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 complainant has requested information on the government’s response to a consultation on metric and imperial units of measurement. DBT refused the request in reliance of FOIA section 35(1) – formulation of government policy and section 22(1) – information intended for future publication. The Commissioner’s decision is that section 35(1) is engaged but the public interest favours disclosure and section 22(1) is not engaged in the particular circumstances of this case. The Commissioner requires DBT to disclose the draft government response to ensure compliance with the legislation.
Exemptions cited: FOI 22; FOI 35
View Department for Business and Trade
8 Dec 2023Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information held by Cornwall Council (the council) relating to the establishment of an Interim Executive Board (IEB) at a local primary school. The council provided the complainant with some information, both with its original response to the request, and at the internal review stage. The council withheld the remaining information under section 40(2) – personal information, section 41(1) – information provided in confidence, and section 42 – legal professional privilege, of FOIA. The Commissioner has decided that whilst the council is entitled to withhold the information it claimed to be subject to the exemptions at section 40(2) and section 42, it is only entitled to rely on section 41(1) in respect of part of the withheld information that remains. As the council failed to provide the complainant with copies of any information in response to their request within 20 working days, and also failed to issue a refusal notice within the same statutory time peri
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 17; FOI 40(2); FOI 41(1); FOI 42
View Cornwall Council
7 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 Southend-on-Sea City Council
7 Dec 2023Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested from London Borough of Merton Council (“the Council”), copies of applications made to Keep Britain Tidy for Green Flag Awards. The Council has advised that it holds the requested information. The Commissioner requires the Council to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: Provide the complainant with 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.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Merton Council
7 Dec 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested copies of testimonies, provided by police officers and staff, to a named officer’s misconduct hearing. The Chief Constable of Thames Valley Police (‘TVP’) relied on section 40(2) of FOIA (third party personal information) to withhold the information. The Commissioner’s decision is that TVP 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 Thames Valley Police
7 Dec 2023Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from the Chief Constable of Sussex Police (‘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 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 public authority to take the following step to ensure compliance with the legislation. The Police must provide a substantive response to the request in accordance with its obligations under FOIA. The public authority 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 Sussex Police
7 Dec 2023Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from the Chief Constable of Sussex Police (‘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 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 public authority to take the following step to ensure compliance with the legislation. The Police must provide a substantive response to the request in accordance with its obligations under FOIA. The Police 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 Sussex Police
7 Dec 2023Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information held by Durham County Council (the council) about repairs carried out on a particular footpath. The council initially refused the complainant’s request, citing regulation 12(4)(e) – internal communications, and regulation 12(5)(b) – course of justice, of the EIR. At the internal review stage, the council advised that it now considered that it had previously misunderstood what the complainant required, and provided some information in response to the request. During the Commissioner’s investigation, the council located additional information and disclosed this to the complainant. The council also confirmed that it was withholding some information that was the personal data of third parties under regulation 13 of the EIR. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council has correctly withheld information under regulation 13. Furthermore, he considers that, on the balance of probabilities, the council has provided the information held that is relevant
Exemptions cited: EIR 13; EIR 5(1); EIR 5(2)
View Durham County Council
7 Dec 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to meetings between the UK Prime Minister and Gautam Adani in October 2021 and April 2022. The Cabinet Office refused the request, citing section 27 (prejudice to international relations) and section 35 (formulation of government policy). The Commissioner’s decision is that the exemption at section 27 is engaged in respect of all of the requested information, and the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosing the information. The Commissioner does not require any steps to be taken. Information Tribunal EA/2024/0010 appeal part allowed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 27
View Cabinet Office
7 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 Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office
6 Dec 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to their speeding fine. National Highways (‘NH’) refused the request, citing section 31(1)(a), (b) and (c) (law enforcement) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the requested information is exempt under section 31(1)(a), (b) and (c). The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 31(1)(a); FOI 31(1)(b); FOI 31(1)(c)
View National Highways
6 Dec 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested communications with Swim England’s decision to disaffiliate Ellesmere Titans Swimming Club. Sport England disclosed some information and withheld the remainder under sections 21, 36(2)(b)(ii) and 2(c), 40, 41 and 43 of FOIA. These exemptions concern information already accessible to the applicant, prejudice to the effective conduct of public affairs, personal data, information provided in confidence and commercially sensitive information respectively. The Commissioner’s decision is that the information to which Sport England has applied sections 36(2)(b)(ii) and 36(2)(c) is exempt from disclosure under those exemptions. It’s not necessary for Sport England to take any corrective steps. Information Tribunal FTT EA/2024/0009 appeal withdrawn.
Exemptions cited: FOI 36
View Sport England
6 Dec 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from the Cabinet Office relating to wildfires. The Cabinet Office refused to comply with the request citing section 12 (cost limit) of FOIA.The Commissioner’s decision is that the Cabinet Office was entitled to refuse to comply with the request in accordance with section 12(1) of FOIA. The Commissioner also finds that the Cabinet Office complied with its obligations under section 16 to offer advice and assistance. The Commissioner does not require the Cabinet Office to take any steps. Information Tribunal FTT EA/2024/0026 appeal struck out.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12
View Cabinet Office
6 Dec 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information about noise monitoring undertaken for a specific location since 2015. West Northamptonshire Council stated that no information was held for the majority of the requests (specifically requests 1, 2, 3 and 5). The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the Council does not hold the information sought by requests 1, 2, 3 and 5, and has otherwise complied with request 4. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(a)
View West Northamptonshire Council
6 Dec 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested to know the costs of housing asylum seekers at the former RAF Scampton airbase. The Home Office refused the request, citing the non-disclosure exemption at section 43 (Commercial interests) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Home Office was entitled to rely on section 43 to refuse the request.
Exemptions cited: FOI 43
View Home Office
6 Dec 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to the job titles of staff responsible for preparing materials for review by death inquiries.DWP relied on section 12 (cost limit) of FOIA to refuse the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that DWP was entitled to refuse to comply with the request in accordance with section 12(1).The Commissioner finds that DWP has complied with its obligations under section 16 of FOIA to offer advice and assistance.The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12(1); FOI 16
View Department for Work and Pensions
6 Dec 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to the Weston report. Sports England (“SE”) disclosed some information and withheld the remainder under section 36 (prejudice to the effective conduct of public affairs) of FOIA and, on the balance of probabilities, SE has identified all of the information that falls within the scope of the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the withheld information can be withheld under section 36. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 36
5 Dec 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant made a request for emails exchanged within the Cabinet Office during two specified periods of late 2020 during the Covid 19 pandemic. The Cabinet Office refused the request under section 14(1) of FOIA (vexatious requests).The Commissioner’s decision is that the request was vexatious, based on the oppressive burden that complying with the request would impose, and therefore the Cabinet Office was entitled to rely upon section 14(1) of FOIA to refuse it. The Commissioner does not require any steps to be taken.
Keywords: partygate
Exemptions cited: FOI 14
View Cabinet Office
5 Dec 2023Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about fire inspections and copies of fire inspection reports from East Sussex Fire & Rescue Service (“ESFRS”). ESFRS provided some information about fire inspections but refused to provide any fire inspection reports. It did not cite any exemptions.The Commissioner’s decision is that, in failing to properly address the request, ESFRS has breached section 17(1) of FOIA. He requires ESFRS to either disclose the fire inspection reports or issue a refusal notice, which complies with section 17 of FOIA, clearly explaining why they are exempt from disclosure.
Exemptions cited: FOI 17
View East Sussex Fire and Rescue Service
5 Dec 2023Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant made two requests for information regarding the Home Office’s Asylum Accommodation and Support Contracts (“AASCs”).The Home Office relied on section 12 (cost limit) of FOIA to refuse both requests as the aggregated cost of responding would have exceeded the appropriate limit.The Commissioner’s decision is that the Home Office was entitled to consider the combined cost of responding to both requests and that it has reasonably estimated that combined cost as exceeding the appropriate limit. Consequently, the Home Office was entitled to refuse to comply with the requests in accordance with section 12(1).The Commissioner finds that the Home Office has complied with its obligations under section 16 of FOIA to offer advice and assistance.The Commissioner considers that the Home Office has breached section 10(1) of FOIA as it did not confirm that it held information within the statutory time limit. It has also breached section 17(5) of FOIA as it did not provide the complainan
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 12(1); FOI 16
View Home Office
5 Dec 2023Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information from the Cabinet Office relating to domestic travel by the Prime Minister and the Prime Minister’s and minister’s carbon footprints.The Commissioner’s decision is that the Cabinet Office is not entitled to rely on regulation 12(4)(b) (manifestly unreasonable) to refuse to comply with the request.The Commissioner requires the Cabinet Office to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation.Issue a fresh response to the request which does not rely on regulation 12(4)(b) of the EIR. The Cabinet Office must take these steps within 35 calendar days of the date of this decision notice. Failure to comply may result in the Commissioner making written certification of this fact to the High Court pursuant to section 54 of the Act and may be dealt with as a contempt of court.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(b)
View Cabinet Office
4 Dec 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information on interactions between government and an organisation named Hakluyt . DBT provided redacted copies of the information it held. It relied on FOIA sections 43 – Commercial interests; 40(2) – Personal information; 41(1) – Information provided in confidence; 36(2)(b)(i) and 36(2)(c) – Prejudice to the effective conduct of public affairs to redact the information. The Commissioner’s decision is that the exemptions at FOIA sections 36(2)(b)(i) and 36(2)(c) are engaged and the public interest by a narrow margin favours maintaining the exemption. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 36(2)
View Department for Business and Trade
4 Dec 2023Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has made seven requests for information relating to subcontractors to the Asylum Accommodation and Support Contracts (AASC). The Commissioner’s decision is that the public authority is not entitled to rely on section 43 of FOIA to withhold the remaining information. The Commissioner requires the Home Office to disclose the information it has relied on section 43 of FOIA to withhold.
Exemptions cited: FOI 43
View Home Office
4 Dec 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) relating to training undertaken by its staff. The ICO refused the request under section 14(1) of FOIA (vexatious requests). The Commissioner’s decision is that the request was vexatious and therefore the ICO was entitled to rely upon section 14(1) of FOIA to refuse it. However, the ICO breached section 17(1) of FOIA by issuing its refusal notice beyond the statutory timeframe. The Commissioner does not require any steps. Following a review of this case it has been noted that the Commissioner erred in citing a breach of section 17(1) of FOIA, having omitted to include the Scottish bank holiday of 7 August 2023 in his calculation of the 20 working day deadline. Therefore, the ICO did not breach section 17(1) of FOIA. Information Tribunal FTT EA/2023/0528 under appeal.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14(1); FOI 17
View Information Commissioner
4 Dec 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested legal advice from the Metropolitan Police Service (the “MPS”). The MPS refused to provide the requested information citing sections 42(1) (Legal professional privilege) and 40(2) (Personal information) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that section 42(1) is engaged and that the public interest favours maintaining the exemption. The Commissioner does not require any steps.
Keywords: Insulate Britain
Exemptions cited: FOI 42
View Metropolitan Police Service
4 Dec 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information from Wirral Council (“the Council”) relating to a proposal to develop a new market in Birkenhead. During the course of the Commissioner’s investigation the Council disclosed the information it had previously withheld, however, the complainant also believes that the Council holds further information within the scope of part 7 of the request which it has not disclosed, the Council denies this. The Commissioner’s decision is that on the balance of probabilities, the Council does not hold further information within the scope of part 7 of the request, beyond that which has been disclosed. The Commissioner does not require the Council to take any further steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 5(1)
View Wirral Council
4 Dec 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information about the powers available to the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (DLUHC) to investigate and take action against Woking Borough Council’s (the Council) councillors or members. DLUHC confirmed it held the information requested but that it was exempt under section 21. During the internal review process it became apparent that DLUHC had interpreted the request differently from the complainant. The Commissioner has therefore considered whether an objective reading of the request was carried out by DLUHC. The Commissioner’s decision is that there is only one objective reading of the request and that DLUHC interpreted the request in line with this objective reading. The Commissioner does not require any steps to be take.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government
4 Dec 2023Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The Commissioner’s decision is that the National Archives is entitled to withhold information in ‘FCO 40/3624/1 - Closed extracts: Folios 5, 8 and attachments From the open parent piece FCO 40/3624: Sino-British Joint Declaration on Hong Kong’, under section 27(1)(a) of FOIA. This is because disclosing it would prejudice relations between the UK and other States. The National Archives breached section 17(1) of FOIA as it didn’t provide a refusal notice within the required timescale. It’s not necessary for the National Archives to take any corrective steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 17; FOI 27
View The National Archives
4 Dec 2023Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The Commissioner’s decision is that under section 3(2) of FOIA the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) doesn’t hold particular written assurances that the Secretary of State gave, which the complainant has requested. This is because the CAA holds the information on behalf of the Air Travel Trust (ATT) and the ATT isn’t a public authority under FOIA. It’s not necessary for the CAA to take any corrective steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 3
View Civil Aviation Authority
4 Dec 2023Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to NHSE’s review into the North East Ambulance Service NHS Foundation Trust. The Commissioner’s decision is that NHSE has now disclosed all the information to which the complainant is entitled and therefore met its obligations under FOIA. It however breached sections 1(1)(b) and 10 of FOIA for communicating information to which the complainant was entitled late, requesting unnecessary clarification for one element of the request and failing to respond to the request within the statutory timeframe for compliance. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10
View NHS England
4 Dec 2023Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information associated with so-called ‘defeat devices.’ The Department for Transport (DfT) provided some information and relied on regulation 12(5)(c) of the EIR (intellectual property rights) and 13 (personal data) to withhold the remaining information. The Commissioner’s decision is that DfT has failed to make the case that regulation 12(5)(c) is engaged. DfT also breached regulations 5(2) and 14(2) of the EIR as it failed to disclose all the environmental information that it held or issue a complete refusal notice within 40 working days. The Commissioner requires DfT to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. Disclose to the complainant the information being withheld under regulation 12(5)(c) of the EIR. This should include the information discussed at paragraph 12 of this notice which DfT has confirmed it will disclose.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(c); EIR 14; EIR 5
View Department for Transport
4 Dec 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested lists of Upper Tribunal court hearings presided over by a named judge and deputy judge, together with other court hearings represented by named Home Office individuals. The Ministry of Justice (the ‘MOJ’) neither confirmed nor denied holding the requested information, citing sections 32(3) (court records etc) and 40(5) (personal information) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the MOJ has was entitled to rely on section 32(3) of FOIA to neither confirm nor deny holding any information falling within the scope of the request. As he has found section 32(3) to be engaged, the Commissioner has not deemed it necessary to consider the MOJ’s reliance on section 40(5B)(a)(i) of FOIA. The Commissioner does not require the MOJ to take any steps as a result of this notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 32
View Ministry of Justice
4 Dec 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested a digital scan or copy of the glass plate negative of Amelia Julie Sargant. The National Portrait Gallery (‘the Gallery’) advised it didn’t hold a digital copy of the negative and that the negative in question was in storage. The Gallery subsequently confirmed to the Commissioner that it doesn’t consider it holds the requested information under FOIA. But to the extent that the information is held, section 12 of FOIA would apply due to the costs involved in providing a digital scan. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Gallery doesn’t hold the information under FOIA. It’s not necessary for the Gallery to take any corrective steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View National Portrait Gallery
4 Dec 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested disciplinary information relating to specific members of staff. The Heart of Worcestershire College (“the public authority”) refused to confirm or deny that it held the requested information, citing section 40(5B)(a)(i) (personal information) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the public authority was correct to neither confirm nor deny that the requested information was held. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40(5)(b)(a)(i)
1 Dec 2023Complaint 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 UK Export Finance
1 Dec 2023Complaint 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 London Borough of Croydon
1 Dec 2023Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The applicant requested information about Assistant Directors’ remuneration. The Education Authority (EA) disclosed some information and relied on section 36 and 40 to withhold the remaining information. These exemptions concern prejudice to the effective conduct of public affairs and personal data respectively. The Commissioner’s decision is that the EA correctly applied section 36(2)(b)(i), section 36(2)(b)(ii) and section 36(2)(c) to the majority of the information to which it applied those exemptions. He also finds that the majority of the information to which the EA applied section 40(1) and 40(2) is exempt under those exemptions. However, the Commissioner finds that the EA was incorrect to rely on section 36(2) and section 40 to withhold the Assistant Director Remuneration Business Case. The Commissioner requires the EA to take the following step to ensure compliance with the legislation: Disclose the Assistant Director Remuneration Business Case that falls within scope of part 4
Exemptions cited: FOI 36; FOI 40
30 Nov 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information from North Norfolk District Council (“the Council”) about the Environmental Health Team’s assessment of a poultry farm and correspondence between the Environmental Health Team and the Planning Department about planning applications for a site close to the poultry farm. The Council withheld the requested information citing regulations 12(5)(f) (interests of information provider) and 13 (personal data) of the EIR as its bases for doing so. The Commissioner has proactively applied regulation 12(4)(e) in place of regulation 12(5)(f). The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council is entitled to withhold the withheld information under regulation 12(4)(e) and regulation 13 of the EIR. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(e); EIR 13
View North Norfolk District Council
30 Nov 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information from Cheshire East Council (“the Council”) about enquiries received by its public rights of way (PROW) team. The Council refused the request under regulation 12(4)(b) of the EIR (manifestly unreasonable) on the grounds that providing all of the information requested would impose a significant and disproportionate burden on the Council’s resources, in terms of time and cost.The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council is entitled to refuse the request under regulation 12(4)(b). The Commissioner also finds that the Council complied with its obligations under regulation 9 of the EIR to offer advice and assistance. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(b); EIR 9
View Cheshire East Council
30 Nov 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a ‘meta request’ to the Home Office for a record of the then Home Secretary’s Qualified Person’s opinion and for the agreement to extend the response time, in relation to their previous request.The Commissioner decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the Home Office does not hold any further 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(1)
View Home Office
30 Nov 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 Waverley Borough Council
30 Nov 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information demonstrating conditions of authorisation for a Pfizer vaccine were met. The MHRA refused the request under section 12 of FOIA as it would exceed the appropriate cost limit to comply. The Commissioner’s decision is that the MHRA has correctly applied section 12 to refuse the request and has also complied with section 16 of FOIA by providing advice and assistance to refine the request. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12; FOI 16
View Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency
30 Nov 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant made a request for information to Swansea University (“the University”) relating to subjects studied in the University’s faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences. The University has confirmed that it does not hold the information requested under section 1(1)(a) FOIA. The Commissioner considers that the University was correct to confirm that it does not hold the requested information. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Swansea University
30 Nov 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information regarding death certificates that mention polluted air. The Greater London Authority (“the public authority”) has advised that it does not hold the requested information. The Commissioner’s decision is that the public authority does not hold death certificates and, as such, it does not hold the requested information. The Commissioner does not require any steps as a result of this decision notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Greater London Authority
30 Nov 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from the Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office (“the FCDO”) in relation to legal submissions for specific concluded cases. The FCDO refused to provide the information, citing section 32(1) of FOIA. It also advised that the remaining information is not held. The Commissioner’s decision is that the FCDO has correctly applied section 32(1) to the request. He is also satisfied that, on the balance of probabilities, the FCDO does not hold the remaining information. The Commissioner does not require the FCDO to take any steps as a result of this decision notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 32(1)
View Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office
30 Nov 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request for the addresses of the properties falling under section 5(5) of the Crown Estate Act 1961. The Crown Estate confirmed that it held such information but withheld it on the basis of sections 38(1)(a) and (b) (health and safety) and section 40(2) (personal data) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Crown Estate were correct to rely on section 40(2) to withhold the requested information.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View The Crown Estate
29 Nov 2023Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from Nottingham City Council (“the Council”) relating to the Council’s relationship (a twinning arrangement) with the city of Ningbo in China. The Council 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 Council for the purpose of FOIA and withheld other information under section 43(2) of FOIA (commercial interests) and section 40(2) of FOIA (personal data). The Commissioner’s decision is that: the Council does not hold, for the purposes of FOIA, the information it has refused to provide on this basis; the Council is entitled to rely on section 43(2) of FOIA to refuse to provide some but not all of the information withheld on this basis; the Council is entitled to rely on section 40(2) of FOIA to refuse to provide the information withheld on this basis.The Commissioner requires the Council to disclose the following information, which the Commissioner has d
Exemptions cited: FOI 3; FOI 40(2); FOI 43(2)
View Nottingham City Council
29 Nov 2023Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested a risk register relating to HS2. The Department for Transport (‘DfT’) refused to provide the requested information, citing regulations 12(4)(e) (internal communications), regulation 12(4)(d) (material still in the course of completion) and regulation 12(5)(b) (the course of justice and inquiries). The Commissioner’s decision is that the DfT breached regulation 14(3) as it incorrectly issued its refusal under FOIA and not the EIR. However, the risk register can be withheld under regulation 12(4)(e). The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(e); EIR 14(3)
View Department for Transport
28 Nov 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information concerning an incident that occurred on 29 October 2021 at a private function held on House of Commons’ premises.The Commissioner’s decision is that House of Commons was entitled to rely on section 34 (parliamentary privilege) to withhold the requested information. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 34
View Corporate Officers of the House of Commons