19 Sep 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from the London Borough of Lewisham (“the Council”), regarding the number of parking tickets issued to one motorbike. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council was entitled to rely on section 40(5B)(a)(i) when refusing to confirm or deny whether the requested information was held. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40(5)(b)(a)(i)
View Lewisham Council
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 requested information from the BBC about BBC Writer’s Room North East Voices. The BBC responded that the requested information was covered by the derogation and hence excluded from FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that this information, if held at all, is held by the BBC for the purposes of journalism, art or literature and so was not covered by FOIA. He therefore upholds the BBC’s position and requires no steps to be taken in this case.
Exemptions cited: FOI 3
View BBC
19 Sep 2023Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information on site occupancy at ‘Teesworks’. Tees Valley Combined Authority (‘TVCA’) initially refused to disclose the information, citing section 43(2) (Commercial interests) of FOIA. During the Commissioner’s investigation it revised its position and disclosed such information as it held. The Commissioner’s decision is that by failing to disclose non-exempt information within the 20 working day time for compliance, TVCA breached sections 1(1)(b) and 10(1) of FOIA. By failing to confirm that it did not hold the remaining information within the time for compliance, it breached section 1(1)(a) of FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10
View Tees Valley Combined Authority
19 Sep 2023Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested a copy of the latest version of the telephone directory provided to Elected Members. The City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council (the Council) initially stated that it did not hold the information requested. During the course of the Commissioner’s investigation the Council located the document in question and disclosed a redacted copy of it, subject to some information being redacted under section 40(2) (personal information). The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council is entitled to rely on section 40(2) of the FOIA to withhold some of the requested information. However, the Commissioner finds that the Council breached section 10 of the FOIA in failing to provide the disclosable information within the statutory timescale. The Commissioner does not require any steps to be taken. First-tier tribunal (General Regulatory chamber) information rights appeal EA/2023/0407 appeal dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 40
View City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council
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
18 Sep 2023Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested the start and finish time regarding a discharge (combined sewer overflow) on a specific date and any other spills that occurred at the same time in the Exmouth area. South West Water (SWW) refused the request, citing regulation 12(5)(b)(course of justice) of the EIR. The Commissioner’s decision is that SWW has correctly relied on regulation 12(5)(b) of the EIR to withhold the information and the balance of the public interest favours maintaining the exception. However, SWW breached regulations 11 and 14 of the EIR. The Commissioner does not require further steps. Information Tribunal EA/2023/0443 FTT appeal allowed.
Exemptions cited: EIR 11; EIR 12(5)(b); EIR 14
View South West Water
18 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 Liverpool City Council
18 Sep 2023Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information from Wolverhampton City Council (“the Council”) relating to the use of Energy from Waste in the city. The Council withheld some of the requested information under regulation 12(4)(e) (internal communications) of the EIR and denied holding some of the information requested. The Commissioner’s decision is that: the Council has failed to demonstrate that regulation 12(4)(e) is engaged for the information that it has withheld on this basis; on the balance of probabilities, the Council holds information within the scope of part 4 of the request.The Commissioner requires the Council to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: disclose the information withheld under regulation 12(4)(e), making appropriate redactions for any personal data; issue a fresh response to part 4 of the request following searches aimed at identifying all information held within the scope of this part of the request, which is all information held about ho
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(a); EIR 12(4)(e)
View Wolverhampton City Council
18 Sep 2023Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested the Universal Credit Programme Board [UCPB] meeting minutes from February 2020. The Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) originally relied on section 21, reasonably accessible to the applicant, and section 35(1)(a), formulation or development of Government policy. During the course of the investigation, DWP introduced section 31(1)(a), law enforcement, and section 40(2), personal data. The complainant confirmed that they did not dispute the redaction of junior civil servants’ personal data under section 40(2). The Commissioner’s decision is that section 21 is not engaged, section 31(1)(a) is not engaged, section 35(1)(a) is not engaged for some of the withheld information and where it is engaged the balance of the public interest favours disclosure. The Commissioner requires DWP to disclose the requested information with the exception of the personal data of junior civil servants. The public authority must take these steps within 35 calendar days of the
Exemptions cited: FOI 21; FOI 31; FOI 35
View Department for Work and Pensions
18 Sep 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested to know the number of knives recovered from proactive knife sweeps conducted using metal detection equipment. Thames Valley Police (‘TVP’) said that it does not hold the requested information. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, TVP does not hold the requested information.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Thames Valley Police
18 Sep 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from Seascale Parish Council (“the Council”) regarding payments to a from the Council, along with what any monies have been spent on. The Council refused to provide the requested information, citing section 14(1) of FOIA – vexatious or repeated requests. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council was entitled to rely on section 14(1) of FOIA to refuse the request. The Commissioner does not require the Council to take any steps as a result of this decision notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14(1)
16 Sep 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from Birmingham City Council (“the Council”) about some renovation works at a Council property. The Council withheld some of the requested information, citing section 43(2) of FOIA (prejudice to commercial interests) as its basis for doing so. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has correctly relied on section 43(2) of FOIA and that the balance of the public interest favours maintaining this exemption. The Commissioner does not require the Council to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 43(2)
View Birmingham City Council
15 Sep 2023Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from Cheshire East Council (the Council) relating to its SEND/EHCP provision. The Council initially responded with a link to its website, however, at internal review, the Council apologised for its initial response and made a limited disclosure. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council, on the balance of probabilities, has now provided the information within scope of the refined request. However, the Council has breached section 10(1) and section 17(1) of FOIA by failing to respond to the original request within 20 working days and issue an appropriate refusal notice. The Commissioner does not require any steps to be taken as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1(1); FOI 10(1); FOI 17
View Cheshire East Council
15 Sep 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from the London Borough of Bexley (“the Council”) in relation to the parking warden’s phone line. The Council has advised that no further information is held. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the Council does not hold any further information in relation to the request. The Commissioner does not require the Council to take any steps as a result of this decision notice. First-tier tribunal (General Regulatory chamber) information rights appeal EA/2023/0400 appeal dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Bexley Council
15 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 City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council
15 Sep 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from the General Medical Council (GMC) about a named doctor. The GMC stated some information was not held and for the information that was held it considered it was exempt under section 40(2) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the GMC has correctly withheld the information it identified as held under section 40(2) of FOIA. The GMC, on balance, holds no further information and has complied with its obligations under sections 1 and 10 of FOIA. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10; FOI 40
View GMC
15 Sep 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information held by London Borough of Havering (the council) relating to a Race Equality, Accessibility, Diversity and Inclusion (READI) review conducted by the Local Government Association (LGA). The Commissioner’s decision is that the council is entitled to withhold the requested information under section 36(2)(c) (prejudice to the effective conduct of public affairs) of FOIA. The Commissioner does not require further steps. Information Tribunal appeal UA-2024-001505-GIA PTA refused.
Exemptions cited: FOI 36(2)(c)
View London Borough of Havering
14 Sep 2023Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information relating to the construction of new hospitals. Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust (‘the Trust’) disclosed some information but withheld some information under section 43(2) (commercial interests) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that: the Trust should have handled the request under the Environmental Information Regulations (‘the EIR’) and therefore breached regulation 14(3) as it incorrectly issued its refusal under FOIA and not the EIR. Some of the withheld information engages regulation 12(5)(e) and the public interest favours maintaining the exception. However, other withheld information doesn’t engage the exception. The Commissioner requires the Trust to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: Disclose the information requested in part 3 of the request.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(e)
View Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust
14 Sep 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. Barnsley Metropolitan Borough Council (‘the Council’) refused to disclose most of the requested information, citing section 24(1) (National security) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council was entitled to apply section 24(1) of FOIA to refuse parts (2) – (6) of the request, and that the public interest favours maintaining the exemption.
Exemptions cited: FOI 24
View Barnsley Council
14 Sep 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about the federation between a school and a college. North Yorkshire Council disclosed information in response. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has disclosed all held information. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View North Yorkshire County Council
14 Sep 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. North Tyneside Council (‘the Council’) refused to disclose most of the requested information, citing section 24(1) (National security) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council was entitled to apply section 24(1) of FOIA to refuse parts (2) – (6) of the request, and that the public interest favours maintaining the exemption.
Exemptions cited: FOI 24
View North Tyneside Council
14 Sep 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. Leeds City Council (‘the Council’) refused to disclose most of the requested information, citing sections 24(1) (National security) and 31(1)(a) (Law enforcement) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council was entitled to apply section 24(1) of FOIA to refuse parts (2) – (6) of the request, and that the public interest favours maintaining the exemption.
Exemptions cited: FOI 24
View Leeds City Council
14 Sep 2023Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from the Barking, Havering & Redbridge University Hospitals NHS Trust (Trust). 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 Trust 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 Trust must provide a substantive response to the request in accordance with its obligations under FOIA. The public authority must take this step within 35 calendar days of the date of this decision notice. Failure to comply may result in the Commissioner making written certification of this fact to the High Court pursuant to section 54 of FOIA and may be dealt with as a contempt of court.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10(1)
View Barking, Havering and Redbridge University Hospitals NHS Trust
14 Sep 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. The City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council (‘the Council’) refused to disclose most of the requested information, citing section 24(1) (National security) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council was entitled to apply section 24(1) of FOIA to refuse parts (2) – (6) of the request, and that the public interest favours maintaining the exemption.
Exemptions cited: FOI 24
View City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council
14 Sep 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. Leeds City Council (‘the Council’) refused to disclose most of the requested information, citing sections 24(1) (National security) and 31(1)(a) (Law enforcement) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council was entitled to apply section 24(1) of FOIA to refuse parts (2) – (6) of the request, and that the public interest favours maintaining the exemption.
Exemptions cited: FOI 24
View Leeds City Council
14 Sep 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. Cardiff Council (‘the Council’) refused to disclose most of the requested information, citing section 24(1) (National security) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council was entitled to apply section 24(1) of FOIA to refuse parts (2) – (6) of the request, and that the public interest favours maintaining the exemption.
Exemptions cited: FOI 24
View Cardiff Council
14 Sep 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested from Cardiff Bus CCTV footage of a specific incident. Cardiff Bus has refused to disclose the requested information, citing section 40(2) of FOIA as a basis for non-disclosure.The Commissioner’s decision is that Cardiff Bus has correctly applied section 40(2) of FOIA to the requested information.The Commissioner therefore requires no steps to be taken. Information Tribunal appeal UA-2024-001015-GIA PTA refused.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
13 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
View Wirral Council
13 Sep 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested, from the Home Office, details of any assistance provided by the UK to Hungary to support its border security or immigration activities in 2022. The Home Office would neither confirm nor deny holding any information, citing sections 27(4) (International relations) and 31(3) (Law enforcement) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Home Office was entitled to rely on section 31(3) and that the public interest favours maintaining the exclusion. No steps are required.
Exemptions cited: FOI 31
View Home Office
13 Sep 2023Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from the London Borough of Lambeth (‘the Council’) regarding which Councillors have arrears on their Council Tax. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council was not entitled to rely on section 40(2) to withhold the requested information. The Commissioner requires the Council to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. Disclose the withheld information. The Council must take these steps within 35 calendar days of the date of this decision notice. Failure to comply may result in the Commissioner making written certification of this fact to the High Court pursuant to section 54 of the Act and may be dealt with as a contempt of court.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40(2)
View London Borough of Lambeth
13 Sep 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information about the location of CCTV cameras in a given area. Vale of White Horse District Council (“the council”) refused the request on the basis that section 31(1)(a) of FOIA applied (prevention and detection of crime). The Commissioner’s decision is that the council was correct to apply section 31(1)(a) of FOIA to withhold the information. The Commissioner does not require the council to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 31(1)(a)
View Vale of White Horse District Council
13 Sep 2023Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested access to 13 files held by the Northern Ireland Office (the NIO). The NIO refused the request in reliance on the exemptions at sections 22 (information intended for future publication), 23 (security services), 31 (law enforcement), 38 (health and safety) and 40(2) (third party personal data) of FOIA. During the course of the Commissioner’s investigation the NIO withdrew reliance on the exemption at section 22. The Commissioner’s decision is that the NIO is entitled to rely on the exemptions at sections 23, 38 and 40(2) in respect of all of the remaining withheld information, ie the information that was not withheld solely on the basis of section 22 of FOIA. The Commissioner requires the NIO to provide the complainant with access to the requested information that does not fall within the scope of sections 23, 38 or 40(2) of FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 22; FOI 23; FOI 38; FOI 40
View Northern Ireland Office
13 Sep 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information about the housing need assessment for the Greater Shankhill area. The Northern Ireland Housing Executive (NIHE) provided the information requested. It also provided additional information relevant to the request in its internal review and also during the Commissioner’s investigation. NIHE continued to withhold some information under sections 36(2)(b)(i) and (ii), and 36(2)(c) (prejudice to effective conduct of public affairs) of the FOIA and regulation 12(4)(e) of the EIR. The Commissioner’s decision is that NIHE has correctly applied section 36(2)(b)(i), 36(2)(b)(ii), 36(2)(c) of the FOIA and regulation 12(4)(e) of the EIR to the request. The Commissioner does not require any steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(e); FOI 36
View Northern Ireland Housing Executive
13 Sep 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to Shell’s proposed relocation of its headquarters to the UK. The Department for Business, Energy & Industrial Strategy (BEIS) provided some information in response to the request but refused to disclose the remainder on the basis of section 43(2) (commercial interests) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the information is exempt from disclosure on the basis of section 43(2) and that the public interest favours maintaining the exemption. In addition, on the balance of probabilities, BEIS held no further recorded information relevant to the complainant’s request and has complied with section 1(1) of FOIA. No steps are required.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 43(2)
View Department for Energy Security and Net Zero
13 Sep 2023Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information about North Kesteven District Council’s (the “council”) association with UK100. The council disclosed information and withheld some personal data under the exemption in section 40(2) of the FOIA. It subsequently reconsidered the request under the EIR and disclosed additional information to the complainant. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council wrongly handled the request under the FOIA and breached regulation 5(1) and regulation 14 of the EIR and also that it failed to disclose information relevant to the request in time and breached regulation 5(2) and regulation 11(4). The Commissioner does not require the council to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 11(4); EIR 14; EIR 5(1); EIR 5(2)
View North Kesteven District Council
13 Sep 2023Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested from Belfast Health and Social Care Trust (the Trust) information relating to new computers/desktops for particular teams. The Trust aggregated the request with the complainant’s previous requests and cited sections 12(4) and 12(1) (cost of compliance) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is the Trust was entitled to aggregate the request under section 12(4) of FOIA. However, the Commissioner finds that the Trust failed to provide a reasonable breakdown of the costs of the aggregated requests, and therefore it was not entitled to rely on section 12(1) of FOIA. The Commissioner requires the Trust to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. • Issue a fresh response to the request that does not rely on section 12(1) of FOIA.The Trust must take these steps within 35 calendar days of the date of this decision notice. Failure to comply may result in the Commissioner making written certification of this fact to the High Court pursuant to se
Exemptions cited: FOI 12; FOI 12(1)
View Department of Health and Social Care
13 Sep 2023Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information from London Borough of Hackney (the Council) relating to the development scheme of the Stamford Hill Morrisons Site, located at 47-49 Stamford Hill, London.The Council originally refused the request under section 12 (cost limit) of FOIA, subsequently revising their position at internal review and correctly providing a response to the request under the Environmental Information Regulations 2004 (EIR). The Council provided the complainant with some information held within scope of the request but stated that most information requested was not held and therefore regulation 12(5)(a) applied to those parts of the information requested.The Council withheld the planning pre-application information requested under regulation 12(4)(d)(material still in the course of completion) but during the Commissioner’s investigation withdrew reliance on this exception and instead applied regulations 12(5)(d)(confidentiality of proceedings) and 12(5)(f)(interests of
Exemptions cited: EIR 11(4); EIR 12(5)(a); EIR 12(5)(d)
View London Borough of Hackney
12 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
View British Film Institute
12 Sep 2023Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information regarding an investigation commissioned by the North East Ambulance Service NHS Foundation Trust (the Trust). The Trust provided some of the information but withheld other information citing sections 21, 41 and 40(2) of FOIA for doing so. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Trust cited section 41 of FOIA appropriately for the most part and that the information should not be released, except for the majority of part three of the request. However, he has decided that the Trust cited section 21 incorrectly and the exemption is not engaged. He has only considered section 40(2) in relation to part three of the request where it is not engaged for reasons set out in this decision. The Commissioner requires the Trust to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. • Disclose the ‘Terms of Reference’ as set out on pp 5-11 of the report. • Disclose the ‘Recommendations’ on pp 187-190 with the exception of paragraph 2 on p.187.
Exemptions cited: FOI 21; FOI 40(2); FOI 41
View North East Ambulance Service NHS Foundation Trust
12 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
View University of Southampton
12 Sep 2023Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information regarding the appointment of “Insight” and “T-Pro” from the Lancashire Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust (‘the Trust’). The Commissioner’s decision is that the Trust was entitled to rely on Section 12(4) and Section 12(1) when refusing to respond to the requests. The Commissioner also finds that the Trust breached section 17 by failing to provide an appropriate refusal notice within 20 working days of the first request being made. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12; FOI 16; FOI 17
View Mersey and West Lancashire Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust
12 Sep 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested copies of correspondence and communication between the former Prime Minister Harold Wilson and the former Prince of Wales (now King Charles III) from 1 November 1968 to 1 November 1969, about matters relating to the Prince’s Investiture of Prince of Wales in 1969; campaigns for Welsh independence; the Welsh language; Welsh devolution; the Prince’s role as Prince of Wales, and; the Prince’s education at Aberystwyth University. The Cabinet Office stated that it did not hold the requested information, and advised the complainant to redirect their search to The National Archives as records from the time period specified in the request had been transferred. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the Cabinet Office does not hold the requested information. The Commissioner does not require any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Cabinet Office
12 Sep 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested copies of correspondence between the former Prince of Wales (now King Charles III) and the former leader of the House of Commons, Margaret Beckett, on the topic of the Prince’s consent for the bill for House of Lords Act 1999. The Cabinet Office initially stated that the requested information was exempt under section 22 (information intended for future publication) of FOIA, and that it needed further time to consider the balance of the public interest in maintaining the exemption, however later amended its position and stated that it did not hold information within scope of the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the Cabinet Office does not hold information within scope of the request. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Cabinet Office
11 Sep 2023Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information about planning applications for Heavy Goods Vehicle Operating Centres. North Yorkshire County Council (the “council”) refused the request as manifestly unreasonable under the terms of regulation 12(4)(b). The Commissioner’s decision is that the council is entitled to rely on regulation 12(4)(b) of the EIR to refuse to comply with the request but that it breached regulation 11 by failing to conduct an internal review within 40 working days. The Commissioner does not require the council to take any steps. Information Tribunal FTT EA/2023/0439 appeal dismissed.
Exemptions cited: EIR 11; EIR 12(4)(b)
View North Yorkshire County Council
11 Sep 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information from Warwickshire County Council (the Council) relating to vehicle access along a public footpath. The Council provided some information to the complainant but withheld the remainder, citing regulations 12(3) (personal information) and 12(5)(f) (interests of the confider) of the EIR as the basis for non-disclosure. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has correctly applied regulation 12(5)(f) to the complainant’s request. As the Commissioner is satisfied that this applies in full, he has not considered the Council’s application of regulation 12(3). The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(f)
View Warwickshire County Council
11 Sep 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information relating to planning matters involving Torridge District Council. The Department for Levelling Up, Housing & Communities (DLUHC) confirmed that it did not hold the requested information. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, DLUHC correctly confirmed that it did not hold the requested information and that, therefore, regulation 12(4)(a) applies. The Commissioner does not require DLUHC to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(a)
View Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government
11 Sep 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant made a four-part request for information on the findings of a consultation on a review of Section 24 of ASPA [Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986]. For parts 1 and 2, the Home Office said that Section 24 of ASPA remains under active review and it provided the URL to the latest update. It said that part 3 of the request was not for recorded information under FOIA and, for part 4, that there was no committee in existence (as specified by the complainant) nor any application process for that committee. As set out in the ‘Scope’ section of this notice, the complainant has not challenged that part 3 of her request was deemed invalid under FOIA so the Commissioner disregarded this aspect from any further consideration. He also accepts that part 4 has been addressed by the Home Office and warrants no further examination. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, no further recorded information is held by the Home Office in relation to parts 1 a
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Home Office
11 Sep 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information with regards to restrictions on a certain bus route. Calderdale Council (the council) provided the complainant with the information it held. The complainant is of the view that further information is held. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the council has provided all of the information it holds falling within the scope of the request, and therefore it has complied with section 1 of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s does not require any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Calderdale Council
11 Sep 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information about UK arms export licence applications. The request was addressed to the Department for International Trade (DIT), which is now the Department for Business and Trade (DBT) following the machinery of government changes in February 2023. DBT withheld some information under sections 36, 40, 41 and 43 of FOIA. The complainant challenged the application of sections 36, 41 and 43. The Commissioner’s decision is that sections 36(2)(b)(i) and (ii) are engaged and the public interest favours maintaining the exemptions, because disclosure would be likely to prejudice the effective conduct of public affairs. The Commissioner does not require any further steps as a result of this decision notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 36
View Department for Business and Trade