15 Jan 2024Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information about the way the above public authority delivers its religious education curriculum. The Commissioner’s decision is that the public authority has failed to respond to the request within 20 working days and has therefore breached section 10 of FOIA. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: provide a substantive response to the request in accordance with its obligations under FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
15 Jan 2024Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information about the way the above public authority delivers its religious education curriculum. The Commissioner’s decision is that the public authority has failed to respond to the request within 20 working days and has therefore breached section 10 of FOIA. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: provide a substantive response to the request in accordance with its obligations under FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
15 Jan 2024Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information about the way the above public authority delivers its religious education curriculum. The Commissioner’s decision is that the public authority has failed to respond to the request within 20 working days and has therefore breached section 10 of FOIA. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: provide a substantive response to the request in accordance with its obligations under FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
15 Jan 2024Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information about the way the above public authority delivers its religious education curriculum. The Commissioner’s decision is that the public authority has failed to respond to the request within 20 working days and has therefore breached section 10 of FOIA. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: provide a substantive response to the request in accordance with its obligations under FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
15 Jan 2024Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information about the way the above public authority delivers its religious education curriculum. The Commissioner’s decision is that the public authority has failed to respond to the request within 20 working days and has therefore breached section 10 of FOIA. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: provide a substantive response to the request in accordance with its obligations under FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
15 Jan 2024Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested photographs and related information that were submitted to the Second Permanent Secretary’s Investigation into alleged social gatherings on government premises during Covid restrictions. The Cabinet Office refused to provide the information citing sections 31(1)(g) (law enforcement)), 21(1) (information otherwise accessible to the applicant), 40(2) (personal information) and 41(1) (information provided in confidence) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that section 31(1) of FOIA is not engaged for parts one, two and three of the request and consequently that information must be disclosed. However, the exemption is engaged for parts four and five of the request and the public interest favours maintaining the exemption. The Commissioner has also recorded a breach of section 17(1) of FOIA. The Commissioner requires the Cabinet Office to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation.• Disclose the information requested at parts one, tw
Exemptions cited: FOI 17; FOI 31(1)
View Cabinet Office
15 Jan 2024Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information about the way the above public authority delivers its religious education curriculum. The Commissioner’s decision is that the public authority has failed to respond to the request within 20 working days and has therefore breached section 10 of FOIA. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: provide a substantive response to the request in accordance with its obligations under FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View STONEBOW PRIMARY SCHOOL
15 Jan 2024Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information about the way the above public authority delivers its religious education curriculum. The Commissioner’s decision is that the public authority has failed to respond to the request within 20 working days and has therefore breached section 10 of FOIA. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: provide a substantive response to the request in accordance with its obligations under FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View GRAVENEY PRIMARY SCHOOL
15 Jan 2024Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information about the way the above public authority delivers its religious education curriculum. The Commissioner’s decision is that the public authority has failed to respond to the request within 20 working days and has therefore breached section 10 of FOIA. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: provide a substantive response to the request in accordance with its obligations under FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View RENDELL PRIMARY SCHOOL
15 Jan 2024Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information about the way the above public authority delivers its religious education curriculum. The Commissioner’s decision is that the public authority has failed to respond to the request within 20 working days and has therefore breached section 10 of FOIA. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: provide a substantive response to the request in accordance with its obligations under FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
12 Jan 2024Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested sound filesfor the automated announcements used on a particular class of trains. Transportfor Wales (“TFW”) initially responded to the request but at internal reviewintroduced section 14(1) (vexatious) and section 14(2) (repeated request) ofFOIA. The Commissioner has concluded that the request is neither vexatious norrepeated and therefore TFW is not entitled to rely on section 14(1) or section14(2) in response to the request. The Commissioner requires TFW to issue afresh response to the complainant’s request dated 31 July 2023 which does notrely on section 14(1) or 14(2).
Exemptions cited: FOI 14(1)
View Transport for Wales Rail
12 Jan 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested correspondence between Transport for London (‘TfL’) and the University of Westminster’s Active Travel Academy. TfL refused to comply with the request, citing regulation 12(4)(b) (manifestly unreasonable requests). The Commissioner’s decision is that regulation 12(4)(b) applies and TfL was entitled to refuse the request. Furthermore, TfL complied with the requirements of regulation 9 (advice and assistance). The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(b); EIR 9
View Transport for London
12 Jan 2024Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The public authority has failed to complete its public interest test considerations within a reasonable time in accordance with its obligations under FOIA. The Commissioner requires it to provide a substantive response to the request within 35 calendar days in accordance with its obligations under FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 17
View Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council
11 Jan 2024Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant made a number of requested over a period of time for information regarding issues associated with Victoria Recreation Ground/ New Barnet Leisure Centre Complex. London Borough of Barnet (the Council) answered each point in turn and provided links to relevant information.
The Commissioner’s decision is that The Council should have cited section 21(1) of FOIA for the information already in the public domain.
The Commissioner does not require the Council to take any steps as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: FOI 21
View Barnet Council
11 Jan 2024Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted an information request to Wrexham County Brough Council (the Council) for a copy of the report titled Wrexham Gateway-Delivery of LUF and its appendices.
The Commissioner’s decision is that section 36(2)(b)(ii) of FOIA is engaged. However, he finds that the public interest in maintaining the exemption does not outweigh the public interest in disclosure. He also finds that section 36(2)(c) is not engaged.
The Commissioner requires the Council to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation:
Disclose the requested information, with any personal data redacted.
The public authority must take these steps within 35 calendar days of the date of this decision notice. Failure to comply may result in the Commissioner making written certification of this fact to the High Court pursuant to section 54 of FOIA and may be dealt with as a contempt of court.
Exemptions cited: FOI 36
View Wrexham County Borough Council
11 Jan 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant made a five point request for information relating to Operation Magnolia and the investigation into the Kerklevington Detention Centre. Cleveland Police confirmed that it does not hold information within the scope of point five of the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, Cleveland Police does not hold information within the scope of point five of the request and has therefore complied with section 1(1) of FOIA. The Commissioner does not require Cleveland Police to take any further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Cleveland Police
11 Jan 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, London Ambulance Service NHS Trust (‘the Trust’) holds no further information within scope of the request about telephone call recordings. The Trust has complied with section 1(1) and 10(1) of FOIA, and no corrective steps are necessary.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10
View London Ambulance Service NHS Trust
11 Jan 2024Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The public authority has failed to complete its public interest test considerations within a reasonable time in accordance with its obligations under FOIA. The Commissioner requires it to provide a substantive response to the request within 35 calendar days in accordance with its obligations under FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 17
View Department of Health and Social Care
11 Jan 2024Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant made a request for information about software licences. Barnsley Metropolitan Borough Council issued a response in which it does not clearly state its position under FOIA for each of the three parts. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has not complied with section 1(1) of FOIA. The Commissioner requires the Council to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. For each of the three parts of the request, issue a new response which either confirms or denies whether the requested information is held or cites a relevant provision which removes this duty. In doing so the Council should note the observations contained in this decision notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10
View Barnsley Council
11 Jan 2024Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested from South Hams District Council (‘the Council’) information about financial penalties relating to the performance of a waste management contract. The Council refused to disclose the information, citing regulation 12(5)(e) (Confidentiality of commercial or industrial information) of the EIR. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council was not entitled to rely on regulation 12(5)(e) of the EIR to refuse the request. He also finds that it did not comply with regulation 11(4) of the EIR when asked to conduct an internal review. The Commissioner requires the Council to disclose the total value of compensation paid to the Council by the waste management contractor (the figure to include any monies “clawed back” by the Council by way of deductions it made from its contractual payments and any payments made by the contractor).
Exemptions cited: EIR 11(4); EIR 12(5)(e)
View South Hams District Council
10 Jan 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information associated with the Responsible Dog Ownership taskforce. Defra initially disclosed some relevant information and withheld taskforce meeting minutes in their entirety, under section 35(1)(a) of FOIA. Defra has subsequently advised that it will now disclose some of the information in the minutes but continues to rely on section 35 in respect of the remainder of the information in the minutes. The Commissioner’s decision is that Defra is entitled to withhold some information in the taskforce minutes under section 35(1)(a) of FOIA. The withheld information relates to the formulation of government policy and the public interest favours non-disclosure.The Commissioner requires Defra to take the following step to ensure compliance with the legislation: If it hasn’t already done so, communicate to the complainant the information in the six sets of Responsible Dog Ownership taskforce minutes from which Defra has withdrawn its application of section 35(1
Exemptions cited: FOI 35
10 Jan 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to filming permits issued to a named individual.
Westminster City Council (the “Council”) relied on section 40(2) (third party personal information) of FOIA to refuse the request.
The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council should have relied on section 40(5B) of FOIA to refuse to confirm or deny whether any information was held and has applied this exemption himself proactively.
The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View Westminster Council
10 Jan 2024Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to the take over of the London Road Medical Centre (the medical centre) by Aspire Medical Health. In particular, the complainant wished to be provided with information relating to the way in which patients were informed of the takeover. The medical centre 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
10 Jan 2024Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information about street sweeping/cleaning from Swindon Borough Council (the council). The council 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 Swindon Borough Council
10 Jan 2024Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from the London Borough of Southwark (‘the Council’). 2. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council breached section 10(1) of FOIA by failing to provide a valid response to the request within the statutory time frame of 20 working days. No steps are required.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Southwark Council
10 Jan 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to trigger and content warnings. The University of Oxford (“the public authority”) disclosed the majority of the information but withheld some under section 40(2) (personal information). The Commissioner’s decision is that the public authority was correct to withhold the information it did under section 40(2). The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View The University of Oxford
9 Jan 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information in relation to Skills Bootcamps provided by a named company in partnership with the Department for Education (DfE). The DfE provided answers or information in response to all but three parts of the request which it refused under section 22 of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the DfE is entitled to rely on section 22 of FOIA to withhold the information at parts 2, 12 and 13 of the request. The Commissioner does not require any steps to be taken by the DfE.
Exemptions cited: FOI 22
View Department for Education
9 Jan 2024Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested from South Kesteven District Council (‘the Council’) information relating to a Code of Conduct review panel hearing. The Council disclosed some information and refused the remainder of the request under section 40 (Personal information) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council was entitled to rely on section 40(2) of FOIA to withhold the remaining information. However, it breached sections 1 and 10 of FOIA by failing to respond within the statutory time for compliance. Information Tribunal New FTT appeal FT/EA/2024/0042 appeal dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10; FOI 40
View South Kesteven District Council
9 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 Essex Police
9 Jan 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The Commissioner’s decision is that the information requested regarding awareness training is exempt from disclosure under section 43(2) of FOIA, and the public interest favours maintaining the exemption in this case. It’s not necessary for the Police Service of Northern Ireland (PSNI) to take any corrective steps. Information Tribunal EA/2024/0037 appeal withdrawn.
Exemptions cited: FOI 43
View Police Service of Northern Ireland
9 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.
Following the issue of the Decision Notice it was brought to the Commissioner's attention that the Home Office had responded to the request on 21 December 2023 and informed the Commissioner accordingly on 4 January 2024. The Commissioner regrets not having recognised that when issuing this Decision Notice. He therefore wishes to clarify this point and that the remedial step is therefore not required. However, the finding in the Decision Notice remains accurate due to the time taken to respond to the request.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Home Office
9 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 Northamptonshire Police
8 Jan 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) relating to rape crimes scenarios or accusations/ allegations of offences conducted by members of the UK Police and HM Armed forces and UK Government Security Services against women, falling under HM Covert Intelligence Sources (Criminal Conduct) Act of 2021 between 22 May 2012and 22 May 2022. The CPS refused to comply with the request citing section 12 (cost limit) of FOIA.
The Commissioner’s decision is that the CPS was entitled to refuse to comply with the request in accordance with section 12(2) of FOIA. The Commissioner also finds that the CPS complied with its obligations under section 16 to offer advice and assistance.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Crown Prosecution Service
8 Jan 2024Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The public authority has failed to respond to this request within 20 working days, as specified in the EIR. The Commissioner requires it to provide the complainant with a response to this request within 35 calendar days in accordance with its obligations under the EIR.
Exemptions cited: EIR 5(2)
View Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office
8 Jan 2024Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information held by Brighton and Hove City Council (the council) relating to bus gates installed at Valley Gardens. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the council has provided the complainant with all the information that is held that is relevant to their request. In addition, where information is already publicly available, the council has provided appropriate links to that information. However, as the council failed to issue a response which provided the information requested by the complainant within 20 working days, the Commissioner has found a breach of section 10 of FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10
View Brighton and Hove City Council
8 Jan 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested, from Public Health Wales NHS Trust (PHW), information about the vaccination status of Covid-19 hospital inpatients and admissions, for specified dates. PHW told the complainant that it hasn’t created the type of report the complainant wants for the dates in question, so it doesn’t hold the information. PHW has since explained to the Commissioner that whilst it can access the two databases that contain the data required to create the requested information, PHW itself doesn’t actually hold the databases in question. The Commissioner’s decision is that on the balance of probabilities, PHW doesn’t hold the requested information (the report the complainant wants), as it doesn’t hold the ‘building blocks’ (databases) to create it. The Commissioner doesn’t require any steps as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Public Health Wales NHS Trust
8 Jan 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information about the Rooswijk shipwreck. The Department for Culture, Media, and Sport (‘DCMS’) said it did not hold the requested information. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, DCMS does not hold the information requested by the complainant. No steps are required as a result of this notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Department for Culture, Media and Sport
8 Jan 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The Commissioner’s decision is that information the applicant has requested in a file associated with the ‘Battle of Orgreave’ during the 1984 UK miners’ strike is exempt information under section 40(2) of FOIA. The information is other people’s personal data, and it would be unlawful to disclose it. It’s not necessary for the National Archives to take any corrective steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View The National Archives
8 Jan 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from Salford City Council (the council) relating to the number of properties with at least one individual in residence with council tax exemption N at 1 April 2022. The council refused to comply with the request citing section 12 (cost limit) of FOIA.
The Commissioner’s decision is that the council was entitled to refuse to comply with the request in accordance with section 12(1) of FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12
View Salford City Council
8 Jan 2024Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant asked for information in relation to pre application planning advice from the London Borough of Ealing (the Council). The Council gave links and supplied some information within scope of the request citing regulation 13 of the EIR for its redactions to personal information; however, it failed to clarify its position with regards to the Twyford Court pre application information requested. During the Commissioners investigation, and after further prompting, the Council cited its reliance on regulation 12(5)(d) of the EIR to withhold information in relation to the Twyford Court pre application. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council’s reliance on regulation 12(5)(d) is appropriate in the circumstances of this case and he considers that the balance of the public interest favours maintaining the exception in this case. The Council breached regulation 14 by failing to provide an appropriate refusal notice or rely on a relevant exception for this information within 20
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(d); EIR 14
View Ealing Council
8 Jan 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information regarding misconduct hearing outcomes from Hertfordshire Constabulary. Hertfordshire Constabulary relied on section 40(2) (Personal information) of FOIA to withhold the information.
The Commissioner’s decision is that Hertfordshire Constabulary has correctly relied on section 40(2) of FOIA to withhold the information. The Commissioner does not require any steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View Hertfordshire Constabulary
8 Jan 2024Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has asked a series of questions about St Helens Borough Council’s (‘the Council’) decisions regarding a planning application. The Council responded with general explanations, but these responses did not provide the information that had actually been requested. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council did not deal with the request in accordance with regulation 5(1) of the EIR. He also finds that the Council breached regulation 5(2) of the EIR, by failing to comply with regulation 5(1) within 20 working days. Furthermore, by taking 56 working days to provide the outcome of the internal review, it breached regulation 11(4) of the EIR. It also issued a refusal notice which did not comply with regulations 14(2) (timeliness of refusal notice) and (3) (reasons for refusal) of the EIR. The Commissioner requires the Council to issue a fresh response to parts (1) – (5) of the request, which complies with regulation 5(1) of the EIR, ensuring that all information held by the
Exemptions cited: EIR 11(4); EIR 14(3); EIR 14(2); EIR 5(1); EIR 5(2)
View St Helens Council
6 Jan 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The Commissioner’s decision is that the complainant’s request for information about the Shahnama Centre is a vexatious request under section 14(1) of FOIA. Pembroke College isn’t obliged to comply with the request and no corrective steps are necessary.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14
5 Jan 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested from the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) information concerning due diligence protocols undertaken by HM Prison & Probation Service/National Probation Service prior to the lease agreement between [name of development company redacted], leaseholds of [name redacted] and the MoJ. The MoJ stated it does not hold any information falling within scope of the request.
The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the MoJ does not hold the information falling within scope of the request, and it has complied with section 1(1)(a) of FOIA. Therefore the Commissioner does not require the MoJ to take any further steps as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Ministry of Justice
5 Jan 2024Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from the Cabinet Office (CO) in relation to disciplinary action taken against CO employees. The CO did not consider the request to be a valid one under FOIA and therefore did not provide a response under FOIA.
The Commissioner’s decision is that the request for information is valid under section 8 of FOIA. The Commissioner requires the CO to respond to the complainant’s request under FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 8
View Cabinet Office
5 Jan 2024Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from the Ministry of Justice (‘the MoJ’) regarding the decision to remove a sentence from the Traffic Enforcement Centre refusal letter. The Commissioner’s decision is that the MoJ, on the balance of probabilities, has provided all information held within the scope of the request and nothing further exists. The MoJ breached section 10(1) by failing to respond to the request within 20 working days. The Commissioner does not require the MoJ to take any further action.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10
View Ministry of Justice
5 Jan 2024Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested a copy of a financial controls report. Nottingham City Council (the “council”) withheld the information under the exemption for prejudice to the effective conduct of public affairs (section 36(2)(c)). The Commissioner’s decision is that, whilst the exemption is engaged, the public interest favours disclosing the requested information. The Commissioner requires the council to provide the complainant with all the information withheld under section 36(2)(c).
Exemptions cited: FOI 36(2)(c)
View Nottingham City Council
5 Jan 2024Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested a copy of a financial controls report. Nottingham City Council (the “council”) withheld the information under the exemption for prejudice to the effective conduct of public affairs (section 36(2)(c)). The Commissioner’s decision is that, whilst the exemption is engaged, the public interest favours disclosing the requested information. The Commissioner requires the council to provide the complainant with all the information withheld under section 36(2)(c).
Exemptions cited: FOI 36(2)(c)
View Nottingham City Council
5 Jan 2024Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The Commissioner’s decision is that the Home Office is entitled to withhold some of the requested information associated with a meeting between the Rt Hon Chris Philp MP and Facewatch Ltd under section 35(1)(a) of FOIA. This is because the information relates to the formulation of government policy. The Home Office breached sections 1(1), 10(1) and 17(1) of FOIA as it didn’t comply with section 1(1) or issue a refusal notice within the statutory timeframe. It’s not necessary for the Home Office to take any corrective steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10; FOI 17; FOI 35
View Home Office
5 Jan 2024Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from Hackney London Borough Council (‘the Council’), relating to an innovation application and a third-party demonstration. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the Council has not identified all the information it holds within the scope of question 2 of the request. The Council has not conducted adequate searches to determine whether it holds information within the scope of this part of the request. For the parts 3-9 and 1 of the request, the Commissioner is satisfied that the public authority has either provided all the information it holds (although it does not hold some of the information) or the information would (if it were held by the Council) be exempt under section 21 of FOIA because the complainant already has this information The Commissioner has also decided that question 10 is not a valid request for information and the Council is not expected to respond to this question under FOIA. The Council also
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10; FOI 21; FOI 8
View London Borough of Hackney