight of the request that does not rely on section 12 of FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12; FOI 16
View Royal Parks
15 Feb 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information from Lincolnshire County Council (“the Council”) relating to its Minerals and Waste Local Plan, and the updating of that plan.
The Commissioner’s decision is that on the balance of probabilities, the Council does not hold information within the scope of the request. Therefore, the Council is entitled to rely on regulation 12(4)(a) (information not held) to refuse to comply with the request. Information Tribunal FTT FT/EA/2024/0076 appeal dismissed.
The Commissioner does not require the Council to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(a)
View Lincolnshire County Council
15 Feb 2024Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information about the London Borough of Hillingdon’s (the ‘Council’s’) legal case against the Ultra Low Emission Zone (‘ULEZ’) expansion. The Council dealt with the request under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (‘FOIA’). It disclosed some information but withheld other information under section 22 of FOIA (Information intended for future publication). During the Commissioner’s investigation, the Council disclosed further information but the complainant did not accept that the Council had disclosed all of the information to which he was entitled.The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council should have dealt with the request under the Environmental Information Regulations 2004 (‘EIR’). The Council breached regulations 5(2) and 14 of the EIR, but it correctly confirmed that no further information in relation to question 1 was held, in accordance with regulation 12(4)(a) of the EIR (Information not held).The Commissioner does not require the Council to ta
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(a); EIR 14; EIR 5(2)
View Hillingdon Council
15 Feb 2024Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested from Oxford Direct Services Limited (‘ODSL’) information relating to the furloughing of specified staff within 2021. ODSL initially argued that it did not hold any information falling within the scope of the request. During the course of the Commissioner's investigation, however, ODSL located and disclosed some information but it argues that no further relevant information is held by it. The Commissioner’s decision is that on a balance of probabilities, ODSL has now complied with section 1 of FOIA. However, he has also decided that ODSL did not comply with the requirements of section 10 of FOIA as it did not disclose the information which it did hold within 20 working days of receiving the request for information. The Commissioner does not require ODSL to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10
15 Feb 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
In a four part request, the complainant requested information about a Task and Finish Group. The London Borough of Bexley (“the Council”) initially stated that it did not hold the information.
The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council wrongly handled the request under FOIA and that the request fell to be considered under the EIR. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the Council holds no recorded information relevant to the complainant’s request in question one in accordance with regulation 12(4)(a) of the EIR (information not held). The Commissioner considers that the Council does hold information in relation to questions two, three and four.
However, in the particular circumstances of this case, the Commissioner has exercised his discretion and does not require the Council to take any steps. Even if he had ordered the Council to respond to questions two, three and four again, without relying upon regulation 12(4)(a) of the EIR, the Commis
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(a)
View Bexley Council
15 Feb 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to audio recording files. Northern Trains Limited (Northern Trains) relied on section 14(1) of FOIA (vexatious) to refuse the request, in addition to sections 12, 43, 24 and 38. The Commissioner’s decision is that the request was vexatious and therefore Northern Trains was entitled to rely upon section 14(1) of FOIA to refuse it. He has therefore not gone on to consider the other exemptions and he requires no steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14
View Northern Rail
15 Feb 2024Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
Summary wording for website: The complainant has requested information relating to funding for autism and learning disability advocacy services. West Sussex County Council (the Council) refused to comply with the request citing section 12 of FOIA (cost of compliance exceeds appropriate limit).
The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council was not entitled to rely on section 12 of FOIA when refusing this request.
The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation.
Provide a fresh response to the request that does not rely on section 12 of FOIA.
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 12
View West Sussex County Council
15 Feb 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information from Bristol City Council (“the Council”) relating to a specific planning application.
The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council is entitled to rely on regulation 12(4)(b) of the EIR to refuse to provide the requested information. The Commissioner also finds that the Council complied with its obligations under regulation 9 of the EIR to offer advice and assistance.
The Commissioner does not require the Council to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(b); EIR 9
View Bristol City Council
14 Feb 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to an inspection of the Northern Care Alliance. The Care Quality Commission (“the public authority”) refused to comply with the request, citing section 14(1) (vexatious requests) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that to comply with the request would impose a grossly oppressive burden on the public authority. Therefore it was entitled to refuse the request under section 14(1). The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14
View CQC
14 Feb 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information on ground investigations undertaken as part of the HS2 project in two areas of Staffordshire. High Speed Two Limited (HS2) refused the request as manifestly unreasonable under regulation 12(4)(b) of EIR. The Commissioner’s decision is that HS2 has correctly refused the request under regulation 12(4)(b) of EIR and has complied with regulation 9 in providing appropriate advice and assistance.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(b)
View High Speed Two (HS2) Limited
14 Feb 2024Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from the Police Service of Northern Ireland (the public authority). By the date of this notice the public authority had not issued a substantive response to this request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the public authority has breached section 10(1) of FOIA in that it failed to provide a valid response to the request within the statutory time frame of 20 working days. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following step to ensure compliance with the legislation. The public authority must provide a substantive response to the request in accordance with its obligations under FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Police Service of Northern Ireland
14 Feb 2024Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from Bradford Children and Families Trust (BCFT) relating to staff numbers. BCFT refused the request citing section 12 (cost limit) of FOIA.
The Commissioner’s decision is that BCFT was not entitled to refuse to comply with the request under section 12(1) of FOIA.
The Commissioner requires BCFT to take the following steps:
Issue a fresh response to the request that does not rely on section 12(1) of FOIA.
BCFT 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.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12
View BCADS Children & Families
14 Feb 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested any emails to the Cabinet Secretary about Covid testing of Ministers or significant civil servants over a stated time period. . The Cabinet Office disclosed some information but withheld other information in scope of the request on the basis of section 36(2)(b)(i) and (ii) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Cabinet Office has appropriately relied on the section 36(2)(b)(i) and (ii) exemptions and the public interest favours maintaining the exemptions.
Exemptions cited: FOI 36
View Cabinet Office
14 Feb 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested copies of correspondence sent between three different parties. The Cabinet Office responded that no information was held. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the requested information is not held by the Cabinet Office. The Commissioner does not require any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Cabinet Office
14 Feb 2024Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from Financial Ombudsman Service Limited (the public authority). By the date of this notice the public authority had not issued a substantive response to this request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the public authority has breached section 10(1) of FOIA in that it failed to provide a valid response to the request within the statutory time frame of 20 working days. The Commissioner requires the public authority to provide a substantive response to the request in accordance with its obligations under FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
13 Feb 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about passport application documents for their deceased parents submitted historically at the UK Consulate of Baghdad. The Home Office disclosed some information, with redactions in accordance with section 40 (personal information) of FOIA.
The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the Home Office does not hold any further information within the scope of the request. The Commissioner also finds that the Home Office was entitled to rely on section 40(2) of FOIA in relation to the redacted information.
The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 40
View Home Office
13 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