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 not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information on safeguarding. North Yorkshire Council (the council) refused the request under section 12 of the FOIA – cost exceeds the appropriate limit. The Commissioner’s decision is that section 12 of the FOIA is engaged, and that the council has provided appropriate advice and assistance as required by section 16 of FOIA. The Commissioner does not require the council to any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12; FOI 16
View North Yorkshire County Council
12 Feb 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has asked about the use of grazing cattle to manage land on an area known as the Firehills, located within Hastings Country Park Nature Reserve. The above public authority (“the Council”) stated that the information was not held.
The Commissioner proactively applied regulation 12(4)(a) (information not held) in this case and considers that, on the balance of probabilities, the Council does not hold the information requested and regulation 12(4)(a) is engaged.
The Commissioner does not require the Council to take any further steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(a)
View Hastings Borough Council
12 Feb 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The Commissioner’s decision is that the Great British Railways Transition Team is entitled to withhold information about the National Rail Accessibility Strategy steering group under section 36(2)(b)(i), section 36(2)(b)(ii) and section 40(2) of FOIA. These exemptions concern prejudice to the effective conduct of public affairs and personal data, respectively. No corrective steps are necessary.
Exemptions cited: FOI 36; FOI 40
12 Feb 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested copies of submissions provided to the Independent Renumeration Panel (IRP) for their consideration. Cumberland Council (the Council) refused the request under section 36(2)(b)(ii) (inhibition to the free and frank exchange of views) and section 41 (information provided in confidence) of FOIA.
The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council was entitled to rely on section 36(2)(b)(ii) of FOIA to withhold some of the requested information.
The Commissioner does not require the Council to take any further steps. Information Tribunal FTT FT/EA/2024/0074 appeal allowed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 36
View Cumberland Council
12 Feb 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information related to the updating of the Lincolnshire Minerals and Waste Local Plan. Lincolnshire County Council (the “council”) withheld the information under the exceptions for material in the course of completion (regulation 12(4)(d)) and manifestly unreasonable (regulation 12(4)(b)). The Commissioner’s decision is that the council correctly applied regulation 12(4)(d) to withhold the requested information. The Commissioner does not require the council to take any steps. Information Tribunal FTT FT/EA/2024/0068 appeal dismissed.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(d)
View Lincolnshire County Council
12 Feb 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The Commissioner’s decision is that the requested information about the NextCOVE trial is exempt from disclosure under section 43(2) of FOIA, which concerns commercial interests. No corrective steps are necessary.
Exemptions cited: FOI 43
View Health Research Authority
10 Feb 2024Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested inspections and report on Scottish salmon farms. Soil Association Certification Limited (SA) explained that it was not a public authority for the purposes of the EIR and was therefore not obliged to provide the information. The Commissioner’s decision is that SA is a public authority for the purposes of the EIR and therefore it was obliged to respond to the request under the EIR. As SA is a public authority The Commissioner requires SA to respond to the request in accordance with the EIR.
Exemptions cited: EIR 2(2)(c)
9 Feb 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information from Derbyshire County Council (“the Council”) about the closure of a footpath. The Council refused the request under regulation 12(4)(b) of the EIR (manifestly unreasonable) on the grounds that to comply with the request would incur unreasonable costs.The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council is entitled to refuse the request under regulation 12(4)(b). 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 further steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(b); EIR 9
View Derbyshire County Council
9 Feb 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainants made two requests to North Lincolnshire Council (“the Council”) for information regarding a variety of topics, relating to council tax, the Council’s investments and the use of information on the open register of the electoral roll. The Council has refused both requests under section 14(1) of FOIA on the grounds that they are vexatious. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council is entitled to refuse these two requests under section 14(1) of FOIA on the grounds that they are vexatious. However, the Commissioner has found that the Council breached section 10(1) of FOIA by failing to respond to the second request within the statutory time frame of 20 working days.The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14(1)
View North Lincolnshire Council
9 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 Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office
9 Feb 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from the Cabinet Office relating to possible breaches of the Cabinet Office Code of Conduct for Board Members of Public Bodies by members of the Channel 4 board.The Commissioner’s decision is that the Cabinet Office is entitled to rely on section 12(1) (cost limit) of FOIA to refuse to comply with the request. He also finds that the Cabinet Office met its obligations under section 16(1) of FOIA to provide advice and assistance.The Commissioner does not require the Cabinet Office to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12(1); FOI 16(1)
View Cabinet Office
9 Feb 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information about lawful basis for personal data sharing between Companies House (“CH”) and HMRC in relation to beneficial owners of UK property. CH responded by stating that it does not hold information that the complainant asked for. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, CH does not hold the information falling within the scope of the request, and has therefore complied with section 1(1)(a) of FOIA. The Commissioner does not require CH to take further steps in relation to this case.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Companies House
9 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 Surrey Police
9 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)
9 Feb 2024Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested an audio recording of a Council meeting from North Tawton Town Council (“the Council”). The Council refused to provide the requested information, citing section 36 of FOIA (prejudice to effective conduct of public affairs) as its basis for doing so. The Commissioner has determined that some of the information within the recording is the complainant’s own personal data and is therefore exempt from disclosure under section 40(1) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council is not entitled to withhold the remainder of the information in the recording (that which is not the complainant’s own personal data) under section 36 of FOIA, as although the exemption is engaged, the public interest in disclosure outweighs that in maintaining the exemption. The Commissioner requires the Council to disclose the parts of the recording which are not the complainant’s personal data to ensure compliance with the legislation.
Exemptions cited: FOI 36(2); FOI 40(1)
9 Feb 2024Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information from Oxfordshire County Council (“the Council”) regarding the location and depth of utilities infrastructure at a planned road junction. The Council refused to provide the requested information, citing regulation 12(5)(a) of the EIR as its basis for doing so, specifically on the grounds that to disclose the withheld information would adversely affect public safety. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has failed to demonstrate that the exception at regulation 12(5)(a) of the EIR is engaged. The Commissioner requires the Council to disclose the withheld information to ensure compliance with the legislation.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(a)
View Oxfordshire County Council
8 Feb 2024Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested specific information relating to works carried out as part of the Metro Flow Project undertaken by Buckingham Group Contracting Limited on behalf of Nexus. Nexus stated it did not hold the requested information. The Commissioner’s decision is that the requested information is held by Nexus as per section 3(2) of EIR – information held on behalf of. The Commissioner requires Nexus to issue a fresh response to the complainant’s request either providing the requested information or issuing a valid refusal notice under the EIR.
Exemptions cited: EIR 3(2)
8 Feb 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested various details in connection with 18 invoices listed in its expenditure logs from the Metropolitan Police Service (the “MPS”). The MPS disclosed a small amount of information. Regarding the remainder of the request, it variously cited sections 24(1) (National security), 31(1) (Law enforcement), 40(2) (Personal information) and 43(2) (Commercial interests) of FOIA. It would also neither confirm nor deny (“NCND”) holding information by virtue of the provisions in sections 24(2), 31(3), 40(5) and 43(3) of FOIA. The complainant did not contest the citing of section 40.The Commissioner’s decision is that sections 31(1) and 31(3) were appropriately cited in respect of the remaining part of the request in its entirety. He does not require any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 31(1); FOI 31(3)
View Metropolitan Police Service
8 Feb 2024Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about a list of properties owned by Essex County Council. Essex County Council (“the Council”) refused to disclose the requested information on the basis it was vexatious under section 14(1) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council was not entitled to rely on section 14(1) when refusing to provide the requested information. He requires the Council to provide the requested information or issue an appropriate refusal notice 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 the Act and may be dealt with as a contempt of court.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 14(1)
View Essex County Council
8 Feb 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The Commissioner’s decision is that Transport for London (TfL) is entitled to refuse to comply with the complainant’s 16 requests for information about particular traffic cameras under regulation 12(4)(b) of the EIR, which concerns manifestly unreasonable requests. He considers that the complainant is using the EIR to work with others in a campaign to burden and disrupt TfL. However, the Commissioner also finds that, in the alternative, the relevant information that’s held by TfL is excepted from disclosure under regulation 12(5)(a) and 12(5)(b) of the EIR. These exceptions concern public safety and the course of justice, respectively. It’s not necessary for TfL to take any corrective steps. Information Tribunal FT/EA/2024/0090 appeal dismissed.
Keywords/themes: Ultra Low Emission Zone, ULEZ
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(b); EIR 12(5)(a); EIR 12(5)(b)
View Transport for London
8 Feb 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information regarding the closure of complaints raised by them. Social Work England relied on section 40(2) of FOIA to withhold the information. The Commissioner’s decision is that the requested information is exempt from disclosure under section 40(1) of FOIA (complainant’s own personal data). The decision notice was incorrect to state that Social Work England breached sections 10(1), 17(1) and 1(1) of FOIA. Social Work England did provide a response within 20 working days and the Commissioner apologises for the error in the decision notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View Social Work England
8 Feb 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested from Translink, information regarding the sound files for its automated announcements used at railway stations and onboard its trains. Translink refused to comply with the request and cited section 38 (health and safety) of FOIA.The Commissioner’s decision is that the withheld information engages section 38 of FOIA and the public interest favours maintaining the exemption. The Commissioner does not require Translink to take any further steps as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: FOI 38
8 Feb 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested the make and model of a bus lane CCTV camera within the public authority’s district. The Royal Borough of Greenwich (“the Council”) stated the information was not held. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the requested information is not held by the Council. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Royal Borough of Greenwich
8 Feb 2024Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to the Chief Constable of Gwent Police (Gwent Police) for information about the delegation of authority from the Chief Constable, in relation to settling appeals regarding pensions. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, Gwent Police does not hold any further information within the scope of the request, and has therefore complied with section 1(1) of FOIA. However, in failing to respond to the request within 20 working days, the Commissioner has determined that Gwent Police breached section 10(1) of FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1(1); FOI 10(1)
View Gwent Police
7 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 The University of Manchester
7 Feb 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested correspondence, documents and complaint information regarding a Bowls club from the Lyng Parish Council (‘the Council’). The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council, on the balance of probabilities, does not hold any additional information within the scope of the request. The Commissioner is also satisfied that the Council was entitled to rely on section 21 when refusing to provide some of the requested information. The Commissioner does not require further steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 21; FOI 8
7 Feb 2024Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The requestor asked for information relating to the proposed women’s building to be constructed as part of the redevelopment of Holloway Prison. The London Borough of Islington (“the Council”) disclosed some information to the requestor but relied on regulation 12(4)(e) (internal communications), 12(5)(e) (commercially confidential), regulation 12(5)(f) (impact on provider) and regulation 13 (personal information) to withhold other parts of the requested information.The Commissioner’s decision is that: • The Council incorrectly applied regulation 12(4)(e) to some of the withheld information.• The Council incorrectly applied regulation 12(5)(e) to some of the withheld information.• The Council incorrectly applied regulation 12(5)(f) to some of the withheld information.• The Council correctly applied regulation 13 to some of the withheld information.• On the balance of probabilities, the Council holds further information in scope of the request. Further, the Commissioner finds that the C
Exemptions cited: EIR 11(4); EIR 12(4)(e); EIR 12(5)(e); EIR 12(5)(f); EIR 13; EIR 5(2)
View Islington Council
7 Feb 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested the Cabinet Office (CO) to confirm and provide any correspondence held relating a request of 400 vaccines to be dispatched to a foreign country in December 2020 by Matt Hancock, his office or associates, or Nadhim Zahawi, his office or associates. CO refused to confirm or deny whether it holds any recorded information citing section 27(4) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that CO is entitled to refuse to confirm or deny whether it holds the requested information in accordance with section 27(4) of FOIA. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 27
View Cabinet Office
7 Feb 2024Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested various information regarding the Business Case from Homes England on a Planned Exit Scheme in relation to the ending of its Help to Buy scheme. The Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (‘the DLUHC’) refused the request citing section 35(1)(a) (the formulation and development of government policy) and section 43(2) (commercial interests). During the course of the Commissioner’s investigation, the DLUHC also applied section 40(2) (personal information) to a small part of the information. The Commissioner’s decision is that the DLUHC was not entitled to rely on either section 35(1)(a) or section 43(2) FOIA. It was however entitled to rely on section 40(2) in respect of a small amount of personal information within the business case and the bulk of the supporting information.
Exemptions cited: FOI 35(1)(a); FOI 40(2); FOI 43(2)
View Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government
7 Feb 2024Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested from NHS South East London Integrated Care Board (the ICB) information relating to fees charged to patients for services by GP practices and the number and identity of GP practices it is in contract with.
The ICB denied holding account information about fees charged to patients for services by GP practices. During the course of the Commissioner’s investigation the ICB however confirmed that it holds information about the number and identity of the GP practices it is in contract with.
The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the ICB does not hold information relating to fees charged to patients for services by GP practices. However, by failing to confirm and disclose to the complainant the number and identity of the GP practices it is contact with, the ICB has breached section 1(1) of the FOIA.
The Commissioner requires the ICB to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. Provide the compl
Exemptions cited: FOI 1(1)
View NHS South East London ICB
7 Feb 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to the 2017 and 2019 revised Personal Injury Discount Rate (PIDR). The Commissioner decided that the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) was entitled to rely on section 36(2) (effective conduct of public affairs) of FOIA to withhold the relevant information. The Commissioner does not require any steps. Information Tribunal FT/EA/2024/0066 appeal dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 36(2)
View Ministry of Justice
7 Feb 2024Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The Commissioner’s decision is that the public authority breached section 10(1) of FOIA by failing to provide a response within 20 working days.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10(1)
View Welsh Parliament
7 Feb 2024Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested copies of employment references supplied to South Yorkshire Police (‘SYP’) for a named individual. SYP would neither confirm nor deny (‘NCND’) whether it held the requested information, citing section 40(5) (Personal information) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that SYP was entitled to apply section 40(5B)(a)(i) of FOIA to issue an NCND response. However, it breached section 17(1) of FOIA by failing to issue a valid refusal notice within the 20 working day time for compliance.
Exemptions cited: FOI 17; FOI 40
View South Yorkshire Police
7 Feb 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested a list of licensed caravan sites within the Council’s administration. Bridgend County Borough Council (“the Council”) denied holding the information and directed the complainant to the Shared Regulatory Services. The Commissioner’s decision is that the information sought by the complainant is not held by the Council for the purposes of FOIA and that the Council is entitled to rely on section 3(2)(b) (public authorities) of FOIA. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: FOI 16; FOI 3
View Bridgend County Borough Council
6 Feb 2024Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information held by Woking Borough Council (the council) about a “challenge” it had received to its proposal to adopt a draft Masterplan (which set out plans for the redevelopment of the town centre), and also the legal advice the council obtained following receipt of this “challenge”. The council refused the request, citing section 42 (legal professional privilege) of FOIA, but later confirmed to the Commissioner that if it was determined that the request was for environmental information, it considered that it would still be entitled to withhold all the information under regulation 12(5)(b) (course of justice) of the EIR. The Commissioner has decided that the EIR is the correct information access regime, but that the council is entitled to rely on regulation 12(5)(b) as its basis for withholding only part of the requested information. The Commissioner has also decided that the council is entitled to rely on regulation 13 of the EIR to withhold all third part
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(b); EIR 13
View Woking Borough Council
6 Feb 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from Potto Parish Council (“the Council”) relating to an investigation and the Council’s internal audit.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
6 Feb 2024Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about its staff from the Office of the Police and Crime Commissioner for Cheshire (“OPCC”). The OPCC directed the complainant to information about one part of his request. It would neither confirm nor deny (“NCND”) holding the remaining information, citing section 40(5) (Personal information) of FOIA. The Commissioner finds that this exemption is not engaged. The Commissioner requires the OPPC to confirm or deny whether any information is held. If information is held, the OPCC should either disclose it or issue a refusal notice explaining why it is exempt from disclosure.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40(5)
6 Feb 2024Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about anonymous donations. The University of Oxford (‘the University’) relied on sections 43(2) and 40(2) of FOIA to withhold some information within scope of the request. These exemptions concern commercial interests and personal data respectively. The University subsequently advised the Commissioner that it would disclose a small amount of information that it had previously withheld. The Commissioner’s decision is that the University is correct to apply section 43(2) and section 40(2) of FOIA to information within scope of the complainant’s request that it continues to withhold. The University breached section 1(1) and section 10(1) in respect of the information it now intends to disclose. The University must take the following step to ensure compliance with the legislation: If it hasn’t already done so, disclose to the complainant the information discussed at paragraph 20 of this notice.
Keywords/themes: Azerbaijan
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10; FOI 40; FOI 43
View The University of Oxford
6 Feb 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to correspondence between Candiru, Booz Allen Hamilton, Stratfo/RANE, NSO Group, Dark Matter, Archimedes Group, Black Cube and Bericho Technologies between the years 2015 to present. The Cabinet Office refused the request on the basis of section 12(2) of FOIA arguing that it would exceed the appropriate cost limit to determine whether it held any information falling within the scope of 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) of FOIA. The Commissioner also finds that the Cabinet Office complied with its obligations under section 16 to offer advice and assistance. The Commissioner does not require the Cabinet Office to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12(2)
View Cabinet Office
6 Feb 2024Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from St George’s University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust (the Trust) about applicants for jobs. The Trust refused to provide the information, initially citing section 22 (future publication) of FOIA but later withdrew that exemption and cited section 12 (cost exceeds limit) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Trust has cited section 12(1) of FOIA appropriately. He also accepts that the Trust could not offer any meaningful advice and assistance, given the context of the request. However, the Trust breached sections 1(1), 10(1) and 17(1) of FOIA in terms of the timeliness of its response. The Commissioner does not require further steps. Information Tribunal FT/EA/2024/0092 appeal allowed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1(1); FOI 10(1); FOI 12; FOI 17
View St George's University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust
6 Feb 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council relating to the recruitment of individuals to the Council’s IT Department.The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council is entitled to rely on section 40(5) (personal information) of FOIA to refuse to confirm or deny whether the information requested in part 4 of the request is held. The Commissioner does not require the Council to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40(5)
View City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council
6 Feb 2024Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information in the form of guides/policy from the Greater Manchester Police (‘the Police’). The Commissioner’s decision is that the Police has correctly relied on section 12 and has also met its obligations under section 16 to provide advice and assistance. The Commissioner has also decided that the Police has breached sections 1(1), 10(1) and 17(5) of FOIA, by failing to refuse the request within 20 working days. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1(1); FOI 10(1); FOI 12; FOI 16; FOI 17(5)
View Greater Manchester Police
6 Feb 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about the Department for Education’s Voluntary Exit Scheme. The Department for Education (“the DFE”) refused the request as it considered that compliance would exceed the cost limit under section 12 FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the DfE has correctly cited section 12(1) FOIA, in response to the requests. It has also complied with its duty to provide advice and assistance in line with the requirements of section 16 FOIA. The Commissioner does not require the DfE to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12(1)
View Department for Education
6 Feb 2024Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant submitted a refined four-part request for information relating to the tenders for a project known as Roman Rise. London Borough of Lambeth (the Council) responded to each part in turn but refused to provide the information requested at part three citing regulation 12(4)(b) (manifestly unreasonable) of EIR. The Council subsequently amended its position citing regulation 12(5)(e) (Confidentiality of commercial or industrial information) to withhold part of the requested information and stating it did not hold some of the requested information. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council was entitled to rely on regulation 12(5)(e) to withhold part of the information in scope of the request and that the public interest favours maintaining the exception. He further finds that, on the balance of probabilities, the Council has provided the information it holds in scope of the request subject to the exception above and therefore regulation 12(4)(a) is also applicable. Howev
Exemptions cited: EIR 11; EIR 12(4)(a); EIR 12(5)(e); EIR 14
View London Borough of Lambeth
6 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 North Middlesex University Hospital NHS Trust
5 Feb 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to a proposed Asylum Dispersal Centre in Buxton from High Peak Borough Council (the Council). The Council stated it did not hold information falling within the scope of the request.The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the civil standard of the balance of probabilities, the Council does not hold information falling within the scope of the request and that it has complied with its obligations under section 1(1) of FOIA. However, in failing to respond to the request within 20 working days, the Commissioner has found a breach of section 10(1) of FOIA. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1(1)
View High Peak Borough Council
5 Feb 2024Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested correspondence between The Planning Inspectorate (“PI”) and the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities in respect of the recovery of an appeal about a proposed housing development. PI refused the request under the exception for internal communications (regulation 12(4)(e)). The Commissioner’s decision is that PI correctly withheld the requested information under regulation 12(4)(e) but that it failed to carry out an internal review and breached regulation 11(2). The Commissioner does not require PI to take any further action.
Exemptions cited: EIR 11(2); EIR 12(4)(e)
View Planning Inspectorate
5 Feb 2024Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested honours related information regarding Sir Archibald David Stirling and Lieutenant Colonel Robert Blair “Paddy” Mayne – two founding members of the SAS. The Cabinet Office (“CO”) denied holding information relating to Lieutenant Colonel Mayne. It said that any other information it held within the scope of the request was exempt under section 37(1)(b) (honours) and section 23 (security bodies) or section 24 (national security) in the alternative. CO upheld this position after internal review. During the course of the Commissioner’s investigation, the complainant withdrew that part of his complaint which related to section 23 or section 24. The Commissioner’s decision is that CO does not hold any information relating to Lieutenant Colonel Mayne. The other information that it holds within the scope of the request is exempt under section 37(1)(b). However, CO failed to comply with its obligations under section 1, section 10 and section 17 in failing to substant
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10; FOI 17; FOI 37
View Cabinet Office
5 Feb 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested a copy of a letter sent to Sir Winston Churchill. The Cabinet Office refused the request, citing sections 23(1) – security bodies (and in the alternative, section 24(1) – national security), 27(1)(a), (c) and (d) and (2) - prejudice to international relations. The Commissioner’s decision is that section 27 is engaged in respect of all the requested information, and the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosing the information. The Commissioner does not require any steps. Information Tribunal FT/EA/2024/0087 under appeal.
Keywords/themes: Iran
Exemptions cited: FOI 27
View Cabinet Office