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 not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested Defra to disclose information relating to the levels of noise that come from the euro-fighter at the BAE Warton site. Defra confirmed that it does not hold the requested information and therefore regulation 12(4)(a) of the EIR applies. The Commissioner’s decision is that on the balance of probabilities Defra does not hold the requested information. It is therefore entitled to rely on regulation 12(4)(a) of the EIR. The Commissioner does not require any further action to be taken.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(a)
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
5 Feb 2024Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested the trust to disclose information relating to its decision to take down a piece of artwork. The trust provided some information but withheld other information under section 21 of FOIA. It also confirmed that it does not hold recorded information relating to other aspects of the request. During the Commissioner’s investigation the trust withdrew its application of section 21 and released the information to the complainant. In terms of additional information being held, it confirmed that no further recorded information falling within the scope of the request is held. The Commissioner’s decision is that on the balance of probabilities no further recorded information falling within the scope of the complainant’s request is held. He has however recorded a breach of section 1(1)(b) and 10 of FOIA. The Commissioner does not require any further action to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10; FOI 21
View Chelsea and Westminster Hospital NHS Foundation Trust
5 Feb 2024Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to a file held by the Home Office. The Home Office refused to provide the information, citing sections 23(1) (information supplied by, or relating to, bodies dealing with security matters) or in the alternative section 24(1) (national security), 27(1)(a) (international relations) and 40(2) (personal information) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the information is exempt from disclosure on the basis of section 23(1) or in the alternative section 24(1) of FOIA. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken as a result of this decision Information Tribunal FT/EA/2024/0043 under appeal.
Exemptions cited: FOI 23; FOI 24
View Home Office
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
2 Feb 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
1. The complainant has requested all the recorded information from the Companies House (“CH”) about two decisions made by the Registrar to discontinue Strike Off Actions in relation to companies that failed to comply with their legal obligation to file their accounts on time.The Complainant also asked for all the correspondence related to this case between CH and the companies and / or their representatives.2. The Commissioner’s decision is that CH was correct to rely on section 30(1)(b) of FOIA to withhold information.3. The Commissioner does not require any steps as a result of this decision notice. Information Tribunal FT/EA/2024/0051 appeal dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 30(1)
View Companies House
2 Feb 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to a specific surgery. The Care Quality Commission (“the public authority”) disclosed some information but also withheld information, citing section 31 (law enforcement) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the public authority was correct to withhold the information it did under section 31. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 31
View CQC
1 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)
1 Feb 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested copies of videos of mock press conferences. The Cabinet Office stated that the information was not held. The Commissioner’s decision is that the requested information was not held by the Cabinet Office. The Commissioner does not require any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Cabinet Office
1 Feb 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about an email he received from the Medicines & Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (‘the MHRA’). The MHRA cited section 14(1) of FOIA to refuse the request, on the grounds that it was vexatious. The Commissioner’s decision is that the MHRA was entitled to rely on section 14(1) of FOIA to refuse the request. The Commissioner does not require further steps as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14(1)
View Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency
1 Feb 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to Westminster City Council’s (“the Council”) involvement with Princes Square Gardens Limited for a specific period. The Council provided some information but explained it did not hold anything further. Within the information it provided, it redacted some information, citing section 40(2) – personal information and 42 – legal professional privilege. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council is entitled to rely on section 40(1), section 40(2) and section 42 of FOIA to withhold the requested information. He also found that, on the balance of probabilities, no further information is held. The Commissioner does not require further steps as a result of this decision notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 40(1); FOI 40(2); FOI 42
View Westminster Council
1 Feb 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested legal advice provided to the London Borough of Harrow in regards to its legal challenge against the Mayor of London’s decision to extend the Ultra Low Emissions zone (ULEZ). The London Borough of Harrow (“the Council”) refused part 1 and 2 of the request citing Legal Professional Privilege (LPP) and stated that information within the scope of part 3(a) and (b) of the request was not held. The Council provided some information within the scope of part 3(c)(i) and (ii) of the request. For procedural reasons the Commissioner has considered this element of the complaint under regulation 12(4)(a) (information not held) and regulation 12(5)(b)(the course of justice) of the EIR. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council was entitled to rely on regulation 12(5)(b) of the EIR to withhold the requested information sought at parts 1 and 2 of the request, and that it does not hold any further information within the scope of part 3(a) and (b) of the request. The
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(a); EIR 12(5)(b)
View Harrow Council
1 Feb 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to the death of a named individual. Devon and Cornwall Police (DCP) refused to provide the information citing section 30(1) of FOIA (Investigations and proceedings) and section 40(5) of FOIA (Personal data) as its basis for doing so. The Commissioner’s decision is that DCP was entitled to rely on section 30(1) of FOIA to refuse the request. No steps are required.Keywords/themes: Historical record/ Open case
Exemptions cited: FOI 30(1)
View Devon and Cornwall Police
1 Feb 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from Student Loan Company Limited relating to statistical and specific category data on people who had paid off their full student loan balances in any given (calendar or financial) year between 2005 - 2022.The Commissioner’s decision is that SLC was entitled to refuse to comply with the request on the basis of section 12(1) of FOIA. The Commissioner also finds that SLC complied with its obligations under section 16 to offer advice and assistance. No steps are required.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12(1); FOI 16
View Student Loans Company
1 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)
1 Feb 2024Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from the London Borough of Haringey (“the Council”) in relation to Social Housing Lettings. The Council provided the complainant with information in relation to the request and advised that it does not hold anything further. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the Council has provided all of the information it holds within the scope of the request and no further information is held. The Commissioner has however found that the Council breached section 10(1) of FOIA. The Commissioner does not require any steps as a result of this decision notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10(1)
View Haringey Council
1 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 ACE LEARNING
1 Feb 2024Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested from Shropshire Council (the Council) information relating to traffic concerns about Red Deer Road Shrewsbury. The Council refused the request and cited regulation 12(4)(b) (manifestly unreasonable) of the EIR.The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council is not entitled to rely on regulation 12(4)(b) of the EIR to refuse to comply with the request. The Commissioner requires the Council to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation.• Issue a fresh response to the request which does not rely on regulation 12(4)(b) of the EIR. The 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: EIR 12(4)(b)
View Shropshire Council
1 Feb 2024Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information held by Withernsea Town Council (the Council) relating to the maintenance of trees and hedges.The Council refused the request, citing regulation 12(4)(b) of the EIR, which concerns manifestly unreasonable requests. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council was not entitled to rely on regulation 12(4)(b) to refuse to comply with the request. However, following a First Tier Tribunal appeal of a previous request, the Council has provided the complainant with all recorded information falling within the scope of the current request. The Commissioner does not therefore order the Council to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(b)
31 Jan 2024Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information relating to a specific planning matter. Central Bedfordshire Council (the “council”) disclosed information but the complainant considered that further information was held. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the council has provided all the information it holds in relation to the request and that regulation 12(4)(a) applies but that it failed to do this in time and breached regulation 5(2) of the EIR. The Commissioner does not require the council to take any further steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(a); EIR 5(2)
View Central Bedfordshire Council
31 Jan 2024Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested the University of Sheffield (‘the University) to disclose information relating to applicants to particular courses and the number with disabilities. The University disclosed some information but withheld the remainder in accordance with sections 40 and 43 of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the University is entitled to refuse to disclose some of the outstanding information under section 40 of FOIA. However, the University is not entitled to rely on section 43 of FOIA to refuse to disclose the remaining information. The university is required to disclose the information withheld under section 43 of FOIA to the complainant.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40; FOI 43
View The University of Sheffield
31 Jan 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information regarding a data sharing Memorandum of Understanding between the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) and local authorities. DWP refused to disclose the requested information, relying on sections 24(1), National Security, and section 31(1)(a), the prevention or detection of crime. The Commissioner’s decision is that DWP is entitled to rely on section 31(1)(a) to withhold the disputed information. The Commissioner does not require any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 31
View Department for Work and Pensions
31 Jan 2024Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant on behalf of a charity has submitted seven separate requests for information to the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (the MHRA) for information relating to the plant “St. John’s Wort”. The MHRA has relied on section 14(1) of FOIA to refuse all seven requests, on the basis that they are vexatious. The Commissioner’s decision is that the MHRA is entitled to rely on section 14 of FOIA. He is satisfied that the complainant’s requests can be characterised as being vexatious. The requests appear to be part of a concerted campaign that has resulted in a number of requests for information from different requesters, culminating in the complainant’s requests, which have placed a significant burden on the MHRA. However, the Commissioner has recorded procedural breaches of sections 1, 10 and 17 of FOIA. The Commissioner does not require the MHRA to take any further action in this matter.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10; FOI 14(1); FOI 17
View Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency
31 Jan 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a four part request to the House of Commons (HoC) of which the first part of the request asked for information relating to how the HoC distinguishes between MPs’ paid lobbying and the criminal act of bribery. The second part of the request asked for information on allegations of bribery against MPs and what action has been taken by the HoC. The HoC said that it did not hold information within scope relating to the first part of the request. It relied on section 34(2) (Parliamentary privilege) and sections 21(1) and 21(2)(a) (Information accessible to applicant by other means) of FOIA to refuse to respond to the second part of the request. The Complainant has not challenged the HoC’s application of sections 21(1) and 21(2)(a) and therefore the Commissioner disregarded this aspect from any further consideration.The Commissioner is satisfied that, on the balance of probabilities, the HoC does not hold recorded information within scope of the first part of the req
Exemptions cited: FOI 34
View Corporate Officers of the House of Commons
31 Jan 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information regarding misconduct hearing outcomes from Cumbria Constabulary. Cumbria Constabulary relied on section 40(2) of FOIA (third party personal information) to withhold the information. The Commissioner’s decision is that Cumbria Constabulary was entitled to rely on section 40(2), when withholding the requested information. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40(2)
31 Jan 2024Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested complaint information with regards to a named Councillor. Central Bedfordshire Council (the council) refused the request as vexatious, relying on section 14(1) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the request is not vexatious and therefore section 14(1) of FOIA is not engaged in this case. The Commissioner requires the council to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. Issue a fresh response to the complaint’s request without relying on section 14(1) of FOIA. The 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 FOIA and may be dealt with as a contempt of court.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14
View Central Bedfordshire Council
31 Jan 2024Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested the outcome notices for two misconduct hearings from Thames Valley Police. Thames Valley Police relied on section 40(2) of FOIA (third party personal information) to withhold the information. The Commissioner’s decision is that Thames Valley Police has correctly relied on section 40(2) of FOIA to withhold the information. The Commissioner has also decided that Thames Valley Police breached section 10(1) by failing to confirm that the requested information was held, and breached section 17(1) by failing to issue a valid refusal notice within 20 working days. The Commissioner does not require further steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 17; FOI 40(2)
View Thames Valley Police
31 Jan 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested outcome notices for two misconduct hearings from Lancashire Constabulary. Lancashire Constabulary relied on section 40(2) of FOIA (third party personal information) to withhold the information.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40(2)
View Lancashire Constabulary
31 Jan 2024Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested a copy of a report relating to child sexual exploitation (“CSE”). South Yorkshire Police (“SYP”) stated that it does not hold the requested information.The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, SYP is correct when it says that it does not hold the requested information. However, SYP breached section 10(1) of FOIA as it failed to provide it’s response to the request within the statutory 20 working days. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10
View South Yorkshire Police
31 Jan 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information, from Cleveland Police, relating to an allegation of historic abuse which they believed had been made against a named individual associated with the former Cleveland Police Authority. Cleveland Police neither confirmed nor denied holding the requested information, citing sections 40(5B) (personal information) and 31(3) (law enforcement) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that Cleveland Police is entitled to rely on section 40(5B) to neither confirm nor deny whether this information is held. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40(5)
View Cleveland Police
30 Jan 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested the outcome notices for two misconduct hearings from Bedfordshire Police. Bedfordshire Police relied on section 40(2) of FOIA (third party personal information) to withhold the information. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Bedfordshire Police has correctly relied on section 40(2) of FOIA to withhold the information. The Commissioner does not require further steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40(2)
View Bedfordshire Police
30 Jan 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from Bath and North East Somerset Council (“the Council”) relating to donations made to the Council by specific individuals and organisations.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 the Council to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Bath and North East Somerset Council
30 Jan 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The Commissioner’s decision is that City of London Police (CoLP) is entitled to rely on section 30(1)(a) and section 40(2) of FOIA to withhold the requested information about a misconduct hearing. These exemptions concern investigations and personal data respectively. It’s not necessary for CoLP to take any corrective steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 30; FOI 40
View City of London Police
30 Jan 2024Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from Sandwell and West Birmingham Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust (‘the Trust’), relating to injury allowance claims, particularly those relating to work related stress. The Trust refused to comply with the requests citing section 12 of FOIA (cost limit).The Commissioner’s decision is that the Trust was entitled to refuse to comply with the requests in accordance with section 12(1) of FOIA. However, the Commissioner also finds that the Trust failed to comply with its obligations under section 16 to offer advice and assistance. The Trust also breached section 17(1) as it didn’t provide a refusal notice within the statutory time frame.The Commissioner requires the Trust to take the following step to ensure compliance with the legislation: Either provide the complainant with advice and assistance to help them submit a refined request or explain to them why it would not be reasonable in the circumstances to do so.The Trust must take this step within 35
Exemptions cited: FOI 12; FOI 16; FOI 17
View Sandwell and West Birmingham Hospitals NHS Trust
30 Jan 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted an information request to London Borough of Bexley (the Council) for information relating to Bexley Constitution and Codes of Governance.The Commissioner’s decision is that the request was vexatious and therefore the Council was entitled to rely upon section 14(1) of FOIA to refuse it. The Commissioner does not require further steps as a result of this decision notice. Information Tribunal EA/2024/0048 dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14(1)
View Bexley Council
30 Jan 2024Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant submitted a 46 question request to the London Borough of Islington (‘the Council’) about the Low Traffic Neighbourhood Scheme. The Council provided some information but refused to provide the remainder on the grounds that it either did not hold the requested information (regulation 12(4)(a) of the EIR) or that it engaged regulation 12(4)(b) (manifestly unreasonable) of the EIR.During the course of the Commissioner’s investigation the Council amended its position and sought to rely entirely on regulation 12(4)(b) (manifestly unreasonable) of the EIR. The complainant challenged its reliance on that exception.The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council was entitled to rely on regulation 12(4)(b) of the EIR to refuse the request. However, it breached regulation 9(1) of the EIR by not providing appropriate advice and assistance to the complainant to submit a refined request.The Commissioner has also concluded that the Council breached regulations 5(2) and 14(2) of the EI
Exemptions cited: EIR 11(4); EIR 12(4)(b); EIR 5(2); EIR 9(1)
View Islington Council
30 Jan 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to the Cabinet Office for a copy of the then Minister for the Cabinet Office/Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, Michael Gove’s, ministerial diary for the period 1 March 2020 to 16 April 2020. The Cabinet Office 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 Cabinet Office is entitled to rely on section 14(1) of FOIA to refuse to comply with the request. No steps are required.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14(1)
View Cabinet Office
30 Jan 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested a copy of the then Minister for the Cabinet Office/Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster’s ministerial diaries for the period 1 February 2020 to 1 July 2020. The Cabinet Office refused the request under section 14(1) of FOIA (vexatious requests). The Commissioner’s decision is that the Cabinet Office is entitled to rely on section 14(1) of FOIA to refuse to provide the requested information. The Commissioner does not require the Cabinet Office to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14(1)
View Cabinet Office
30 Jan 2024Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from Southend-on-Sea City Council (“the Council”) relating to its Children’s Services Department.The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council is entitled to rely on section 12(1) (cost limit) of FOIA to refuse to comply with part 1 of the request. However, he finds that the Council failed to provide reasonable advice and assistance and therefore failed to meet its obligations under section 16(1) of FOIA. The Commissioner requires the Council to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation.The Council must provide the complainant with advice and assistance to help them submit a request falling within the appropriate limit.The 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 12; FOI 16
View Southend-on-Sea City Council
30 Jan 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to two specified cameras. Ultimately, Hampshire & Isle of Wight Constabulary (‘Hampshire Constabulary’) would neither confirm nor deny that it held the requested information, citing the ‘neither confirm nor deny’ (‘NCND’) provision within section 31(3) – the FOIA exemption for law enforcement. The Commissioner’s decision is that Hampshire Constabulary correctly relied on section 31(3) of FOIA to NCND holding information within the scope of the request and that the balance of the public interest favours maintaining this exemption. The Commissioner does not require any steps as a result of this notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 31
30 Jan 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to the ICO and personal data breaches. The Commissioner’s decision is that the ICO has complied with its section 1 (general right of access to information) obligations under FOIA. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Information Commissioner
30 Jan 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from the Cabinet Office relating to the All In, All Together campaign. The Cabinet Office has refused to disclose the requested information on the basis of section 12(1) of FOIA (cost of compliance exceeds appropriate limit). The complainant has argued that the request is for environmental information and that the EIR is the appropriate access regime.The Commissioner’s decision is that FOIA is the appropriate access regime, and that the Cabinet Office has correctly applied section 12 to withhold the information. However, he considers that the Cabinet Office failed to issue the complainant with a refusal notice in accordance with its obligation under section 17(1) of FOIA. No steps are required. Information Tribunal FTT FT/EA/2024/0070 appeal dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12(1)
View Cabinet Office
30 Jan 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 Humberside Police
30 Jan 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information regarding the Infected Blood compensation scheme. The Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) disclosed a small amount of information but withheld the majority of the requested information. The Commissioner’s decision is that DWP is entitled to rely on sections 35(1)(a) and 36(2)(b)(i), (ii) & (c) to withhold this information. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 35; FOI 36
View Department for Work and Pensions
30 Jan 2024Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested the outcome notices for two misconduct hearings from South Wales Police. South Wales Police relied on section 40(2) of FOIA (third party personal information) to withhold the information. The Commissioner’s decision is that South Wales Police has correctly relied on section 40(2) of FOIA to withhold the information. The Commissioner does not require further steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 17; FOI 40(2)
View South Wales Police
30 Jan 2024Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information about a discharge consent from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra). Defra refused the request as manifestly unreasonable, citing regulation 12(4)(b) of the EIR. The Commissioner’s decision is that Defra has failed to persuade him that the request is manifestly unreasonable. The Commissioner requires Defra to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation.Regarding part one of the request - issue a fresh response to the complainant that does not rely on regulation 12(4)(b) of the EIR.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(b)
29 Jan 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information related to the income tax personal allowance taper. HM Treasury (“HMT”) refused to provide it citing section 35(1)(a) (formulation/development of government policy) as its basis for doing so. It upheld this at internal review. The Commissioner’s decision is that HMT is entitled to rely on section 35(1)(a) as its basis for withholding the requested information. The Commissioner does not require further steps. Information Tribunal EA/2024/0049 dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 35
View HM Treasury
29 Jan 2024Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information about non-domestic business rates. Bristol City Council (the “council”) refused the request, citing the exemption for information provided in confidence (section 41). The Commissioner’s decision is that is that the council was correct to apply section 41(1) to withhold the information from disclosure. The Commissioner does not require the council to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 41
View Bristol City Council