15 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
15 Jun 2023Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested the Legal Ombudsman (LO) to disclose copies of all documents relating to his claim in 2013 against Hallow Associates, copies of telephone conversation and copies of all other files in respect of complaints made by others between 2013 and 2018. Part of the request was dealt with under the Data Protection Act (DPA). LO disclosed some information in relation to question 2 of the request but failed to address the remainder. Those remaining elements were addressed during the Commissioner’s investigation and LO applied sections 40(1) and 40(2). For question 4, it stated that the information is not held. The Commissioner’s decision is that LO is entitled to rely on both sections 40(1) and 40(2) of FOIA. Regarding question 4, the Commissioner is satisfied that on the balance of probabilities LO does not hold the requested information. He has however recorded a breach of section 10 and 17 of FOIA as a result of how the request was handled. The Commissioner does not
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10; FOI 17; FOI 40(1); FOI 40(2)
View The Legal Ombudsman
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)
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)
15 Jun 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information from Wiltshire Council (“the Council”) The Council stated that it did not hold any information in scope of the request. Having considered the application of regulation 12(4)(a) – information not held – which has similarities to section 1(1) of FOIA, he is satisfied that, on the balance of probabilities, at the time of the request the Council did not hold the information requested by the complainant.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(a)
View Wiltshire Council
15 Jun 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested various information about moving traffic offences. Thurrock Council stated that the information was not held. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council does not hold the information. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Thurrock Council
15 Jun 2023Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to the Chief Constable of Lincolnshire Police (“Lincolnshire Police”) for information and correspondence between the Chief Constable and Police and Crime Commissioner in relation to the reduction of the number of PCSOs.The Commissioner’s decision is that Lincolnshire Police was entitled to rely on sections 31(1)(a) and (b) of FOIA to withhold information in relation to questions one and three of the request, but that Lincolnshire Police incorrectly applied section 21(1) of FOIA to question three. He also considers that on the balance of probabilities, Lincolnshire Police does not hold any information within the scope of question two of the request. However, he finds that by failing to confirm this, Lincolnshire Police breached section 1(1) of FOIA.The Commissioner does not require further steps as a result of this decision notice. First-tier tribunal (General Regulatory chamber) information rights appeal EA/2023/0330 appeal struck out.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1(1); FOI 21; FOI 31(1)(a); FOI 31(1)(b)
View Lincolnshire Police
14 Jun 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested a range of information from the London Borough of Sutton (the ‘Council‘) relating to school age children. The Council advised that it did not hold recorded information for questions three and four. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the Council holds no recorded information relevant to the complainant’s request in questions three and four and has complied with section 1(1) of FOIA. However, by not responding within 20 working days following the date of receipt of the request, the Council breached section 10(1) of FOIA.The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1(1)
View London Borough of Sutton
14 Jun 2023Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information relating to a development. Forest of Dean District Council (the “council”) initially handled the request under the FOIA but reconsidered it under the EIR during the Commissioner’s investigation and withheld the information under the exception for the interests of the information provider (regulation 12(5)(f)). The Commissioner’s decision is that the council initially wrongly handled the request under the FOIA and breached regulation 5(1) and regulation 14 and that it failed to demonstrate that the exception in regulation 12(5)(f) is engaged. The Commissioner requires the council to disclose the requested information to the complainant.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(f); EIR 14; EIR 5(1)
View Forest of Dean District Council
14 Jun 2023Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information relating to the crossover of badger culling and natural nature reserves. Natural England (‘NE’) refused to provide the information, citing regulation 12(5)(a) (public safety). The Commissioner’s decision is that the withheld information doesn’t engage regulation 12(5)(a) and therefore can’t be withheld. The Commissioner requires NE to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: disclose the requested information.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(a)
View Natural England
14 Jun 2023Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested details of an investigation into a specific company. The above public authority originally refused to confirm or deny that it held any information. It subsequently confirmed that it held some, but continued to rely on section 31(3) of FOIA (law enforcement) to refuse to confirm or deny that it held the remainder. The Commissioner’s decision is that the public authority is entitled to rely on section 31(3) of FOIA to refuse to confirm or deny that it holds any information within the scope of elements [2] and [3] of the request. In respect of element [1], the Commissioner considers that the public authority does not need to rely on exemptions because it does not hold any further information than that which it has already provided. The public authority breached section 10 of FOIA as it failed to provide confirmation or denial and to communicate non-exempt information within 20 working days. The Commissioner does not require further steps to be taken.Keywords/
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 31
View Gambling Commission
14 Jun 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information about deaths en route to the United Kingdom during migration journeys. The Home Office refused to confirm or deny whether it held information within the scope of the request, citing section 12(2) (cost of compliance exceeds appropriate limit) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Home Office was entitled to apply section 12(2) of FOIA and is satisfied that the Home Office met its obligation under section 16 of FOIA to offer advice and assistance. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12; FOI 16
View Home Office
14 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 Department of Health and Social Care
14 Jun 2023Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from Avon and Somerset Police (ASP) for the numbers of drivers involved in road traffic incidents with cyclists resulting in serious injury from 13 incident reports in 2021 and also the numbers of associated victim statements taken, fixed penalty notice (FPN) issued or convictions obtained for dangerous or careless driving. The Commissioner’s decision is that ASP 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.The Commissioner does not require ASP to take any further action.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Avon and Somerset Police
14 Jun 2023Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to a self-referral by the London Borough of Redbridge. The above public relied on section 31 (law enforcement) and 41 (breach of confidence) of FOIA to withhold the requested information. The Commissioner’s decision is that the public authority has correctly engaged section 31 in respect of all the requested information. However, the balance of the public interest only favours maintaining the exemption in respect of some of that information. For the remaining information, the balance of the public interest favoured disclosure at the point the request was responded to. For reasons that will be explained, the Commissioner does not consider that it would be proportionate to order remedial steps.Keywords: regulation, housing standards
Exemptions cited: FOI 31
View Regulator of Social Housing
13 Jun 2023Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information relating to odour complaints arising from a particular business facility. East Riding of Yorkshire Council (“the Council”) disclosed some information in response to the request.The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council was entitled to rely on regulation 12(4)(b) (manifestly unreasonable) of the EIR to refuse to comply with the rest of the request. However, he finds that the Council breached regulations 5(2), 14(2) and 11(4) of the EIR as it failed to provide its initial response and its internal review outcome within the statutory timeframes of 20 working days and 40 working days respectively.The Commissioner does not require the Council to take any further steps on this matter.
Exemptions cited: EIR 11(4); EIR 12(4)(b); EIR 14(2)(1); EIR 5(2)
View East Riding of Yorkshire Council
13 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 London Ambulance Service NHS Trust
13 Jun 2023Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested from Ulster University (the University) information related to communications between the University and businesses with regard to the awarding of Honorary Doctorates. The University stated it does not hold information falling within the scope of parts (i), (ii), (vi) and (ix) of the request. It also applied section 12(1) (cost of compliance) of FOIA to parts (vii) and (viii) of the request.The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the University does not hold information falling within the scope of some parts of the request and has complied with section 1(1) of FOIA. Where recorded information was held and had been disclosed to the complainant, the Commissioner cannot consider the adequacy of the information provided. The Commissioner also finds that the University was entitled to rely on section 12(1) of FOIA to refuse some parts of the request. However, he notes that the University had not complied with its obligations under sect
Exemptions cited: FOI 1(1); FOI 12(1); FOI 16
View Ulster University
13 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 HM Treasury
13 Jun 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested all correspondence regarding the appointment of the Department for Transport (the DfT) Aviation ambassador, for a second term. The Commissioner’s decision is that the DfT was entitled to rely on section 40(2), when refusing to disclose the requested information. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40(2)
View Department for Transport
13 Jun 2023Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information on a third party supplier used to conduct asylum interviews. The Home Office refused to provide any of the information requested and applied a number of exemptions to various parts of the request, namely section 31(1)(e) – the operation of immigration controls, section 40(2) – personal information, section 43(2) – commercial interests and section 44 – prohibitions on disclosure. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Home Office was correct to rely on section 31(1)(e) of FOIA for all the information withheld under this exemption. He finds that section 43(2) of FOIA has been correctly applied to the respective parts of the withheld information with one exception, (namely, the dates for the ‘proof of concept’ phase as detailed in the step below). He does not agree that either section 40(2) or section 44(1)(a) of FOIA are engaged at all. The Commissioner requires the Home Office to take the following steps within 35 calendar days of this notice to en
Exemptions cited: FOI 31; FOI 40; FOI 43; FOI 44
View Home Office
13 Jun 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from the Council relating to land adjacent to their property. The Council refused the request under section 14(1) of FOIA (vexatious requests). The Commissioner’s decision is that the request was vexatious and therefore the Council was entitled to rely upon section 14(1) of FOIA to refuse it. The Commissioner does not require any steps. First-tier tribunal (General Regulatory chamber) information rights appeal EA/2023/0299 appeal dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14(1)
View Halton Council
13 Jun 2023Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about accidents and speeding enforcement measures on a particular stretch of road. Dorset Police disclosed most of the requested information. However, it withheld information on some of the reasons why speeding tickets had been cancelled, citing sections 31(1)(a), (b) and (c) (Law enforcement) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that Dorset Police was entitled to rely on the cited exemptions to withhold most of the information. However, he found that a small amount of information was not exempt under section 31. The Commissioner requires Dorset Police to disclose the information identified in the confidential annex which accompanies this notice, which has been supplied only to Dorset Police. First-tier tribunal (General Regulatory chamber) information rights appeal EA/2023/0319 appeal allowed in part.
Exemptions cited: FOI 31(1)(a); FOI 31(1)(b); FOI 31(1)(c)
View Dorset Police
13 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 BBC
13 Jun 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information about a named hotel used to house migrants. The Home Office neither confirmed nor denied holding the requested information, citing section 38(2) (health and safety) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Home Office was entitled to rely on section 38(2) to refuse to confirm or deny whether it holds any information falling within the scope of the request. No steps are required as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: FOI 38
View Home Office
12 Jun 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to correspondence about the Conservative Summer Ball, which is held at the Victoria & Albert Museum (V & A). The Commissioner’s decision is that the V & A has correctly redacted information under section 40(2) of FOIA. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken by the V & A.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40(2)
View Victoria and Albert Museum
12 Jun 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to Swansea Airport. The Civil Aviation Authority refused to provide the requested information, citing section 31(1)(g) (law enforcement) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the CAA was correct to withhold the requested information under section 31(1)(g). The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 31(1)(g)
View Civil Aviation Authority
12 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
12 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 Department for Energy Security and Net Zero
12 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 HM Treasury
12 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 Southend-on-Sea City Council
12 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
12 Jun 2023Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to a grant awarded during the pandemic. Arts Council England (‘ACE’) disclosed information but also withheld information. The Commissioner’s decision is that: on the balance of probabilities, ACE has identified all information within the scope of the request and the majority of the withheld information can be withheld. The Commissioner requires ACE to take the following steps: disclose a copy of the grant withdrawal report with the information identified by the Commissioner, and all personal data, redacted.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 17; FOI 31(1)(a); FOI 31(3); FOI 41(1); FOI 42(1); FOI 42(2); FOI 43(2)
View Arts Council England
12 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 Sussex Police
9 Jun 2023Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The public authority has failed to respond to this request within 20 working days, as specified under the EIR.
Exemptions cited: EIR 5(2)
9 Jun 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested various items of correspondence, minutes and information in documents showing relating to Sport England, Bannister Athletics Club (BAC) and other parties communications. Sport England provided some information with redactions made under section 40(2) for personal data and stated other information was not held. The Commissioner’s decision is that Sport England has correctly applied the provisions of section 40(2) to redact names and contact information and that, on balance, it has provided all the information it holds following reasonable. First-tier tribunal (General Regulatory chamber) information rights appeal EA/2023/0326 under appeal. searches. The Commissioner does not require further steps. Information Tribunal EA/2023/0326 appeal allowed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 40
View Sport England
9 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 NHS England
9 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.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Ministry of Defence
9 Jun 2023Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information associated with the death of their relative. The Commissioner finds that St Neots Surgery (‘the Surgery’) doesn’t hold the requested autopsy report and complied with section 1(1) of FOIA in respect of that report and two other reports the complainant requested. However, the Surgery disclosed some of the requested statistical information for the period 2018 to 2021 and advised it didn’t hold earlier information. It has now identified it holds further relevant statistical information for the period from 2013/2014. The Commissioner’s final decision is therefore that the Surgery has breached section 1(1) of FOIA as it hasn’t communicated all the relevant information it holds. The Surgery responded to the request outside the 20-working day requirement and so also breached section 10(1).The Commissioner requires the Surgery to take the following step to ensure compliance with the legislation: Provide the complainant with the further relevant statisti
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10
9 Jun 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted two requests for information held by Loddon Parish Council (the parish council) about the recordings it made of specified meetings. The Commissioner’s decision is that the parish council is entitled to rely on section 14(1) – vexatious requests, of FOIA, as its basis for refusing both of the complainant’s requests.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14(1)
9 Jun 2023Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested from HM Treasury (HMT) information relating to Lord Amyas Morse and a formal agreement/contract concerning his appointment to lead a review of the Loan Charge . HMT responded to parts of the request but withheld information relating to part 4 and cited section 40(2) (personal information) and section 43(2) (commercial interests) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that HMT was not entitled to withhold information to part 4 of the request under section 40(2) or section 43(2) of FOIA. The Commissioner also finds HMT breached section 10 (time limits for compliance) of FOIA by not responding to the request within 20 working days. The Commissioner requires HMT to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation.• Disclose the withheld information – the total gross amount paid to Lord Morse and the amount of tax and national insurance deductionsThe public authority must take these steps within 35 calendar days of the date of this decision notic
Exemptions cited: FOI 40(2); FOI 43(2)
View HM Treasury
9 Jun 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested various items of correspondence, minutes and information in documents showing relating to Sport England, Bannister Athletics Club (BAC) and other parties communications. Sport England provided some information with redactions made under section 40(2) for personal data and stated other information was not held. The Commissioner’s decision is that Sport England has correctly applied the provisions of section 40(2) to redact names and contact information and that, on balance, it has provided all the information it holds following reasonable searches. The Commissioner does not require further steps. First-tier tribunal (General Regulatory chamber) information rights appeal EA/2023/0325 appeal allowed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 40
View Sport England
9 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.
Exemptions cited: FOI 17
View Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office
9 Jun 2023Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested the number of times books by specific authors were borrowed during specific years. The above public authority’s final position was to rely on section 40(2) of FOIA to withhold the most recent year’s data and to rely on section 12 of FOIA to refuse the remainder of the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the public authority has not applied section 40(2) of FOIA correctly and is consequently not entitled to withhold that information. The public authority is entitled to rely on section 12 of FOIA to refuse the remainder of the request. Finally the public authority breached section 17 of FOIA as it failed to issue a correct refusal notice within 20 working days. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. Disclose the total library loans for both of the requested authors in 2022 as well as the top three most loaned titles for both individuals.Keywords/themes: Public lending rig
Exemptions cited: FOI 12; FOI 17; FOI 40
View British Library
9 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 Oxford University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust
8 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 NHS England
8 Jun 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested various pieces of information about officers and staff at two named police stations from the Metropolitan Police Service (the “MPS”). The MPS has advised that to ascertain whether or not it holds the requested information would exceed the cost limit, citing section 12(2) of FOIA.The Commissioner’s decision is that it was entitled to do so. No steps are required.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12
View Metropolitan Police Service
8 Jun 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from Kent County Council (“the Council”) in relation to logos being removed from a festival poster. The Council refused to provide the information, relying on section 12(1) of FOIA – cost of compliance exceeds the appropriate limit. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council is entitled to rely on section 12(1) of FOIA to refuse the request. The Commissioner is satisfied that the Council provided sufficient advice and assistance to the complainant in both the original response and again once it had reconsidered it response in the internal review and as such, it has not breached section 16 of FOIA. The Commissioner does not require the Council to take any steps as a result of this decision notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12(1); FOI 16
View Kent County Council
8 Jun 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to school allocations. West Sussex County Council (the “council”) disclosed some information and confirmed that other information was not held. The Commissioner considers that, on the balance of probabilities, the council correctly confirmed that it does not hold the information identified in parts 2 and 3 of the request and that it complied with section 1(1) of the FOIA. The Commissioner does not require the council to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1(1)
View West Sussex County Council
8 Jun 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from Pendle Borough Council (‘the council’) relating to a licenced private dog seller. The council applied section 40(2) to withhold it from disclosure (personal data of third parties). The complainant argued that the redactions were incorrect and that further information should be held by the council. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council was correct to state that it holds no further information, and that it was entitled to rely on section 40(2) of FOIA to withhold other information. The Commissioner does not require the council to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 40(2)
View Pendle Borough Council