4 Jan 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from Gravesham Borough Council (“the Council”) relating to a specific property.
The Commissioner’s decision is that on the balance of probabilities, the Council does not hold further information within the scope of the request. The Commissioner does not require the Council to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Gravesham Borough Council
4 Jan 2024Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested 10 files which relate to the European Exchange Rate Mechanism from HM Treasury (“HMT”). HMT refused to disclose the requested information on the basis that it was vexatious under section 14(1) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that HMT was not entitled to rely on section 14(1) when refusing to provide the requested information. He requires HMT to take the following step to ensure compliance with the legislation: Provide the requested information or issue an appropriate refusal notice which does not rely on section 14(1).
Exemptions cited: FOI 14
View HM Treasury
4 Jan 2024Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested a range of information from Potto Parish Council (the “council”). The council provided some information, confirmed that other information was not held and withheld other information under the exemption for law enforcement (section 31). The Commissioner’s decision is that in relation to request parts 5, 7 and 14, on the balance of probabilities, the council disclosed all the relevant information that it holds and in relation to part 6, the council wrongly applied the exemption in section 31 and that it should have relied on section 40(5B) of the FOIA to refuse to confirm or deny whether any information was held; the Commissioner has decided to apply this exemption himself proactively. The Commissioner also finds that the council breached section 10(1) and section 17(1) as it failed to issue a refusal notice within the statutory 20 working days.The Commissioner does not require the council to take any steps. Information Tribunal UA-2024-001502-GIA appeal allowed
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10(1); FOI 17; FOI 40(5)(b)
4 Jan 2024Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested benefits datasets from the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP). The Commissioner’s decision is that DWP is entitled to rely on section 44(1)(a) to withhold the majority of the information. The Commissioner considers, however, that section 44(1)(a) is not engaged in relation to the category titles within the datasets. The Commissioner requires DWP to disclose the category titles within the datasets. 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 44
View Department for Work and Pensions
4 Jan 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information regarding misconduct hearing outcomes from West Midlands Police (‘WMP’). WMP relied on section 40(2) of FOIA (third party personal information) to withhold the information. The Commissioner’s decision is that WMP 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 West Midlands Police
4 Jan 2024Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information relating to a planning application concerning Bristol Zoo. Bristol City Council (“the council”) withheld some of the requested information under Regulation 12(5)(b) (course of justice) and said that other information was not held by it. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council was correct to apply Regulation 12(5)(b) to withhold relevant information. However, he has decided that the council has not met with the requirements of Regulation 5(1) of the EIR as it has failed to demonstrate, on the balance of probabilities, that no further information is held by it falling within the scope of the request for information. The Commissioner requires the council to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation.To carry out further adequate and appropriate searches for relevant information and to respond to the complainant's request for information again.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(b); EIR 5(1)
View Bristol City Council
4 Jan 2024Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information regarding misconduct hearing outcomes from Cheshire Constabulary. Cheshire Constabulary relied on section 40(2) of FOIA (third party personal information) to withhold the information. The Commissioner’s decision is that Cheshire Constabulary has correctly relied on section 40(2) of FOIA to withhold the information. The Commissioner has also decided that Cheshire Constabulary 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(1); FOI 17; FOI 40(2)
4 Jan 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested the outcome notices for two misconduct hearings from Northamptonshire Police. Northamptonshire Police refused to provide the requested information citing sections 38(1) (Heath and safety) and 40(2) (Personal information) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that Northamptonshire Police was entitled to rely on section 40(2) of FOIA. No steps are required.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View Northamptonshire Police
4 Jan 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information regarding misconduct hearing outcomes from Kent Police. Kent Police relied on section 40(2) of FOIA (third party personal information) to withhold the information. The Commissioner’s decision is that Kent 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 Kent Police
4 Jan 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information regarding misconduct hearings from Cambridgeshire Constabulary (‘the Constabulary’) relied on section 40(2) of FOIA (third party personal information) to withhold the information. The Commissioner’s decision is that Cambridgeshire Constabulary 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 Cambridgeshire Constabulary
4 Jan 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request for information to the Southern Universities Purchasing Consortium (SUPC) about a travel services framework agreement. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, SUPC doesn’t hold the requested information. SUPC has complied with section 1(1) of FOIA, and no corrective steps are necessary. This decision notice discusses SUPC and its response to the request and submission to the Commissioner. However, SUPC is a division of, and governed by, Southern Universities Management Services Ltd, on whom this notice is therefore served.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
4 Jan 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested documents and services relating to a TiAA report. NHS Sussex Integrated Care Board (‘the public authority’) disclosed some information in response to the request, applied section 21 (information reasonably accessible to the applicant via other means) to some information and denied holding other information. The Commissioner’s decision is that: the public authority has fully complied with its obligations under section 1 (general right of access to information) of FOIA. The public authority was correct to apply section 21 to the information it did. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 21
View NHS Sussex ICB
4 Jan 2024Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (DLUHC) relating to a statement made by Michael Gove concerning short term lets.
The Commissioner’s decision is that the DLUHC is entitled to rely on section 14(1) (vexatious request) to refuse to comply with the request.
The Commissioner does not require the DLUHC to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14(1)
View Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government
3 Jan 2024Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information relating to the City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council’s (the Council) appeal against the Department for Culture Media and Sport’s (DCMS) decision to list the Richard Dunn Sports Centre. The Council withheld the information requested under regulation 12(4)(e) (internal communications) of the EIR. During the course of the Commissioner’s investigation the Council disclosed the withheld information, subject to some personal data being redacted under regulation 13 (third party personal data) of the EIR. Following this disclosure the complainant alleged that the Council held further information. The Council subsequently located additional information, which it disclosed to the complainant, subject to some information being redacted under regulations 12(4)(e), 12(5)(b) (course of justice) and 13. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has correctly applied regulation 12(4)(e) to the request. However, the Commissioner also finds that the
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(e); EIR 12(5)(b)
View City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council
3 Jan 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information regarding misconduct hearing outcomes from Merseyside Police. Merseyside Police relied on sections 30(1)(a) (Investigations and proceedings) and 40(2) (Personal information) of FOIA to withhold the information. The Commissioner’s decision is that Merseyside Police 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 Merseyside Police
3 Jan 2024Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested details of four sites which Meopham Parish Council (the Council) had received in response to its call for sites for affordable housing. The Council initially refused the request under section 36 (prejudice to the effective conduct of public affairs) of the FOIA. In its internal review the Council maintained that section 36 applied to the information requested but stated that it also considered section 40(2) (personal data) and section 41 (information provided in confidence) to apply to the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the requested information is environmental information within the definition at regulation 2(1)(c) of the EIR. The request should, therefore, have been handled under the EIR rather than the FOIA. The Commissioner requires the Council to reconsider the request under the provisions of the EIR and issue a fresh response to the complainant.
Exemptions cited: EIR 2
3 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(1)
View Home Office
3 Jan 2024Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information about a housing site from St Helens Metropolitan Borough Council (the public authority). By the date of this notice the public authority had not issued a substantive response to this request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the public authority has failed to respond to the request within 20 working days and has therefore breached regulation 5(2) of the EIR. The public authority must provide a substantive response to the request in accordance with its obligations under the EIR.
Exemptions cited: EIR 5(2)
View St Helens Council
2 Jan 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested copies of witness statements relating to the trial of Paul Burrell. The Crown Prosecution Service (“CPS”) refused the request, citing the exemptions for law enforcement (section 31) and personal information (section 40(2)). The Commissioner’s decision is that CPS appropriately applied the exemptions contained in section 31(1)(a)-(c) of the FOIA to withhold the requested information. The Commissioner does not require CPS to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 31(1)
View Crown Prosecution Service
22 Dec 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information contained within an appendix which forms a draft valuation report. Tees Valley Combined Authority (TVCA) redacted some of the information citing section 43(2) (Commercial interests) of FOIA to do so. The Commissioner’s decision is that the withheld information engages section 43(2), and the balance of the public interest lies in maintaining the exemption. The Commissioner does not require any steps as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: FOI 43(2)
View Tees Valley Combined Authority
22 Dec 2023Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The Commissioner’s decision is that the Environment Agency correctly applied the exception under regulation 12(5)(a) of the EIR to information in the ‘Thirlmere Mitigation Section 20 Annual Report’ that it disclosed. This exception concerns national security and public safety. The Environment Agency didn’t comply with regulations 5(2) and 14(2) as it didn’t make information available or issue a refusal notice in respect of the remaining information within the statutory timeframe of 20 working days. Information Tribunal FTT EA/2024/0023 appeal dismissed.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(a); EIR 14; EIR 5
View Environment Agency
22 Dec 2023Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has failed to comply with its obligation, under section 16 of FOIA, to provide advice and assistance.
The Commissioner requires the Council to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: Either provide the complainant with advice and assistance to help him submit a valid request or explain, to him, why it would not be reasonable in the circumstances to do so. 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 16(1)
View Southend-on-Sea City Council
21 Dec 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested copies of legal advice. The PHSO withheld the requested information under section 40(1) (personal information) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the requested information engages section 40(1) and therefore is exempt from disclosure. The Commissioner does not require further steps. Information Tribunal FTT EA/2024/0021 appeal dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40(1)
View The Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman
21 Dec 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The Commissioner’s decision is that the Department for Transport was entitled to withhold the Equality Impact Assessment associated with its proposal to change rail ticket offices, under section 35(1)(a) of FOIA. This exemption concerns the formulation of government policy. It’s not necessary for the Department for Transport to take any corrective steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 35
View Department for Transport
21 Dec 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The Commissioner’s decision is that information regarding an overview of services, training material and reports that the complainant has requested are exempt from disclosure under section 41(1) of FOIA. This is because it’s information that was provided in confidence, and the public interest favours maintaining the exemption in this case. It’s not necessary for the British Film Institute (BFI) to take any corrective steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 41(1)
View British Film Institute
21 Dec 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested appendices to an Outline Business case (OBC) for the Chesterfield-Staveley Regeneration Route (CSRR). Derbyshire County Council (the Council) withheld the information requested under regulation 12(4)(d). The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council correctly applied regulation 12(4)(d) to the request. He does not require any steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(d)
View Derbyshire County Council
21 Dec 2023Complaint 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 West of England Combined Authority
21 Dec 2023Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested two draft versions of a Life Cycle Analysis document on absorbent hygiene products, as well as any comments or feedback from various parties. Defra explained any comments or feedback had been provided in response to an earlier request but considered the drafts should be withheld under regulation 12(4)(d) of EIR. The Commissioner’s decision is that regulation 12(4)(d) was engaged in relation to the draft documents but that the public interest in disclosure outweighs the public interest in maintaining the exception and withholding the information. The Commissioner requires Defra to disclose the draft versions of the Life Cycle Analysis from 9 February 2022 and 6 June 2022.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(d)
21 Dec 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from the Ministry of Justice – Chester County Courts relating to revenue and profits received over a six-year period between 2017 to 2022 from a named solicitor.
The Commissioner’s decision is that the Ministry of Justice was entitled to refuse to comply with the request in accordance with section 12(1) of FOIA. The Commissioner also finds that the Ministry of Justice complied with its obligations under section 16 to offer advice and assistance.
The Commissioner does not require the Ministry of Justice to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12(1)
View Ministry of Justice
21 Dec 2023Complaint 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)
20 Dec 2023Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to a meeting on 25 May 2022 between the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Tech and the Digital Economy and the All-Party Betting and Gaming Group (APBGG) of MPs concerning the Gambling Review.
The Department for Digital, Culture, Media & Sport 1 (DCMS) confirmed that they held information within scope of the request. They originally withheld the minutes of the meeting under section 21(1) of the FOIA (information reasonably accessible to the applicant) and applied section 36(2)(b)(i) to a briefing paper prepared for the Minister and section 36(2)(c) to a report provided by a third party. During the Commissioner’s investigation, DCMS withdrew reliance on section 36 and instead withheld the briefing paper under section 35(1)(a)(formulation or development of government policy). DCMS also applied section 41(1)(information provided in confidence) to withhold the third party report. CMS also withdrew reliance on section 2
Exemptions cited: FOI 35(1)(a); FOI 41(1)
View Department for Culture, Media and Sport
20 Dec 2023Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information about mountain bike (‘MTB’) trails. Forestry England (‘FE’) disclosed some information with redactions made under regulation 13 (personal data). The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, FE has identified all of the information within scope of the request. Furthermore, it’s entitled to withhold the information it has done under regulation 13. The Commissioner has recorded a breach of regulation 5(2). The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 13; EIR 5(1); EIR 5(2)
View Forestry Commission
20 Dec 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested from Cleveland Police, information regarding police interview transcripts from September 2006 to July 2008 of [names redacted]. Cleveland Police withheld the information under section 40(2) (personal information) and section 30(1) (investigations and proceedings) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that Cleveland Police was entitled to rely on section 30(1) of FOIA to withhold the information requested. Due to this decision, it has not been necessary for the Commissioner to consider the application of any other exemptions. The Commissioner does not require Cleveland Police to take any further steps as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: FOI 30(1); FOI 40(2)
View Cleveland Police
20 Dec 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information with regards to agricultural restrictions on properties in a specific area. Buckinghamshire Council (the council) refused the request under regulation 6(1)(b) of the EIR – Form and format, based on the information being available in the public domain. The Commissioner’s decision is that regulation 6(1)(b) of the EIR is engaged. He also used his discretion to determine that regulation 6(1)(a) of the EIR is also applicable in this case - reasonable to make the information available in another format. The Commissioner does not require the council to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 6(1); EIR 6(1)(b)
View Buckinghamshire Council
20 Dec 2023Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested a copy of a document which was produced following discussions between the civil service and the main political parties in Northern Ireland. The Executive Office of Northern Ireland (TEO) refused the request citing section 35(1)(a) of FOIA (formulation or development of government policy). The Commissioner’s decision is that TEO was not entitled to rely on section 35(1)(a) to withhold the requested information.
The Commissioner requires TEO to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation:
Disclose the withheld information.
The public authority must take these steps within 35 calendar days of the date of this decision notice. Failure to comply may result in the Commissioner making written certification of this fact to the High Court pursuant to section 54 of FOIA and may be dealt with as a contempt of court.
Exemptions cited: FOI 35(1)(a)
20 Dec 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested from the National Police Chiefs’ Council (‘the NPCC’) information about the numbers and percentages of Prevent referrals by ethnicity. The Commissioner’s decision is that the NPCC was entitled to apply section 12(1)of FOIA and is satisfied that the NPCC met its obligation under section 16 to offer advice and assistance. The Commissioner does not require the NPCC to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12(1); FOI 16
View National Police Chiefs Council
20 Dec 2023Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information concerning the terms of appointment of non-executive members of Channel 4 Television Corporation and their oversight of their performance by Ofcom.
The Department for Culture, Media & Sport (DCMS) initially confirmed that they held some information within scope of the request and provided this to the complainant. However, they adopted an overly narrow interpretation to the request which excluded relevant emails. This error was not recognised at internal review but was rectified following further correspondence from the complainant, when DCMS disclosed to the complainant some further information (emails) which were within scope of the request. Some information contained in the emails was withheld (redacted) under sections 40(2)(third party personal data) and 42(1)(legal professional privilege) of FOIA.
The Commissioner has found that DCMS breached sections 1(1) and 10(1) of FOIA in their handling of the complainant’s request. The
Exemptions cited: FOI 1(1); FOI 10(1); FOI 16
View Department for Culture, Media and Sport
20 Dec 2023Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information concerning correspondence and meetings between the Home Secretary at the time, Suella Braverman and/or the Permanent Secretary with the Israeli Embassy, its employees or representatives during a particular timeframe. The Home Office provided some information in the form of the dates but refused the remainder under section 27(1)(a) of FOIA (international relations). The Commissioner’s decision is that the Home Office was entitled to withhold the requested information under section 27(1)(a) of FOIA. However, the Home Office breached section 17(3) of FOIA. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 17(3); FOI 27
View Home Office
20 Dec 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant submitted a request to UK Export Finance (UKEF) for a copy of the contract that was signed by Wood Group for the government-backed Green Transition Loan it received in 2021. UKEF confirmed that it held a copy of the contract and initially withheld it in full on the basis of regulations 12(5)(e) (commercial or industrial information) and 13 (personal data) of the EIR. It disclosed a redacted version of the contract during the course of the Commissioner’s investigation, again relying on the same two exceptions. The complainant disputed the application of regulation 12(5)(e). The Commissioner’s decision is that the parts of the contract redacted on the basis of regulation 12(5)(e) are exempt from disclosure on the basis of this exception and that all the circumstances of the case the public interest favours withholding this information.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(e)
View UK Export Finance
20 Dec 2023Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information about proposed dog control restrictions on the beach at Camber. In its initial response Rother District Council (the Council) provided a link to information on its website and stated it did not hold any further information. During the course of the Commissioner’s investigation the Council located additional information falling within the scope of the request, which it disclosed to the complainant. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council does not hold any further information relevant to the request. However, the Commissioner finds that the Council breached section 10 of the FOIA in failing to provide some disclosable information within the statutory timescale. The Commissioner does not require any steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10
View Rother District Council
20 Dec 2023Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested from London Borough of Haringey (the Council) information regarding its annual lettings plan for 2022-2023 and lettings policy. The Council advised that the information for the lettings plan had not been finalised and was intended for future publication. It also advised that a Lettings Policy as such was not held but provided the link to its Allocation Policy. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council should have cited the exemption at section 22(1) (information intended for future publication) of FOIA to withhold the information requested. The Commissioner does not require the Council to take any steps as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: FOI 22
View Haringey Council
20 Dec 2023Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested agendas and meeting minutes for the governing board of Ysgol Cynwyd Sant. Ysgol Cynwyd Sant (“the School”) has provided some information but refused other portions, stating this is “confidential”. They have not cited an exemption under FOIA for this refusal. When the complainant requested an internal review, the School refused to provide this. The Commissioner’s decision is that the School has not responded appropriately to this request and has thereby breached sections 1 and 17 of FOIA for the reasons set out in this notice. The Commissioner requires the School to disclose such information as it holds or issue a refusal notice which complies with the requirements of section 17(1) of FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1(1); FOI 10(1); FOI 17
20 Dec 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested transcripts of a specific police misconduct hearing. The Chief Constable for the Metropolitan Police Service (the Police) relied on sections 32(1)(c) and 40(2) of the FOIA to withhold the information. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Police have correctly relied on section 32(1) of the FOIA to withhold the information. As the Commissioner considers this to be the case, he has not gone on to consider the application of section 40(2) of FOIA. The Commissioner does not require further steps. Information Tribunal FTT EA/2024/0004 under appeal.
Exemptions cited: FOI 32(1)
View Metropolitan Police Service
19 Dec 2023Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from Southend-on-Sea City Council (the Council), including information relating to the Council’s ICT Policies. The Council provided some information within the scope of the request, but refused to provide the remainder, citing sections 21 (information accessible to applicant by other means) and 31 (law enforcement) of FOIA. The Commissioner has considered the timeliness of the Council’s handling of the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council breached section 10(1) (time for compliance) of FOIA as it did not provide all of the non-exempt information that it held within the statutory timeframe of 20 working days. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Southend-on-Sea City Council
19 Dec 2023Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested a copy of a decision report regarding a complaint he believed had been made about a senior officer. City of London Police (‘CoLP’) would neither confirm nor deny (‘NCND’) whether it held the requested information, citing sections 40(5A) and (5B) (Personal information) and 30(3) (Investigations and proceedings) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that CoLP 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 City of London Police
19 Dec 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to Monmouthshire County Council (the Council) for information relating to Spytty Park.
The Commissioner’s decision is that on the balance of probabilities, the Council does not hold any information within the scope of the request and has therefore complied with section 1(1) of FOIA. The Commissioner does not require further steps as a result of this decision notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Monmouthshire County Council
19 Dec 2023Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information regarding an organisational structure chart, including job roles and pay scales, from the Southend-on-Sea City Council (“the Council”). Having made a number of disclosures, the Council advised that it had disclosed everything that had been requested. The Commissioner does not agree with this position. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council, on the balance of probabilities, does hold further information within the scope of the request. The Commissioner requires the Council to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. Conduct a further search for the requested information and issue a fresh response which either discloses that information or explains why it is exempt from disclosure. 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
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Southend-on-Sea City Council
18 Dec 2023Complaint 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. No steps are required.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
18 Dec 2023Complaint 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 Department for Education
18 Dec 2023Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested ‘data and insight into customers’ top areas of concern’. The Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) withheld some of the requested information under section 36, prejudice to the effective conduct of public affairs. DWP confirmed that within the withheld information there was personal data that would also be exempt under section 40(2) and 44(1)(a). The complainant confirmed that they were content for DWP to redact the personal data. The Commissioner’s decision is that section 36, prejudice to the effective conduct of public affairs, is engaged but that the public interest favours disclosure. The Commissioner requires DWP to disclose the withheld information with the exception of the information highlighted as being exempt under section 40(2) and 44(1)(a).
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 H
Exemptions cited: FOI 36
View Department for Work and Pensions