22 Jun 2023Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about guidance provided to police forces relating to immigration raids. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Home Office (HO) is entitled to withhold part of the requested information. However, he finds that not all the information is exempt. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. Disclose the information listed in the confidential annex with appropriate redactions under section 40(2) 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 31
View Home Office
22 Jun 2023Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information relating to HS2. The Cabinet Office withheld it under regulation 12(4)(e) (internal communications.) The Commissioner’s decision is that the exception is engaged and the public interest lies in maintaining the exception. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 11; EIR 12(4)(e); EIR 14(2)(1)
View Cabinet Office
22 Jun 2023Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from Cardiff and Vale University Health Board (“the Health Board”) relating to two reviews, one produced by the Royal College of Surgeons (RCS) and one by a firm of solicitors appointed by the Health Board. The Health Board provided some information within scope of the request, denied holding some of the requested information and withheld other information within the scope of the request under section 40 of FOIA (personal information) and section 42 of FOIA (legal professional privilege). The Commissioner’s decision is that: on the balance of probabilities, the Health Board does not hold any further information within the scope of parts 2a-2d of the request or parts 5b - 5d of the request beyond that which it has already disclosed; the Health Board is not entitled to rely on section 40 to withhold the information requested in part 2e of the request; the Health Board is entitled to rely on section 42 to withhold the information requested in part 5a
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 40; FOI 42
View Cardiff and Vale University Health Board
22 Jun 2023Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about the release of the ‘Spycatcher’ files to the National Archives. The Cabinet Office refused the entire request stating that it did not constitute a valid request for recorded information as outlined in FOIA. During the course of the Commissioner’s investigation the Cabinet Office amended its position and stated that parts 2(ii) and 3(i)-(iv) of the request were not valid under FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that parts 1, 2(i)-(iii) and 3(i) meet the definition of a valid request under section 8 of FOIA, therefore the Cabinet Office were not entitled to refuse these parts of the request, however, parts 3(i)-(iv) are not valid under section 8 of FOIA. The Commissioner considers that the information provided by the Cabinet Office in its response to his investigation satisfies part 1 and 2(i)-(iii) of the request, and that, due to its wording, it is not obligated to provide a response to part3(i) of the request.
Exemptions cited: FOI 8
View Cabinet Office
22 Jun 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to a meeting attended by Lord Frost and the Loyalist Communities Council. The Cabinet Office provided some information and withheld the remainder, relying on the exemptions at sections 28(1), 40(2) and 41 of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Cabinet Office was entitled to rely on the exemptions cited in respect of the withheld information. No steps are required.
Exemptions cited: FOI 28; FOI 40; FOI 41
View Cabinet Office
22 Jun 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) relating to all documentation it holds on its own policies and procedures including the internal guidance and training courses for staff on dealing with casework and the erasure processes for SARS (Subject Access Requests). The ICO provided some information within the scope of the request and withheld the remainder citing section 21 (Information reasonably accessible to the applicant by other means) and section 22 (Information intended for future public publication) as its reasons for doing so. The Commissioner’s decision is that the ICO has correctly applied both section 21 and section 22 of FOIA to withhold disclosure in this case.The Commissioner requires no further steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 21; FOI 22
View Information Commissioner
21 Jun 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested from Elmbridge Borough Council information relating to throwing cages at a local sports centre. The Council stated that no information was held. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the Council does not hold any relevant information. The Commissioner does not require the Council to take any steps as a result of this decision notice. First-tier tribunal (General Regulatory chamber) information rights appeal EA/2023/0323 appeal allowed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Elmbridge Borough Council
21 Jun 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(1)
View Cabinet Office
21 Jun 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested various items of information from North Sunderland Harbour Commissioners (‘NSHC’). NSHC accepted that it was subject to the EIR but stated that the majority of the requested information wasn’t environmental. The Commissioner’s decision is that the information NSHC hasn’t provided to the complainant isn’t environmental information and therefore NSHC isn’t obliged by the EIR to provide it. As the information isn’t environmental and NSHC isn’t covered by FOIA, the Commissioner is unable to instruct NSHC to take any corrective steps. First-tier tribunal (General Regulatory chamber) information rights appeal UA-2024-000905-GIA dismissed.
Exemptions cited: EIR 2(1)
21 Jun 2023Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainants requested information from Fareham Borough Council (‘the council’) relating to a specific planning issue. The council refused to provide the requested information citing Regulations 12(5)(b), 12(4)(d) and 12(4)(e) of the EIR. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council is entitled to rely on Regulations 12(5)(b) and 12(4)(d) to refuse to provide the requested information, apart from one document. The Commissioner has also decided that the council was not correct to apply Regulation 12(4)(e) to a small number of documents, and therefore requires that these are disclosed to the complainant. He has also decided that the council did not comply with the requirements of Regulation 5(2). The Commissioner requires the council to disclose documents 7, 8, 19, 36, and part of document 23 to the complainants in response to their request, subject to appropriate redactions under Regulation 13 (personal data of third parties).
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(d); EIR 12(4)(e); EIR 12(5)(b)
View Fareham Borough Council
21 Jun 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested from the Welsh Government, information relating to the five meetings chaired by Cardiff University Professor concerning Relationships and Sexuality Education (RSE). The Welsh Government refused to provide the information to part one of the request, and cited section 35(1)(a) (formulation and development of government policy), section 36(2)(b)(ii) (free and frank provision of advice and exchange of views), section 36(2)(c) (other prejudice to the effective conduct of public affairs), section 38 (health and safety) and section 40(2) (personal information) of FOIA. Regarding part two of the request, the Welsh Government provided information which it considered to be within scope of the request. The Commissioner’s decision is the Welsh Government was entitled to rely on section 35(1)(a) to withhold the information requested.
Exemptions cited: FOI 35(1)(a)
View Welsh Government
21 Jun 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested the names of three police officers who, according to news reports, were found guilty of misconduct in 2007. He also asked Cheshire Constabulary to confirm whether a named individual was one of the officers. Cheshire Constabulary cited section 12 (Cost of compliance exceeds appropriate limit) to refuse to comply with the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that Cheshire Constabulary was entitled to rely on section 40(5B)(a)(i) (Personal information) to neither confirm or deny whether it holds information on the person named in the request. As regards the remainder of the request, it was entitled to apply section 12(2) to neither confirm nor deny whether it holds any information falling within its scope. There was no breach of section 16 (Advice and assistance) of FOIA. The Commissioner requires no steps as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12; FOI 16; FOI 40
View Cheshire Constabulary
21 Jun 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested from Network Rail the amount paid to landlords regarding the extension part of a contract. Network Rail refused to confirm or deny whether it held such information under regulation 13(5)(personal data) of the EIR. The Commissioner’s decision is that the public authority was entitled to rely on regulation 13(5A)(5B) of the EIR as the basis for neither confirming nor denying whether it held the requested information. The Commissioner does not require Network Rail to take any steps as a result of this decision notice. First-tier tribunal (General Regulatory chamber) information rights appeal EA/2023/0337 appeal dismissed.
Exemptions cited: EIR 13(5)
View Network Rail
21 Jun 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information, relating to the Migration and Economic Development Partnership with Rwanda, that the Government applied to be withheld. The Home Office confirmed that it held the requested information but that it was exempt from disclosure under sections 27(1)(a), (c) and (d) (international relations), 35(1)(a) (formulation of government policy) and 40(2) (personal information) of FOIA. The Commissioner has investigated its application of section 27. The Commissioner’s decision is that the withheld information is exempt from disclosure on the basis of section 27(1). The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: FOI 27
View Home Office
21 Jun 2023Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information on a staff policy or guidance or handbook on writing UCAS references for pupils. By the date of this notice Alder Community High School (“the School”) had not issued a substantive response to this request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the School has breached section 10(1) of FOIA in that it failed to provide a valid response to the request within the statutory time frame of 20 working days.The School must provide a substantive response to the request in accordance with its obligations under FOIA. The School must take this step within 35 calendar days of the date of this decision notice. Failure to comply may result in the Commissioner making written certification of this fact to the High Court pursuant to section 54 of FOIA and may be dealt with as a contempt of court.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
21 Jun 2023Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested the minutes of meetings held by the Advisory Military Sub-Committee (AMSC). The Cabinet Office withheld the requested information under Sections 37(1)(b) (the conferring by the crown of any honour or dignity) and 40(2) (personal information) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Cabinet Office were entitled to rely on Sections 37(1)(b) and 40(2) of the FOIA to withhold this information. The Commissioner does not require further steps. Information Tribunal appeal UA-2024-001165-GIA PTA refused.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 37
View Cabinet Office
21 Jun 2023Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information about the Louth Active Travel Scheme. Lincolnshire County Council disclosed some information and withheld the remainder under regulation 12(4)(d) (Material still in the course of completion, etc.), regulation 12(4)(e) (Internal communications), and regulation 13 (Personal data). The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council is entitled to withhold which it withheld under regulation 13, but is not entitled to withhold information under regulation 12(4)(d) and regulation 12(4)(e). The Commissioner requires the Council to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: Disclose that information withheld under regulation 12(4)(d) and regulation 12(4)(e), ensuring that any personal data is redacted where necessary.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(d); EIR 12(4)(e); EIR 13
View Lincolnshire County Council
21 Jun 2023Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from Hampshire Constabulary (“the public authority”) in relation to traffic offence/reports. The public authority refused to provide the information, citing section 12(1) of FOIA – cost exceeds the appropriate amount. The Commissioner’s decision is that the public authority was entitled to apply section 12(1) of FOIA. However, he is not satisfied that it has met its obligation under section 16 of FOIA – advice and assistance. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps as a result of this decision notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12(1); FOI 16
21 Jun 2023Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to the Metropolitan Police’s International Assistance Unit. The Metropolitan Police Service 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 substantive response to this request in accordance with its obligations under FOIA within 35 calendar days.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Metropolitan Police Service
21 Jun 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested from Bradford City Council, (‘the council’), information relating to its expenditure over £500. The council refused the request on the basis that the exemption in section 22 of FOIA applied (information intended for future publication). The Commissioner’s decision is that the council was correct to apply section 22 to withhold the information. The Commissioner does not require the council to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 22
View City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council
20 Jun 2023Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The Commissioner’s decision is that Northumbria Police is correct to rely on section 30(3) of FOIA to neither confirm nor deny it holds specific roster records as the information, if held, would be exempt from disclosure under section 30(1), which concerns investigations and proceedings. Northumbria Police did not comply with section 17(1) of FOIA as it did not issue a refusal notice within the required timescale of 20 working days. It is not necessary for Northumbria Police to take any corrective steps. First-tier tribunal (General Regulatory chamber) information rights appeal EA/2023/0333 appeal allowed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 17; FOI 30
View Northumbria Police
20 Jun 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The Commissioner’s decision is that Northumbria Police is correct to rely on section 30(3) of FOIA to neither confirm nor deny it holds a specific case file as the information, if held, would be exempt from disclosure under section 30(1), which concerns investigations and proceedings. It is not necessary for Northumbria Police to take any corrective steps. First-tier tribunal (General Regulatory chamber) information rights appeal EA/2023/0334 appeal allowed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 30
View Northumbria Police
20 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
View Haringey Council
20 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
View The University of Bradford
20 Jun 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The Commissioner’s decision is that Northumbria Police is correct to rely on section 30(3) of FOIA to neither confirm nor deny it holds a specific case review file as the information, if held, would be exempt from disclosure under section 30(1), which concerns investigations and proceedings. First-tier tribunal (General Regulatory chamber) information rights appeal EA/2023/0335 appeal allowed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 30
View Northumbria Police
20 Jun 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to the Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office (FCDO) seeking a copy of Dominic Raab’s, the Foreign Secretary’s, Ministerial diary for the period 1 June 2021 to 15 September 2021. The FCDO disclosed a redacted version of the information requested, withholding information on the basis of the following sections of FOIA 23(1) (security bodies), 24(1) (national security), 27(1)(a) (international relations), 35(1)(a) (formulation or development of government policy), 38(1)(b) (health and safety) and 40(2) (personal data). The Commissioner’s decision is that the FCDO is entitled to rely on these exemptions to withhold the redacted information.
Exemptions cited: FOI 23; FOI 24; FOI 27; FOI 35(1)(a); FOI 38(1)(b); FOI 40(2)
View Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office
20 Jun 2023Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested a Serious Sexual Offences Problem Profile (“the profile”) from the Metropolitan Police Service (the “MPS”). The MPS refused to provide the profile citing sections 30(1)(a) (Criminal investigations), 31(1)(a)(b) (Law enforcement), 38 (1)(a)(b) (Health and safety) and 40(2) (Personal information) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the MPS breached section 10(1) of FOIA by failing to respond to the request within the statutory time limit. He also finds that the redactions have been applied ‘blanket fashion’ to the profile in its entirety and that the majority are therefore not properly engaged. However, the Commissioner does find that the profile contains some personal information which can be withheld.The Commissioner requires the MPS to disclose the report other than that information which is exempt under section 40(2). (This information is highlighted in a separate confidential annex that is provided to the MPS only.) Information Tribunal UA-2024
Exemptions cited: FOI 30; FOI 31; FOI 38
View Metropolitan Police Service
20 Jun 2023Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about crime-handling from the Metropolitan Police Service (the “MPS”). The MPS has engaged with the complainant and provided some information but this has not satisfied his request. It ultimately advised the complainant that it considered he was seeking “commentary, opinion and explanations” which it was not required to respond to.The Commissioner finds that the request is compliant with section 8 (Request for information) of FOIA. He requires the MPS to provide details of any policy, or recorded information, which explains how the MPS deals with crimes which come to its attention when these have not been reported by a third party.
Exemptions cited: FOI 8
View Metropolitan Police Service
20 Jun 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information from Rhondda Cynon Taf County Borough Council (“the Council”) relating to the treatment of Japanese Knotweed by Landtech UK (“Landtech”) on behalf of the Council. The Council provided some information within the scope of the request but denied holding some of the requested information. The complainant believes the Council holds further information within the scope of parts 2, 5 and 6 of the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the Council does not hold any further information within the scope of parts 2, 5 and 6 of the request beyond the information it has already disclosed. The Commissioner does not require the Council to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(a)
View Rhondda Cynon Taf County Borough Council
19 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 Northern Ireland Ombudsman
19 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 NHS England
19 Jun 2023Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The Commissioner’s decision is that the public authority breached regulation 11 of the EIR by failing to provide a reconsideration (internal review) of a response within 40 working days.
Exemptions cited: EIR 11
View Natural England
19 Jun 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from the Office of Financial Sanctions Implementation (“OFSI”), a part of HM Treasury (“HMT”), about the granting of a specific license. HMT stated that it could neither confirm nor deny whether the requested information is held, relying on section 40(5b)(a)(i)(personal data) of FOIA. During the course of the Commissioner’s investigation HMT also sought to rely on section 41(2)(information provided in confidence) to neither confirm nor deny whether the requested information is held. The Commissioner’s decision is that HMT is entitled to rely on section 40(5B)(a)(i) and section 41(2) to neither confirm nor deny whether the requested information is held. The Commissioner does not require any steps. First-tier tribunal (General Regulatory chamber) information rights appeal EA/2023/0306 appeal dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40(5)(b)(a)(i)
View HM Treasury
19 Jun 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, Harrogate Integrated Facilities Ltd (HIF) didn’t hold the information about its publication scheme that the complainant requested and complied with section 1(1) of FOIA. First-tier tribunal (General Regulatory chamber) information rights appeal EA/2023/0336 appeal dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
19 Jun 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from West Yorkshire Police (the Police) relating to an alleged criminal offence. The Police refused the request under section 14(1) of FOIA (vexatious requests).The Commissioner’s decision is that the request was vexatious and therefore the Police are entitled to rely upon section 14(1) of FOIA to refuse them. The Commissioner does not require any steps to be taken. Information Tribunal appeal UA-2024-001248-GIA PTA refused.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14(1)
View West Yorkshire Police
19 Jun 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested Wiltshire Police’s expenditure exceeding £500 for three specified time periods, to be provided in an Excel format. Wiltshire Police refused to provide the requested information, citing section 21 of FOIA – information accessible to applicant by other means and provided the complainant with the relevant URL. The complainant disputes that the information is available to him by other means because it is in PDF format rather than Excel. The Commissioner’s decision is that Wiltshire Police was entitled to rely on section 21 of FOIA. Given this decision, section 11 of FOIA which deals with the means of communicating the information is not relevant. The Commissioner does not require any steps as a result of this notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 11; FOI 21
19 Jun 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information about referrals of police and police staff to the Prevent counter-extremism programme. Staffordshire Police would neither confirm nor deny (‘NCND’) holding any information, citing sections 24(2) (national security), 30(3) (investigations), 31(3) (law enforcement) and 40(5) (personal information) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that Staffordshire Police was entitled to rely on section 23(5) 24(2) to NCND holding the requested information. As he has found section 24(2) to be correctly engaged, he has not deemed it necessary to consider Staffordshire Police’s reliance on the other NCND provisions cited. No steps are required as a result of this notice.Keywords/themes: Terrorists
Exemptions cited: FOI 24
View Staffordshire Police
19 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 NHS England
19 Jun 2023Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The public authority has failed to complete its public interest test considerations within a reasonable time in accordance with its obligations under FOIA. The Commissioner requires it to provide a substantive response to the request within 35 calendar days in accordance with its obligations under FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 17
View Home Office
19 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 University of Chester
19 Jun 2023Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information about the provision allocations to local authorities in relation to the Local Authority Housing Fund (LAHF). The Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (the DLUHC) refused the request citing section 35(1)(a) of the FOIA (formulation of government policy). The Commissioner’s decision is that the DLUHC was not entitled to rely upon section 35(1)(a) to withhold the requested information. The Commissioner requires the public authority disclose the withheld information – the indicative allocation to local authorities under the LAHF.
Exemptions cited: FOI 35
View Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government
16 Jun 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information relating to HS2. The Cabinet Office withheld it under regulation 12(4)(e) (internal communications.) The Commissioner’s decision is that the exception is engaged and the public interest lies in maintaining the exception. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(e)
View Cabinet Office
16 Jun 2023Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about the University and the Stonewall Equality Index. The University disclosed some information, confirmed other information was not held and withheld the remainder under section 43(2) (commercial interests) of FOIA. The University then agreed to disclose further information but continued to withhold specific information under section 43(2). The Commissioner’s decision is that: the University holds a copy of its submission to Stonewall as per section 3(2)(b) and whilst the withheld information engages section 43(2), the public interest lies in disclosure. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following steps: either disclose the submission (with all personal data redacted) or issue a refusal notice under section 17 which explains why it’s exempt and disclose all withheld information (with all personal data redacted).
Exemptions cited: FOI 3; FOI 43(2)
View The University of Exeter
16 Jun 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested copies of copies of correspondence sent between the former Prince of Wales (now King Charles) and the former Prime Minister Boris Johnson in 2021, about climate change, the G20 Heads of State and Government summit, and COP 26. The Cabinet Office stated that it did not hold any environmental information within scope of the request under regulation 12(4)(a). In respect of information that, if it were to be held, is not environmental in nature, it was electing to neither confirm nor deny whether it held any recorded information, relying on section 37(2) by virtue of section 37(1)(aa), section 40(2) by virtue of section 40(5b)(a)(i) and section 41(2) of FOIA. At internal review, the Cabinet Office sought only to apply section 37(2) and section 40(2) of FOIA, and maintained that environmental information was not held. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Cabinet Office is entitled to rely on section 37(1)(aa) to neither confirm nor deny whether information i
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(a); EIR 9(1); FOI 37(1)(aa); FOI 40(2)
View Cabinet Office
16 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
View Metropolitan Police Service
16 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
View Kent Police
16 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 Cabinet Office
16 Jun 2023Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information regarding deaths occurring following sanctions to benefit payments. The Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) refused to provide the requested information, citing section 12(1) (cost of compliance exceeds appropriate limit) of FOIA.The Commissioner’s decision is that DWP was entitled to rely on section 12(1) of FOIA to refuse to comply with the request. The Commissioner is also satisfied that DWP met its obligation to provide advice and assistance in accordance with section 16 of FOIA. However he finds that DWP breached sections 10 and 17 of FOIA as it failed to provide its refusal notice within 20 working days.
The Commissioner does not require DWP to take any further steps.
Following a review of this case it has been noted that the Commissioner erred in citing breaches of statutory timeframes, having omitted to include the Scottish bank holiday of 3 January 2023 in his calculations of the 20 working day deadline. Therefore, DWP did n
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 12(1); FOI 16; FOI 17
View Department for Work and Pensions
16 Jun 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from the Post Office in relation to the 2016 Swift Review. The Post Office refused to provide the requested information, citing section 42 of FOIA – legal professional privilege. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Post Office has correctly relied on section 42(1) of FOIA to withhold the requested information. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps as a result of this decision notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 42(1)
View Post Office Ltd
15 Jun 2023Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information with regards to a War Memorial. The Commissioner’s decision is that West Newton and Llanrothal Parish Council (the council) has provided all the information held falling within the scope of the request but breached regulation 5(2) of the EIR as it did not provide all the information held within the required timeframe of the request being made. The Commissioner does not require any steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(a); EIR 5(2)