18 Dec 2023Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information with regards to redundancies. The Commissioner’s decision is that the University College of London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust (the Trust) has breached section 10(1) of the FOIA as it has failed to respond to the request within the required 20 working day timeframe. The Commissioner requires the Trust to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. Respond to the complainant’s request in accordance with the FOIA. The Trust 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 10
View University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust
18 Dec 2023Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information in relation to meeting minutes from the Department for Culture Media and Sport (“DCMS”). The Commissioner’s decision is that the public authority 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(1)
View Department for Culture, Media and Sport
18 Dec 2023Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested the documents used in a review of the Department for Work and Pensions’ (DWP) Move to Universal Credit policy.
The Commissioner’s decision is that section 35(1)(a) is engaged but the public interest favours disclosure of the requested information. The Commissioner requires DWP to disclose the requested information.
The public authority must take these steps within 35 calendar days of the date of this decision notice. Failure to comply may result in the Commissioner making written certification of this fact to the High Court pursuant to section 54 of the Act and may be dealt with as a contempt of court. Information Tribunal FTT EA/2024/0022 appeal withdrawn.
Exemptions cited: FOI 35
View Department for Work and Pensions
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
18 Dec 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from HM Revenue and Customers (“HMRC”) in relation to the National Heritage Assets tax relief scheme. HMRC refused to provide the information, citing section 12(1) of FOIA – cost of compliance exceeds the appropriate limit. The Commissioner’s decision is that HMRC was entitled to rely on section 12(1) of FOIA to refuse to provide the withheld information. The Commissioner does not require further steps as a result of this decision notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12(1)
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
15 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
View Kent Police
15 Dec 2023Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested the R File(s) used to provide the statistical analysis in the in the production of the Inner London Ultra Low Emission Zone – One Year Report. The Commissioner’s decision is that Greater London Authority has failed to provide the requested information contrary to Regulation 5(1) of the EIR.
Exemptions cited: EIR 5
View Greater London Authority
15 Dec 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested a copy of correspondences between the then Prince of Wales and John Gummer from the Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs (“DEFRA”). The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, DEFRA does not hold the requested information. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(a)
15 Dec 2023Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from Southend-on-Sea City 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 failed to provide a valid response to the request within the statutory time frame of 20 working days and therefore it breached section 10(1) of FOIA. The public authority must provide a substantive response to the request in accordance with its obligations under FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Southend-on-Sea City Council
14 Dec 2023Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information related to the Coronation Celebration Playlist published on the Department for Culture, Media and Sport’ (DCMS) Spotify account. The requested information included the relevant internal correspondence and names of the songs and artists removed from the draft versions. DCMS withheld the information in its entirety relying on the section 36(2)(c) of FOIA (effective conduct of public affairs).The Commissioner has found that section 36(2)(c) is not engaged. In addition, DCMS breached section 17(1) of FOIA as it failed to issue its refusal notice within the statutory 20 working days.The Commissioner requires DCMS to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: Provide the complainant with the information within the scope of the request, with the exception of the names of all officials named in the information.The public authority must take these steps within 35 calendar days of the date of this decision notice. Failure to comply m
Exemptions cited: FOI 36(2)(c)
View Department for Culture, Media and Sport
14 Dec 2023Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested from Sussex Police, information relating to reports about the action for parking on zig-zag lines at a specific pedestrian crossing in Buxted. Sussex Police disclosed some information within scope of the request, but withheld the remaining information; the report numbers, as it considered this to be third party personal data and therefore cited section 40(2) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is Sussex Police was entitled to rely on section 40(2) of FOIA to withhold the remaining information. However, Sussex Police breached sections 10(1) and 17(1) of FOIA as it failed to provide its response to the request within the statutory 20 working days. The Commissioner does not require Sussex Police to take any further steps as a result of this decision Information Tribunal FTT EA/2024/0013 appeal allowed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10(1); FOI 17; FOI 40(2)
View Sussex Police
14 Dec 2023Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from Croydon Health Services NHS Trust (the Trust) about applicants for jobs. The Trust refused to provide the information, citing section 22 (future publication) of FOIA. Much later it provided some information but refused the request as a whole under section 12 of FOIA (cost of compliance). The Commissioner’s decision is that the Trust has cited section 12(1) of FOIA appropriately. He also accepts that the Trust could not offer any meaningful advice and assistance, given the context of the request. However, the Trust breached sections 1(1), 10(1) and 17(1) of FOIA. The Commissioner does not require further steps. Information Tribunal FTT EA/2024/0014 appeal allowed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1(1)(b); FOI 10(1); FOI 12; FOI 17
View Croydon Health Services NHS Trust
14 Dec 2023Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested copies of communications relating to a visit by the Home Secretary to Rwanda from the Home Office. The Home Office disclosed some information but refused to disclose the remainder citing section 36(2)(b)(i) (Prejudice to effective conduct of public affairs) of FOIA. Where cited, the Commissioner’s decision is that the Home Office was entitled to rely on section 36(2)(b)(i) of FOIA to withhold the requested information. However, in failing to respond to the complainant’s further request for a copy of the qualified person’s opinion, the Home Office has breached sections 1 and 10 of the FOIA. The Commissioner requires the Home Office to comply with the request for a copy of the qualified person’s opinion or issue a valid refusal notice as set out in section 17 of FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10; FOI 36
View Home Office
14 Dec 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information relating to a specific footway closure. Bristol City Council (the Council) withheld information in scope of the requested under regulation 12(5)(b) 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, and the balance of the public interest lies in maintaining the exception. The Commissioner does not require any steps to be taken as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(b)
View Bristol City Council
14 Dec 2023Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information about compensation claims made against the council relating to pothole damage. The council disclosed some information but said that other information is not held by it. The Commissioner’s decision is that Hampshire County Council (the council) holds further information falling within the scope of the request. The Commissioner requires the council to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. Provide a fresh response to the complainant to part 5 of the request, either providing the information it holds or issuing a valid refusal notice under the 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 1
View Hampshire County Council
14 Dec 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to gross misconduct outcomes from Nottinghamshire Police (‘the Police’). The Commissioner’s decision is that the Police has correctly relied on section 40(2) of FOIA to withhold the information. The Commissioner does not require further steps to be taken. Information Tribunal EA/2024/0012 FTT appeal allowed in part.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40(2)
View Nottinghamshire Police
14 Dec 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
In relation to its gender identity service and adult patients, the complainant has asked Cumbria, Northumberland, Tyne and Wear NHS Foundation Trust (‘the Trust’) how long someone might wait for a first appointment and for treatment to start if they were referred on the date of their request. The Trust’s position is that it doesn’t hold the requested information. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the Trust doesn’t hold the information requested in Q2 and Q3 of the complainant’s request and has complied with section 1(1) of FOIA. It’s not necessary for the Trust to take any corrective steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Cumbria, Northumberland, Tyne and Wear NHS Foundation Trust
13 Dec 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to lost or stolen vehicles. West Midlands Police (“WMP”) refused to comply with the request, citing section 12 (cost of compliance) of FOIA as its basis for doing so.The Commissioner’s decision is that WMP was entitled to refuse to comply with the request in accordance with section 12(1) of FOIA. The Commissioner also finds that WMP complied with its obligations under section 16 to offer advice and assistance. The Commissioner does not require WMP to take any further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12; FOI 16
View West Midlands Police
13 Dec 2023Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from the Information Commissioner’s Office (‘the ICO’).The Commissioner’s decision is that the ICO 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(1)
View Information Commissioner
13 Dec 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about a complaint they made to the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (“LGSCO”). The LGSCO has advised it does not hold recorded information within scope of the complainant’s request other than that which has already been provided to the complainant.The Commissioner’s decision is as follows: On the balance of probabilities, the LGSCO holds no further recorded information relevant to the complainant’s request and has complied with section 1(1) of FOIA. The Commissioner therefore does not require the LGSCO to take any corrective steps. Information Tribunal FTT EA/2023/0541 appeal dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman
13 Dec 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested copies of statements provided to the press by Downing Street in response to the George Michael song “Shoot the Dog” and accompanying music video. The Cabinet Office stated that it did not hold the requested information. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the civil standard of the balance of probabilities, the Cabinet Office does not hold the requested information. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1(1)
View Cabinet Office
13 Dec 2023Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from Northamptonshire Police regarding specified misconduct proceedings. Northamptonshire Police withheld the requested information citing section 31 of FOIA (law enforcement), section 32 of FOIA (court records), section 38 of FOIA (health and safety) and section 40 of FOIA (personal information).The Commissioner’s decision is that Northamptonshire Police were correct to rely on section 31 of FOIA to withhold the requested information. As this applies to all the withheld information, the Commissioner has not considered Northamptonshire Police’s application of the exemptions at section 32, section 38, and section 40 of FOIA.The Commissioner also considers that Northamptonshire Police breached section 10(1) of FOIA in that it failed to provide a valid response to the request within the statutory time frame of 20 working days. He does not require the public authority to take any further steps. Information Tribunal FTT EA/2023/0545 appeal dismissed
Exemptions cited: FOI 10(1); FOI 31(1)(a); FOI 31(1)(b); FOI 31(1)(g)
View Northamptonshire Police
13 Dec 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from the Home Office relating to a contract to deliver a project for the Home Office. The Home Office stated that it did not hold some of the requested information and it refused to disclose the remaining information (“the withheld information”) citing section 43(2) of FOIA as a basis for non-disclosure.The Commissioner’s decision is that the information is commercially sensitive and the Home Office is entitled to withhold it under section 43(2) of FOIA. The public interest favours maintaining the exemption. The Commissioner does not require the Home Office to take any corrective steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 43
View Home Office
13 Dec 2023Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about student accommodation from the University of Southampton (‘the University’). The University disclosed some information and relied on sections 21, 22 and 43 to withhold other information. These exemptions concern information that’s reasonably accessible to the applicant, information that’s intended for future publication and commercial interests respectively. The Commissioner’s decision is as follows: Some information within scope of Q1 of the request is exempt information under section 21 and section 22 of FOIA. The University isn’t entitled to rely on section 43(2) of FOIA to withhold the remaining information within scope of Q1. The University incorrectly applied section 21 to Q3a and Q5. The University didn’t comply with section 1(1) and 10(1) of FOIA in respect of the information requested in Q2b, Q2c, Q2d, Q3b, Q3c, Q3d and Q7. The Commissioner requires the University to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislat
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10; FOI 21; FOI 22; FOI 43
View University of Southampton
12 Dec 2023Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested all correspondence between Sport England and Swim England relating to the draft Weston Report. Sport England disclosed some information and withheld the remainder under sections 21, 36(2), 40(2), 41 and 43(2) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the withheld information engages sections 36(2)(b)(ii) and (c) of FOIA and the public interest favours maintaining the exemption. However, the Commissioner has recorded a procedural breach of sections 1 and section 10 of FOIA. The Commissioner requires Sport England to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: If it hasn’t already done so, Sport England must disclose to the complainant documents 15, 25, and 32 as described in its internal review decision. 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 secti
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10; FOI 36(2)
View Sport England
12 Dec 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to the bodies that oversee the ICO. The ICO applied section 21 (information reasonably accessible to applicant via other means) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that section 21 applies to the requested information. He’s also satisfied that the ICO identified all information that would fall within the scope of the request. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 21
View Information Commissioner
12 Dec 2023Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested from Burcot and Clifton Hampden Parish Council (“the council”) information relating to councillors’ communications with the clerk, and information relating to a specialist who was employed to respond to the request for information. The council disclosed some information, but said that other information was not held. It also withheld other information under section 40(2) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the public authority has breached section 10(1) of FOIA in that it failed to provide a valid response to the request within the statutory time frame of 20 working days. However, he has decided that the council was correct to apply section 40(2) to redact personal data from the information it disclosed. He has also decided that no further information is held by it for the purposes of section 1 of FOIA. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10(1); FOI 40(2)
12 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 Barking, Havering and Redbridge University Hospitals NHS Trust
12 Dec 2023Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information generated by a pre-planning application. The Commissioner’s decision is that London Borough of Lambeth correctly relied on Regulation 12(5)(d)(Confidentiality of proceedings) to withhold some of the requested information. However the majority of the requested information should be supplied to the complainant. Information Tribunal FTT EA/2024/0007 appeal dismissed.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(d); EIR 12(5)(e)
View London Borough of Lambeth
12 Dec 2023Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from NHS Greater Manchester Integrated Care Board (‘the Care Board’). By the date of this notice the Care Board had not issued a substantive response to this request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Care Board has breached section 10(1) of FOIA in that it failed to provide a valid response to the request within the statutory time frame of 20 working days. The Commissioner requires the Care Board to take the following step to ensure compliance with the legislation. The Care Board must provide a substantive response to the request in accordance with its obligations under FOIA. The Care Board must take this step 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 10(1)
View NHS Greater Manchester ICB
12 Dec 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information from East Suffolk Council (“the Council”) regarding how the Council had become aware of an alleged planning breach. The Council disclosed some information in response to the request but has withheld the remainder of the information held citing regulation 5(3) (personal data of which the applicant is the data subject), regulation 13 (personal data), regulation 12(5)(d) (confidentiality of proceedings) and regulation 12(5)(f) (interests of the information provider) of the EIR as its bases for doing so. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council is entitled to withhold all of the withheld information under regulation 12(5)(f) of the EIR (interests of the information provider). He has therefore not gone on to consider the other bases for withholding the information cited by the Council. The Commissioner does not require the Council to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(f)
View East Suffolk Council
12 Dec 2023Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant made an eleven part request to the Care Quality Commission (the CQC) for information relating to the North East Ambulance Service NHS Foundation Trust (NEAS). The CQC disclosed some information within the scope of the request, but refused to provide some information on the grounds that it was not held by the CQC and withheld other information under section 40(2) of FOIA (personal data). The Commissioner’s decision is that the CQC is entitled to rely on section 40(2) of FOIA to withhold the information. However, the Commissioner has recorded a breach of section 10 of FOIA. The Commissioner does not require the CQC to take any steps as a result of this decision notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 40(2)
View CQC
12 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.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Home Office
11 Dec 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The Commissioner’s decision is that, under regulation 13 of the EIR, the Forestry Commissioner is entitled to withhold information it redacted from disclosed communications about Wych Lodge, Somerset. This is because that information is other people’s personal data, and it would be unlawful to disclose it. It’s not necessary for the Forestry Commission to take any corrective steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 13
View Forestry Commission
11 Dec 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information relating to a named piece of land. Danvm Drainage Commissioners (‘the Board’) has refused the request under regulation 12(4)(b) of the EIR. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Board is entitled to rely on regulation 12(4)(b) of the EIR to refuse to comply with the request. The Commissioner does not require the Board to take further steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(b)
11 Dec 2023Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information held by the Trust explaining an estimate cost quoted in a Trust Board paper. The Trust identified information in a Full Business Case that would provide detail about this figure but withheld this on the basis of regulation 12(4)(d). The Commissioner’s decision is that the exception is engaged but the public interest favours disclosure of the requested information. The Commissioner requires the Trust to disclose the information in scope of the request, as identified and highlighted by the Trust in the Full Business Case.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(d)
View Liverpool University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust
11 Dec 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from Sunderland City Council (‘the Council’) about ICT projects completed during 2022. The Council explained that it does not hold the requested information. The Commissioner’s decision is that on the balance of probabilities, the Council does not hold information within scope of the complainant’s request. The Commissioner does not require any further steps as a result of this decision notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Sunderland City Council
11 Dec 2023Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The Commissioner’s decision is that, to the extent that it holds the requested information, Staffordshire University (‘the University’) isn’t entitled to withhold information about spending on student housing that it owns and operates under section 43(2) of FOIA. This is because disclosing the information wouldn’t be likely to prejudice its commercial interests or those of its students. The University must take the following step to ensure compliance with the legislation: Disclose information the University holds that falls within scope of Q1 of the complainant’s request.
Exemptions cited: FOI 43
11 Dec 2023Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The Commissioner’s decision is that the University of Birmingham (‘the University’) isn’t entitled to withhold information about spending on student housing that it owns and operates under section 43(2) of FOIA. This is because disclosing the information wouldn’t be likely to prejudice its commercial interests or those of its students. The University must take the following step to ensure compliance with the legislation: Disclose the information the University holds that falls within scope of Q1 of the complainant’s request.
Exemptions cited: FOI 43
View The University of Birmingham
11 Dec 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information on comments made by the Mayor of the Tees Valley about a planning application being considered by Stockton-on-Tees Borough Council (‘the Council’). The Council said that it did not hold the requested information. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the Council does not hold the requested information.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(a)
View Stockton-on-Tees Council
11 Dec 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from HM Revenue and Customs (“HMRC”) relating to legal advice sought by HMRC. The Commissioner’s decision is that HMRC is entitled to rely on section 42(1) (legal professional privilege) of FOIA to withhold the requested information. There are no steps are required. Information Tribunal FTT EA/2024/0005 appeal dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 42(1)
11 Dec 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant asked the Home Office for information about the reported removal of ‘welcoming’ signage, and the painting over of children’s wall art, at the Kent (Asylum) Intake Unit. The Home Office refused the request, citing section 12(1) (Cost of compliance exceeds appropriate limit) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Home Office was entitled to rely on section 12(1) of FOIA to refuse the request, and that it complied with its obligations under section 16(1) (Advice and assistance).
Exemptions cited: FOI 12; FOI 16
View Home Office
11 Dec 2023Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The Commissioner’s decision is that the University of Leicester (‘the University’) isn’t entitled to withhold information about spending on student housing that it owns and operates under section 43(2) of FOIA. This is because disclosing the information wouldn’t be likely to prejudice its commercial interests or those of its students. The University must take the following step to ensure compliance with the legislation: Disclose the information the University holds that falls within scope of Q1 of the complainant’s request.
Exemptions cited: FOI 43
View The University of Leicester
8 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
View Sussex Police
8 Dec 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to the Foreign Official Holdings of Sovereign Debt. The Cabinet Office’s position is that the information is not held. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the Cabinet Office does not hold the requested information. The Commissioner does not require the Cabinet Office to take further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Cabinet Office
8 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
8 Dec 2023Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information about a UK-Israel trade and investment meeting in 2022. The request was addressed to the Department for International Trade (DIT), which is now the Department for Business and Trade (DBT) following the machinery of government changes in February 2023. DBT refused to disclose any of the information held within scope of the request, citing the exemptions at sections 27(1)(a) (international relations), 35(1)(a) (formulation of government policy) and 43(2) (commercial interests) of FOIA. During the Commissioner’s investigation, DBT issued a revised response to the complainant. It disclosed some information but withheld other information under sections 40(2) (personal information) and 43(2). The Commissioner’s decision is that whilst DBT is entitled to rely on section 40(2) to withhold the small amount of personal information in the two documents, DBT has failed to persuade him that section 43(2) is engaged for the rest of the withheld information. The
Exemptions cited: FOI 17; FOI 40(2); FOI 43(2)
View Department for Business and Trade
8 Dec 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about the BBC’s use of the national anthem. The BBC provided information in response to the request but also explained that the information was covered by the derogation and excluded from FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that this information is held by the BBC for the purposes of ‘journalism, art or literature’ and therefore falls outside of FOIA. He doesn’t require the BBC to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 3
View BBC