16 Oct 2023Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to the value of commissions made by a named individual at Rumpus Media. Channel 4 did not respond to the request, relying on section 17(6) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that section 17(6) of FOIA does not apply in this case. The Commissioner requires the public authority to either provide the requested information or issue a refusal notice within 35 calendar days in accordance with its obligations under FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 17(6)
View Channel 4
16 Oct 2023Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from the Home Office (the public authority) about the Tier 1 (Investor) visa route. By the date of this notice the public authority had not issued a substantive response to this request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the public authority has failed to complete its deliberations on the balance of the public interest within a reasonable time and has therefore breached section 17(3) of FOIA.The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following step to ensure compliance with the legislation.• Having confirmed whether or not information is held within the scope of the request: either disclose the requested information, if held, or, to the extent that information is to be withheld, issue a refusal notice in accordance with the requirements of section 17 of the 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 cert
Exemptions cited: FOI 17
View Home Office
16 Oct 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information concerning Strategic Review Management Board meeting minutes and papers in relation to Accommodation and Support Contracts with contractors Mears, Serco and Clearsprings Ready Homes. The Home Office refused to comply with the request, citing section 14(1) (vexatious requests) of FOIA, based on the grossly oppressive burden that complying with the request would impose. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Home Office has correctly relied upon section 14(1) of FOIA to refuse to comply with the request. No steps are required.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14(1)
View Home Office
13 Oct 2023Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from University of Bedfordshire (the public authority). 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 University of Bedfordshire
13 Oct 2023Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from London Borough of Bexley(the public authority). 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 Bexley Council
13 Oct 2023Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from the General Dental Council (the GDC). 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 public authority 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
View General Dental Council
13 Oct 2023Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested copies of lessons learned reports. The above public authority provided redacted copies of each report, relying on sections 40 (personal data), 41 (breach of confidence) and 42 (legal professional privilege) of FOIA to make the redactions. The Commissioner’s decision is that the public authority has correctly relied on sections 40 and 41 to withhold information. In respect of section 42, the exemption applies to some, but not all of the information to which it has been applied. Where the exemption is engaged, the balance of the public interest favours maintaining it. The public authority breached section 17 of FOIA because it failed to provide a refusal notice, within 20 working days, stating all the exemptions that it ultimately came to rely upon to withhold information. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: Disclose all the redacted information in the boxes titled “If known…”
Exemptions cited: FOI 17; FOI 40; FOI 41; FOI 42
View Liverpool University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust
13 Oct 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 Cabinet Office
13 Oct 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 Bromley Council
13 Oct 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 Bromley Council
13 Oct 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 Bromley Council
13 Oct 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 Bromley Council
12 Oct 2023Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from Frimley Health NHS Foundation Trust (the Trust). The Commissioner’s decision is that the Trust breached section 10(1) of FOIA by failing to provide a valid response to the request within the statutory time frame of 20 working days. No steps are required.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Frimley Health NHS Foundation Trust
12 Oct 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 Northumbria Police
12 Oct 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from Chief Constable of Humberside Police (the Police) regarding staff identity, qualifications and roles of those who responded to requests for information and subject access requests. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Police was entitled to rely on section 40(2) to refuse the request. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any further action.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View Humberside Police
12 Oct 2023Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information regarding transport and traffic management. Essex County Council (‘the Council’). The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council was partially entitled to rely on section 12 of FOIA to refuse to comply with most of the requests for information, however the information requested at paragraphs 7 and 10 is environmental and cannot be refused under FOIA. The Commissioner requires the Council to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: Provide a response which complies with the Environmental Information Regulations 2004 for the requests quoted at paragraphs 7 and 10. 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 12
View Essex County Council
12 Oct 2023Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information regarding a potential feasibility study and instructions for work to be undertaken from Cambridge City Council (‘the Council’). The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the Council holds additional information within the scope of the request. The Commissioner requires the Council to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: Disclose the additional information discussed at paragraph 20 of this notice or provide an appropriate refusal notice. 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: EIR 5
View Cambridge City Council
12 Oct 2023Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested a copy of Mark Fullbrook’s government diary appointments. The Cabinet Office eventually disclosed some information to the complainant and applied section 35(1)(b) (Ministerial communications) and section 40(2) (personal data) to the remainder.The Commissioner’s decision is that section 35(1)(b) is engaged in respect of the withheld information and that the public interest favours maintaining the exemption in respect of part of the withheld information but not all of it.The Commissioner considers that the Cabinet Office has breached section 10(1) of FOIA as it did not confirm that it held information or provide the non-exempt information within the statutory time limit. It has also breached section 17 of FOIA as it did not provide the complainant with a refusal notice, specifying all the exemptions on which it came to rely, within the statutory time limit.The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following steps to ensure compliance with th
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 17; FOI 35(1)(b)
View Cabinet Office
12 Oct 2023Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about referrals of young people to the counter terrorism programme, Prevent. The Royal Borough of Greenwich (‘the Council’) answered the first part of the request and said it did not hold the remaining information. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council employed an unreasonably restrictive interpretation of the request and wrongly defined its scope. In doing so, it failed to comply with the provisions of section 1(1)(a) (General right of access) of FOIA. The Commissioner requires the Council to issue a fresh response to parts (2) – (6) of the request (which includes within its scope any information it holds in connection with the Channel panel) and either disclose such information as it holds or issue a refusal notice which complies with the requirements of section 17(1) of FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Royal Borough of Greenwich
12 Oct 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about referrals of young people to the counter terrorism programme, Prevent. Kent County Council (‘the Council’) refused to comply with most of the request, citing sections 24(1) (National security) and (12)(2) (Cost of compliance exceeds appropriate limit) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council was entitled to apply section 24(1) of FOIA to refuse parts (2) – (3) of the request, and that the public interest favours maintaining the exemption. He also finds that it was entitled, by section 12(2) of FOIA, to refuse to confirm or deny whether it holds the information specified in parts (4) – (6) of the request, and that it complied with the requirements of section 16 (Advice and assistance).
Exemptions cited: FOI 12; FOI 24
View Kent County Council
12 Oct 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant made a request to HM Treasury (“HMT”) for information relating to meetings between HMT and Binance. HMT refused to provide some of the requested information, citing sections 35(1)(a) (formulation and development of government policy, 40(2) (personal data of third parties) and 43(2) (commercial interests) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that HMT has correctly relied on sections 35(1)(a) and 43(2) of FOIA. The Commissioner does not require any steps to be taken. Information Tribunal FTT EA/2023/0444 appeal dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 35; FOI 43
View HM Treasury
12 Oct 2023Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested the criteria against which the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) has assessed its readiness to scale up its managed migration of benefit claimants. They also requested the assessment of this readiness. DWP withheld this information under section 22, information intended for future publication. The Commissioner’s decision is that section 22 is not engaged. 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.
Exemptions cited: FOI 22
View Department for Work and Pensions
12 Oct 2023Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant submitted a request to Mid Devon District Council (the Council) for a full copy of the 3 Rivers Development Haddon Heights Viability Assessment.The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council was entitled to rely on regulation 12(5)(e) to withhold the information and that the balance of the public interest, lies in the exception being maintained. However, the Commissioner finds a breach of regulation 5(2) regarding the delay in fully responding to the request.The Commissioner does not require further steps as a result of this decision notice.The Commissioner does not require further steps as a result of this decision notice. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2023/0476 allowed in part.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(e); EIR 5(2)
View Mid Devon District Council
11 Oct 2023Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information on council tax rebate payments. Exeter City Council (“the council”) refused the request, applying section 40(2) (personal data of third parties), and section 44 (statutory prohibition on disclosure) to withhold the information. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council was not correct to apply either section 40(2) or section 44(1) to withhold the information. The Commissioner requires the council to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. To disclose the withheld information to the complainant.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40(2); FOI 44
View Exeter City Council
11 Oct 2023Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about taxi permits for Sevenoaks Station from SE Trains Limited (SETL). SETL is owned by the Department for Transport. However, for the purposes of this decision notice SETL will be referenced throughout.The Commissioner’s decision is that SETL was correct to rely on section 14(2) (repeat requests) of FOIA to refuse parts 4, 6, 8, 10, 11, 14 and 15 of the request. The Commissioner also finds that SETL was correct to rely on section 40(2) (third party personal information) of FOIA to refuse parts 12, 13 and 16 of the request. Finally, the Commissioner is satisfied that, on the balance of probabilities, SETL does not hold the remaining information sought by the request. However, SETL breached section 1(1)(a) of FOIA as it failed to communicate to the complainant that it did not hold the remaining information.The Commissioner does not require SETL to take any further steps. Information Tribunal under appeal.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 14(2); FOI 40(2)
View Department for Transport
11 Oct 2023Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested communications from named Councillors relating to a specified address or planning application. Test Valley Borough Council (the Council) ultimately provided the information it holds. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council breached regulation 5(2) (Duty to make available environmental information on request) of the EIR as it did not provide all the information it held within the required 20 working days. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: EIR 5(2)
View Test Valley Borough Council
11 Oct 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested cost information relating to legal cases. University Hospitals Sussex NHS Foundation Trust (‘the public authority’) refused to confirm or deny whether information was held, citing 40(5A) (personal information) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is the public authority was entitled to neither refuse or deny whether it holds the requested information. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40(5)(a)
View University Hospitals Sussex NHS Foundation Trust
10 Oct 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
10 Oct 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested a prison related guidance document from 2018, namely the Category A Report Writing Guidelines. The Ministry of Justice (the ‘MOJ’) initially refused to provide the document, citing section 31(1)(f) of FOIA, (the exemption for the maintenance of security and good order in prison or in other institutions where persons are lawfully detained). However, during the course of the Commissioner’s investigation, the MOJ revised its position and disclosed some parts of the guidance document, withholding the remaining information under sections 31(1)(f) and 38(1)(a) and (b) (health and safety) of FOIA. Subsequently, the MOJ also cited section 40(2) of FOIA (personal information) for some parts of the guidance document. The Commissioner’s decision is that the MOJ was entitled to rely on section 31(1)(f) and section 40(2) of FOIA to withhold the remaining information within the requested guidance. As he has found the MOJ can rely on these FOIA exemptions, he has not deemed
Exemptions cited: FOI 31; FOI 40
View Ministry of Justice
10 Oct 2023Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from Hampshire County Council (“the Council”) relating to school transport collection and drop off for the village of Meonstoke. The Council withheld some of the requested information, citing section 40(2) of FOIA (personal information) as its basis for doing so. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council is entitled to rely on section 40(2) of FOIA to withhold the information it has withheld on this basis. However, he also finds that some information redacted by the council as it does not fall within the scope of the request does, in fact, fall within scope of the request, and that this information should be disclosed. The Commissioner requires the Council to disclose the information redacted from the final sentence of the email sent at 08:19 on 4 November 2022 to ensure compliance with the legislation.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1(1); FOI 40(2)
View Hampshire County Council
10 Oct 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested from the Home Office information concerning the UK Frontier Worker permit scheme. The Home Office stated that to comply with the request would exceed the cost limit and therefore applied section 12(1) (cost of compliance) of FOIA to the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Home Office was entitled to rely on section 12(1) of FOIA to refuse to comply with the request. He also finds that the Home Office complied with its obligations under section 16(1) of FOIA to offer advice and assistance. Therefore, the Commissioner does not require the Home Office to take any steps as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12; FOI 16(1)
View Home Office
10 Oct 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested building control documents held by the council relating to a property owned by a third party. West Berkshire District Council (“the council”) refused the request on the basis that Regulation 13 applies (personal data of third parties). On review it upheld its decision. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council was correct to apply Regulation 13 to withhold the information from disclosure. The Commissioner does not require the council to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 13
View West Oxfordshire District Council
9 Oct 2023Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested from Ofqual emails sent between an individual at the Department for Education and eight individuals at Ofqual between a certain timeframe. Ofqual provided some information in its response and further information at a later date but continued to withhold part of the information, citing section 36 (prejudice to the effective conduct of public affairs) and section 40(2)(personal information) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that Ofqual correctly cited section 36 regarding the information it withheld. However, Ofqual breached sections 1(1)(b), 10(1), and 17(1) of FOIA by failing to respond within the legislative timeframe and providing information late to which the complainant was entitled. The Commissioner does not require further steps. Information Tribunal EA/2023/0471 appeal Allowed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1(1)(b); FOI 10(1); FOI 17; FOI 36
View Office of Qualifications and Examinations Regulation
9 Oct 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information in respect of Lancaster City Council’s (the ‘Council’) decision not to conduct a Code of Conduct investigation against a named Councillor of Tatham Parish Council. The Council refused the request on the basis of section 31(1)(g) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council was entitled to rely on this exemption to refuse the request.
Exemptions cited: FOI 31(1)(g)
View Lancaster City Council
9 Oct 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 17
View Cabinet Office
9 Oct 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested a specified “due diligence” report connected to a proposed development site at Spode. Stoke-on-Trent City Council (the ‘Council’) ultimately disclosed the report with parts of it redacted under the following EIR exceptions:• Regulation 12(4)(e) – the disclosure of internal communications• Regulation 12(5)(e) – the confidentiality of commercial or industrial information• Regulation 12(5)(f) – the interests of the person who provided the information• Regulation 13 – personal data
During the Commissioner’s investigation, the Council disclosed the names of two individuals named in the report. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has properly relied on Regulations 12(4)(e), 12(5)(e) and 13(1) of the EIR to withhold the remaining redactions within the disclosed report. Given that Regulation 12(5)(f) has been cited in addition to Regulation 12(5)(e) (and in some cases to both Regulations 12(5)(e) and 13(1)) for some parts of the report, the Commissione
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(e); EIR 12(5)(e); EIR 13(1)
View Stoke-on-Trent City Council
9 Oct 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information relating to a decision to install bollards at a specific location. Cornwall Council (the “council”) withheld the information under the exception for the course of justice (regulation 12(5)(b). The Commissioner’s decision is that the council was entitled to withhold the requested information under regulation 12(5)(b) and that it issued its internal review response in accordance with regulation 11(4). The Commissioner does not require the council to take any steps. Information Tribunal FTT EA/2023/0446 appeal part allowed.
Exemptions cited: EIR 11(4); EIR 12(5)(b)
View Cornwall Council
9 Oct 2023Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from the Department for Work and Pensions (“DWP”) relating to court complaints against DWP under the Equality Act 2010 and information relating to equality training for named DWP employees. DWP relied on section 12 (cost limit) of FOIA to refuse the request.DWP also cited section 40(2) to withhold some information.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 considers that DWP 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 complainant with its refusal notice within the statutory time limit.The Commissioner does not require any steps to be taken by DWP.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 12; FOI 17
View Department for Work and Pensions
6 Oct 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information held by Newcastle City Council (the council) about car parking within a specific area of the city. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the council does not hold information within the scope of the complainant’s request. The Commissioner does not require further steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Newcastle City Council
6 Oct 2023Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Authority (MHRA) to disclose the FOI responses it has issued for the period 2 May 2022 to 31 December 2022, which to date have not been published on its website. MHRA refused to disclose the requested information citing section 22 of FOIA (information intended for future publication). The Commissioner’s decision is that MHRA is entitled to rely on section 22 of FOIA. He has however found MHRA in breach of section 17 of FOIA, as it was late in issuing its refusal notice. The Commissioner does not require any corrective steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 17; FOI 22
View Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency
6 Oct 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
6 Oct 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
6 Oct 2023Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information concerning a meeting which took place on 11 March 2022 between Chancellor of the Exchequer Rishi Sunak and the Qatar 2022 Supreme Committee.HM Treasury confirmed that they held information within scope of the request but they considered this to be exempt from disclosure in its entiriety on the basis of sections 27(1))(a)(b)(d)(international relations) and 29(1)(a)(b)(the economy). HM Treasury also applied section 40(2)(third party personal data) to some of the withheld information.The Commissioner has concluded that HM Treasury correctly applied 27(1)(a) to most of the information within scope of the request and that the public interest favours maintaining the exemption to the relevant information. However, the Commissioner has found that some of the information within scope of the request is not exempt under section 27(1)(a) or any other of the exemptions applied by HM Treasury.The Commissioner requires HM Treasury to take the following steps
Exemptions cited: FOI 27
View HM Treasury
6 Oct 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to the Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office seeking information about the incarceration and/or extradition of Julian Assange. The FCDO refused the request on the basis of 12(2) of FOIA arguing that it would exceed the appropriate cost limit to determine whether it held any information falling within the scope of the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the FCDO were entitled to rely on section 12(2) of FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12(2)
View Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office
5 Oct 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested the Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS) to disclose any recorded information it holds which details the process to be followed when a FOIA request is received in terms of establishing whether or not some or all of the requested information has already been disclosed in connection with an earlier request. FOS confirmed that it does not hold the requested information. The Commissioner is satisfied that on the balance of probabilities FOS does not hold any recorded information of the nature specified in the request. He therefore does not require any further action to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
5 Oct 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information on, and a copy of a redacted inspection report for, MBR Acres. The Home Office provided some information within the scope of the request but refused to provide the remainder, citing sections 36(2)(b)(ii) (prejudice to effective conduct of public affairs), 44(1)(a) (prohibitions on disclosure), 38(1)(a) and (b) (health and safety) and 40 (personal information) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Home Office is entitled to apply section 36(2)(b(ii) of FOIA to refuse to disclose the withheld information and that the public interest favours maintaining the exemption. The Commissioner require no steps to be taken as a result of this decision. Information Tribunal under appeal.
Exemptions cited: FOI 36
View Home Office
5 Oct 2023Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from the Office of Qualifications and Examinations Regulation (“Ofqual”) relating to communications between the Secretary of State’s office and the Chief Regulators. Ofqual refused the request under section 14(1) of FOIA (vexatious requests).The Commissioner’s decision is that the request was not a vexatious request. The Commissioner requires Ofqual to take the following step to ensure compliance with the legislation.• Issue a fresh response to the complainant, which does not rely on section 14(1) of FOIA.Ofqual 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 the Act and may be dealt with as a contempt of court.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14
View Office of Qualifications and Examinations Regulation
5 Oct 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant made a request to HM Treasury (HMT) for information relating to a meeting between HMT and Binance. HMT refused to provide some of the requested information, citing sections 35(1)(a) (formulation and development of government policy, 40(2) (personal data of third parties) and 43(2) (commercial interests) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that HMT has correctly relied on sections 35(1)(a) and 43(2) of FOIA. The Commissioner does not require any steps to be taken. Information Tribunal FTT EA/2023/0445 appeal dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 35; FOI 43
View HM Treasury
5 Oct 2023Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant asked for a copy of a noise report and correspondence between named individuals regarding the report. During the Commissioner’s investigation, Bath and North East Somerset Council (the Council) published the noise report. Regarding the requested correspondence, it has disclosed information, but withheld other information under the exception for third party personal information. The complainant is unhappy about the time taken by the Council to provide an internal review. They also consider that further correspondence is held in scope of the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the Council holds no further information in scope of the request. However, he finds that the Council breached regulation 11(4) of the EIR as it did not provide its internal review outcome within 40 working days; and breached regulation 5(2) in respect of an email chain that was disclosed late, during the Commissioner’s investigation. The Commissioner does n
Exemptions cited: EIR 11(4); EIR 5(2)
View Bath and North East Somerset Council
5 Oct 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 Bromley Council