31 Mar 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 Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency
31 Mar 2023Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested from the Homes & Communities Agency (trading as Homes England) a ‘job evaluation score’. HE withheld the requested information under section 43(2) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that HE was not entitled to withhold the requested information under section 43(2). The Commissioner requires HE to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: Disclose the withheld information.
Exemptions cited: FOI 43(2)
View Homes England
31 Mar 2023Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS) to disclose 93 items from its Discovery database. FOS refused to comply with the request, citing section 14 of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that FOS is not entitled to rely on section 14 of FOIA in this case. The Commissioner requires FOS to issue a fresh response to the complainant which does not rely on section 14 of FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14
31 Mar 2023Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The public authority has failed to complete its public interest test considerations within a reasonable time in accordance with its obligations under FOIA. The Commissioner requires it to provide a substantive response to the request within 35 calendar days in accordance with its obligations under FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 17(3)
View Ministry of Justice
31 Mar 2023Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from Tavistock and Portman NHS Foundation Trust (“the Trust”) relating to communications between the Trust and the CEO of Mermaids UK between 2014 and 2018. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the Trust does hold information within the scope of the request. Consequently, the Commissioner finds that the Trust breached section 1(1) of the FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1(1)
View Tavistock and Portman NHS Foundation Trust
31 Mar 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested copies of all edicts issued to government departments by the Clearing House during 2019. The Cabinet Office confirmed that they did not hold the requested information.The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the Cabinet Office does not hold the requested information. The Cabinet Office have therefore correctly complied with their duty under section 1(1)(a) of the FOIA.The Commissioner does not require the Cabinet Office to take any steps as a result of this decision notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1(1)
View Cabinet Office
31 Mar 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
31 Mar 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
31 Mar 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to the University’s investment portfolio. The University disclosed some information in response to the request but also withheld some under section 43(2) (commercial interests). The Commissioner’s decision is that the withheld information engages section 43(2) and the public interest lies in maintaining the exemption. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 43(2)
View The University of Liverpool
30 Mar 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 Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency
30 Mar 2023Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested the number of maternity incidents meeting the threshold for a HSIB (Healthcare Safety Investigation Branch) investigation. NHS England relied on section 40(2) (third party personal data) and section 41 (breach of confidence) to withhold some information where the number of individuals is equal to or fewer than five. The Commissioner’s decision is that NHS England is entitled to rely on section 40(2) and section 41 to withhold the redacted information. However, the Commissioner has recorded a procedural breach of section 10(1) (time for compliance) of FOIA. The Commissioner does not require NHS England to take any steps as a result of this decision notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 40(2); FOI 41(1)
View NHS England
30 Mar 2023Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council (“the Council”) about an investigation in to the Chief Executive (“the Chief Executive”) of a charity (“the Charity”) to which the Council provided funding. The Council provided some information within the scope of the request, stated that some of the information requested was not held, refused parts of the request under section 12 of FOIA (cost of compliance) and section 14(2) of FOIA (repeat request) and withheld some information under section 40 of FOIA (personal information) and section 36 of FOIA (prejudice to the effective conduct of public affairs). The Commissioner’s decision is as follows: on the balance of probabilities, the Council does not hold any information within scope of parts 3,4 and 6 of the request; the Council has failed to demonstrate that section 12 is engaged as a basis for refusing to respond to parts 5,7,8 and 9 of the request; the Council was not entitled to rely on section 14(2
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 12; FOI 14(2); FOI 36(2)(c); FOI 40(2)
View Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council
30 Mar 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant made a request on 23 January 2023 for minutes of the Executive Assurance Groups between October to December 2022. The Trust refused to comply with the request as it considers it to be vexatious under section 14 FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that section 14 FOIA was correctly relied upon in this case. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2023/0187 appeal dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14
View Liverpool University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust
30 Mar 2023Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant made a request on 7 July 2022 for the details of 49 specified contracts identified on a spreadsheet provided in response to an earlier FOIA request. The Trust initially refused to comply with the request under section 12 FOIA as it said it would exceed the cost limit to do so. In a previous Decision Notice, under the reference IC-197247-G1W7, the Commissioner found that the Trust had incorrectly applied section 12 FOIA and ordered the Trust to issue a fresh response. The Trust subsequently issued a fresh response providing information in relation to the second part of the request and confirming that no further information was held under section 1 FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that on the balance of probabilities the Trust does hold further information in relation to this request, specifically the 49 contracts in their entirety. The Trust therefore incorrectly confirmed that no further information was held under section 1(1)(a) FOIA. However the Commissioner consi
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 14
View Liverpool University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust
30 Mar 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from the Royal Borough of Greenwich (“the Council”) relating to an injunction which the Council had taken out against them. The Council disclosed some information and stated it did not hold anything further. 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: FOI 1
View Royal Borough of Greenwich
30 Mar 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested a health risk assessment for tree removal works carried out by the Environment Agency (“EA”). The EA advised that it does not hold information within the scope of the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that on the balance of probabilities, the EA does not hold the information requested and regulation 12(4)(a) of the EIR is engaged. The Commissioner does not require the EA to take any steps. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2023/0227 appeal struck out.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(a)
View Environment Agency
30 Mar 2023Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to the Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office (FCDO) seeking information from 2017 onwards held by its internal audit department about Transparency International. The FCDO confirmed that it held information falling within the scope of the request but it considered this to be exempt from disclosure in its entirety on the basis of sections 27(1)(c) and (d) (international relations), section 31(2)(f) (law enforcement), section 40(2) (personal data) and section 43(2) (commercial interests) of FOIA. The FCDO subsequently disclosed a redacted version of the information, relying on some of the above exemptions to redact information, and also withheld some documents in full on the basis of section 41(1) (information provided in confidence) of FOIA. During the course of the Commissioner’s investigation the FCDO confirmed that it was willing to remove some, but not all, of these redactions. The Commissioner has concluded that the FCDO has correctly app
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 27; FOI 40; FOI 41; FOI 43
View Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office
30 Mar 2023Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted three identical multi-part requests in a ten-day period to the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) requesting a wide range of information about their and other individuals’ transfer from a legacy benefit to Universal Credit and about DWP’s computer systems. DWP refused the first request on the basis of section 12(1) (costs exemption) of FOIA and the second and third requests on the basis of section 14(2) (repeat requests) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that DWP has correctly cited section 12(1) FOIA in response to the first request and that it also complied with its obligations under section 16(1) FOIA to provide adequate advice and assistance to the complainant. However, section 14(2) FOIA does not apply to the second and third requests and therefore DWP is not entitled to rely upon it to refuse those requests. In the particular circumstances of this case, however, the Commissioner has exercised his discretion and does not require DWP to take any
Exemptions cited: FOI 12(1); FOI 14(2)
View Department for Work and Pensions
30 Mar 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested various information in respect of Court Farm. Brighton and Hove City Council (‘the Council’) refused the request on the basis of section 14(1) (vexatious request) FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has correctly applied section 14(1) to the request. The Commissioner does not require further steps. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2023/0230 appeal dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14(1)
View Brighton and Hove City Council
30 Mar 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information about meetings and correspondence of specific external organisations attended by a member of the University of Chester’s staff, within a specific timeframe. The Commissioner’s decision is that the University of Chester (“the University”) does not hold the requested information. The Commissioner does not require the University to take any steps as a result of this decision notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1(1)
View University of Chester
30 Mar 2023Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested the following information to the Department for Business, Energy & Industrial Strategy (BEIS): ‘Details about the number of gas meters that are found to be faulty each year or the last 10 years’ and ‘… the results of the IST since 2013’.BEIS provided information in response to the second aspect of the request but withheld information related to the first aspect, relying on the exemption under section 44(1)(a) of FOIA (prohibitions on disclosure). Specifically, BEIS cited the statutory prohibition on disclosure created under the terms of Section 105 of the Utilities Act 2000.The Commissioner’s decision is that, on balance of probabilities, BEIS was correct to withhold the information under section 44(1)(a) of FOIA. The Commissioner does not require BEIS to take any further steps in this case.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10(1); FOI 17; FOI 44(1)(a)
View Department for Business and Trade
30 Mar 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to the Ministry of Defence (MOD) seeking information about a particular Reaper drone strike attack on an individual described as a "known terrorist" in Syria in October 2021. The MOD provided a small amount of information falling within the scope of the request but explained that the remaining information was exempt from disclosure on the basis of sections 24(1) (national security), 26(1)b) (defence), 27(1)(a) (international relations) and 42(1) (legal professional privilege) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the withheld information is exempt from disclosure on the basis of sections 26(1)(b) and 27(1)(a) of FOIA. First-tier tribunal (General Regulatory chamber) information rights appeal EA/2023/0240 appeal withdrawn.
Exemptions cited: FOI 26; FOI 27
View Ministry of Defence
30 Mar 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested official briefing information relating to reports of people being drugged via drinks or needles. The Home Office refused the request, on the grounds that the information was exempt from disclosure under sections 23 (Information supplied by, or relating to, security bodies), 31 (Law enforcement) and 35 (Formulation of government policy) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Home Office was entitled to rely on section 35(1)(a) to refuse the request. Keywords: Spiking
Exemptions cited: FOI 35
View Home Office
30 Mar 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to the Ministry of Defence (MOD) seeking a copy of her father’s medical record for particular period in the 1950s. The MOD confirmed that it held information falling within the scope of the request but refused to disclose this on the basis of section 41(1) (information provided in confidence) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the MOD is entitled to refuse to disclose the information on the basis of section 41(1) of FOIA. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2023/0231 appeal allowed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 41
View Ministry of Defence
30 Mar 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested from the Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office (the FCDO), information regarding surveillance on residents, tenants or visitors to the Ecuadorean embassy in London. The FCDO refused to confirm or deny whether it held information within the scope of the request and cited sections 23(5) (Security bodies), 24(2) (National security) and 27(4) (International relations) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the FCDO is entitled to rely on these exemptions as its basis for refusing to confirm or deny whether it holds the requested information. However, the FCDO breached section 10 (time limits for compliance) of FOIA by not responding to the request within 20 working days. The Commissioner does not require the FCDO to take any steps as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: FOI 23; FOI 24(2); FOI 27
View Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office
30 Mar 2023Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested an unredacted copy of the Broadlands Archive Agreement (the “new request”). The complainant had previously requested this information in 2017 (the “previous request”) and received a redacted copy of the agreement following a First Tier Tribunal decision. In response to the new request, the Council of the University of Southampton (the University) continued to rely on sections 40(2) and 41 of FOIA to withhold the redacted information. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the University failed to properly reconsider whether the exemptions relied on to redact information when responding to the previous request still applied to the redacted information when responding to the new request. Consequently, the Commissioner finds that the University has breached section 1 of FOIA. The Commissioner requires the University to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: carry out a proper review of the redacted i
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
30 Mar 2023Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from the Department for Communities (the DFC) relating to the Affordable Warmth Scheme. The complainant disputes that the DFC has disclosed all of the information which it holds. The Commissioner’s decision is that the DFC did not carry out sufficient searches to confirm, on a balance of probabilities, whether some of the requested information is held by it. He has also decided that it was not correct to state that other information was not held by it. The Commissioner therefore requires the DFC to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. To respond again to part 4(a) of the request, and to carry out further searches and to respond again to part 4(b) of the request for information as required by section 1 of FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Department for Communities (Northern Ireland)
29 Mar 2023Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information relating to planning applications and correspondence regarding these agreements for the High Road West Scheme. The Commissioner’s decision is that London Borough of Haringey (the Council) has correctly relied on regulation 12(4)(b) when refusing these requests. However, the Council has breached regulation 9 by failing to provide advice and assistance. The Commissioner requires the Council to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. Provide the complainant with advice and assistance in accordance with regulation 9 of the EIR. 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 the Act and may be dealt with as a contempt of court. Information Tribunal FTT appeal EA/2023/0151 withdrawn.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(b); EIR 9
View Haringey Council
29 Mar 2023Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information from Warwick District Council (“the Council”) relating to site visits that took place at St Mary’s Lands.The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council holds further information within the scope of the request. The Commissioner requires the Council to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation.The Council must provide the complainant with a fresh response in relation to the information referred to at paragraph 16 below, that the Commissioner has found is held on behalf of the Council. That fresh response must either disclose the information in question, or give a valid ground under the EIR for refusing to disclose that information. 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: EIR 5(1)
View Warwick District Council
29 Mar 2023Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to HM Treasury (HMT) seeking emails sent or received by a named Director General containing the term ‘loan charge’ for a seventeen day period in January 2020. HMT disclosed some information in response to the request but redacted parts of it on the basis of section 40(2) (personal data) of FOIA and withheld information on the basis of section 35(1)(a) (formulation and development of government policy). During the course of the Commissioner’s investigation HMT disclosed the majority of the information previously withheld on the basis of section 35(1)(a). It also located further information which it disclosed, with some redactions on the basis of sections 35(1)(a), 36(2)(b)(ii) (effective conduct of public affairs) and 40(2). The Commissioner’s decision is that HMT is entitled to rely on sections 35(1)(a) and 36(2)(b)(ii) to withhold information in the manner in which it has. For both sections, the Commissioner is satisfied that the balance of the publ
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 35(1)(a); FOI 36(2)(b)(ii)
View HM Treasury
29 Mar 2023Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested the criminal record of a deceased journalist. The National Police Chiefs’ Council (the “NPCC”) refused to provide the requested information citing sections 38 (1) (Health and safety) and 40(2) (Personal information) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that section 40 is engaged in respect of a small amount of the withheld information. He finds that section 38 is not engaged. The Commissioner requires the NPCC to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: disclose the criminal record, withholding the names of any third parties and any private addresses. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2023/0233 appeal withdrawn.
Exemptions cited: FOI 38; FOI 40
View National Police Chiefs Council
29 Mar 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information about the terms of letting a café owned by Somerset West and Taunton Council. The Commissioner decided that some commercially confidential information had been correctly withheld by Somerset West and Taunton Council relying on the section 43(2) (Commercial interests) FOIA exemption. The Commissioner did not require Somerset West and Taunton Council to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 43
29 Mar 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to the work of the Commission on Race and Ethnic Disparities (“the Commission”). Cabinet Office refused to disclose the requested information, and in doing so, relied on section 36(2)(b)(i)(ii) and 36(2)(c) of FOIA (prejudice to the effective conduct of public affairs) and section 12 of FOIA (cost of compliance exceeds appropriate limit) to withhold the information.The Commissioner’s decision is that Cabinet Office has correctly applied the section 12 of FOIA to withhold the information. No steps are required.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12
View Cabinet Office
29 Mar 2023Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information held by Harrogate Borough Council (the council) about planning permissions that relate to the opening times of a particular business. The council provided some information in response to the request. It withheld the remaining information under regulation 12(5)(b) – course of justice, of the EIR. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council is entitled to rely on regulation 12(5)(b) as its basis for refusing to release part of the information that is relevant to the request. However, as the council failed to issue a refusal notice within 20 working days, and did not carry out an internal review within 40 working days, the Commissioner has found a breach of regulation 14(2) and 11(4) of the EIR, respectively.
Exemptions cited: EIR 11(4); EIR 12(5)(b); EIR 14(2)(1)
29 Mar 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested a fairness analysis conducted into anti-fraud measures by the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP). DWP refused to disclose this information on the basis of section 31(1)(a), the prevention and detection of crime. The Commissioner’s decision is that DWP is entitled to rely on section 31(1)(a) and the public interest favours maintaining the exemption. The Commissioner does not require any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 31
View Department for Work and Pensions
29 Mar 2023Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information from Warwick District Council (“the Council”) relating to site visits that took place at St Mary’s Lands.
The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council holds further information within the scope of the request.
The Commissioner requires the Council to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation.
The Council must provide the complainant with a fresh response in relation to the information referred to at paragraph 16 below, that the Commissioner has found is held on behalf of the Council. That fresh response must either disclose the information in question, or give a valid ground under the EIR for refusing to disclose that information.
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: EIR 5(1)
View Warwick District Council
29 Mar 2023Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to a Ministerial Direction sought in respect of the High Street Stimulus Scheme in Northern Ireland. The Department for the Economy withheld the requested information in reliance on the exemptions at section 35(1)(a) (formulation or development of government policy) and section 35(1)(b) (Ministerial communications) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that section 35(1)(a) and section 35(1)(b) are engaged with respect to the requested information. However he finds that the public interest in maintaining the exemptions claimed does not outweigh the public interest in disclosure. The Commissioner requires the Department to disclose the requested information to the complainant.
Exemptions cited: FOI 35
28 Mar 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested from HM Treasury (‘HMT’) all communications and information about meetings between the then Chancellor, Rishi Sunak (‘Chancellor’), and the Governor of the Bank of England, Andrew Bailey (‘Governor’), from 21 October to 4 November 2021. HMT disclosed some information but refused to provide information relating to a meeting held on 20 October 2021, citing section 29 of FOIA (prejudice to the economy). During the course of the Commissioner's investigation, HMT confirmed that it was also seeking to rely on section 36(2)(c) (prejudice to effective conduct of public affairs) and section 40(2) (personal data).The Commissioner’s decision is that HMT has correctly applied section 29(1) to the withheld information. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: FOI 29(1)(a); FOI 29(1)(b)
View HM Treasury
28 Mar 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant made a three-part request regarding paper copy of maps held of the List of Streets in a specific area from Powys County Council (the “Council”). The Council provided a response to part one which stated they no longer keep physical maps of the road network and that they have a database of ‘on screen’ maps which may be worked from and that a ‘copy map’ of a specific area can be provided for a charge. They provided information for part two and advised that part three was exempt citing regulation 6(1)(b).The Commissioner’s decision is that Powys County Council holds no physical copies of information relevant to the complainant’s request at part one and regulation 12(4)(a) of the EIR is engaged, and that regulation 6(1)(b) of the EIR is engaged for part three of the request. However, the Council did not provide an internal review within the timeframe set out under regulation 11(4) of the EIR.The Commissioner does not require any steps to be taken as a result of this decision
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(a); EIR 6(1)(b)
View Powys County Council
28 Mar 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The Commissioner’s decision is that Tees Valley Combined Authority is entitled to refuse the request under Section 12(2) of FOIA as the cost of complying with Section 1(1) would exceed the appropriate limit.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12(2)
View Tees Valley Combined Authority
28 Mar 2023Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested correspondence and communications between The Prince of Wales and Prime Minister Boris Johnson concerning the Covid-19 pandemic. The Cabinet Office initially confirmed that they held no information which was environmental in nature which related to the request and refused the request under regulation 12(4)(a) of the Environmental Information Regulations 2004 (EIR). In respect of any information held that was not environmental in nature, the Cabinet Office neither confirmed nor denied whether they held such information in reliance on exemptions 37(1)(aa)(communications with the heir to the Throne), 40(2)(third party personal data) and 41(1)(information provided in confidence).The Cabinet Office partially revised their position at internal review, maintaining that none of the information requested by the complainant was environmental in nature and that the request therefore falls under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA) and not the EIR. The Commissio
Exemptions cited: FOI 10(1); FOI 37(2)
View Cabinet Office
28 Mar 2023Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from the Department for Transport (‘the public authority’). The Commissioner’s decision is that the request was not a vexatious request. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following step to ensure compliance with the legislation: Issue a fresh response to the complainant, which does not rely on section 14(1) of FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14
View Department for Transport
28 Mar 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 Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office
28 Mar 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the University of Exeter (‘the University’) holds no further email correspondence about remuneration matters falling within scope of the request. As such, the University complied with section 1(1) of FOIA. The University was entitled to redact some information in the disclosed emails under section 43(2) as it is commercially sensitive information. It is not necessary for the University to take any corrective steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 43
View The University of Exeter
28 Mar 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested DHSC to disclose all correspondence between Matt Hancock and [named redacted] relating to government business from 1st January 2021 to 29 June 2021 which was not conducted on their departmental email accounts. DHSC initially applied section 14 of FOIA but at the internal review stage split the request into two. For email accounts, it set up a new request, carried out searches and confirmed that it does not hold any information. For other personal devices including WhatsApp, it delayed processing the internal review whilst it considered its position further. During this time it was able to transfer any WhatsApp messages over to another system and carry out the required searches. It therefore withdrew its application of section 14 of FOIA for this element of the request, carried out the required searches and again confirmed that it does not hold the information. The Commissioner has considered the request as a whole and decided that, on the balance of probabilit
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Department of Health and Social Care
28 Mar 2023Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested from HM Treasury (“HMT”) information exchanged between a named official and any other individual which lead to the decision to select Sir Amyas Morse to head the government’s review into its Loan Charge policy over a specific timeframe. It relied on provisions of section 36 (effective conduct of public affairs) and section 40 (contravention of data protection law) as its basis for doing so. It upheld this at internal review. The Commissioner’s decision is that HMT is entitled to rely on the exemptions it cited as its basis for refusing this request with respect to most of the withheld information. However, it is not entitled to withhold the number of other potential candidates that were considered for the role of heading the aforementioned review. This information is not exempt from disclosure. The Commissioner requires HMT to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: Disclose the number of potential candidates that were initially
Exemptions cited: FOI 36; FOI 40
View HM Treasury
28 Mar 2023Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to British Army activity in Belfast 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 is not satisfied that PSNI has demonstrated that confirming or denying that the requested information is held would exceed the appropriate limit. The Commissioner requires PSNI 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/2023/0247 Consent Order.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12
View Police Service of Northern Ireland
28 Mar 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested DfT to disclose correspondence sent to or from the Secretary of State for Transport relating to 26, 27 and/or 28 February 2022, in which discussions took place over a flight which took off from Inverness Airport to Moscow on 26 February 2022. DfT refused to disclose the requested information, citing sections 27(1)(a) and (b), 35(1)(b) and 36(2)(b)(ii) of FOIA. At internal review, it also stated that it wished to rely on sections 35(1)(a), 40 and 42 of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that DfT is entitled to rely on sections 35(1)(a) and (b) and 36(2)(b)(ii) of FOIA. He therefore does not require any further action to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 35(1)(a); FOI 35(1)(b); FOI 36(2)(b)(ii)
View Department for Transport
28 Mar 2023Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has submitted a request to The Grange Trust (“the Trust”) for information relating to the IT systems used, the processing locations and data storage.The Commissioner’s decision is that the Trust did not comply with sections 1(1) and 10(1) of FOIA.As the Trust has now disclosed all the outstanding information in response to the complainant’s request, the Commissioner does not require the Trust to take any further steps as a result of this decision notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1(1); FOI 10(1)
27 Mar 2023Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested various information in respect of an Accessibility Email Group (the AEG) from Transport for Wales (TfW). TfW confirmed that it did not hold some information and refused the remainder of the request on the basis of section 40(2) (personal information), section 41 (information provided in confidence), and section 21 (information accessible to the applicant by other means) FOIA. During the course of the Commissioner’s investigation, TfW disclosed redacted copies of some of the emails to the complainant. The Commissioner’s decision is that TfW has complied with its obligations under section 1(1) FOIA and that it was entitled to rely on section 40(2), section 41 and section 21 for the information it does hold. However, its failure to disclose the redacted copies of some of the emails until recently, represents a breach of section 10(1) FOIA. Additionally, the Commissioner has also recorded a breach of section 17(1) as a result of TfW’s failure to issue its refusal
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10(1); FOI 17; FOI 21; FOI 40(2); FOI 41
View Transport for Wales Rail