16 Aug 2023Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information from London Borough of Lambeth Council (LBLC) about a bid made to GLA to secure funding for a feasibility study for the redevelopment of land currently occupied by Tulse Hill adventure playground.The Commissioner’s decision is that LBLC has failed to carry out a reconsideration (internal review) under the EIR within 40 working days and therefore has breached regulation 11 of the EIR. The Commissioner requires the LBLC to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation.Reconsider how it responded to the original request and inform the complainant of the outcome of that reconsideration in accordance with regulation 11 of the EIR.The LBLC 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 Freedom of Information Act and may be dealt with as a contempt of court.
Exemptions cited: EIR 11
View London Borough of Lambeth
16 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 NHS England
15 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 Chichester District Council
15 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 Essex Police
15 Aug 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested specific business cases for ten approved projects in Stocksbridge. Sheffield City Council (the ‘Council’) disclosed the requested information with some redactions under section 40(2) of FOIA for personal information. The complainant did not raise any concerns about the disclosed material, but argued that further information was held, specifically in relation to two projects (namely “The Cycling and Walking Trails” and the “Improved Accessibility and Wayfinding” projects). The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, no further information is held by the Council. No steps are required as a result of this notice.Keywords/themes: Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Sheffield City Council
15 Aug 2023Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The Commissioner’s decision is that the public authority breached section 10(1) of FOIA by failing to provide a response within 20 working days.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Brighton and Hove City Council
14 Aug 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from the Metropolitan Police Service (the “MPS”) about the false social media personas register. The MPS disclosed some of the information but refused to disclose the remaining information under sections 31(1)(a) (Law enforcement) and 24(1) (National security) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the MPS was entitled to rely on section 31(1)(a) of FOIA. He does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 31
View Metropolitan Police Service
14 Aug 2023Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested correspondence between NHSE staff and the National Advisor for LGBT Health. NHS England disclosed some information but also withheld information under section 36(2)(b)(ii) (prejudice to the effective conduct of public affairs). The Commissioner’s decision is that the withheld information engages section 36(2)(b)(ii) and the public interest lies in maintaining the exemption. The Commissioner does not require further steps. First-tier tribunal (General Regulatory chamber) information rights appeal EA/2023/0393 under appeal.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 36(2)(b)(ii)
View NHS England
14 Aug 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested cost information relating to the national rail network. The Department for Transport (“the DfT”) refused to provide the information, citing section 44(1)(a) (prohibitions on disclosure) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that section 44(1)(a) applies and therefore the information must be withheld. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 44(1)(a)
View Department for Transport
14 Aug 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested communications between Department for Business, Energy & Industrial Strategy (BEIS) and the Scottish Government regarding the sale of Dalzell and Clydebridge Steel Plants in 2016. BEIS confirmed that it held information falling within the scope of the request but considered to be exempt from disclosure on the basis of sections 27(1)(b) (international relations), 28(1) (relations with the UK), 42(1) (legal professional privilege) and 43(2) (commercial interests). The Commissioner’s decision is that the withheld information is exempt from disclosure on the basis of sections 27(1)(b), 28(1) and 43(2).
Exemptions cited: FOI 27; FOI 28; FOI 43
View Department for Business and Trade
14 Aug 2023Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested copies of board papers for a specific meeting. The above public authority (“the public authority”) originally stated that none of the requested information fell within the scope of FOIA. It later accepted that some fell within the scope of FOIA and some within the EIR. The Commissioner’s decision is that: Some of the information within the scope of the request is environmental and fell to be dealt with under the EIR. Of the remaining information, some falls within the scope of FOIA and some does not fall within the scope of either regime; Of the information that does fall within the scope of FOIA, section 36 has been correctly engaged, but the balance of the public interest favours disclosure; Of the information falling within the scope of the EIR, the public authority has correctly engaged regulation 12(4)(e). In most cases, the balance of the public interest favours maintaining this exception but, in some, it favours disclosure; Regulation 12(5)(b) is en
Exemptions cited: EIR 11; EIR 12(4)(e); EIR 12(5)(a); EIR 12(5)(b); EIR 12(5)(e); EIR 14; EIR 2(1); EIR 5(2); FOI 1; FOI 10; FOI 17; FOI 36
View Canal and River Trust
11 Aug 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about governing board meetings from Emerson Valley School (EVS). EVS is part of the Mere Valley Federation. Under FOIA, Mere Valley Federation is the public authority, however, for the purposes of this decision notice EVS will be referenced throughout.The Commissioner’s decision is that the request was vexatious and therefore EVS was entitled to rely on section 14(1) of FOIA to refuse it.The Commissioner does not require EVS to take any further steps. First-tier tribunal (General Regulatory chamber) information rights appeal EA/2023/0390 appeal allowed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14(1)
11 Aug 2023Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested from Darlington Borough Council (DBC) any recorded information it holds regarding pre planning agreements, applications, notes and correspondence with Darlington Football Club (DFC) related to potential sites where DFC proposes to build a New stadium. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, DBC does not hold any information in relation to the request and has correctly applied regulation 12(4)(a) but that it failed to carry out an internal review within the statutory time limit and breached regulation 11(4)of EIR. The Commissioner does not require any further steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: EIR 11(4); EIR 12(4)(a)
View Darlington Borough Council
11 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 Oxford University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust
11 Aug 2023Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested recruitment information from Northern Ireland Ambulance Service (NIAS). NIAS refused to disclose the information citing section 40(2) of FOIA (personal information).The Commissioner’s decision is that NIAS was correct to rely on section 40(2) of FOIA to withhold the information. He also finds that NIAS failed to respond to the complainant’s request within the statutory timeframe of 20 working days. On this basis the Commissioner finds that NIAS has breached section 10 of FOIA.The Commissioner does not require NIAS to take further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10(1); FOI 40(2)
11 Aug 2023Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested Data Protection Impact Assessments (DPIAs) relating to the expansion of the Integrated Risk and Intelligence Service (IRIS). The Commissioner’s decision is that the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) has failed to fully consider all of the information specified in the complainant’s request. The Commissioner requires DWP to issue a fresh response to the complainant that considers all of the information falling within the scope of the request and either disclose the information or, in respect of any information it wishes to withhold, issue a refusal notice within the meaning of section 17 of FOIA providing a basis for withholding the information. Specifically, DWP should provide a fresh response that includes all of the information falling within each DPIA. 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 th
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Department for Work and Pensions
10 Aug 2023Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from the London Borough of Havering (Council), relating to a payment being made as part of the Private Sector Leasing scheme. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the Council has not conducted adequate searches for the requested information. The Council also breached section 10(1), by failing to respond to the request within 20 working days. The Commissioner requires the Council to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. Conduct a fresh search for the requested information and provide a new response to the complainant which is complainant with 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 1; FOI 10(1)
View London Borough of Havering
10 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 Haringey Council
10 Aug 2023Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about Malcolm Sheehan QC and his role in the inquiry regarding the collapse of the betting product Football Index. The Department for Culture, Media and Sport relied on sections 36(2)(c) (prejudice to the effective conduct of public affairs), 43(2) (commercial interests) and 40(2) (personal information) to withhold requested information from the complainant The Commissioner’s decision is that Department for Culture, Media and Sport correctly relied on sections 36(2)(c) and 43(2) (commercial interests) to withhold requested information. First-tier Tribunal (General Regulatory Chamber) Information Rights appeal EA/2023/0383 allowed in part.
Exemptions cited: FOI 36(2)(c); FOI 43(2)
View Department for Culture, Media and Sport
10 Aug 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request for information regarding expenditure for a local park project to Lydd Town Council (the Council). The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council is entitled to rely on section 14(1) (vexatious request) of FOIA to refuse to provide the requested information. Information Tribunal appeal UA-2024-001184-GIA PTA refused.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14(1)
View Ilkley Town Council
10 Aug 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested a list of schools where reinforced autoclaved aerated concrete (RAAC) had been used in their buildings and its whereabouts. The Department for Education (DfE) refused to provide the requested information, citing regulation 12(4)(d) of the EIR – material still in the course of completion. The Commissioner’s decision is that the DfE was correct to cite this exception and that the public interest lies in maintaining it. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(d)
View Department for Education
10 Aug 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested unredacted versions of published Universal Credit Programme Board Papers from October 2020. The Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) relied on sections 31, law enforcement, 42, legal professional privilege, and 43, commercial interests, to redact the information. The complainant does not dispute the redactions made under section 31 and during the course of the investigation, DWP disclosed the information redacted on the basis of section 43. The Commissioner’s decision is that section 42(1) of FOIA is engaged with regards to the disputed information and the public interest favours maintaining the exemption. The Commissioner does not require DWP to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 42
View Department for Work and Pensions
10 Aug 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information about a consultation being conducted on behalf of Leeds City Council (the Council). The Council refused to comply with the request, citing regulation 12(4)(b) (manifestly unreasonable) of the EIR.The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council correctly engaged regulation 12(4)(b), and the balance of the public interest favours maintaining the exception.The Commissioner does not require the Council to take any further steps. Information Tribunal EA/2023/0368 appeal dismissed.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(b)
View Leeds City Council
10 Aug 2023Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested various information in respect of a members briefing held on 17 August 2022 by Bristol City Council (the ‘Council’). The Council provided some information, but refused to provide the video of the briefing, originally relying on section 40(2) of the FOIA (personal information) to withhold the information. During the course of the Commissioner’s investigation the Council amended its position and reconsidered the request under the EIR. It continued to withhold the video recording on the basis that it contained personal information (regulation 13) but also cited regulation 12(4)(e) (internal communications) as a further exception to the whole of the recording. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council was entitled to rely on regulation 12(4)(e) to withhold the video recording. However, the Commissioner has also recorded a breach of regulation 5(2) as the Council failed to respond to the request within the required timescales.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(e); EIR 5(2)
View Bristol City Council
10 Aug 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The Commissioner’s decision is that the name that the complainant has requested is exempt from disclosure under section 38(1)(a) and section 40(2) of FOIA. This is because disclosure would be likely to endanger another’s mental and physical health and the information is personal data which it would be unlawful to disclose. It isn’t necessary for Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency to take any corrective steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 38; FOI 40
View Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency
9 Aug 2023Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The Commissioner’s decision is that the Cabinet Office doesn’t hold the requested Register of Financial Interests for the Rt Hon Jacob Rees-Mogg MP and has complied with section 1(1)(a) of FOIA. The Cabinet Office breached section 10(1) as it didn’t comply with section 1(1) within 20 working days. It’s not necessary for the Cabinet Office to take any further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10
View Cabinet Office
9 Aug 2023Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested register of interest forms for six members of council staff. Bristol City Council (the Council) denied holding forms for two of the individuals and applied section 40(2) and section 41 of FOIA to withhold the four forms that it does hold. The Commissioner’s decision is that:The Council is entitled to withhold some, but not all of the information withheld under section 40(2) of FOIA, (personal information). Specifically his decision is that the Council is entitled to rely on section 40(2) to withhold the entire form for one non-senior member of staff, the signatures on each of the three forms relating to senior staff, and a small amount of information on one of the forms for a senior member of staff that relates to their personal rather than professional life. The Council is however, not entitled to rely on section 40(2) to withhold the remaining information on the three forms relating to senior staff members. The exemption under section 41 (information sup
Exemptions cited: FOI 40(2); FOI 41
View Bristol City Council
9 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 Norfolk and Norwich University Hospitals
9 Aug 2023Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information relating to a bid to the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (DLUHC) that London Borough of Redbridge (the Council) has submitted. The Council refused the request citing regulation 12(5)(e) of the EIR, (commercial confidentiality). The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council was entitled to rely on regulation 12(5)(e) to withhold some of the requested information. But that it has failed to demonstrate that the exception is engaged for other parts of the information falling within the scope of the request. The Commissioner requires the Council to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation.Disclose the information for which the Council has failed to demonstrate that the exception is engaged, as listed in paragraph 16 of this notice, subject to any appropriate redactions for personal data.The Council must take these steps within 35 calendar days of the date of this decision notice. Failure to comply may res
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(e)
View Redbridge Council
9 Aug 2023Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to Fermanagh and Omagh District Council (the Council) for information relating to the job evaluation scheme and score sheets for three named posts.The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council was not entitled to rely on section 43(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 in relation to question two of the request(with personal data redacted).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. Information Tribunal FTT EA/2023/0392 appeal withdrawn.
Exemptions cited: FOI 43(2)
8 Aug 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested a copy of an incident report. The BBC disclosed the report subject to redactions under section 38 (health and safety) and section 31(1)(a) (law enforcement). The Commissioner’s decision is that the BBC is entitled to withhold the information under section 38. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 38
View BBC
8 Aug 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information regarding material or evidence that was considered to delist Nizar al-Assaad from the UK sanctions list. The Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (FCDO) would neither confirm nor deny (NCND) holding the requested information citing sections 23(5) (Security bodies) 24(2) (Safeguarding national security), 27(4) (International relations), 35(3) (Government policy) and 40(5) (personal information) of FOIA.The Commissioner’s decision is that the FCDO is entitled to rely on section 27(4) of FOIA to refuse to confirm or deny whether it holds the requested information. However, the Commissioner finds that the FCDO breached section 10 (time limits for compliance) of FOIA by not responding to the request within 20 working days.The Commissioner does not require FCDO to take any steps as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: FOI 27
View Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office
8 Aug 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested for a list of all documents relating to the Hastings Harbour Quarter project (HHQ). Hastings Borough Council (HBC) provided some of the information but has withheld the remaining information under regulation 12(4)(b) of EIR (manifestly unreasonable requests) and regulation 12(4)(c) of the EIR (requests formulated in too general a manner). The Commissioner’s decision is that HBC were correct to rely on regulation 12(4)(b) of EIR to withhold some of the information. As this exception applies to the whole request it has not been necessary to consider regulation 12(4)(c).The Commissioner does not require HBC to take any steps as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(b)
View Hastings Borough Council
8 Aug 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested details of complaints against officers regarding use of Body Worn Video (“BWV”) from the Metropolitan Police Service (the “MPS”). The MPS disclosed most of the requested information but refused the remainder citing sections 30(1)(a) (Investigations and proceedings), 31(1)(a) (Law Enforcement) and 40(2) (Personal information) of FOIA.The complainant did not contest the citing of sections 30 and 31, which were only used to withhold a very small amount of information. Where cited, the Commissioner is satisfied that section 40 is properly engaged. The Commissioner does not require any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View Metropolitan Police Service
8 Aug 2023Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information containing the exact phrase “Lateral Concepts”. 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 Norfolk and Norwich University Hospitals
8 Aug 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from Colchester Royal Grammar School about its considerations to join a multi-academy trust. The School withheld the information under section 43(2) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the School is entitled to withhold the information under section 43(2). The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 43(2)
View CLITHEROE ROYAL GRAMMAR SCHOOL
7 Aug 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information about the A350 Melksham Bypass scheme. The Department for Transport (DfT) disclosed some information and withheld the remainder under regulations 12(4)(d) and 12(4)(e). These exceptions concern material in the course of completion and internal communications respectively. The Commissioner’s decision is that DfT correctly applied regulation 12(4)(d) of the EIR to all of the information it’s withholding and the public interest favours maintaining the exception. It’s not necessary for DfT to take any corrective steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(d)
View Department for Transport
7 Aug 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested pre-planning advice relating to a strategic site. New Forest District Council (the Council) refused the request under regulation 12(5)(d) of the EIR, confidentiality of proceedings. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council was entitled to withhold the requested information under regulation 12(5)(d). The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(d)
View New Forest District Council
7 Aug 2023Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested a copy of the registers of land and building assets. Breckland District Council (the Council) provided some information but withheld other information under section 21 (information accessible to the applicant by other means) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council failed to confirm or deny exactly what information is held relevant to the request,it failed to carry out appropriate searches in order to identify all information it holds relevant to the request, and incorrectly applied section 21 to withhold UPRNs. The Commissioner requires Council to issue a fresh response to the complainant that considers all of the information falling within the scope of the request and either disclose the information or, in respect of any information it wishes to withhold, issue a refusal notice within the meaning of section 17 of FOIA providing a basis for withholding the information. As the Commissioner has determined that section 21 is not engaged t
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 21
View Breckland Council
7 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 Greater Manchester Mental Health NHS Foundation Trust
7 Aug 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about the unauthorised use of Royal Names. The Cabinet Office refused the request under section 37(1)(b) (communications with His Majesty and the awarding of honours). The Commissioner’s decision is that the Cabinet Office was correct to refuse the request under section 37(1)(b). The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 37
View Cabinet Office
7 Aug 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested various information from Basingstoke & Deane Borough Council (the ‘council’) in respect of the felling of trees in the Spring of 2021 adjacent to a named property. The council provided some information but refused to provide other information on the basis of regulation 12(5)(b) (the course of justice) of the EIR. The council also withheld some limited personal information under regulation 13. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council has complied with its obligations under regulation 5(1) of the EIR, and that it was entitled to rely on regulation 12(5)(b) to refuse information in respect of item 3 of the request and that regulation 13 applies to the limited redactions of personal information. First-tier tribunal (General Regulatory chamber) information rights appeal EA/2023/0387 appeal dismissed.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(b); EIR 13; EIR 5(1)
View Basingstoke and Deane Borough Council
7 Aug 2023Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
Summary wording for website: The complainant requested information from Croydon London Borough Council (Council) about an index of all documents held which related to the children’s service department. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council 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 London Borough of Croydon
4 Aug 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to a Cabinet meeting agenda. Cheltenham Borough Council (the “council”) withheld the information under the exemption for legal professional privilege (section 42) The Commissioner’s decision is that the council is entitled to rely on section 42 to withhold the requested information. The Commissioner does not require the council to take any steps. Information Tribunal FTT EA/2023/0363 appeal struck out.
Exemptions cited: FOI 42
View Cheltenham Borough Council
4 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 Environment Agency
4 Aug 2023Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from Torbay Council on 28 February 2023 about noise abatement notice and noise nuisance. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council 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 Torbay Council
4 Aug 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from Hertfordshire Constabulary for correspondence between senior officers and the Home Secretary, also for Public Order Incident Command logs completed during climate protests. Hertfordshire Constabulary said it held no information to parts one and two of the request. It confirmed it holds information to parts three and four but cited sections 31(1)(a) and 31(1)(b) (law enforcement) and also section 40(2) (personal data) and subsequently section 38(1)(b) (health and safety) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is Hertfordshire Constabulary was entitled to rely on sections 31(1)(a) and (b) of FOIA to refuse to provide the information requested. Therefore, the Commissioner does not require Hertfordshire Constabulary to take any steps as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: FOI 31(1)(a); FOI 31(1)(b)
4 Aug 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (“the DLUHC”). The Commissioner’s decision is that the DLUHC was entitled to refuse to comply with the request in accordance with section 12(1) (cost limit) of FOIA. The Commissioner also finds that the DLUHC complied with its obligations under section 16 of FOIA to offer advice and assistance. The Commissioner does not require the DLUHC to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12(1); FOI 16
View Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government
4 Aug 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information relating to a specific planning application including internal communications at Swansea Council (“the Council”). The Council provided links to its website for some of the information; however, it withheld information for part two of the request under regulation 12(4)(e) of the EIR. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council was entitled to rely on regulation 12(4)(e) to withhold the information for part two of the request. However, it breached regulation 5 of the EIR as it failed to respond within 20 working days to the original request. The Commissioner does not require any steps to be taken as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(e)
View Swansea Council
3 Aug 2023Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The Commissioner’s decision is that the public authority breached section 10(1) of FOIA by failing to provide a response within 20 working days.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Southend-on-Sea City Council