20 Nov 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The Commissioner’s decision is that none of the withheld information in parent file ‘PREM 15/1179 — Prime Minister's Office: Audiences with The Queen’ is environmental information and that the information’s exempt from disclosure under section 37(1)(a) of FOIA. This exemption concerns communications with the Sovereign. It’s not necessary for the National Archives to take any corrective steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 37
View The National Archives
20 Nov 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The Commissioner’s decision is that Ofgem is entitled to withhold information about an application for an Independent Distribution Network Operators licence under section 44(1) of FOIA as there’s a prohibition on its disclosure. It’s not necessary for Ofgem to take any corrective steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 44
View Office of Gas and Electricity Markets
20 Nov 2023Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information about GCSE results from The Painsley Catholic Academy (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
20 Nov 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The Commissioner’s decision is that none of the requested correspondence between former Prime Minister James Callaghan and Queen Elizabeth II is environmental information. The information is, however, exempt from disclosure under section 37(1)(a) of FOIA, which concerns communications with the Sovereign. It’s not necessary for the University of Oxford to take any corrective steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 37
View The University of Oxford
20 Nov 2023Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
In three requests, the complainant requested information about briefing given to the Chief Medical Officer following a meeting associated with the COVID-19 pandemic. NHS England (NHSE) initially advised it didn’t hold information within scope of requests 2 and 3 and disclosed information relevant to request 1 with personal data redacted under section 40(2) of FOIA. NHSE subsequently identified information that fell within scope of requests 2 and 3 and disclosed this, having again redacted some personal data. The Commissioner’s decision is as follows: NHSE holds no further information within scope of the requests and has complied with section 1(1) of FOIA. NHSE is entitled to withhold the redacted information in two disclosed email exchanges under section 40(2) as it’s other people’s personal data and disclosing it wouldn’t be lawful. NHSE breached section 10(1) and 17(1) of FOIA as it didn’t comply with section 1(1) or provide a section 40 refusal notice within the statutory timeframe.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10; FOI 17; FOI 40
View NHS England
20 Nov 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(3)
View Ministry of Defence
20 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(1)
View Ministry of Justice
20 Nov 2023Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested a paper presented to the Serious Case Panel regarding the impact of errors on claimants. The Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) withheld the information under section 36(2)(b)(i) and (ii), prejudice to the effective conduct of public affairs, and considered that the balance of the public interest lay in maintaining the exemption. The Commissioner’s decision is that section 36 is engaged but that the balance of the public interest favours disclosure. However, he finds that a small amount of information engages section 44(1), statutory prohibition on disclosure, and therefore can be withheld. The complainant confirmed that they were content for personal data to be withheld. The Commissioner also finds that DWP has breached sections 10(1) and 17(1) as it failed to adequately respond within the statutory timeframe. The Commissioner requires DWP to disclose the requested information with the exception of the highlighted personal data and information that en
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 17; FOI 36; FOI 44
View Department for Work and Pensions
20 Nov 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information pertaining to Independent Office for Police Conduct’s (IOPC) investigation into the actions of a named former Police Officer and their handling of a report of indecent exposure. IOPC withheld the requested information citing section 40(2) of FOIA (Personal information).The Commissioner’s decision is that IOPC were correct to rely on section 40(2) of FOIA to withhold the requested information. He does not require any further steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40(2)
View Independent Office for Police Conduct
20 Nov 2023Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested from Causeway Coast and Glens Borough Council (the Council) information concerning two planning applications LA01/2018/1277/F and LA01/2021/0411/F relating to the same plot. The Council initially refused the request under regulation 12(4)(b) (manifestly unreasonable) of the EIR. However, it subsequently disclosed some information, but withheld the remainder, citing regulation 13 (third party personal data), regulation 12(5)(d) (confidentiality of proceedings) and regulation 6(1)(b) (publicly available) of the EIR.The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council was entitled to rely on regulations 13(1) and 12(5)(d) of the EIR to refuse to provide the information. With regard to regulation 6(1)(b), the complainant did not dispute the Council’s reliance on this provision, therefore the Commissioner has not considered it in this notice. However, the Commissioner finds that the Council breached its obligations under regulations 5(2), 14(2) and 11(4) of the EIR. The
Exemptions cited: EIR 11(4); EIR 12(5)(d); EIR 13(1); EIR 14(2)(1); EIR 5(2)
17 Nov 2023Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The Commissioner’s decision is that the public authority breached section 10 of FOIA by failing to provide a response within the statutory timeframe.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View LEIGH ACADEMIES TRUST
17 Nov 2023Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant asked for a copy of the latest Meridian Water Masterplan from the London Borough of Enfield (the Council). The Council gave links to information within scope of the request; however, it initially withheld some information under section 43(2) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council’s reliance on section 43(2) is not appropriate in the circumstances of this case, and he considers that regulation 12(5)(e) of the EIR is the most relevant exception given the environmental impact and nature of the information in question. However, during the Commissioners investigation, the Council withdrew its reliance on regulation 12(5)(e) as it explained that the withheld information had now been published by the developer concerned as part of its planning process, and that the development of the rest of the site is on-going and subject to change. The Commissioner considers that on the balance of probability the Council does not hold any further information in scope of th
Exemptions cited: EIR 14; EIR 5(1)
View Enfield Council
17 Nov 2023Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The Commissioner’s decision is that the public authority breached section 10 of FOIA by failing to provide a response within the statutory timeframe.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
17 Nov 2023Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The Commissioner’s decision is that the public authority breached section 10 of FOIA by failing to provide a response within the statutory timeframe. Information Tribunal FTT EA/2023/0511 disposed of by consent order.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View THE PIONEER ACADEMY
17 Nov 2023Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The Commissioner’s decision is that the public authority breached section 10 of FOIA by failing to provide a response within the statutory timeframe.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
17 Nov 2023Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The Commissioner’s decision is that the public authority breached section 10 of FOIA by failing to provide a response within the statutory timeframe.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View THE PIONEER ACADEMY
17 Nov 2023Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The Commissioner’s decision is that the public authority breached section 10 of FOIA by failing to provide a response within the statutory timeframe.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View THE WOODLAND ACADEMY TRUST
16 Nov 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) regarding the names of registered childcare providers and payments made in relation to each, over three financial years. The Commissioner’s decision is that HMRC was entitled to rely on section 44(1)(a) of FOIA (the prohibitions on disclosure exemption) to refuse to disclose the requested information. The Commissioner does not require HMRC to take any further steps. Information Tribunal FTT appeal EA/2023/0492 withdrawn.
Exemptions cited: FOI 44(1)(a)
16 Nov 2023Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information related to a specific meeting related to the Loan Charge Review. Initially HM Treasury (“HMT”) argued that the information it held was exempt under section 35 (formulation/development of government policy). After internal review, HMT disclosed most of the requested information. It withheld some information under section 40 (personal data). It disclosed further information during the Commissioner’s investigation. The complainant argued HMT held further information within the scope of the request and that it had incorrectly deemed certain information marked within the disclosed information as being “out of scope”. They did not dispute the use of section 40. The Commissioner’s decision is that HMT holds no further information within the scope of the complainant’s request. However, in failing to provide a response within 20 working days, it contravened its obligations under section 10 of the FOIA. The Commissioner does not require further steps. In
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10
View HM Treasury
16 Nov 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from the Ministry of Justice (the MoJ) regarding prison framework, policies and statistics. The MoJ disclosed some of the information, said some was accessible so exempt from disclosure under section 21 (Information accessible to applicant by other means) of FOIA and that the remainder was not held. In response to a subsequent request, the MoJ disclosed the information which had previously been withheld under section 21 of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the MoJ does not hold the remaining information. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Ministry of Justice
16 Nov 2023Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to passport control at Luton Airport. The Home Office refused to disclose some of the requested information, citing section 40(2) (personal information) of FOIA as its basis for doing so. It also stated that it does not hold the remaining information within the scope of the request.The Commissioner’s decision is that the Home Office was entitled to rely on section 40(2) of FOIA to withhold the information at parts 1 and 2 of the request. The Commissioner is also satisfied that, on the balance of probabilities, the Home Office does not hold the information at part 3 of the request. Finally, the Commissioner finds that the Home Office breached section 10(1) and section 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 the Home Office to take any further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10(1); FOI 17; FOI 40(2)
View Home Office
16 Nov 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested the name of a Council officer. The Local Government Social Care Ombudsman (‘LGSCO’) refused to provide the requested information, citing section 40(2) (personal information) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the requested information can be withheld under section 40(2). The Commissioner does not require further steps. Information Tribunal FTT EA/2023/0525 under appeal.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40(2)
View Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman
16 Nov 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested three files from the Metropolitan Police Service (the “MPS”). The MPS refused to comply with the request on the basis that it was burdensome, citing section 14(1) (Vexatious requests) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the request was vexatious. No steps are required.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14
View Metropolitan Police Service
16 Nov 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about Accredited Trade Associations. The Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency (“DVLA”) stated that it does not hold information within the scope of the request.The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the DVLA is correct when it says that it does not hold any information within the description set out in the request.The Commissioner does not require the DVLA to take any further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency
16 Nov 2023Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from West Midlands Police (WMP) in relation to two specific Police Officers. WMP disclosed some information in response to the first part of the request but would “neither confirm nor deny” (NCND) holding the information for the second part of the request citing section 40(5)(b) (Personal information) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that WMP was not entitled to rely on the exemption cited for the second part of the request. The Commissioner requires WMP to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation:• Confirm or deny whether the requested information is held.• If information is held, it should either be disclosed or WMP should issue a fresh refusal notice in compliance with section 17 FOIA.WMP 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 Ac
Exemptions cited: FOI 40(5)(b)
View West Midlands Police
15 Nov 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from Imperial College London (the College) about the training undertaken by named individuals. The College refused to provide this information, citing section 40(2)(personal information) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the College was entitled to rely on section 40(2). The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40(2)
15 Nov 2023Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has submitted a request to the Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office (FCDO) seeking information relating to a particular part of the Mountbatten archive, namely correspondence between Edwina Mountbatten and Jawaharlal Nehru. The FCDO disclosed some information falling within the scope of the request but withheld further information on the basis of sections 40(2) (personal data) and 41(1) (information provided in confidence). The Commissioner’s decision is that the FCDO is entitled to rely on sections 40(2) and 41(1). However, he has also concluded that the FCDO breach section 17(3) given its delays in providing a substantive response to the request.
Exemptions cited: FOI 17(3); FOI 40(2); FOI 41(1)
View Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office
15 Nov 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to the Department for Business and Trade (DBT) for a copy of the then Secretary of State Liz Truss MP’s ministerial diary.The Commissioner’s decision is that DBT was correct to withhold part of the requested information under sections 24(1), 27(1)(a), 27(1)(c), 27(1)(d), 35(1)(b), 35(1)(d) and 40(2) of FOIA.The Commissioner does not require further steps as a result of this decision notice.Section of Act/EIR & Finding: Section 24(1)-complaint not upheld, section 27(1)(a)-complaint not upheld 27(1)(c)-complaint not upheld, 27(1)(d)-complaint not upheld, section 35(1)(b)-complaint not upheld, 35(1)(d)-complaint not upheld, s.40(2)-complaint not upheld.
Exemptions cited: FOI 3
View Department for Business and Trade
15 Nov 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from Milton Keynes Council (“the Council”) relating to the replacement of doors on specific buildings. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council is entitled rely on section 14(1) (vexatious request) of FOIA to refuse to provide the requested information.The Commissioner does not require the Council to take any steps. Information Tribunal FTT EA/2023/0521 appeal withdrawn.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14(1)
View Milton Keynes Council
15 Nov 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to the payments to Presiding Officers and Poll Clerks. St Albans City and District Council (the Council) provided some information but denied holding the remainder for the purposes of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the information sought by the complainant is not held by the Council for the purposes of FOIA and that the Council is entitled to rely on section 3(2)(b) (public authorities) of FOIA. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: FOI 3
View St Albans City and District Council
15 Nov 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to the tweets of Gary Lineker. The BBC explained the information was covered by the derogation and excluded from FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that this information was held by the BBC for the purposes of ‘journalism, art or literature’ and did not fall inside FOIA. He therefore upholds the BBC’s position and requires no remedial steps to be taken in this case.
Exemptions cited: FOI 3
View BBC
15 Nov 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information on the income and expenditure of ‘Teesworks Ltd’ for 2020/21 financial year. Tees Valley Combined Authority (TVCA) initially refused to disclose the information, stating that Teesworks Ltd was not subject to FOIA. However, at internal review TVCA disclosed some of the requested information but withheld the majority citing section 43(2) (Commercial interests) of FOIA to do so. During the Commissioner’s investigation it revised its position and disclosed further redacted information maintaining section 43(2) for those redactions. 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 further steps as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: FOI 43(2)
View Tees Valley Combined Authority
15 Nov 2023Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to the Home Office for information relating to the painting over of murals at Manston Detention Centre and Kent Intake Unit.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). However, in failing to respond to the request and issue a refusal notice within the statutory timescale, the Commissioner has determined that the Home Office breached sections 10(1) and 17(5) of FOIA.The Commissioner does not require further steps as a result of this decision notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10(1); FOI 12(1); FOI 16(1); FOI 17(5)
View Home Office
14 Nov 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested a copy of a specified report issued by the Advisory Council for the Misuse of Drugs (‘ACMD’). The Home Office refused to provide the report, citing the exemption at section 35(1)(a) (formulation of government policy) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Home Office was entitled to rely on section 35(1)(a) of FOIA to withhold the requested report. No steps are required as a result of this notice.Keywords: Strategy
Exemptions cited: FOI 35
View Home Office
14 Nov 2023Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information from Somerset County Council ( ‘the Council’) regarding land clearance and soil surveys. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council was entitled to rely on regulation 12(4)(b) when refusing to provide the requested information. The Commissioner also finds that the Council breached regulation 7(3) by failing to notify the complainant of an extension within 20 working days. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(b); EIR 7
View Somerset Council
14 Nov 2023Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to the merger of two schools.The Charity Commission of England and Wales (the “Charity Commission”) disclosed some information to the complainant but relied on section 31(1)(g) by virtue of subsection 2(c)(f) and (g) of FOIA to withhold some of the information.The Commissioner’s decision is that the Charity Commission was entitled to refuse to comply with the request in accordance with section 31(1)(g) by virtue of subsection 2(c),(f) and (g).The Commissioner considers that the Charity Commission has breached section 10(1) of FOIA as it did not provide all of the non-exempt information that it held within the statutory time limit.The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 31(1)(g)
View The Charity Commission
14 Nov 2023Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) seeking a specific piece of information relating to its handling of an ongoing FOIA request. DWP initially responded to the request but at internal review introduced section 14(1) (vexatious) and section 14(2) (repeated request) of FOIA. The Commissioner has concluded that the request is neither vexatious nor repeated and therefore DWP is not entitled to rely on section 14(1) or section 14(2) in response to the request. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation:Issue a fresh response to the complainant’s request dated 6 August 2023 which does not rely on section 14(1) or 14(2). 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 dea
Exemptions cited: FOI 14
View Department for Work and Pensions
14 Nov 2023Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about the policing of protests in the area. Warwickshire Police disclosed some information, but refused to provide specific arrest information, citing section 12(1) (Cost of compliance exceeds appropriate limit) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that Warwickshire Police was entitled to rely on section 12(1) to refuse the request for that information. However, by failing to respond to the request within the statutory 20 working day time for compliance, Warwickshire Police breached sections 1(1)(a) and (b), and section 10 of FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10; FOI 12
View Warwickshire Police
14 Nov 2023Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested, from Oxford Direct Services Limited (‘ODSL’), information relating to its implementation of furlough. ODSL refused the request under sections 40(2) – third party personal data, 43(2) – commercial interests, and 36(2)(b) and (c) – effective conduct of public affairs, of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that ODSL was correct to apply section 40(2) to withhold relevant information, however it was not correct to apply section 43(2) and section 36(2)(b) or (c) as its basis for refusing to provide any of the requested information. The Commissioner requires ODSL to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. To disclose the information withheld under section 43(2) and section 36(2).
Exemptions cited: FOI 36; FOI 40(2); FOI 43(2)
14 Nov 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested two Joint Intelligence Committee reports. The Cabinet Office withheld these reports relying on section 23(1)(security bodies) or, in the alternative, section 24(1)(national security) and section 27, international relations, of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Cabinet Office is entitled to rely on section 23(1) or 24(1) in the alternative to withhold the entirety of the requested information. The Commissioner does not require any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 23; FOI 24
View Cabinet Office
14 Nov 2023Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested from London Borough of Bexley (“LBB”) a copy of the Monitoring Officer's response to the Code of Conduct complaint made against a named councillor. The Commissioner’s decision is that LBB is not entitled to rely on section 40(5B) of FOIA to refuse to confirm or deny it holds any of the requested information. The Commissioner requires LBB to take the following steps to comply with the legislation;• Confirm or deny whether it holds any information within the scope of the request.• If information is held, either disclose it or issue a refusal notice.LBB 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 40(5)(b)
View Bexley Council
14 Nov 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested, from the Attorney General’s Office (AGO), any legal advice provided about arms sales to Saudi Arabia, specifically any unpublished advice in relation to the arms trade and High Court cases involving the Campaign Against Arms Trade (CAAT) since 2015. AGO refused to confirm or deny holding information within scope of the request, citing section 35(3) of FOIA with section 35(1)(c). Together those sections provide that the duty to confirm or deny holding information within scope of a request does not arise in relation to information which is (or would be, if held) exempt from disclosure because it relates to the provision of advice by any of the Law Officers. The Commissioner’s decision is that AGO was correct to rely on the provisions it cited and thereby neither confirm nor deny (NCND) holding information. He does not require any further steps as a result of this decision notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 35(3)
View Attorney General's Office
13 Nov 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested review material in relation to Operation Satchel. The NHS Black Country Integrated Care Board “the public authority” refused to provide the requested information, citing section 38(1)(a) (health and safety) and section 40(2) (personal information) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the public authority has identified all of the information within the scope of the request. The information it does hold is exempt under section 38(1)(a). The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 38
View NHS Black Country ICB
13 Nov 2023Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about any involvement it has had with ‘Stonewall’ from the Cabinet Office. The Cabinet Office refused to comply with the request on the basis that it is vexatious, citing section 14(1) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the request is not vexatious. The Commissioner requires the Cabinet Office to issue a fresh response which does not rely on section 14(1) of FOIA. Keywords: Campaign
Exemptions cited: FOI 14
View Cabinet Office
13 Nov 2023Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about any involvement it has had with ‘Stonewall’ from the Cabinet Office. The Cabinet Office refused to comply with the request on the basis that it is vexatious, citing section 14(1) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the request is not vexatious. The Commissioner requires the Cabinet Office to issue a fresh response which does not rely on section 14(1) of FOIA. Keywords: Campaign
Exemptions cited: FOI 14
View Cabinet Office
13 Nov 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested from Dover District Council (‘the council’), information relating to a food standards agency report into a specific business. The council refused the request on the basis that section 30(1)(b) of FOIA applied, (investigations). The Commissioner’s decision is that the council was correct to apply section 30(1)(b) to withhold the information. The Commissioner does not require the council to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 30
View Dover District Council
13 Nov 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 Southwark Council
13 Nov 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(1)
View Three Rivers District Council
13 Nov 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(1)
View NHS England
13 Nov 2023Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to the Cabinet Office seeking the costs incurred as a result of an appeal to the First-tier Tribunal concerning the Clearing House and previous drafts of documents that had been published March 2021 about the remit and operation of the Clearing House. The Cabinet Office provided the costs information but sought to withhold the drafts of the previous documents on the basis of section 35(1)(a) (formulation or development of government policy) of FOIA. Due to the passage of time it disclosed one of these documents but sought to withhold the remainder on the basis of section 35(1)(a). The Commissioner’s decision is that the withheld information is exempt from disclosure on the basis of section 35(1)(a) but that in all the circumstances of the request the public interest in disclosing the information outweighs the public interest in maintaining the exemption.
Exemptions cited: FOI 35(1)(a)
View Cabinet Office