1 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 Newcastle City Council
31 Aug 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested discipline-related information about officers in its Domestic and Sexual Offences Unit from the Metropolitan Police Service (the “MPS”). The MPS initially refused to confirm of deny holding any information, citing sections 31(3) (Law enforcement) and 40(5) (Personal information) of FOIA. During the Commissioner’s investigation it revised its position. It confirmed holding information but advised that it was exempt from disclosure under sections 40(2) and 31(1)(g)(2)(b) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that section 40 is properly engaged. No steps are required.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View Metropolitan Police Service
31 Aug 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about the repeal of section 40 of the Crime and Courts Act 2013.The then Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (now the Department for Culture, Media and Sport or DCMS) relied on section 35 (formulation or development of government policy) to withhold requested information from the complainant. The Commissioner’s decision is that the exemption at section 35 is engaged and he finds that the public interest in maintaining the exemption does outweigh the public interest in disclosure.
Exemptions cited: FOI 35
View Department for Digital, Culture, Media & Sport
31 Aug 2023Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested email correspondence between HM Treasury (HMT) and US officials on the subject of Rt Hon Rishi Sunak MP’s Green Card for a period prior to his visit to the US as Chancellor of the Exchequer in October 2021. HMT refused citing section 40 (personal data) and section 35 (ministerial communications) as its basis for doing so. It upheld this at internal review. In course of the Commissioner’s investigation, HMT changed its position. It supplied the Commissioner with the email correspondence it had initially considered but argued that it was out of the scope of the request. Where the Commissioner disagreed, it argued that sections of it were exempt under section 40 and section 35. It also introduced reliance on section 27 (international relations). The Commissioner’s decision is that the majority of the information in question is within the scope of the request. There is a small section which HMT insisted was out of the scope of the request and the Commissioner
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 27; FOI 35; FOI 40
View HM Treasury
31 Aug 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information relating to the extent of the highway near his property. Dorset Council (“the council”) applied Regulation 12(5)(b) (course of justice) of the EIR to withhold some of the requested information. It also applied Regulation 13 to redact personal data from the information it disclosed. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council was correct to withhold the information under Regulations 12(5)(b) and Regulation 13. The Commissioner does not require the council to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(b); EIR 13
View Dorset County Council
31 Aug 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)
31 Aug 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about all books held by the Library of Birmingham. Birmingham City Council refused to comply with the request under section 12(1) of FOIA (cost of compliance). The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council was entitled to refuse to comply with the request in accordance with section 12(1). The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12; FOI 16
View Birmingham City Council
31 Aug 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about the due diligence carried out on a particular licensee. The above public authority relied on section 31 of FOIA (law enforcement) to withhold the requested information. The Commissioner’s decision is that the public authority has correctly applied section 31 and the balance of the public interest favours maintaining the exemption. The Commissioner does not require further steps to be taken.Keywords/themes: due diligence, voluntary supply
Exemptions cited: FOI 31
View Gambling Commission
31 Aug 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested copies of staff satisfaction surveys conducted in the Brexit Opportunities Unit. The Cabinet Office originally refused the request under section 40(2) of FOIA (personal data). In its internal review, the Cabinet Office amended its position, relying on section 36(2)(c) of FOIA (prejudice to the conduct of public affairs) to withhold the information in its entirety. The Commissioner has found that section 36(2)(c) applies to the withheld information. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 36(2)(c)
View Cabinet Office
31 Aug 2023Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from University Hospitals Coventry and Warwickshire NHS Trust (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. No steps are required.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View University Hospitals Coventry and Warwickshire NHS Trust
31 Aug 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) regarding policies it holds. The Commissioner’s decision is that the DWP does not hold any additional information within the scope of the request. The Commissioner does not require further steps. Information Tribunal FTT EA/2023/0385 appeal dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Department for Work and Pensions
31 Aug 2023Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested, from NHS England, a copy of a report on the findings of an investigation relating to the governance and leadership of an NHS Trust, and compliance with its licence. NHS England disclosed a redacted copy, citing four exemptions to withhold parts of the report. The complainant has challenged the application of sections 31 (law enforcement), 36 (prejudice to effective conduct of public affairs) and 41 (information provided in confidence) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that section 31 is engaged and that the balance of the public interest favours maintaining the exemption. He also finds that NHS England breached section 17(1) of FOIA because it failed to issue its refusal notice within 20 working days. The Commissioner does not require any further steps as a result of this decision notice. First-tier tribunal (General Regulatory chamber) information rights appeal EA/2023/0417 appeal part allowed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 17; FOI 31
View NHS England
30 Aug 2023Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about applicants for a particular role at Leeds Beckett University (the university). The university provided some information but withheld other information, citing section 40(2) of FOIA. The university later confirmed that it did not hold some of the information relating to the first part of the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the university appropriately applied section 40(2) of FOIA to withhold information. He has also concluded, on the balance of probability, that the university does not hold information regarding race and gender. In failing to confirm to the complainant within the legislative timeframe that it did not hold part of the information, the university breached section 1(1)(a) of FOIA. The Commissioner requires no further steps to be taken by the university. Information Tribunal FTT EA/2023/0421 appeal dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 40(2)
View Leeds Beckett University
30 Aug 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested various information in respect of a Suicide Cluster Response Group concerning the deaths of Cambridge University Students in 2022. Cambridgeshire County Council (the ‘council’) refused the request citing section 40(2) (personal information) and section 41 (information provided in confidence) of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). The Commissioner’s decision is that the council was entitled to rely on both exemptions cited.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40(2); FOI 41
View Cambridgeshire County Council
30 Aug 2023Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information in relation to a single storey rear infill extension. The London Borough of Waltham Forest (the Council) handled the request under FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council did not deal with the request for information under the correct access regime. The Commissioner requires the Council to take the following step to ensure compliance with the legislation: issue a fresh response with complies with regulation 5(1) of the EIR or issue a new refusal notice giving valid grounds for refusal.
Exemptions cited: EIR 5(1)
View Waltham Forest Council
30 Aug 2023Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested specific internal emails. The Commissioner’s decision is that NHS England has breached section 10(1) of the FOIA as it has not responded to the request, in accordance with the FOIA, within the required 20 working days. The Commissioner requires NHS England to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. Provide a response to the complainant’s request in accordance with the FOIA. NHS England must take these steps within 35 calendar days of the date of this decision notice. Failure to comply may result in the Commissioner making written certification of this fact to the High Court pursuant to section 54 of FOIA and may be dealt with as a contempt of court.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View NHS England
30 Aug 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The Commissioner’s decision is first, that the requested information about Cycleway 9 evaluation data is environmental information that should be considered under the EIR. Second, the request can be categorised as a manifestly unreasonable request under regulation 12(4)(b) of the EIR. Transport for London isn’t obliged to comply with the request and it’s not necessary for it to take any corrective steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(b)
View Transport for London
30 Aug 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about two accident reports. The above public authority refused the request as vexatious. The Commissioner’s decision is that the public authority was entitled to rely on section 14(1) of FOIA to refuse the request as it was vexatious. The Commissioner does not require further steps to be taken. First-tier tribunal (General Regulatory chamber) information rights appeal EA/2023/0401 under appeal.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14
View Rail Accident Investigation Branch
30 Aug 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from the Police Service of Northern Ireland (“PSNI”) relating to reports about street preachers in Belfast City Centre. The PSNI refused to comply with the request citing section 12 (cost limit) of FOIA.The Commissioner’s decision is that the PSNI was entitled to refuse to comply with the request in accordance with section 12(1) of FOIA. The Commissioner also finds that the PSNI complied with its obligations under section 16 to offer advice and assistance. The Commissioner does not require the PSNI to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12
View Police Service of Northern Ireland
30 Aug 2023Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to the redevelopment of the Stratford campus. The University of East London (‘the University’) refused the request, applying section 22 (information intended for future publication) and section 43(2) (commercial interests). The Commissioner’s decision is that the withheld information engages section 43(2) and the balance of the public interest lies in maintaining the exemption. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 43(2)
View The University of East London
30 Aug 2023Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information about empty residential properties in County Durham. Durham County Council (the “council”) refused the request, citing the exemption for law enforcement and the prevention or detection of crime (section 31(1)(a)).The Commissioner’s decision is that the council appropriately applied the exemption in section 31(1)(a) to withhold the information but that it failed to respond in time and breached section 10(1). The Commissioner does not require the council to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10(1); FOI 31(1)(a)
View Durham County Council
30 Aug 2023Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information in relation to a single storey rear infill extension. London Borough of Waltham Forest (the Council) handled the request under FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council did not deal with the request for information under the correct access regime. The Commissioner requires the Council to take the following step to ensure compliance with the legislation: issue a fresh response with complies with regulation 5(1) of the EIR or issue a new refusal notice giving valid grounds for refusal.
Exemptions cited: EIR 5(1)
View Waltham Forest Council
29 Aug 2023Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The Commissioner’s decision is that the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) holds no further information within scope of the complainant’s request for information about the Horse Hill oilfield. HSE has complied with regulation 5(1) of the EIR but breached regulation 11(4) as it didn’t provide an internal review within the statutory timeframe. It’s not necessary for the HSE to take any corrective steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 11; EIR 5
View Health and Safety Executive
29 Aug 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)
29 Aug 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information redacted from the Official Record of the Northern Ireland Assembly. The Assembly refused to provide this information, relying on the exemption at section 40(2) of FOIA (third party personal data). The Commissioner’s decision is that the Assembly is entitled to rely on section 40(2) in respect of some of the withheld information, but not in respect of the remainder. The Commissioner requires the Assembly to disclose the portion of the withheld information described in the confidential annex. Information Tribunal EA/2023/0410 FTT appeal allowed.
Exemptions cited: EIR 3
29 Aug 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 Greater Manchester Police
29 Aug 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 Oxfordshire County Council
29 Aug 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested a copy of the Outline Bat Mitigation Strategy relating to the Norwich Western Link Road project. Norfolk County Council (the Council) withheld the information requested under regulation 12(4)(d) of the EIR. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council correctly applied regulation 12(4)(d) to the request. He does not require any steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(d)
View Norfolk County Council
29 Aug 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested correspondence between Norfolk County Council (the Council) and the Bat Advisory Group that concerns bats for a specific period. The Council withheld the information requested under regulation 12(4)(d) of the EIR. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council correctly applied regulation 12(4)(d) to the request. He does not require any steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(d)
View Norfolk County Council
29 Aug 2023Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from High Peak 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. No steps are required.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View High Peak Borough Council
29 Aug 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested legal advice on issues relating to planning aspects of the Norwich Western Link Road project. Norfolk County Council (the Council) withheld the information requested under regulation 12(5)(b) of the EIR. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council correctly applied regulation 12(5)(b) to the request. He does not require any steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(b)
View Norfolk County Council
29 Aug 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information held by University College London (UCL) about an investigation into the working culture at its School of Slavonic and Eastern European Studies (SSEES). The Commissioner’s decision is that UCL is entitled to rely on section 36(2)(b)(ii) and section 36(2)(c) (prejudice to the effective conduct of public affairs) of FOIA as its basis for refusing part one of the complainant’s request. The Commissioner has also decided that UCL has correctly applied section 40(2) (personal data) of FOIA to part two of the complainant’s request. Information Tribunal FTT EA/2023/0416 new appeal.
Exemptions cited: FOI 36(2); FOI 40(2)
View University College London
29 Aug 2023Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information from Chichester Harbour Conservancy (“the Conservancy”) about a track being designated a footpath only. By the date of this notice, the Conservancy has not responded to the request and does not consider itself subject to FOIA nor the EIR. The Commissioner considers that the Conservancy is a public authority for the purposes of the EIR. The Commissioner therefore requires the Conservancy to respond to this information request in accordance with its obligations under the EIR.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: EIR 5(2)
29 Aug 2023Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information from Secret Intelligence Service (the public authority). By the date of this notice the public authority had not issued a substantive response to this request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the public authority breached regulation 5(2) of the EIR 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: EIR 5(2)
View Secret Intelligence Service
29 Aug 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information held by University College London (UCL) about an investigation into the working culture at its School of Slavonic and Eastern European Studies (SSEES). The Commissioner’s decision is that UCL is entitled to rely on section 36(2)(b)(ii) and section 36(2)(c) (prejudice to the effective conduct of public affairs) of FOIA as its basis for refusing part one of the complainant’s request. The Commissioner has also decided that UCL has correctly applied section 40(2) (personal data) of FOIA to part two of the complainant’s request. Information Tribunal EA/2023/0416 appeal dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 36(2); FOI 40(2)
View University College London
28 Aug 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from Woodroyd Medical Practice (WMP), which is a part of Kensington Partnership (the Partnership), regarding the numbers of patients, their ethnicity and details about patients being removed from the practice. The Partnership initially responded by providing information, but the complainant did not consider it had provided what he had asked for. Following an internal review, the Partnership advised the complainant that the information was not held. It also refused the request under section 14(1) of the FOIA – vexatious request. The Commissioner’s decision is that section 14(1) of the FOIA is engaged. The Commissioner does not require the Partnership to take any steps. First-tier tribunal (General Regulatory chamber) information rights appeal EA/2023/0408 appeal allowed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14
25 Aug 2023Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested meta-data associated with an earlier information request of theirs to the UK Health Security Agency. The UK Health Security Agency (“UKHSA") acknowledged the request but failed to respond within the time limits for compliance. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council should have relied on section 14 of FOIA to refuse the request and has applied this exemption himself proactively. The Commissioner also finds that UKHSA breached section 10(1) of FOIA as it failed to provide its response within the statutory 20 working days. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10(1); FOI 14(1)
View UK Health Security Agency
25 Aug 2023Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested internal correspondence about bike trails at a particular location. The above public authority (“the public authority”) initially refused the request as manifestly unreasonable before, in its internal review, determining that the public interest favoured disclosure and disclosing most of the information. The Commissioner’s decision is that the public authority breached regulation 14 of the EIR as its initial refusal notice was inadequate. The Commissioner does not require further steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: EIR 14
View Forestry Commission
25 Aug 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about dual language road signs from Newry, Mourne and Down District Council (“the Council”). The Council provided some information in response to the request and withheld the remainder under Section 40(2) (personal data) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council is entitled to rely on Section 40(2) to withhold the remaining information. No further steps are required. First-tier tribunal (General Regulatory chamber) information rights appeal EA/2023/0412 under appeal.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40(2)
25 Aug 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information regarding the Adult Social Care staff, who have worked at City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council (Council). The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has correctly relied on section 40(2) of FOIA. The Commissioner does not require any further action. First-tier tribunal (General Regulatory chamber) information rights appeal EA/2023/0402 appeal struck out.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40(2)
View City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council
24 Aug 2023Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information about sewage discharges. The above public authority relied on regulation 12(5)(b) of the EIR in order to withhold the information. The Commissioner’s decision is that the public authority has correctly relied on regulation 12(5)(b) of the EIR and that the balance of the public interest favours maintaining this exception. The public authority breached regulation 14 of the EIR by failing to issue its refusal notice within 20 working days and regulation 11 by failing to complete its internal review within 40 working days. The Commissioner does not require further steps to be taken.Keywords/themes: sewage spill data
Exemptions cited: EIR 11; EIR 12(5)(b); EIR 14
View Yorkshire Water
24 Aug 2023Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested statistics relating to a variety of diagnoses. Stoke Surgery disclosed some information within the scope of the request.The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, Stoke Surgery does not hold any further information within the scope of the request. However, Stoke Surgery breached section 10(1) of FOIA as it failed to provide its response to the complainant within the statutory 20 working days. Information Tribunal FTT EA/2023/0399 appeal Allowed. The Commissioner does not require Stoke Surgery to take any further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10
24 Aug 2023Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested details of candidates who applied for a particular position. The above public authority (“the public authority”) provided some information, but relied on section 40(2) of FOIA (third party personal data) to withhold the remainder. The Commissioner’s decision is that the public authority was entitled to rely on section 40(2) of FOIA to withhold the information. However it breached sections 10 and 17 of FOIA in its handling of the request. The Commissioner does not require further steps to be taken.Keywords/themes: recruitment processes
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 17; FOI 40
View Oxford Brookes University
24 Aug 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about “covert profiles” from the Metropolitan Police Service (the “MPS”). The MPS would neither confirm nor deny (“NCND”) holding the requested information, citing sections 23(5) (Information supplied by, or concerning, certain security bodies), 24(2) (National security), 31(3) (Law enforcement) and 40(5) (Personal information) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that sections 23(5) and 24(2) were cited correctly so he did not consider the other exemptions. No steps are required.Keywords/themes: Alpha; Profiling
Exemptions cited: FOI 23; FOI 24
View Metropolitan Police Service
24 Aug 2023Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about asylum casework from the Home Office. The Home Office refused to provide the requested information, citing sections 43(2) (Commercial interests), 31(1)(e) (the Operation of the Immigration Controls) and 40(2) (Personal information) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that one of the three documents caught within the scope of the request is properly withheld under sections 43 and 31 of FOIA. However, in respect of the remaining two documents, he finds that section 31 was not engaged and that section 43 only applies in respect of the name of a third party (he did not consider section 40 as this was not included in the grounds of complaint.) The Commissioner requires the Home Office to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. With the exception of any personal information, and the name of a third party in the Annex, the Home Office must disclose the remaining information, ie the PID and Annex.
Exemptions cited: FOI 31; FOI 43
View Home Office
24 Aug 2023Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested the results of a traffic management survey conducted in February and March of 2022. The London Borough of Hackney (“the Council”) cited regulation 12(4)(d) of the EIR as a basis for refusing the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that regulation 12(4)(d) is not engaged. The Commissioner requires the Council to disclose the information.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(d)
View London Borough of Hackney
24 Aug 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested copies of legal advice. The above public authority denied that any information was held. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the public authority does not hold any information within the scope of the request. The Commissioner does not require further steps to be taken.Keywords/themes: meta-request
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Northamptonshire Healthcare NHS Trust
23 Aug 2023Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about pension entitlement. The above public authority relied on section 12 of FOIA (cost of compliance) 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 failed to discharge its duty under section 16 of FOIA to provide advice and assistance. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: either provide the complainant with advice and assistance to help him refine his request such that it falls within the cost limit; or if the request cannot be meaningfully refined, explain why this is the case.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12; FOI 16
View NHS Business Services Authority
23 Aug 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from the British Film Institute (BFI) about the setting up of a new body. BFI provided the complainant with relevant information, with personal data redacted under section 40 of FOIA. BFI withheld other information under section 36 which concerns prejudice to the effective conduct of public affairs. The Commissioner’s decision is that, under section 3(2) of FOIA, BFI can’t be said to hold under FOIA the information it voluntarily provided or which it withheld under sections 36 and 40. As such, there was no breach of section 1 or section 10 and it’s not necessary to consider BFI’s application of section 36 and 40 to information it withheld.BFI doesn’t need to take any corrective steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 3
View British Film Institute
23 Aug 2023Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted an information request to the Cabinet Office for the dates and times that former Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher spoke to former President George Bush, during the period of January to April 1989.The Commissioner’s decision is that the Cabinet Office was entitled to rely on section 12(1) of FOIA to reuse the request, and that it complied with its obligations under section 16(1) of FOIA to offer advice and assistance. However, in failing to provide its refusal notice within 20 working days, the Cabinet Office breached section 17(5) of FOIA.The Commissioner does not require further steps as a result of this decision notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12(1); FOI 16(1); FOI 17(5)
View Cabinet Office