27 Sep 2023Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information regarding the activities of the Rapid Response Unit (“RRU”). By the date of this notice the Cabinet Office 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 Cabinet Office 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 Cabinet Office 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
Exemptions cited: FOI 17
View Cabinet Office
27 Sep 2023Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from HM Treasury (HMT) regarding the minutes and other recorded information of Loan Charge Review meetings held on two specific dates. The Commissioner’s decision is: HMT was entitled to rely on sections 31(1)(a), 31(1)(d), 35(1)(a) and 42(1). HMT was not entitled to rely on either section 40(5B) or section 41(2) to refuse to confirm or deny whether further information was held. HMT failed to identify all relevant information within the scope of the request or issue a refusal notice within 20 working days and therefore breached sections 10 and 17 of FOIA respectively. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. Confirm or deny whether it holds information relating to the four meetings it identified in its correspondence to the complainant dated 11 August 2023; If information is held, either provide that information or issue a refusal notice in accordance with section 17 o
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 17; FOI 31; FOI 40(5)(b); FOI 41; FOI 42(1); FOI 42(1)
View HM Treasury
27 Sep 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about a decision not to challenge the salary of the Chief Executive of a particular academy. The above public authority stated that it held no information within the scope of the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the public authority has complied with its duties under section 1(1) of FOIA. The Commissioner does not require further steps to be taken. Information Tribunal EA/2023/0456 appeal struck out.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Department for Education
26 Sep 2023Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested a copy of the confidential appendices to a report about St David's Hall from Cardiff Council (“the Council”). The Council has disclosed part of one of the appendices, but has withheld the remainder of the requested information citing sections 40(2), 41, 42 and 43(2) of FOIA as its bases for doing so. The Commissioner’s decision is that: that the information in Confidential Appendices 1-3 falls within the definition at regulation 2(1)(f) and that these parts of the request should have been considered under the EIR; the commercial confidentiality exception under regulation 12(5)(e) of the EIR is engaged for all of the information in Confidential Appendices 1-3, however, for most of this information the public interest in disclosure outweighs that in maintaining the exception; some of the information within Confidential Appendix 1 should not be dislcosed as it is exempt under regulation 12(5)(a) of the EIR as its disclosure would adversely affect public safety an
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(a); EIR 12(5)(e); EIR 2(1)
View Cardiff Council
26 Sep 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested various information in respect of a Council Tax notice of liability order issued to ‘debtors’. Blackburn with Darwen Council (the ‘Council’) refused the request on the basis that it was vexatious. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council was entitled to refuse the request on the basis of section 14(1) (vexatious request) FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14(1)
View Blackburn with Darwen Council
26 Sep 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 Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency
26 Sep 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
26 Sep 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information regarding public houses within specified postcodes. The Valuation Office Agency relies on section 44 to withhold requested informationThe Commissioner’s decision is that Valuation Office Agency was entitled to rely on section 44 to withhold the requested information. Information Tribunal FTT EA/2023/0425 appeal dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 44
View Valuation Office Agency
25 Sep 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested from Ashfield District Council (‘the council’), specific information about all of its employees. The council informed the complainant that some details are already published online. It therefore applied section 21 to this information. It withheld the remainder, applying section 40(2) of FOIA (personal data of third parties). The Commissioner’s decision is that the council was correct to rely on section 40(2) of FOIA to withhold the information. The Commissioner does not require the council to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 21
View Ashfield District Council
25 Sep 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 Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office
25 Sep 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to the Ministry of Defence (‘MOD’) seeking a copy of his late father’s medical record for a particular period in 1944. The MOD confirmed that it held information falling within the scope of the request but refused to disclose this on the basis of section 41(1) (information provided in confidence) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the MOD is entitled to refuse to disclose the information on the basis of section 41(1) of FOIA. No steps are required as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: FOI 41(1)
View Ministry of Defence
25 Sep 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from Channel Four Television Corporation (Channel 4) relating to conflicts of interest.The Commissioner’s decision is that Channel complied with section 17(1) of FOIA. He does not require Channel 4 to take any steps. First-tier Tribunal (General Regulatory Chamber) Information Rights appeal EA/2023/0243 appeal withdrawn.
Exemptions cited: FOI 17
View Channel 4
25 Sep 2023Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested details of reviews carried out into maternity incidents. The above public authority (“the public authority”) relied on section 21 of FOIA (reasonably accessible) to withhold most of the information and section 40(2) of FOIA (third party personal data) to withhold the remainder. The Commissioner’s decision is that the public authority has: failed to comply with its duty under section 1(1) of FOIA in respect of part [1] of the request as it failed to identify all the information in scope or communicate it to the complainant; and correctly relied on section 21 of FOIA to withhold the information within the scope of parts [2] and [4] of the request and holds no further information within the scope of these parts; and correctly relied on section 40(2) of FOIA to withhold most of the information within the scope of part [3] of the request; and did not rely on section 41(1) of FOIA to withhold information relating to individuals who are deceased. The Commissioner
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 21; FOI 40; FOI 41
View University Hospitals of Derby and Burton NHS Foundation Trust
25 Sep 2023Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested correspondence about ownership of the lands fronting the Galleries and Pastoral Way, and related information from the Brentwood Borough Council (the public authority). The Commissioner’s decision is that the public authority breached section 10(1) of FOIA by failing to provide a valid response to the request within the statutory time frame of 20 working days. To the extent that any information within scope is environmental, the public authority should respond in accordance with the Environmental Information Regulations 2004.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Brentwood Borough Council
25 Sep 2023Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about the Medicines & Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) seeking further information from named vaccine companies that applied for temporary authorisation for COVID-19 vaccines. The MHRA refused to provide the information citing sections 38 (health and safety) and section 43(2) (commercial interests) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that neither section 38 or section 43(2) is engaged. Additionally the MHRA breached section 10 of the FOIA by exceeding the legislative timeframe for responding to the request. The Commissioner requires the MHRA to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation.• Disclose the information requested at parts a) and b) of the information request.
Exemptions cited: FOI 38; FOI 43(2)
View Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency
25 Sep 2023Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested data about late payment of invoices. The above public authority relied on section 12 of FOIA (costs) to refuse the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the public authority was entitled to rely on section 12 of FOIA to refuse the request. However, the public authority breached section 16 of FOIA as it failed to provide advice and assistance to help the complainant refine his request. The Commissioner does not require further steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12; FOI 16
View Sellafield Ltd
22 Sep 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested copies of application forms and supporting information submitted by a business to the Future Fund Scheme. British Business Bank (“BBB”) elected to neither confirm nor deny whether the requested information is held, with reliance on section 43(3) (commercial interests) of FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 43(3)
View British Business Bank
22 Sep 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 Department for Business and Trade
22 Sep 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information about resurfacing work carried outon a section of the M6 motorway after an incident. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, National Highways does not hold the requested information and there has been no breach of regulation 12(4)(a) of the EIR. The Commissioner does not require further steps as a result of this decision notice.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(a)
View National Highways
22 Sep 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested documentation relating to “Operation Autocue”. The London Borough of Newham (“the Council”) stated that it did not hold information within scope of the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the civil standard of the balance of probabilities, the Council does not hold information within scope of the request. The Commissioner does not require further steps Information Tribunal FTT EA/2023/0437 appeal withdrawn.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Newham Council
22 Sep 2023Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from Sussex Police about alleged offences carried out by serving police officers and staff, and the number of officers and staff under review “as part of the national vetting process review”. By the date of this notice Sussex Police has not issued a substantive response to this request. The Commissioner’s decision is that Sussex Police 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 Sussex Police to take the following step to ensure compliance with the legislation.• Sussex Police must provide a substantive response to the request in accordance with its obligations under FOIA.Sussex 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 w
Exemptions cited: FOI 10(1)
View Sussex Police
22 Sep 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from West Midlands Police (“the public authority") in relation to a specific deceased Police Officer. The public authority refused to provide the requested information, citing section 38(1)(a)(b) of FOIA – health and safety and section 40(2) of FOIA – personal information. The Commissioner’s decision is that section 38(1)(a)(b) of FOIA is engaged and that the public interest lies in maintaining the exemption. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps as a result of this decision notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 38(1)(a)
View West Midlands Police
22 Sep 2023Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to the Cabinet Office seeking a blank copy of the Ministerial declaration of interests form (both the version that applied in July 2022 and the version applicable at the time of the request in January 2023). The Cabinet Office confirmed that it held the requested information but it considered this to be exempt from disclosure on the basis of sections 36(2)(b)(i) and (c) (effective conduct of public affairs) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the withheld information is exempt from disclosure on the basis of sections 36(2)(b)(i) and (c) but that the public interest in disclosing the information outweighs the public interest in maintaining the exemptions. Information Tribunal FTT EA/2023/0452 appeal dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 36
View Cabinet Office
22 Sep 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 Department for Science, Innovation and Technology
22 Sep 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from Leicestershire County Council (‘the council’) about materials it has circulated to children from the charity Stonewall. The council initially refused the request on the basis that section 43(2) of FOIA applied. The council subsequently disclosed a link to the information which it provides to educational establishments for them to circulate to children and confirmed that no other information is held by it. However, the complainant remained concerned that other information may be held which is passed to looked after children. The Commissioner's decision is that, on a balance of probabilities, no further information is held, and the council has therefore complied with section 1 of FOIA. The Commissioner does not require the council to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1(1)
View Leicestershire County Council
22 Sep 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 Waltham Forest Council
22 Sep 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information regarding the General Dental Council’s (GDC) contract with and services provided by GorkanaGroup. The GDC answered questions and provided information to the complainant who remained dissatisfied with the response to part (2) of the request, stating further information was held. The Commissioner’s decision is that the GDC has provided all the information it is required to that it holds within the scope of part (2) of the request and has complied with its obligations under section 1 of FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View General Dental Council
22 Sep 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant made a two-part request for information, part one was regarding an Enforcement Notice issued by Shropshire Council (the Council), part two was regrading foul water drainage. The Council refused to confirm or deny whether it held information for part one under regulation 13(5)(a) (personal data) of the EIR. It disclosed some information with regard to part two and applied regulation 12(3) to the rest. The Commissioner’s decision is that the public authority was entitled to rely on regulation 13(5) of the EIR as the basis for neither confirming nor denying whether it held the requested information. However, it breached regulation 5(2) of the EIR as it failed to respond within 20 working days. The Commissioner also found that on the balance of probabilities, the Council disclosed all other information it held within the scope of the request. The Commissioner does not require any steps to be taken as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: EIR 13(5)
View Shropshire Council
21 Sep 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested correspondence with the government regarding catastrophic data loss. The above public authority denied holding any information within the scope of the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the public authority does not hold any further information within the scope of the request. The Commissioner does not require further steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Office of Gas and Electricity Markets
21 Sep 2023Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to support for Ukraine. Oxford City Council (the “council”) disclosed some information. The complainant considers that the council has failed to disclose all the relevant information that it holds. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council failed to respond in time and breached section 10(1) and, in relation to the request for correspondence from the former Member & Committee Services Manager, the council failed to comply with section 1(1) of FOIA. The Commissioner requires the council to issue a new response which either confirms or denies whether the requested information is held or cites a relevant provision which removes this duty.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1(1); FOI 10(1)
View Oxford City Council
21 Sep 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested a full copy of a report relating to Exercise Nimbus (the report). The Cabinet Office refused to disclose the report, citing section 35(1)(b) (the exemption for ministerial communications) as its basis for doing so. The Commissioner’s decision is that section 35(1)(b) is engaged and that the public interest favours maintaining the exemption. The Commissioner does not require any further steps as a result of this decision notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 35(1)(b)
View Cabinet Office
21 Sep 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information regarding the Information Commissioner decision notice Reference: FS50066313. The Department for Business and Trade (the DBT) refused the request, citing section 42(1) (Legal Professional Privilege) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the DBT were entitled to rely on section 42(1) of FOIA and the balance of the public interest favours maintaining that exemption. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: FOI 42(1)
View Department for Business and Trade
21 Sep 2023Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from Cotswold District Council (“the Council”) regarding signs in car parks referring to government cuts. The Council refused to provide the requested information, citing section 12 of FOIA – cost of compliance exceeds the appropriate limit. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council was not entitled to rely on section 12(1) when refusing this request. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. • Provide a fresh response to the request, that does not rely on section 12 of FOIA. 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 Cotswold District Council
21 Sep 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about an action undertaken by Cambridgeshire Constabulary. In compliance with a previous decision notice, Cambridgeshire Constabulary disclosed some information but withheld the remainder citing sections 38(1) (Health and safety) and 40(2) (Personal information) of FOIA. An email attachment was located during the course of the Commissioner’s investigation. This was fully withheld under section 40(2) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that Cambridgeshire Constabulary was entitled to rely on section 40. He also finds that, on the civil standard of the balance of probabilities no further information is held. No steps are required.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View Cambridgeshire Constabulary
21 Sep 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested from the Home Office information regarding National Referral Mechanism (NRM) reconsiderations. The Home Office considered the information exempt from disclosure under section 22(1) (information intended for future publication) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Home Office was entitled to rely on section 22(1) of FOIA to withhold the information requested. Therefore, the Commissioner does not require the Home Office to take any further steps as a result of this decision. Information Tribunal EA/2023/0453 FTT appeal allowed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 22
View Home Office
21 Sep 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information about applications in respect of the Building Safety Fund (BSF). The Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (DLUHC) provided some information and withheld other information under section 38 (health and safety) of the FOIA. During the course of the Commissioner’s investigation, DLUHC withdrew reliance on section 38 and stated that it was relying on section 14(1) (vexatious requests), based on the grossly oppressive burden that complying with the request would impose. The Commissioner’s decision is that DLUHC is entitled to rely upon section 14(1) to refuse to comply with the request. The Commissioner does not require any steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14
View Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government
21 Sep 2023Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about student accommodation. The above public authority provided some information, but relied on section 43(2) of FOIA (commercial interests) to withhold the remainder. 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 public authority to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. Disclose the information it has relied on section 43 of FOIA to withhold.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 43
View The University of Warwick
21 Sep 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested all information relating to the furloughing of employees during the Covid-19 pandemic. Oxford City Council refused the request under section 12(1) (cost of compliance), but provided that information that it considered most relevant to the request under the duty to provide advice and assistance (section 16). The Commissioner’s decision is that that Council is entitled to refuse to comply with the request under section 12(1) and has complied with the requirement of section 16. The Commissioner does not require further steps but refers the Council to the points raised in other matters.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12(1); FOI 16
View Oxford City Council
21 Sep 2023Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about the now-defunct Tier 1 (Investor) Visa scheme. The Home Office refused the request, citing sections 31(1)(a) and (b) (Law enforcement), and 23(1) (Information supplied by, or relating to, bodies dealing with security matters) and 24(1) (National security) in the alternative, of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Home Office was entitled to apply sections 23(1) and 24(1) in the alternative, to refuse the request. However, it breached section 17(3) as regards the time it took to complete its public interest test considerations before issuing a substantive response to the request.
Exemptions cited: FOI 17; FOI 23; FOI 24
View Home Office
20 Sep 2023Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information from the Ministry of Defence (the public authority). The public authority initially stated that it did not hold information within scope of the request, however reversed its position at internal review and stated that it would reprocess the request and provide the complainant with a fresh response. By the date of this notice the public authority had not provided the complainant with a substantive fresh response to this request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the public authority has failed to respond to the request within 20 working days and has therefore breached regulation 5(2) of the EIR. The Commissioner requires the public authority to provide the complainant with a fresh response in accordance within its obligations under the EIR. The public authority must take these steps within 35 calendar days of the date of this decision notice.
Exemptions cited: EIR 5(2)
View Ministry of Defence
20 Sep 2023Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about the expenses of three managing directors of Bristol Waste Company (BWC). The Commissioner’s decision is that BWC has failed to demonstrate that section 40(2) of FOIA (personal data) is engaged in respect of the majority of the information. The Commissioner also finds that BWC’s refusal notice didn’t meet the requirements of section 17(1) of FOIA. The Commissioner requires BWC to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: Except for the one item described in the confidential annex to this notice, disclose the remainder of the requested information to the complainant. BWC must first redact personal vehicle registration numbers, bank account details, personal home and email addresses and a signature from the information it's disclosing.
Exemptions cited: FOI 17; FOI 40
20 Sep 2023Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested from West Mercia Police (WMP) information relating to several police misconduct files. WMP initially refused the request under section 12 of FOIA which it subsequently withdrew. Having done so, WMP refused the request under sections 30(1)(a) and (b) (investigations and proceedings), 40(2) (personal information), 38(1) (health and safety), 32(1)(c) (court records) and 21 (information accessible to applicant by other means) of FOIA. The Commissioner's decision is that WMP is entitled to rely on sections 30(1)(a) and (b) of FOIA. With regards to section 21, the Commissioner is satisfied that this only applies to part of the information withheld under this exemption. However, for the information which is not covered by section 21, the Commissioner's decision is that it is exempt from disclosure under section 30(1)(a) and (b) of FOIA. The Commissioner does not require further steps. First-tier tribunal (General Regulatory chamber) information rights appeal EA/2
Exemptions cited: FOI 21; FOI 30
View West Mercia Police
20 Sep 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council (the Council) for information relating to direct care payments.The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the Council does not hold any information within 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. First-tier tribunal (General Regulatory chamber) information rights appeal UA-2024-000218-GIA dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1(1)
View City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council
20 Sep 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from Brighton and Hove City Council (“the Council”), in relation to a Home of Multiple Occupancy (HMO) licence for a specific property. The Council refused to provide the requested information, citing section 40(2) of FOIA – personal information. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council was entitled to rely on section 40(2) of FOIA. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps as a result of this decision notice. Information Tribunal FTT EA/2023/0450 appeal allowed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40(2)
View Brighton and Hove City Council
20 Sep 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
20 Sep 2023Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested a copy of a form from the Ministry of Justice (the MoJ). The Commissioner’s decision is that the MoJ breached section 17(1) by failing to issue an appropriate refusal notice within 20 working days. The Commissioner does not require further steps, as the requested information has since been disclosed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 17
View Ministry of Justice
19 Sep 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
19 Sep 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about his vehicle. Kent Police would neither confirm nor deny holding any information citing sections 40(5) (Personal information) and 31(3) (Law enforcement) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that Kent Police was correct to rely on section 40(5) of FOIA. No steps are required.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View Kent Police
19 Sep 2023Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested copies of site accreditation certificates, audits in English and the APR for 2022 from Plymouth City Council (Council). The Commissioner’s decision is that; On the balance of probabilities, the Council has provided all the information it holds within the scope of the request. The Council breached regulation 5(2), by failing to respond to the request within 20 working days. The Commissioner does not require further steps. First-tier tribunal (General Regulatory chamber) information rights appeal EA/2023/0414 appeal dismissed.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(a); EIR 5(2)
View Plymouth City Council
19 Sep 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant made a series of requests for emails exchanged within the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (‘BEIS’) during specified periods of the Covid-19 pandemic. BEIS refused the requests as it considered that compliance would exceed the cost limit under section 12 FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that BEIS has correctly cited section 12(1) FOIA in response to the final refined request. It has also complied with its duty to provide advice and assistance in line with the requirements of section 16 FOIA. The Commissioner does not require BEIS to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12(1); FOI 16
View Department for Energy Security and Net Zero