30 May 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested from the Insolvency Service, information regarding HR1 forms pertaining to redundancies at the UKHSA Rosalind Franklin Laboratory and conducted by Medacs. The Insolvency Service relied on section 43(3) (commercial interests) of FOIA to neither confirm or deny whether it held the information requested. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Insolvency Service was entitled to rely on section 43(3) of FOIA to neither confirm or deny whether information was held. Therefore, the Commissioner does not require the Insolvency Service to take any steps as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: FOI 43(3)
View The Insolvency Service
26 May 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 Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office
26 May 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The applicant requested information about air quality targets. Defra directed the applicant to some relevant information that is already in the public domain. Defra advised that it did not hold some of the information and so regulation 12(4)(a) of the EIR was engaged in respect of that information. Defra subsequently identified one piece of relevant information that it did hold and which it disclosed. Defra had also originally refused to disclose some information under regulation 12(4)(e), which concerns internal communications. However, due to the passage of time that information was subsequently published. The Commissioner’s decision is as follows:Defra correctly applied regulation 12(4)(a) of the EIR to the parts of the request to which it had applied this exception because, on the balance of probabilities, it does not hold that information or any further relevant information. Defra breached regulation 5(2) of the EIR in respect of some of the information it disclosed. This is becau
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(a)
26 May 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 Avon and Somerset Police
26 May 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information from Balderton Parish Council (“the Council”) in relation to a proposal for boating to be allowed on Balderton Lake. The Council refused the request, citing regulation 12(4)(b) of the EIR. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council is entitled to engage regulation 12(4)(b) of the EIR to refuse the request. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps as a result of this decision notice.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(b)
26 May 2023Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information about EBacc (English Baccalaureate) exams from Board of Trustees South West Essex Community Education Trust (Marshalls Park Academy) (“the Trust”). By the date of this notice the Trust had not issued a substantive response to this request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Trust 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 Trust must provide a substantive response to the request in accordance with its obligations under FOIA. The Trust 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
26 May 2023Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information about EBacc (English Baccalaureate) exams from Board of Trustees South West Essex Community Education Trust (William Edwards School) (“the Trust”). By the date of this notice the Trust had not issued a substantive response to this request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Trust 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 Trust must provide a substantive response to the request in accordance with its obligations under FOIA. The Trust 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
25 May 2023Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information regarding complaint policy from Humberside Police (the Police). By the date of this notice the Police had not issued a substantive response to this request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Police 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 Commissioner requires the Police to take the following step to ensure compliance with the legislation. The Police must provide a substantive response to the request in accordance with its obligations under FOIA. The Police 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
View Humberside Police
25 May 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested the pay grades of the Town Clerk, the Deputy Town Clerk, and the previous Locum Clerk. Broseley Town Council withheld the information under section 40(2) (Personal information) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has correctly applied section 40(2). The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40(2)
25 May 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested Defra to disclose information relating to the investigation it carried out into the 2022 heatwave and how this affected broiler chickens in the UK. Defra provided a little information in response to one element but refused to disclose the recorded information it holds in accordance with section 35(1)(a) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that Defra is entitled to refuse to disclose the withheld information in accordance with section 35(1)(a) of FOIA. He does not require any further action to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 35(1)(a)
25 May 2023Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested for copies of all plans and drawings relating to the proposed development of Mitcham Gasworks by St William. London Borough of Merton Council (“the Council”) disclosed some of the information to the complainant but withheld the remaining information under regulation 12(5)(f) of EIR.The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council is not entitled to rely on regulation 12(5)(f). He also finds that the Council failed to respond to the complainant’s information request within the statutory timeframe of 20 working days. On this basis the Commissioner finds that the Council breached regulation of 5(2) of EIR.The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation:Disclose the withheld information to the complainant. ORIssue a fresh response to the request, which does not rely on regulation 12(5)(f) of EIR. The public authority must take these steps within 35 calendar days of the date of this decision no
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(f)
View Merton Council
25 May 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about a visit from a member of the royal household. The above public authority provided some information but relied on section 40(2) of FOIA to withhold personal data. The complainant believes further information is held. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the public authority has identified all the information it holds. The Commissioner also considers that section 40(2) of FOIA has been correctly applied. The Commissioner does not require further steps to be taken. First-tier tribunal (General Regulatory chamber) information rights appeal EA/2023/0295 appeal dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 40
View University of Southampton
25 May 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant made a request to the Northern Ireland Prison Service (NIPS) which is an agency within the Department of Justice (DoJ) in Northern Ireland. The Commissioner considers the DoJ to be the appropriate public authority in this case. The DoJ refused to provide the information citing section 35(1)(a) (formulation and development of government policy) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the DoJ has correctly relied on section 35(1)(a) of FOIA. The Commissioner does not require any steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 35
View Department of Justice (Northern Ireland)
25 May 2023Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to complaints made about police officers. By the date of this notice Chief Constable of Northumbria Police (‘the Police’) had not issued a substantive response to this request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Police 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 Commissioner requires the Police to take the following step to ensure compliance with the legislation. The Police must provide a substantive response to the request in accordance with its obligations under FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Northumbria Police
25 May 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to any police incidents at a named residential property. Hampshire Constabulary refused to confirm or deny whether any information was held, citing Section 30(3) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that Hampshire Constabulary were entitled to rely on Section 30(3) to neither confirm nor deny holding the requested information, and the public interest lies with maintaining the exemption. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 30
25 May 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested various information in respect of a published ‘Audit Report - lessons learnt London Road Municipal Buildings’. Newark and Sherwood District Council (“the Council”) provided some limited information but withheld the bulk of the information relevant to the request on the basis of section 36 (prejudice to the effective conduct of public affairs) and section 42 (legal professional privilege). The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council should have considered the request under the Environmental Information Regulations 2004 (the EIR) and that regulation 12(4)(e) (internal communications) and regulation 12(5)(b) (the course of justice) are engaged in respect of the withheld information. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(e); EIR 12(5)(b)
View Newark and Sherwood District Council
25 May 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to alleged historical child abuse at Kerklevington Detention Centre (“KDC”) from the late 1960s to the early 1980s.The Commissioner’s decision is that the Chief Constable of Cleveland Police (“the Police”) was entitled to apply section 12(1) of FOIA, and he is satisfied that the Police met its obligations under section 16(1) to offer advice and assistance. No steps are required.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12(1)
View Cleveland Police
25 May 2023Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about complex care pathways. The above public authority refused the request as vexatious. The Commissioner’s decision is that the request was not vexatious and therefore the public authority was not entitled to rely on section 14(1) of FOIA to refuse it. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: provide a fresh response, to the request, that does not rely on section 14(1) of FOIA.Keywords: disability
Exemptions cited: FOI 14
View Essex Partnership University NHS Foundation Trust
25 May 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested a list of email addresses and names of staff at the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman’s (‘the LGSCO). The LGSCO has withheld this information citing section 40(2) (personal information), and by extension 40(3)(a), of FOIA as its basis for doing so. The Commissioner’s decision is the LGSCO is entitled to rely upon section 40(2) as a basis for refusing to disclose the requested information. The Commissioner requires no further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40(2)
View Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman
25 May 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information contained in his complaint files. The above public authority has issued a response under SAR, but the complainant believes some may fall under FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that any information falling within the scope of the request is the complainant’s own personal data and the public authority would thus be entitled to rely on section 40(1) of FOIA to withhold it. The Commissioner does not require further steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40(1)
25 May 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to the Cabinet Office seeking correspondence between Ministers and Baroness Mone (Michelle Mone), PPE Medpro and Anthony Page (a director of PPE Medpro). The Cabinet Office initially withheld this information on the basis of section 43(2) (commercial interests) of FOIA. During the course of the Commissioner’s investigation of this complaint the Cabinet Office sought to rely on section 23(1) (security bodies) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the requested information is exempt from disclosure on the basis of section 23(1) of FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 23
View Cabinet Office
25 May 2023Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested the public authority to disclose the number of export licence applications made by a particular company to export Aero-Engines or their related components, to Israel for military end-use by the State of Israel from 2016-present. They also asked for certain information relating to each application. Initially the public authority said that it did not hold any recorded information, it however later, took a broader interpretation of the request and confirmed that there are three applications. It refused to disclose all information for two applications, citing section 41 and 43 of FOIA. For the third, it disclosed all information except the description of goods, citing the same exemptions. The Commissioner’s decision is that the public authority is not entitled to rely on section 41 or 43 of FOIA. He requires the public authority to disclose all remaining withheld information to the complainant.
Exemptions cited: FOI 41; FOI 43
View Department for Business and Trade
25 May 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested a copy of communications referenced in minutes of a meeting held on 6 December 2021, and a copy of a report referenced in minutes of a meeting held on 14 March 2022. The Commissioner’s decision is that Belfast Metropolitan College (“the College”) has correctly cited section 36(2) in response to the complainant and the balance of public interest favours withholding the requested information.
Exemptions cited: FOI 36
25 May 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested communications between the Civil Aviation Authority (‘CAA’) and the Air Travel Trust (‘ATT’). The CAA refused to comply with the request, citing section 12(1) (cost of compliance exceeds appropriate limit). The Commissioner’s decision is that section 12(1) is engaged. The Commissioner doesn’t require the CAA to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12(1); FOI 16
View Civil Aviation Authority
25 May 2023Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested, from Pembrokeshire County Council (“the Council”), a copy of an audit report produced in relation to processes relating to a redevelopment project at South Quay. The Commissioner’s decision is that the requested information is environmental information within the definition at regulation 2(1)(c) of the EIR. The request should, therefore, have been handled by the Council under the EIR rather than the FOIA. The Commissioner requires the Council to reconsider the request under the provisions of the EIR and issue a fresh response to the complainant.
Exemptions cited: EIR 2(1)(c)
View Pembrokeshire County Council
25 May 2023Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested a particular document regarding the investment management group Abraaj from British International Investment PLC (BII). BII provided some information but refused to provide all of it, citing sections 36, 40(2) and 43(2) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that, although section 36 of FOIA is engaged, the public interest favours the disclosure of the withheld information. He has also decided that section 43(2) is engaged but that the public interest favours disclosure except for the information specified below. BII also breached sections 1 and 10 of FOIA by responding late and releasing information beyond the time for compliance. The Commissioner requires BII to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation.• Disclose the information BII withheld under section 36 of FOIA.• Disclose the information BII withheld under section 43(2) of FOIA with the exception of the information withheld under that exemption on p.2 and p.11.After the de
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10; FOI 36; FOI 43(2)
25 May 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested a copy of the London Borough of Hackney Council’s information asset register. The London Borough of Hackney Council (“the Council”) withheld the requested information, citing Section 31(1)(a) (prevention and detection of crime) of FOIA. The Commissioner has concluded that the Information Asset Register is not exempt from disclosure on the basis of sections 31(1)(a) and 40(2) of FOIA. The Commissioner requires the Council to disclose this to the complainant. First-tier tribunal (General Regulatory chamber) information rights appeal EA/2023/0309 under appeal.
Exemptions cited: FOI 31(1)
View London Borough of Hackney
25 May 2023Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to Birmingham City Council (“the Council”) for information relating to works carried out in Georges Park. The Commissioner’s decision is that the request was vexatious and therefore the Council was entitled to rely on section 14(1) of FOIA to refuse it. However, in failing to respond to the request within the statutory timescale, the Commissioner has determined that the Council breached section 10(1) of FOIA. The Commissioner does not require further steps as a result of this decision notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10(1); FOI 14(1)
View Birmingham City Council
25 May 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to Birmingham City Council (“the Council”) for information relating to a funding application by the Friends of Georges Park. The Commissioner’s decision is that the request was vexatious and therefore the Council was entitled to rely on section 14(1) of FOIA to refuse it.The Commissioner does not require further steps as a result of this decision notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14(1)
View Birmingham City Council
25 May 2023Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested from the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities information about the salary and job evaluation scoring for a post. The DLUHC withheld the requested information under section 43(2) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the DLUHC was not entitled to withhold the requested information under section 43(2). The Commissioner requires the DLUHC to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: Disclose the withheld information.
Exemptions cited: FOI 43(2)
View Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government
24 May 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 Humberside Police
24 May 2023Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to Sussex Police’s investigation of the drone incident at Gatwick Airport in December 2018. The Commissioner’s decision is that Sussex Police were entitled to rely on Section 30(3) of the FOIA to neither confirm nor deny whether information was held. The Commissioner does not require further steps. Information Tribunal FTT EA/2023/0272 appeal allowed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 17; FOI 30
View Sussex Police
24 May 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from HM Revenue & Customs (HMRC) relating to the total number of opened enquiries into individuals. HMRC refused to comply with the request citing section 12 (cost limit) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that HMRC was entitled to refuse to comply with the request in accordance with section 12(1) of FOIA. The Commissioner has also decided that HMRC complied with its duty under section 16 to provide advice and assistance when a complaint exceeds the cost limit. The Commissioner does not require HMRC to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12(1); FOI 16
24 May 2023Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested from the Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office (FCDO) information relating to staff employed by the FCDO based in the British Embassy Beijing and British Consulates General in Hong Kong, Shanghai, Wuhan and Guangzhou. The FCDO withheld information to part 1 of the request under section 24(1) (national security) of FOIA. It also refused to confirm or deny whether it holds any additional information in scope of the request and cited section 23(5) (security bodies) of FOIA. With regard to parts 2 and 3 of the request, the FCDO confirmed the information is not held.The Commissioner’s decision is the FCDO was entitled to rely on section 24(1) of FOIA to some of the withheld information, and that the public interest favours maintaining the exemption. The Commissioner also finds that the FCDO was entitled to refuse to confirm or deny whether it holds any additional information in scope of the request and correctly relied on section 23(5) of FOIA. However, th
Exemptions cited: FOI 10(1); FOI 23; FOI 24
View Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office
24 May 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information from Hertsmere Borough Council (“the Council”) relating to a specific public house.The Commissioner’s decision is that on the balance of probabilities, the Council does not hold further information within the scope of the request. The Commissioner does not require the Council to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 5(1)
View Hertsmere Borough Council
24 May 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 St Helens and Knowsley Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust
24 May 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
24 May 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to the London Borough of Brent (“the Council”) for information relating to its complaints process.The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council was entitled to refuse the request under section 21(1) of FOIA.The Commissioner does not require further steps as a result of this decision notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 21
View London Borough of Brent
24 May 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested correspondence between Danny Alexander, vice president and corporate secretary of the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank and HM Treasury and minutes of relevant meetings. The Commissioner’s decision is that HM Treasury correctly relied on sections 27 and 35 to withhold requested information. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 27; FOI 35
View HM Treasury
24 May 2023Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information from Cheshire East Council (“the Council”) about Council procedures for staff entering private land in order to carry out highway repairs. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the Council does not hold any further information within the scope of the request, beyond that which it has already disclosed. However, the Council has breached regulation 5(2) by failing to respond to the request within 20 working days. The Commissioner does not require the Council to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(a); EIR 5(2)
View Cheshire East Council
24 May 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from the Ministry of Justice (the MoJ) relating to the decision not to publish guidance. The Commissioner’s decision is that the MoJ was entitled to rely on section 40(2) when refusing this request. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40(2)
View Ministry of Justice
24 May 2023Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested from Liverpool University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust (“the Trust”) the minutes from various committee meetings. The Trust disclosed the requested committee meeting minutes but withheld some information contained within the minutes citing section 40(2) (personal information) and section 43(2) (commercial interests) of the FOIA as its basis for doing so. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Trust is not entitled to rely on section 40(2) to withhold any information. He finds that the Trust is entitled to rely on section 43(2) to withhold some information contained within the requested meeting minutes. However, some of the withheld information does not engage section 43(2).The Commissioner requires the Trust to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation.The Trust must disclose the information withheld under section 40(2) of the FOIA. It must also disclose the information withheld under section 43(2) detailed within the annex below.Th
Exemptions cited: FOI 40(2); FOI 43(2)
View Liverpool University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust
24 May 2023Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested detailed information related to the Discount Market Sale affordable housing from the London Borough of Ealing Council (LBEC).The Commissioner’s decision is that LBEC was correct to rely on Regulation 13(1) to withhold third party personal data.The Commissioner has found that LBEC was in breach of the regulation 5(2) as they failed to respond to the information request within the required time of 20 working days. The Commissioner does not require LBEC to take any steps in relation to this breach.The Commissioner has also found LBEC in breach of regulation 11(4) as it failed in its duty to provide reconsideration or internal review within 40 working days after receipt of the representations.The Commissioner is aware that LBEC, at the Commissioner’s request, has now provided their internal review to the complainant. Therefore the Commissioner does not require LBEC to take any further steps in relation to this breach.Finally, The Commissioner’s decision is tha
Exemptions cited: EIR 11(4); EIR 12(4)(b); EIR 13(1); EIR 5(2); EIR 9(1)
View Ealing Council
24 May 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 Oxfordshire County Council
24 May 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from the Cabinet Office relating to the career of Prince Andrew. The Commissioner’s decision is that the public authority is entitled to rely on section 40(2) of FOIA to withhold all of the requested information. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View Cabinet Office
24 May 2023Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested the public authority to disclose cancer statistics for the local authority area of Plymouth and the Plymouth Cancer Centre, broken down by the first half of a postcode. The public authority disclosed some information but refused to disclose the remainder citing section 22 and 40 of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the public authority is not entitled to rely on section 22 and 40 of FOIA. The Commissioner requires the public authority to disclose all remaining withheld information to the complainant for the entire timeframe specified in the original request. First-tier tribunal (General Regulatory chamber) information rights appeal EA/2023/0304/GDPR appeal dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 22; FOI 40
View NHS England
24 May 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 Wirral University Teaching Hospital NHS Foundation Trust
23 May 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)
23 May 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to payments made by the Council. Mid and East Antrim Borough Council disclosed information subject to some redactions under section 40(2) (Personal information) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has correctly applied section 40(2). The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40(2)
23 May 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information regarding the use of parking spaces from Hastings Borough Council (“the Council”). The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council was entitled to rely on section 31 when refusing to disclose the requested information. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 31
View Hastings Borough Council