20 Apr 2023Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested a copy of a report relating to a review of its Information Management Unit (“IMU”) from Nottingham Police. Nottinghamshire Police disclosed some information but refused to disclose the remainder citing sections 40(2) (Personal information) and 31(1)(a)(b) (Law enforcement) of FOIA.
The Commissioner’s decision is that, where cited, section 40 has been properly applied. However, he finds that section 31 is not engaged. The Commissioner requires Nottinghamshire Police to disclose any information which has been withheld under section 31 and which is not exempt under section 40(2). Information Tribunal FTT EA/2023/0263 under appeal.
Exemptions cited: FOI 31; FOI 40
20 Apr 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from West Yorkshire Combined Authority relating to procedures for dealing suspected crimes by staff, action taken in relation to intercepted emails and the person responsible for responding to FOIA requests. West Yorkshire Combined Authority refused the request under section 14(1) of FOIA (vexatious requests). The Commissioner’s decision is that the request was vexatious and therefore West Yorkshire Combined Authority was entitled to rely upon section 14(1) of FOIA to refuse it. The Commissioner does not require any steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14
View West Yorkshire Combined Authority
20 Apr 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested to know the number of times the Home Secretary sent official Home Office correspondence from personal email accounts. The Home Office cited section 21 (Information accessible to applicant by other means) to refuse the request and referred the complainant to information on the matter on the GOV.UK website. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Home Office was entitled to rely on section 21 to refuse the request. The Commissioner requires no steps as a result of this decision.
Keywords/themes: Reasonably accessible
Exemptions cited: FOI 12
View Home Office
20 Apr 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted an information request to Spelthorne Borough Council (“the Council”) regarding an investigation report into the use of social media by a Councillor.
The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council was correct to withhold the information under section 40(2) of FOIA.
The Commissioner does not require the Council to take any further steps as a result of this decision notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View Spelthorne Borough Council
19 Apr 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information with regards to the Valuation Office Agency (the VOA) council tax database. The VOA refused the request under section 44(1)(a) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the VOA is correct to refuse the information under section 44(1)(a) of the FOIA. The Commissioner does not require any steps. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2023/0237 appeal dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 44
View Valuation Office Agency
19 Apr 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information about the Lockerbie bombing. Department for Transport (DfT) withheld the information under sections 23, 24, 27, 31, 38 and 40 of FOIA. These exemptions concern information supplied by or relating to bodies dealing with security matters, national security, international relations, law enforcement, health and safety and personal data respectively. The Commissioner’s decision is that DfT is entitled to withhold the requested information under section 24(1) of FOIA and the public interest favours non-disclosure. It is not necessary for DfT to take any corrective steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 24
View Department for Transport
19 Apr 2023Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested, from the Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC), information relating to a named, deceased police officer, including information about disciplinary matters, complaints and conduct reports. In response, IOPC cited sections 38(2) and 44(2) of FOIA (the ‘health and safety’ and ‘prohibitions on disclosure’ exemptions), thereby neither confirming nor denying whether IOPC holds the requested information. The Commissioner’s decision is that IOPC was not entitled to give a ‘neither confirm nor deny’ (NCND) response under either exemption. The Commissioner therefore requires IOPC to issue a fresh response to the request which confirms or denies that the requested information is held. If the requested information is held, it should either be disclosed or IOPC should issue an adequate refusal notice. IOPC 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 certificat
Exemptions cited: FOI 38; FOI 44
View Independent Office for Police Conduct
19 Apr 2023Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to communications between the British Army and the Royal Ulster Constabulary (RUC) after the McGurk’s Bar bombing in 1971. The Police Service of Northern Ireland (PSNI) refused the request under section 12 of FOIA (appropriate limit). PSNI said that to confirm or deny that the requested information was held would take longer than 18 hours and would therefore exceed the appropriate limit. The Commissioner’s decision is that PSNI was not entitled to refuse the request under section 12 of FOIA. The Commissioner requires the public authority to issue a fresh response to the complainant that does not cite section 12 of FOIA in respect of the duty to confirm or deny that the requested information is held. Information Tribunal FTT EA/2023/0260 Consent Order.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12
View Police Service of Northern Ireland
19 Apr 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested a closed extract from the parent record: PREM 19/4418/1 – ‘ROYAL FAMILY. Prince Charles’ interest in youth unemployment: The Princes Trust; The Princes Youth Business Trust; part 1’. The National Archives (TNA) withheld the information under sections 37(1)(a), 40(2) and 41(1) of FOIA, which concern communications with the Sovereign, personal data and information provided in confidence, respectively. The Commissioner’s decision is that TNA incorrectly cited section 37(1)(a). However, TNA is entitled to withhold the information, none of which is environmental information, under section 37(1)(ab) of FOIA. This is because the information comprises communications with a person who has subsequently acceded to the Throne. It is not necessary for TNA to take any corrective steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 37
View The National Archives
19 Apr 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information with regards to parking. Seascale Parish Council (the council) provided the information it held redacting some information under section 43(2) of the FOIA – commercially sensitive, and section 40(2) – third party personal data. The council later removed its reliance on section 43(2) of the FOIA, providing that information. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council was correct to redact the information it has under section 40(2) of the FOIA. The Commissioner does not require the council to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
19 Apr 2023Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information regarding the transfer of a specific set of files to the National Archives. The Department for Digital Culture, Media and Sport relies on sections 36(2)(c) and 40(2) to withhold requested information. The Commissioner’s decision is that Department for Digital Culture, Media and Sport has not persuaded him that section 36(2)(c) or 40(2) are engaged.
Exemptions cited: FOI 36; FOI 40
View Department for Culture, Media and Sport
19 Apr 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information regarding the honours nomination and assessment process. The Cabinet Office provided some information and withheld the remainder under Section 37(1)(b) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Cabinet Office has appropriately applied section 37(1)(b), the conferring by the crown of any honour or dignity, with the public interest favouring maintaining the exemption. The Commissioner does not require further steps. Information Tribunal appeal UA-2024-001167-GIA PTA refused.
Exemptions cited: FOI 37
View Cabinet Office
19 Apr 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested a copy of a Memorandum of Understanding between the Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC) and BioNtech SE. The DHSC withheld the information under the exemptions for information provided in confidence (section 41) and commercial interests (section 43). The Commissioner’s decision is that the DHSC correctly relied on section 41 to withhold the information. The Commissioner does not require the DHSC to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 41
View Department of Health and Social Care
19 Apr 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information associated with a particular visit to the University of Southampton in 2018. The University of Southampton (‘the University’) applied section 21 of FOIA to the information it holds as that information is already accessible to the complainant. Its position is that it holds no other relevant information and the Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, that is the case. He finds that the University has complied with section 1(1) of FOIA, and it is not necessary for it to take any corrective steps.
Keywords/themes: Mountbatten
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View University of Southampton
19 Apr 2023Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from the Department for Business, Energy & Industrial Strategy (“BEIS”)[1] about a consultation on units of measurement.
BEIS refused to provide the requested information under section 12(1) (cost limit) of FOIA.
The Commissioner’s decision is that BEIS has not sufficiently demonstrated that section 12 of FOIA applied to the request.
The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation:• Provide a fresh response to the request under FOIA that does not rely upon section 12.
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 FOIA and may be dealt with as a contempt of court.
[1] Although this request was submitted to BEIS, in February 2023 BEIS was replaced with a new gover
Exemptions cited: FOI 12; FOI 16
View Department for Business and Trade
18 Apr 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested correspondence between a named Minister and the Department for Culture, Media and Sport (‘DCMS’) relating to gambling regulation. DCMS provided some of the requested information and withheld the remainder under sections 36(2)(b)(i), 36(2)(b)(ii) and 36(2)(c) of FOIA (prejudice to the effective conduct of public affairs). The Commissioner’s decision is that DCMS was entitled to rely on sections 36(2)(b)(i), 36(2)(b)(ii) and 36(2)(c) of FOIA and that the balance of the public interest favours maintaining the exemptions. No steps are required as a result of this notice. First-tier tribunal (General Regulatory chamber) information rights appeal EA/2023/0239 appeal allowed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 36
View Department for Culture, Media and Sport
18 Apr 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to complaints by number and type at a specified property. The Home Office would neither confirm nor deny holding the 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. The Commissioner does not require the Home Office to take any steps as a result of this notice. First-tier tribunal (General Regulatory chamber) information rights appeal EA/2023/0290 appeal allowed.
Keywords/themes: Asylum seekers
Exemptions cited: FOI 38
View Home Office
18 Apr 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from South Kesteven District Council (“the Council”) relating to a code of conduct review panel hearing.
The Commissioner’s decision is that on the balance of probabilities, the Council does not hold further information within the scope of parts 1 and 2 of the request.
The Commissioner does not require the Council to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View South Kesteven District Council
18 Apr 2023Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
In a two part request, the complainant requested information from the Department for Work and Pensions (‘DWP’) relating to the Access To Work Scheme (‘ATW’). DWP advised it did not hold recorded information for question one and cited section 21 of FOIA (Information reasonably accessible to the applicant by other means) in relation to question two. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, DWP holds no recorded information relevant to the complainant’s request in question one and has complied with section 1(1) of FOIA. The Commissioner considers that DWP has failed to correctly interpret the request in question two. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation:
Issue a fresh response to the complainant in question two of the request, using the correct request interpretation, and either disclose the information or, in respect of any information it wishes to withhold, issue a refusal n
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Department for Work and Pensions
18 Apr 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from Reading Borough Council (“the Council”) in relation to independent complaints investigator sourcing, pay rates and the numbers involved per investigation. The Council explained that it did not hold some of the requested information, some information was withheld under section 40(2) of FOIA – personal information and for the remainder, it provided the information/explanation to answer the question. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council is correct to withhold the information under section 40(2) of FOIA and, on the balance of probabilities, it does not hold any further information in relation to the request. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps as a result of this decision notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 40
View Reading Borough Council
18 Apr 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested that the Council of the University of Cambridge (the University) provide a copy, or link to, the rules and regulations it “used to recruit” a named individual. The University’s position is the information is not held. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the University does not hold the requested information. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
18 Apr 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from the Department of Health and Social Care (“DHSC”) about correspondence relating to the types of potential integrated care contract providers during the formulation of the Health and Social Care Bill. DHSC advised that to ascertain whether or not the requested information was held would exceed the cost limit at section 12(2) (Cost of compliance exceeds appropriate limit) of FOIA.
The Commissioner’s decision is that DHSC was entitled to rely on section 12(2) and that it complied with its duties under section 16 (Advice and assistance) of FOIA. No steps are required.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12; FOI 16
View Department of Health and Social Care
18 Apr 2023Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from UK Anti-Doping (UKAD) related to tests carried out by UKAD in respect of footballers playing in teams subject to the jurisdiction of the Football Association. UKAD provided some information but withheld other information, citing section 31 of FOIA (law enforcement). The Commissioner’s decision is that UKAD appropriately cited section 31 of FOIA and that the public interest favours maintaining the exemption. However, it breached section 10(1) and 17(1) of FOIA. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 17; FOI 31
View UK Anti-Doping
18 Apr 2023Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to the covid-19 vaccines. The MHRA refused to comply with the request, citing section 14(1) (vexatious requests). The Commissioner’s decision is that the request was vexatious, in that to deal with the request would cause the MHRA a grossly oppressive burden. However, the MHRA breached section 17 (refusal of request). The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14; FOI 17
View Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency
18 Apr 2023Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The Commissioner’s decision is that the Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC) is entitled to refuse the complainant’s two requests for information about the COVID Pass letters service under section 12 of FOIA. This is because the cost of complying with section 1 of FOIA in respect of the requests would exceed the appropriate limit. There was no breach of section 16(1), which concerns advice and assistance, but DHSC’s refusal of the request of 18 October 2022 breached section 17(5) as it was not provided within the required timescale. It is not necessary for DHSC to take any corrective steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12; FOI 16; FOI 17
View Department of Health and Social Care
18 Apr 2023Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested a copy of a report. Wolston Parish Council (the council) stated that it did not create the report and therefore it is not held by it. The Commissioner’s decision is that the requested information is held by the council as per section 3(2) of the FOIA – Information held on behalf of. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. Issue a fresh response to the complainant’s request either providing the requested information or issuing a valid refusal notice under the FOIA. The council must take these steps within 35 calendar days of the date of this decision notice. Failure to comply may result in the Commissioner making written certification of this fact to the High Court pursuant to section 54 of FOIA and may be dealt with as a contempt of court.
Exemptions cited: FOI 3
18 Apr 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested the names and licence numbers of all organisations authorised to issue Certificates of Sponsorship for overseas workers coming to the UK. The Home Office referred the complainant to a list of sponsors which was in the public domain. However, it said that the individual licence numbers were exempt from disclosure under section 31(1)(e) (Law enforcement) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Home Office was entitled to rely on section 31(1)(e) of FOIA to refuse to disclose the individual licence numbers. The Commissioner does not require any steps as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: FOI 31
View Home Office
18 Apr 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
18 Apr 2023Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from the Office of Gas and Electricity Markets (Ofgem) relating to secondments to Ofgem.
The Commissioner’s decision is that Ofgem is not entitled to rely on section 40(2) (personal information) or section 44 (prohibitions on disclosure) of the FOIA to refuse to provide the withheld information.
The Commissioner requires Ofgem to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation.
Disclose the withheld information.
Ofgem 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 FOIA and may be dealt with as a contempt of court. Information Tribunal FTT EA/2023/0256 appeal withdrawn.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40; FOI 44
View Office of Gas and Electricity Markets
18 Apr 2023Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about an anonymous donation. The above public authority (“the public authority”) relied on sections 43 (commercial interests) and 40(2) of FOIA (third party personal data) in order to withhold the information. The Commissioner’s decision is that the public authority has correctly relied on section 40(2) of FOIA to withhold some information. Of the information that does not engage section 40, some engages section 43 and the balance of the public interest favours maintaining the exemption. The remaining information that has been identified does not engage either exemption. The public authority also holds more information than it originally identified and has therefore not complied with section 1 of FOIA. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: Disclose the information specified in the confidential annex; Either disclose a copy of the redacted part of Appendix One or iss
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 40; FOI 43
View The University of Oxford
18 Apr 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from the Investigatory Powers Commissioner's Office (IPCO) under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the Act). The IPCO did not comply with the request on the grounds that it did not consider itself a public authority within the meaning of the Act.The Commissioner’s decision is that the IPCO is not a public authority as defined within section 3(1) the Act. No steps are required.
Exemptions cited: FOI 3
View Investigatory Powers Commissioner's Office
18 Apr 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to a bid placed to the UK Community Renewal Fund. The Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (DLUHC) withheld the information under section 43(2) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the DLUHC was correct to apply section 43(2) to withhold the requested information. The Commissioner does not require the DLUHC to take any steps. Information Tribunal FTT EA/2023/0255 appeal withdrawn.
Exemptions cited: FOI 43(2)
View Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government
18 Apr 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information with regards to an alleged assault. The Commissioner’s decision is that St Peter's CofE Aided School (the school) should have neither confirmed nor denied holding the information under section 40(5B) of the FOIA. He also finds the school breached section 17(1) of the FOIA as it did not provide its response, refusing the request under 40(5B) of the FOIA, within the required 20 working days. As the Commissioner has proactively applied section 40(5B) of the FOIA in this case, he does not require any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
17 Apr 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 Ministry of Justice
17 Apr 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from West Yorkshire Police in relation to any enquiries it made into the alleged neglect by the Health Secretary of their duty to ensure contracts were appropriately awarded during the pandemic emergency. West Yorkshire Police responded by stating it did not hold any recorded formation falling within the scope of the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that West Yorkshire Police does not hold any recorded information falling within the scope of the complainant’s request based on the balance of probabilities. The Commissioner does not require West Yorkshire Police to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View West Yorkshire Police
17 Apr 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 Ministry of Justice
17 Apr 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to the Ministry of Defence (MOD) seeking information about the use of Hikvision cameras. The MOD refused to confirm or deny whether it held information falling within the scope of the request on the basis of sections 24(2) (national security), section 26(3) (defence) and 31(3) (law enforcement) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the MOD is entitled to rely on section 24(2) of FOIA to refuse to confirm or deny whether it holds the requested information and that in all the circumstances of the case the public interest favours maintaining this exemption. However, the Commissioner has also concluded that the MOD breached section 17(1) of FOIA by the failing to provide a response to the request within 20 working days.
Exemptions cited: FOI 24
View Ministry of Defence
17 Apr 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from North East Combined Authority (“the public authority”). The Commissioner’s decision is that the public authority was entitled to refuse to comply with the request in accordance with section 12(1) (cost limit) of FOIA. The Commissioner also finds that the public authority complied with its obligations under section 16 of FOIA to offer advice and assistance.
The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2023/0220 struck out.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12
View North East Mayoral Combined Authority
17 Apr 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 Medway Council
17 Apr 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested communications from the Attorney General’s Office (the ‘AGO’) regarding the Post Office Horizon Inquiry. The AGO would neither confirm or deny whether the requested information was held, citing section 35(3) of FOIA (formulation of government policy, etc) by virtue of section 35(1)(c) (the provision of advice by any of the Law Officers or any request for the provision of such advice). It said that the public interest test favoured maintenance of the section 35(3) exemption. The Commissioner’s decision is that the AGO was correct to neither confirm nor deny if this information was held and the public interest in this case supports this position. The Commissioner does not require the AGO to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 35
View Attorney General's Office
17 Apr 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to the Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office (FCDO) seeking information about the use of Hikvision cameras. The FCDO refused to confirm or deny whether it held information falling within the scope of the request on the basis of section 24(2) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the FCDO is entitled to rely on section 24(2) of FOIA to refuse to confirm or deny whether it holds the requested information and that in all the circumstances of the case the public interest favours maintaining this exemption.
Exemptions cited: FOI 24
View Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office
17 Apr 2023Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested copies of correspondence sent by Dodderhill Parish Council (“the Parish Council”). The Parish Council refused the request under section 12(1) of FOIA on the grounds that to comply with the request would exceed the cost limit.
The Commissioner’s decision is that the Parish Council has failed to demonstrate that the exemption is engaged.
The Commissioner requires the public authority to issue a fresh response to the request that does not rely on section 12(1) of FOIA to ensure compliance with the legislation.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12
14 Apr 2023Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about leases. Having first withheld the information because it was either not complete or was commercial and confidential, Sussex Partnership NHS Foundation Trust (‘the Trust’) subsequently confirmed that it is withholding the information under section 22, which concerns information intended for future publication. Based on the Trust’s submission to him, the Commissioner’s decision is that section 22(1) of FOIA is not engaged. In addition, the Trust’s refusal of the request did not meet the requirements of section 17 of FOIA. The Commissioner requires the Trust to take the following step to ensure compliance with the legislation: Disclose to the complainant the “head” and “sub” lease for the Medical Centre and the “Agreement for Leases” that they requested, with any personal data redacted as appropriate.
Exemptions cited: FOI 17; FOI 22
View Sussex Partnership NHS Trust
13 Apr 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 Sussex Police
13 Apr 2023Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from the London Borough of Bexley (the Council) regarding the petitions made to the Council. The Commissioner’s decision is that; On the balance of probabilities, the Council does not hold additional information within the scope of the request. The Council breached section 10(1) of FOIA, as it did not respond to the request within 20 working days of receiving the request. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10(1)
View Bexley Council
13 Apr 2023Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested a copy of legal advice King’s Lynn and West Norfolk Borough Council (the “council”) intended to obtain in relation to the diversion of a public footpath.
The council refused the request, citing section 42 (legal professional privilege) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (“FOIA”).
The Commissioner’s decision is that, at the time of the request, the council did not hold the information specified by the complainant; therefore it is entitled to rely on regulation 12(4)(a) of the EIR (information not held) as its basis for refusing the request.
However, as the council failed to issue its refusal notice within 20 working days, and also incorrectly considered the request under the FOIA rather than the EIR, the Commissioner has found a breach of regulation 14(2) and 14(3) of the EIR respectively.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(a); EIR 14(3); EIR 14(2)
13 Apr 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to properties managed by the Royal Parks (‘TRP’). TRP disclosed information in response to the request but withheld some under section 40(2) (personal information) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the withheld information engages section 40(2) as to disclose it would breach data protection principles. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View Royal Parks
13 Apr 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested whether other third year students (whose exams finished in May 2019) who attended St Mary’s University and lived at a specific address in council tax year 2018/2019, were subject to council tax liability by London Borough of Richmond-Upon-Thames (LBROT) Council and the amounts they were liable to pay. LBROT withheld the information, citing section S40(2) of the FOIA as its basis for doing so. The Commissioner’s decision is that LBROT was entitled to withhold the requested information under section 40(2)of FOIA. The Commissioner does not require LBROT to take any further steps to ensure compliance with the legislation.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40(2)
View Richmond upon Thames Council
13 Apr 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested from Mid & East Antrim Borough Council (the Council) the final terms of reference of a review into a sudden death. Initially the Council refused to provide the information, citing section 30 of FOIA but, after an internal review, stated that it did not hold the information. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council, on the balance of probability, does not hold the requested information. The Council does not need to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
13 Apr 2023Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted an information request to the Council of Queen Mary University of London (“the University”) requesting documents in relation to the changing of the name of a faculty.The Commissioner’s decision is that the University was entitled to rely on section 43(2) of FOIA to withhold the requested information. However, in failing to respond to the request, or provide a refusal notice within twenty working days upon receipt of the request, the Commissioner has determined that the University breached sections 10(1) and 17(1) of FOIA.The Commissioner does not require the University to take any further steps as a result of this decision notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10(1); FOI 17(5); FOI 43(2)