7 Jul 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information on evaluation and scoring of certain questions relating to a prison procurement. NHS England refused the request on the basis of section 12 – that it would exceed the appropriate cost limit to comply. The Commissioner’s decision is that NHS England has correctly applied section 12 to refuse the request and has provided advice and assistance under section 16 of FOIA. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12; FOI 16
View NHS England
7 Jul 2023Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information relating to the Derby and Derbyshire Joint Waste Treatment Centre on Sinfin Lane. Derby City Council (the Council) is withholding some information under regulations 12(5)(b) and 12(5)(e) (the course of justice and confidentiality of commercial or industrial information exceptions). The Commissioner’s decision is that both exceptions are engaged and that the public interest favours maintaining both exceptions. The Commissioner does not require any further steps as a result of this decision notice.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(b); EIR 12(5)(e); EIR 14(2)(1); EIR 5(2)
View Derby City Council
7 Jul 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from West Midlands Police (“WMP”) about the false social media personas register. WMP disclosed some of the information but refused to disclose the remaining information under sections 31(1)(a) and 31(1)(b) of FOIA.The Commissioner’s decision is that WMP was entitled to rely on section 31(1)(a) and 31(1)(b) of FOIA.The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 31(1)
View West Midlands Police
7 Jul 2023Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested a copy of a final report produced by South Wales Police (SWP) that relates to Operation Dolomite. SWP initially refused the request, citing a number of exemptions under FOI; section 30(1) – investigations and proceedings, section 31(1) – law enforcement, section 38(1) – health and safety, section 40(2) – personal information, section 42(1) - legal professional privilege. At the internal review stage, SWP revised its position, confirming it was now relying on section 14(1) of FOIA as its basis for refusing the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that SWP has failed to provide sufficient evidence to support its claim that section 14(1) is engaged. In addition, as SWP failed to issue a refusal notice within 20 working days, the Commissioner has found a breach of section 17(1) of FOIA. The Commissioner requires SWP issue a fresh response to the request that does not rely on section 14 of FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14(1); FOI 17
View South Wales Police
7 Jul 2023Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested details of any preparatory work held by the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) that relates to the “Growth Plan 2022” delivered in Parliament on 23 September 2022, by the then Chancellor, Kwasi Kwarteng. The OBR confirmed that it held one document, a note sent to the Chancellor on 6 September 2022, that it considered to be relevant to the request. However, the OBR refused to release this information, citing section 36(2)(b)(i) and (ii) – inhibition to the free and frank provision of advice and exchange of views - of FOIA. The Commissioner has decided that whilst the exemption at section 36(2)(b)(i) and (ii) is engaged, the public interest favours disclosure of the requested information in this instance. The Commissioner requires the OBR to release a copy of the note sent to the Chancellor on 6 September 2022.
Exemptions cited: FOI 36
View Office for Budget Responsibility
6 Jul 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from the British Broadcasting Corporation (“the BBC”) about a Panorama programe. 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
6 Jul 2023Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The public authority has failed to respond to this request within 20 working days, as specified under FOIA. The Commissioner requires it to provide the complainant with a response to this request within 35 calendar days in accordance with its obligations under FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
6 Jul 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested from the University of East London (“the University”) information about placement providers and how these placements were operating. The University disclosed some information, but it refused to confirm or deny whether it held information about the delivery of placements, citing section 12(2) (Cost of compliance exceeds appropriate limit) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the University was entitled to apply section 12(2) of FOIA and he finds no breach of section 16. The Commissioner does not require the University to take any further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12(2); FOI 16
View The University of East London
6 Jul 2023Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information regarding the Parliamentary art collection from the House of Commons (“the HoC”). The HoC initially said that it did not hold the information for the purposes of FOIA. During the Commissioner’s investigation it also argued that compliance with the request would exceed section 12 (Cost of compliance exceeds appropriate limit) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that: On the balance of probabilities, the HoC does hold information falling within the scope of the request. However, the HoC was entitled to rely on section 12 when refusing to comply with this request. As the HoC did not provide advice and assistance on how the request might be refined so as to bring it within the cost limit, it has not complied with the duty under section 16 of FOIA. The Commissioner requires the HoC to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. Provide the complainant with advice and assistance as regards how the request might be refined
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 12; FOI 16
View Corporate Officers of the House of Commons
6 Jul 2023Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to operating procedures and FOI compliance. Humberside Police relied on section 12 (cost of compliance) of FOIA to refuse the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that Humberside Police has properly relied on section 12(1). It has also met its advice and assistance obligations under section 16 of FOIA. However, the Commissioner finds that Humberside Police breached section 10 (time for compliance) of FOIA in its handling of the request. The Commissioner does not require any steps to be taken as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 12; FOI 16
View Humberside Police
6 Jul 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The Commissioner’s decision is that Historic England correctly withheld some information within scope of the complainant’s request about a property. The information is other’s personal information and is excepted from disclosure under regulation 13(1) of the EIR. There was no breach of regulation 5(2) or 14(2) in relation to the timeliness of Historic England’s response to the request. It’s not necessary for Historic England to take any corrective steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 13; EIR 14; EIR 5
View Historic England
6 Jul 2023Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The public authority has failed to respond to this request within 20 working days, as specified under FOIA. The Commissioner requires it to provide the complainant with a response to this request within 35 calendar days in accordance with its obligations under FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
6 Jul 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to extradition proceedings in respect of Julian Assange. The Crown Prosecution Service (‘CPS’) would neither confirm nor deny (‘NCND’) whether it held the requested information, citing section 30(3) (Investigations and proceedings) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the CPS was entitled to rely on section 30(3) to NCND holding the requested information. Information Tribunal appeal UA-2025-000871-GIA PTA refused.
Exemptions cited: FOI 30
View Crown Prosecution Service
6 Jul 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to deaths by vaccinations. The Commissioner’s decision is that UK Statistics Authority (UKSA) does not hold the requested information. No steps are required as a result of this decision notice. First-tier tribunal (General Regulatory chamber) information rights appeal EA/2023/0328 appeal struck out.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View UK Statistics Authority
6 Jul 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested a copy of an underground/mass transit report. West of England Combined Authority (WECA) refused to disclose the requested information, citing regulation 12(4)(d) (material in the course of completion) of the EIR.The Commissioner’s decision is that WECA was entitled to rely on regulation 12(4)(d) of the EIR to refuse to disclose the withheld information.The Commissioner does not require WECA to take any further steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(d)
View West of England Combined Authority
6 Jul 2023Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The Commissioner’s decision is that the Home Office has failed to complete its deliberations on the balance of the public interest within a reasonable time and has therefore breached section 17(3) of FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 17
View Home Office
6 Jul 2023Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from Cambridgeshire County Council (“the Council”) in relation to a summary report for a consultation from January 2022. The Council provided some of the requested information but withheld the remainder, citing section 40(2) of FOIA – personal information. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has incorrectly cited section 40(2) of FOIA – personal information. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. • Provide the complainant with the names and information relating to those who are in a public facing role (any information that belongs to private residents that these individuals have provided as part of their response, should remain 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 pursuan
Exemptions cited: FOI 40(2)
View Cambridgeshire County Council
6 Jul 2023Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to Transport for Wales Rail Ltd (TfW) for copies of station announcements.The Commissioner’s decision is that TfW was entitled to refuse to comply with the request in accordance with section 12(1) of FOIA. However, the Commissioner finds that TfW did not comply with its obligations under section 16 of FOIA to offer advice and assistance.The Commissioner requires TfW to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation:• Provide the complainant with advice and assistance to help them submit a request falling with the appropriate limit or explain why this is not possible.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12(1); FOI 16
View Transport for Wales Rail
6 Jul 2023Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information on the cost of payments to benefit claimants and pensioners who do not have bank accounts. The Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) originally relied on section 43(2) to refuse to provide the requested information. During the course of the Commissioner’s investigation, DWP amended its position and confirmed that it did not hold the information falling within the scope of the first request. DWP also introduced section 43(1) to withhold the information falling within the scope of the second request. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, DWP does not hold the information falling within the scope of the first request and that section 43(2) is engaged in relation to the information falling within the scope of the second request and the public interest lies in maintaining this exemption. The Commissioner does however find that DWP breached section 10(1). The Commissioner does not require DWP to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10; FOI 43
View Department for Work and Pensions
6 Jul 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The requester asked for the full business case documents regarding a number of railway schemes. West Midlands Combined Authority (“WMCA”) failed to respond to the initial request but after follow up supplied copies of information it held in scope of the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the WMCA has disclosed all the relevant information it holds in scope of the request. However, WMCA failed to respond within the timeframe to the initial request and failed to carry out an internal review (even when prompted by the Commissioner. Therefore, the Commissioner finds WMCA breached section 10 of FOIA. The Commissioner does not require WMCA to take any steps as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View West Midlands Combined Authority
6 Jul 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from The Hollins (“the school”) in relation to policies and procedures, specifically around behaviour. The school provided some information, however, it withheld the remainder of the information citing section 12(1) of FOIA – cost of compliance exceeds the appropriate amount. The Commissioner’s decision is that the school was entitled to rely on section 12(1) of FOIA. He is also satisfied that the school complied with its requirements under section 16 of FOIA. The Commissioner does not requires the public authority to take any steps as a result of this decision notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12
6 Jul 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested emails within a specific time frame using specific search terms related to the Loan Charge Review. HM Treasury (“HMT”) initially argued that the information was exempt under section 35 (formulation/development of government policy) and on two occasions argued it needed further time to consider the balance of public interest in relying upon that exemption. However, when it finally issued a refusal notice it argued that it was relying on section 14(1) (vexatious request). It upheld this position after internal review. The Commissioner’s decision is that HMT is entitled to rely on section 14(1) as its basis for refusing to comply with this request. The Commissioner does not require further steps. First-tier tribunal (General Regulatory chamber) information rights appeal EA/2023/0358 appeal dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14
View HM Treasury
6 Jul 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to Business Services Organisation (BSO) for information relating to the fees paid to two named barristers.The Commissioner’s decision is that BSO was correct to withhold the requested information under section 40(2), with reliance on section 40(3)(a) of FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40(2)
6 Jul 2023Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The public authority has failed to complete its public interest test considerations within a reasonable time in accordance with its obligations under FOIA. The Commissioner requires it to provide a substantive response to the request within 35 calendar days in accordance with its obligations under FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 17(3)
View Ministry of Defence
6 Jul 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested the names of specific members of staff. The NHS Bristol, North Somerset and South Gloucestershire Integrated Care Board “the public authority” refused to provide the requested information, citing section 40(2) (personal information) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is to disclose the requested information would breach the data protection principles and therefore should be withheld under section 40(2). The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40(2)
View NHS Bristol, North Somerset and South Gloucestershire ICB
5 Jul 2023Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from the Council regarding correspondence with various charities. The Council disclosed some information to the complainant, however the complaint is that it has not disclosed all information it holds within the scope of the request.The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has failed to fully consider all the information specified in the complainant’s request, therefore it has not complied with the requirements of section 1 of FOIA.The Commissioner requires the Council to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation:• Issue a fresh response to the complainant disclosing all information it holds within the scope of the complainant’ request. 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 FOIA and may be dealt with as a contempt of court.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Waltham Forest Council
5 Jul 2023Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested British Business Bank (BBB) to disclose the minutes of all Risk Committee, Audit Committee and Board meetings for the financial year 2021/22. BBB disclosed some information but withheld the remainder in accordance with section 40, 42 and 43 of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that BBB is entitled to rely on section 40 of FOIA. It is also entitled to rely on section 43 for the names of recipients of Future Fund financing, as referenced throughout the withheld information. For all remaining withheld information, the Commissioner is not satisfied that section 42 and 43 of FOIA apply. The Commissioner requires BBB to disclose all remaining withheld information to the complainant, with the exception of the names of recipients of Future Funding financing. Information Tribunal EA/2023/0355 appeal allowed in part.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40; FOI 42; FOI 43
View British Business Bank
5 Jul 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about a specific school inspection. Ofsted disclosed information in response to the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that Ofsted has obtained the correct objective reading of the request and therefore complied with section 1 (general right of access) of FOIA. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Office for Standards in Education, Children's Services and Skills
5 Jul 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested a copy of a recording of a Council meeting on 9 November 2022. Hopton and Coton Parish Council (the Council) stated that it did not hold the information requested. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the Council does not hold the requested information. The Commissioner does not require any steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
5 Jul 2023Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested, from the London Borough of Southwark (the Council), a ‘closed’ report titled ‘Future of Aylesbury Estate’. The Council is withholding some information under regulations 12(5)(b) and 12(5)(e) (the course of justice and confidentiality of commercial or industrial information exceptions). The Commissioner’s decision is that whilst regulation 12(5)(b) is engaged and should be maintained (with the exception of two sentences), the Council has failed to demonstrate that regulation 12(5)(e) is engaged. The Commissioner requires the Council to disclose the first two sentences of paragraph 26 of the closed report, and all of the information currently being withheld solely under regulation 12(5)(e), to ensure compliance with the legislation. Information Tribunal FTT EA/2023/0362 under appeal.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(b); EIR 12(5)(e)
View Southwark Council
5 Jul 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested minutes of New Hospital Committee Meetings from Liverpool University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust (the Trust). The Trust redacted some of the information contained within the minutes, citing regulation 12(5)(b) (disclosure would adversely affect the course of justice) and regulation 13 (personal data) of the EIR. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Trust is entitled to withhold the redacted information under regulations 12(5)(b) and 13 of the EIR. The Commissioner does not require the Trust to take further steps in relation to this request. First-tier tribunal (General Regulatory chamber) information rights appeal EA/2023/0324 under appeal.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(b); EIR 13
View Liverpool University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust
5 Jul 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested details of payments to external consultants to advise on the privatisation of Channel 4. The Department for Culture, Media and Sport (“DCMS”). It refused to provide it citing section 43(2) – commercial interests – as its basis for doing so. The Commissioner’s decision is that DCMS is entitled to rely on section 43(2) as its basis for withholding the requested information. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 43
View Department for Culture, Media and Sport
5 Jul 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The Commissioner’s decision is that at the time it was submitted, the request for the evidence base associated with a school inspection was exempt from disclosure under section 33(1) of FOIA, which concerns audit functions. It’s not necessary for Ofsted to take any corrective steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 33
View Office for Standards in Education, Children's Services and Skills
5 Jul 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about a visit to Southampton University by a member of the Royal Household. The Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (“FCDO”) identified two documents within its Knowledge Management Department (“KMD”), and considered that only one document fell within scope of the request. FCDO has already provided the complainant with both documents as part of its response to a separate information request therefore it did not re-issue the document to the complainant. FCDO stated that further information within scope of the request was not held. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, further information within scope of the request is not held by FCDO. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office
4 Jul 2023Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested briefing materials prepared in response to an Urgent Question in Parliament. The Cabinet Office (“CO”) refused to provide it citing section 36 (prejudice to the effective conduct of public affairs) as its basis for doing so. It upheld this position at internal review. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Cabinet Office is entitled to rely on section 36 as its basis for refusing the request. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 17; FOI 36
View Cabinet Office
4 Jul 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The Commissioner’s decision is that the complainant’s request for correspondence about a planning application is manifestly unreasonable under regulation 12(4)(b) of the EIR. The University of Bath doesn’t have to comply with it or take any corrective steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(b)
4 Jul 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested details of disciplinary hearings for two named police officers. Warwickshire Police refused to confirm or deny whether it held the requested information, citing the ‘neither confirm nor deny’ (‘NCND’) provisions within section 30(3) (investigations), section 31(3) (law enforcement) and section 40(5) of FOIA (personal information). The Commissioner’s decision is that Warwickshire Police was entitled to rely on section 40(5) of FOIA to refuse to confirm or deny that it holds the requested information. As he has found section 40(5) to be engaged, he does not deem it necessary to consider Warwickshire Police’s reliance on the other NCND provisions cited. The Commissioner requires no steps as a result of this notice.Keywords: Gross misconduct, misconduct
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View Warwickshire Police
4 Jul 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information relating to a specific historic planning application including internal and external communications between Swansea Council (“the Council”) and third parties. The Council disclosed some information within scope of the request after the redaction of third-party data; however, it withheld some information under regulations 12(4)(e), 12(5)(b), 12(5)(c) and 12(5)(e) of the EIR. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council was entitled to rely on regulations 12(4)(e) and 12(5)(b) of the EIR to withhold the requested information. The Commissioner does not require any steps to be taken as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(e); EIR 12(5)(b)
View Swansea Council
4 Jul 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested pre-application planning information in relation to their own property. South Hams District Council (the Council) provided some information and stated that other information was not held. The Commissioner’s decision is that the request falls under the EIR, but that regulation 5(3) of the EIR applies as the information is the complainant’s own personal data. This means that the Council was not obliged to comply with the request. The Commissioner does not require any steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 5
View South Hams District Council
4 Jul 2023Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to the Camp Zeist trial, from the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (FCDO). The Commissioner’s decision is that the FCDO was entitled to rely on section 12(2) when refusing to confirm or deny the requested information was held. The FCDO also met its obligation under section 16 to offer advice and assistance, but failed to provide a refusal notice within 20 working days and therefore breached section 17(1) and section 10 of FOIA. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 12; FOI 16; FOI 17
View Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office
4 Jul 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information from Liverpool University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust (“the Trust”) regarding the minutes of committee meetings. The Trust disclosed some of the requested information to the complainant, however it redacted some, citing the exceptions at regulations 12(5)(b), 12(5)(e) and 13 of the EIR. The complainant has only complained about the Trust’s application of regulation 12(5)(b), as the Trust has now withdrawn its reliance upon regulation 12(5)(e) and the complainant no longer wishes to complain about the redactions made under regulation 13.The Commissioner’s decision is that the Trust is entitled to rely on regulation 12(5)(b) of the EIR – the course of justice, to withhold the remaining requested information (“the withheld information”). The Commissioner does not require to take any steps as a result of this decision notice. First-tier tribunal (General Regulatory chamber) information rights appeal EA/2023/0321 under appeal.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(b)
View Liverpool University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust
3 Jul 2023Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information from the London Borough of Lewisham Council (“the Council”) relating to the awarding of a contract for the expansion of a school. The Council provided some information within the scope of the request but withheld some of the requested information under regulation 12(5)(e) of the EIR (commercial confidentiality). The complainant does not believe the Council has disclosed all of the information it holds within the scope of the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that: the Council is entitled to rely on regulation 12(5)(e) of the EIR to withhold, some, but not all of the information withheld on this basis, specifically, his decision is that the exception is not engaged for the names of the unsuccessful bidders; on the balance of probabilities, the Council has failed to identify all of the information it holds within the scope of the request; the Council breached regulation 5(2) of the EIR as it failed to respond to the request in full within 20 wo
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(e); EIR 5(1); EIR 5(2)
View Lewisham Council
30 Jun 2023Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information held by Warwick District Council (the Council) relating to resident parking permits. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council failed to disclose the requested information within 20 working days and therefore breached section 10(1) of FOIA. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10(1)
View Warwick District Council
30 Jun 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about the registration of specific foster and adoption agencies. Ofsted refused to provide the information as it either isn’t held, or fell outside the scope of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that: on the balance of probabilities Ofsted doesn’t hold the information in relation to local authority services and where information in relation to indepent services is held by Ofsted, it’s held for the purposes of functions exercisable by His Majesty’s Chief Inspector of Education, Children’s Services and Skills. As such, the information is derogated and section 1(1) of FOIA does not require Ofsted to disclose it. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Office for Standards in Education, Children's Services and Skills
30 Jun 2023Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information about the number of inspectors Ofsted has and their home institution. Ofsted provided some information but withheld other information under section 36(2)(c) (prejudice to the effective conduct of public affairs) and section 40(2) (personal data) of the FOIA. During the course of the Commissioner’s investigation Ofsted also sought to apply section 33 (audit) to the withheld information. The Commissioner’s decision is that Ofsted is not entitled to rely on sections 40, 36 or 33 of the FOIA. The Commissioner requires Ofsted to disclose the withheld information – a list of the home institutes of its inspectors.
Exemptions cited: FOI 33; FOI 36; FOI 40(2)
View Office for Standards in Education, Children's Services and Skills
30 Jun 2023Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information related to a planning application. Swansea Council (“the Council”) provided a link to its planning portal, and stated it held no further information. During the Commissioner’s investigation, the Council provided a new response to the complainant, stating some information was withheld under Regulation 12(4)(e) (internal communications) of the EIR. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council is entitled to rely on Regulation 12(4)(e) of the EIR to withhold the requested information. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(e); EIR 5(2)
View Swansea Council
30 Jun 2023Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested that the Cabinet Office provide copies of documents containing their personal data. The Cabinet Office had already provided the complainant’s personal information under the Data Protection Act 2018 (the DPA). It further provided some information to the complainant under FOIA and relied on section 36(2) (prejudice to the effective conduct of public affairs) and section 40(2) to withhold the remainder.
The Commissioner’s decision is that the exemptions at section 36(2)(b)(ii) and (ii) are engaged. However he finds that the public interest in maintaining these exemptions does not outweigh the public interest in disclosure. The Commissioner finds that the exemption at section 36(2)(c) is not engaged. The Commissioner also finds that the Cabinet Office failed to comply with section 17(1) of FOIA in that it issued a refusal notice outside the statutory time for compliance.
Exemptions cited: FOI 17; FOI 36(2)
View Cabinet Office
30 Jun 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 HARRIS FEDERATION
30 Jun 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 Jun 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from Cheshire East Council (“the Council”) about per capita spend by the Council by geographical area. The Councils position is that it does not hold the information requested. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the Council does not hold the information requested. The Commissioner does not require the Council to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1(1)
View Cheshire East Council