21 Mar 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested distributional and equality analyses associated with the Spring Statement 2022. HM Treasury (HMT) withheld the information citing section 35(1)(a). During the Commissioner’s investigation, HMT confirmed that due to the passage of time, it was content to disclose some of the requested information. Following this, the complainant disputed that HMT had identified all of the information falling within the scope of the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, HMT has identified all of the information falling within the scope of the request. He also finds that HMT is entitled to rely on section 35(1)(a) to withhold the remaining information. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 35
View HM Treasury
21 Mar 2023Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about stats and briefings produced relating to three policy areas. The Department of Work and Pensions (“DWP”) refused the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that, in respect of part [1] of the request, DWP has breached section 1(1) of FOIA by failing to confirm what information is held within scope of the request. The Commissioner also finds that DWP has not complied with section 17(5) of FOIA as it did not provide the complainant with a refusal notice stating which exemptions it is relying on to refuse the request. Furthermore, the Commissioner finds that, while the exemption is not explicitly stated within DWP’s responses to both the complainant and the Commissioner, DWP has not sufficiently demonstrated that section 12(1) is engaged therefore it is not entitled to rely on the exemption to refuse the request. The Commissioner requires DWP to issue the complainant with a fresh response to part [1] of the request that does not rely on sec
Exemptions cited: FOI 1(1); FOI 12(1); FOI 17(5)
View Department for Work and Pensions
20 Mar 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested from NHS Sussex Integrated Care Board (ICB) information outlining what any new medical practice in Brighton and Hove should contain. The ICB stated that it did not hold any information falling within scope. The Commissioner’s decision is that the ICB does not hold the requested information. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View NHS Sussex ICB
20 Mar 2023Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from the Financial Ombudsman Service (‘FOS’) relating to its policies, procedures and standards. The FOS initially applied section 12(1) of FOIA to the request, however it eventually withdrew this and disclosed some of the requested information to the complainant, provided links to some further information, and stated that it did not hold the remainder. The Commissioner’s decision is that the FOS has not complied with sections 1, 10 and 17 of FOIA.The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation.To issue a fresh response to the complainant in relation to part b of their request, which does not state that the information is not held.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 ma
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10; FOI 17
20 Mar 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The Commissioner’s decision is that a request about a BBC ‘Panorama’ documentary that the complainant submitted to the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) can be categorised as a vexatious request under section 14(1) of FOIA. The FCA is not obliged to comply with the request, and it is not necessary for the FCA to take any steps. First-tier tribunal (General Regulatory chamber) information rights appeal EA/2023/0180 appeal disposed of by consent order.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14
View Financial Conduct Authority
20 Mar 2023Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant made a request for information regarding complaints about a named surgeon. Gateshead Health NHS Foundation Trust (the Trust) refused to confirm or deny whether it holds the requested information under section 40(5B)(a)(i) FOIA. The Commissioner considers that the Trust incorrectly applied section 40(5B)(a)(i) FOIA to refuse to confirm or deny whether the requested is held. The Commissioner requires the Trust to provide a response confirming or denying whether the requested information is held in compliance with section 1(1)(a) FOIA. If this information is held this should be disclosed in accordance with section 1(1)(b) FOIA or the Trust should explain the exemptions from disclosure being relied upon in accordance with its obligations under section 17 FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View Gateshead Health NHS Trust
20 Mar 2023Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information from the London Borough of Lambeth (“the Council”) relating to planning enforcement action carried out by the Council.The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council is entitled to rely on regulation 12(4)(b) (manifestly unreasonable) of the EIR to refuse to provide the information requested in part 4(b) of the request. However, he finds that the Council failed to provide reasonable advice and assistance and therefore failed to meet its obligations under regulation 9 of the EIR.The Commissioner requires the Council to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation.Provide the complainant with advice and assistance to help them submit a less burdensome request.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
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(b); EIR 9
View London Borough of Lambeth
20 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 the system used to detect vehicles wrongly using bus lanes. 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
20 Mar 2023Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to the installation of a road barrier and bollards by Forestry Commission England.
The Commissioner’s decision is that Forestry Commission England has failed to issue a response to the request that complies with the requirements of section 1(1) of the FOIA. Specifically, it has failed to conduct sufficient searches to determine if it holds information within scope of question 5 of the request in order to provide an adequate response.
The Commissioner also finds that the public authority did not comply with its obligations under section 16 of FOIA to offer advice and assistance. The Commissioner requires the public authority to provide advice and assistance to the complainant to clarify its understanding of the word ‘blocked’ used in the request, conduct appropriate for the information and provide a fresh response which is adequate for the purposes of the FOIA. It must not rely on the assertion that information is not held on th
Exemptions cited: FOI 1(1); FOI 16
View Forestry Commission
20 Mar 2023Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested ‘data and insights into customers’ top areas of concern’ collated by the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP). The Commissioner’s decision is that DWP has failed to fully consider all of the information specified in the complainant’s request. The Commissioner requires DWP to issue a fresh response to the complainant that considers all of the information falling within the scope of the request and either disclose the information or, in respect of any information it wishes to withhold, issue a refusal notice within the meaning of section 17 of FOIA providing a basis for withholding the information. Specifically, DWP should provide a fresh response in relation to the information that led to the breakdown of customers’ top areas of concern and the information provided by ACSSLs to Senior Leadership Teams and the Serious Case Panel. The public authority must take these steps within 35 calendar days of the date of this decision notice. Failure to comply may re
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Department for Work and Pensions
20 Mar 2023Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested a copy of specific guidance from Natural England. Natural England (‘NE’) provided a copy of the guidance, with redactions made under regulation 12(5)(a) (public safety) of the EIR. The Commissioner’s decision is that some, but not all, of the redacted information engages regulation 12(5)(a). The Commissioner requires NE to take the following steps: disclose the information identified in the confidential annex.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(a)
View Natural England
20 Mar 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested a copy of a report relating to governance. The Commissioner’s decision is that Colchester Royal Grammar School (‘CRGS’) has applied section 22 correctly in this case. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 22
View CLITHEROE ROYAL GRAMMAR SCHOOL
18 Mar 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant made a request for information relating to Blackmore Bonds. The FCA refused to comply with the request under section 14(1) FOIA as it considers the request to be vexatious. The Commissioner’s decision is that the FCA was entitled to rely on section 14(1) of FOIA to refuse the request. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14
View Financial Conduct Authority
18 Mar 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The Commissioner’s decision is that the three requests about Amyma/Blackmore Bond that the complainant submitted to the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) can be categorised as vexatious requests under section 14(1) of FOIA. The FCA is not obliged to comply with the requests, and it is not necessary for the FCA to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14
View Financial Conduct Authority
18 Mar 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about its investments from the University of Cambridge (‘the University’).The University has withheld some information under sections 41 and 43 of FOIA which concern information provided in confidence and commercial interests respectively. The Commissioner’s decision is that the information in question was provided in confidence, and the University is entitled to withhold it under section 41(1) of FOIA. It is not necessary for the University to take any corrective steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 41
View The University of Cambridge
18 Mar 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant made 7 requests for information relating to Blackmore Bonds. The FCA refused to comply with the requests under section 14(1) FOIA as it considers the requests to be vexatious. The Commissioner’s decision is that the FCA was entitled to rely on section 14(1) of FOIA to refuse these requests. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2023/0202 appeal allowed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14
View Financial Conduct Authority
17 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 the recruitment of the Head of Legal Services. The Commissioner’s decision is that on the balance of probabilities, the Council does not hold information within the scope of parts 3, 4 and 5 of the request. The Commissioner does not require the Council to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Royal Borough of Greenwich
17 Mar 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to the taxation treatment of Queen Elizabeth II contained within the diaries of Sir John Colville. Churchill College (the “College”) refused the request, arguing that it does not hold the information for the purposes of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the College does not hold the requested information for the purposes of the FOIA. The Commissioner does not require the College to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 3
17 Mar 2023Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant, a law firm acting on behalf of a client, requested information held by Hertford Heath Parish Council (the parish council) relating to a Neighbourhood Plan. The parish council advised that it believed that it had provided all of the information held in response to the request, with the exception of a small amount of information which it confirmed had been withheld under regulation 13 – third party personal data, of the EIR. During the Commissioner’s investigation, the parish council then identified and released some additional information to the complainant. The Commissioner has decided that the withheld information does not actually fall within the scope of the request. Furthermore, the Commissioner is satisfied that the parish council has, on the balance of probabilities, now identified and released all of the information that it holds, or that is held on its behalf, which is relevant to the request.However, as the parish council failed to disclose all the relevant in
Exemptions cited: EIR 11(4); EIR 5(1); EIR 5(2)
17 Mar 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to a previous decision notice issued by the Commissioner regarding the University of London’s handling of a request for information. The ICO refused the request as vexatious. The Commissioner’s decision is that the ICO was entitled to rely on section 14(1) of FOIA to refuse the request because the request was vexatious. The Commissioner does not require further steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14(1)
View Information Commissioner
17 Mar 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from HM Treasury (“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.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12(1)
View HM Treasury
17 Mar 2023Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant made a three-part request for correspondence and documentation which is part of the Lord Mountbatten archive at the University of Southampton. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council of the University of Southampton (the University) has correctly applied section 21 of FOIA to part two of the request. In respect of part three of the request, he is satisfied that, on the balance of probabilities, the University does not hold the information. However, the Commissioner has recorded a procedural breach of section 17 of FOIA. The Commissioner does not require the University to take any steps as a result of this decision notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 17; FOI 21
17 Mar 2023Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested the closed file PREM 19/4954 ROYAL FAMILY. HRH The Prince of Wales: part 3. The National Archives (TNA) provided some environmental information contained within the requested information. It withheld the remaining information contained within the requested file under section 37(1)(a)(communications with the Sovereign), section 40(2)(personal data) and section 41(1)(information provided in confidence) as it did not consider this constituted environmental information.The Commissioner’s decision is that TNA breached regulation 5(2) EIR as it took 60 working days to provide the environmental information held falling within the scope of the request. However TNA has correctly withheld the remaining requested information from disclosure under section 37(1)(a) of FOIA. The Commissioner does not require TNA to take any remedial steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 5; FOI 37
View The National Archives
17 Mar 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested copies of any formal applications made to Her Majesty's Treasury (HMT) for catch-up funding. The Department for Education (DfE) refused the request under section 35 of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the DfE has correctly applied the exemption and the public interest lies in withholding the information. The Commissioner does not require the DfE to take any steps as a result of this decision notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 35
View Department for Education
17 Mar 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) relating to ICO staff resources and internal policy documents. The ICO refused the request under section 14(1) of FOIA (vexatious request).The Commissioner’s decision is that the request was vexatious and therefore the ICO was entitled to rely upon section 14(1) of FOIA to refuse it.The Commissioner does not require any steps to be taken as a result of this decision notice. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2023/0209 appeal allowed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14(1)
View Information Commissioner
16 Mar 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information about a change in boundary to a Site of Nature Conservation Interest (SNCI). Bristol City Council (the “council”) confirmed that it did not hold the requested information. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the council does not hold any information falling within the scope of the request. The Commissioner does not require the council to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(a)
View Bristol City Council
16 Mar 2023Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to Lancaster University (“the University”) for information regarding the Senior Learning Group.The Commissioner’s decision is that the University is entitled to rely on section 21 of FOIA and section 40(2) to withhold some of the requested information. He also considers that on the balance of probabilities, the University does not hold the information in relation to question six. However, he does not agree, with the University, that question nine is speculative. The Commissioner requires the University to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation.Disclose any information held falling within the scope of question nine. The public authority must take these steps within 35 calendar days of the date of this decision notice. Failure to comply may result in the Commissioner making written certification of this fact to the High Court pursuant to section 54 of the Act and may be dealt with as a contempt of court.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1(1); FOI 21; FOI 40(2)
View The University of Lancaster
16 Mar 2023Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, Mount Grace School (‘the School’) does not hold information within scope of parts 2 and 4 complainant’s request about personnel matters; the School complied with section 1(1)(a) of FOIA in respect of those parts. In respect of parts 1 and 3 of the request, the Commissioner has decided that the fees notice that the School issued to the complainant under section 13(1) of FOIA was not valid as it would not exceed the cost limit under section 12(1) to comply with those two parts. The School must take the following step to ensure compliance with the legislation: Either provide the complainant with a fresh response to parts 1 and 3 of the request that does not rely on section 12 of FOIA or issue the complainant with a fees notice that complies with section 9 of FOIA and regulation 6 of the Fees Regulations.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 12
16 Mar 2023Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested specified information relating to patients admitted between 15/12/2021 and 15/01/2022 categorised by those who have not received a COVID-19 vaccination and those who have received one or more doses of vaccine. The Trust provided most of the information, but not broken down by vaccination status (as it said that this was not held). It did not provide the number of patients admitted to intensive care with COVID-19 that had underlying health conditions (part 3 of the request) as it said it would exceed the cost limit under section 12 FOIA to do so. The Commissioner’s decision is that section 12 FOIA was incorrectly applied to part 3 of the request. The Commissioner requires the public authority to provide a fresh response under FOIA to part 3 of the request that does not rely upon section 12 FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12
View Lewisham and Greenwich NHS Trust
16 Mar 2023Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
Summary wording for website: The complainant requested information from the London Borough of Hackney (“the Council”) relating to the borough’s employment of social workers. The Council refused to comply with the request citing section 12 (cost limit) of FOIA.The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council was entitled to refuse to comply with the request in accordance with section 12(1) of FOIA. However, the Council did not comply with its obligations under section 16 to offer advice and assistance and failed to respond within 20 working days, therefore breaching section 10(1) of FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 12(1); FOI 16
View London Borough of Hackney
16 Mar 2023Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about meetings where police injury pensions were discussed. Dorset Police disclosed all the information it said it held which fell within the request’s scope. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, Dorset Police does not hold any further information in relation to this request. However, Dorset Police breached sections 1(1)(b) and 10(1) of FOIA by disclosing some information outside of the statutory time for compliance. The Commissioner requires no steps as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10
View Dorset Police
16 Mar 2023Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about a contract with the Good Governance Institute (GGI). The above public authority provided some information, but stated that no further information was held – with the exception of a proposal document that was exempt under section 43 of FOIA (commercial interests). The Commissioner’s decision is that the public authority has identified all the information it holds within the scope of the request. The proposal document engages section 43 of FOIA and the balance of the public interest favours maintaining the exemption. The public authority breached sections 10 and 17 of FOIA as it failed to disclose all the non-exempt information or issue an adequate refusal notice within 20 working days.The Commissioner does not require further steps to be taken.Keywords: procurement, Covid-19, third party consultation
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10; FOI 17; FOI 43
View King's College Hospital NHS Foundation Trust
16 Mar 2023Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information with regards to a housing contract. London Borough of Lewisham (the council) refused the request under section 14(1) of the FOIA as it deemed the request was vexatious. The Commissioner’s decision is that section 14(1) is not engaged and that the council breached section 10(1) of the FOIA as it did not issue a response within the required 20 working days. 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 accordance with the FOIA without relying on section 14(1) of 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 14
View Lewisham Council
16 Mar 2023Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant made a request regarding a bus route diversion between August 2022 and October 2022. Transport for London (“TfL”) refused to comply with part 3 of the request citing section 12 FOIA (cost limit) as it said it would exceed the cost limit to determine whether information was held. The Commissioner’s decision is that section 12 FOIA was incorrectly applied to part 3 of the request. The Commissioner requires the public authority to provide a fresh response under the FOIA to part 3 of the request not relying upon section 12 FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12
View Transport for London
16 Mar 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested communications between Gary Hoffman and Lord Grimstone, from the Department for International Trade (DIT). The DIT disclosed relevant information and has withheld some under sections 27, 41 and 43 of FOIA, which concern international relations, information provided in confidence and commercial interests respectively. On 7 February 2023, a machinery of government change was announced whereby the DIT was merged into a new government department, the Department for Business and Trade (‘the Department’).This Decision Notice has therefore been issued to the Department in respect of information originally requested from the DIT. However, for the sake of consistency, the Commissioner will refer to ‘the Department’ as both the public authority to whom the request was made and the public authority that dealt with the complaint.The Commissioner’s decision is that the Department is entitled to withhold the information the complainant has requested under sections 27(1)
Exemptions cited: FOI 27; FOI 43
View Department for Business and Trade
16 Mar 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about a government campaign to encourage the return to office working towards the end of the covid pandemic. The Commissioner’s decision, on the balance of probabilities, is that Cabinet Office does not hold the requested information.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Cabinet Office
16 Mar 2023Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information related to a Case for Change proposal. The Council for Catholic Maintained Schools (“CCMS”) refused the request under the exemption for information intended for future publication (section 22 of the FOIA). The Commissioner’s decision is that CCMS has failed to demonstrate that the exemption in section 22 is engaged. The Commissioner requires CCMS to provide the complainant with the requested information and/or; issue a new response to the complainant, not relying on section 22 of the FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 22
View Council for Catholic Maintained Schools
16 Mar 2023Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from the London Borough of Lewisham (‘the public authority’). The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the public authority does not hold any further information within the scope of the request. The Commissioner also finds that the public authority breached section 10(1) of FOIA by failing to provide some of the relevant information it held within 20 working days. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10
View Lewisham Council
15 Mar 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested from Greater Manchester Police (GMP) information relating to a police investigation case. GMP withheld the requested information and cited section 30(1)(a) (investigations and proceedings), section 38(1) (Health and Safety) and section 40(2) (personal information) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that GMP was entitled to rely on section 30(1)(a) of FOIA to refuse the request. Therefore, the Commissioner does not require GMP to take any steps as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: FOI 30(1)
View Greater Manchester Police
14 Mar 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested copies of correspondence between the London Borough of Havering (“the Council”) and the Environmental Agency about fly-tipping. The Council provided the information but relied on Regulation 13(1) of the EIR to redact some sections. The Commissioner’s decision is that Council is entitled to rely on the exception to withhold the information.
Exemptions cited: EIR 13(1)
View London Borough of Havering
14 Mar 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from the Ministry of Justice (“the MoJ”) regarding expense claims made by, and paid to a specific District Judge. The MoJ withheld the information, citing section 40(2) of FOIA – personal information and section 38(1)(a) and (b) of FOIA – health and safety. The Commissioner’s decision is that the MoJ has correctly withheld the requested information under section 40(2) of FOIA. The Commissioner does not requires the public authority to take any further steps as a result of this decision notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40(2)
View Ministry of Justice
14 Mar 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information about the drainage scheme for a planning application. The above public authority provided some information, but the complainant believes more is held. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the public authority has provided all the information it holds in recorded form. The Commissioner does not require further steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: EIR 5(1)
View Isle of Wight Council
14 Mar 2023Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information from Cotswold District Council (“the Council”) relating to a section 106 agreement.The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has failed to demonstrate that regulation 12(4)(b) is engaged and therefore, is not entitled to rely on this exception.The Commissioner requires the Council to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation.Issue a fresh response to the request that does not rely on regulation 12(4)(b) 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 FOIA and may be dealt with as a contempt of court.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(b)
View Cotswold District Council
14 Mar 2023Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The Commissioner’s decision is that Staffordshire University (‘the University’) correctly applied section 36(2)(b)(i) of FOIA to the requested health and safety report as disclosing the report would be likely to inhibit the free and frank provision of advice. To the degree that any information in the report is environmental information, regulation 12(4)(e) of the EIR is engaged, which concerns internal communications. However, for both section 36(2)(b)(i) and regulation 12(4)(e) at the time of the request the public interest favoured disclosing the report. The Commissioner requires the University to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: Disclose the inspection report that falls within scope of the complainant’s request, with any personal data redacted as appropriate.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(e); FOI 36
14 Mar 2023Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from Swansea Bay University Health Board (‘the public authority’) regarding staff subject to disciplinary action. The Commissioner’s decision is that the public authority was entitled to rely on section 40(2) of FOIA to withhold some, but not all, of the requested information. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following step: disclose the information requested at part [1] of the request to the complainant, that is, the number of staff at Morriston Hospital subject to disciplinary process between 25 January and 20 March 2022.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
14 Mar 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about three east London schoolgirls who went to Syria in 2015, from the Home Office. The Home Office would neither confirm nor deny (“NCND”) holding the requested information citing sections 23(5) (Information supplied by, or relating to, bodies dealing with security matters), 24(2) (National security) and 27(4) (International relations) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that sections 23(5) and 24(2) are properly engaged. No steps are required.
Exemptions cited: FOI 23; FOI 24
View Home Office
14 Mar 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from the Home Office relating to its “Desistance and Disengagement Programme”. The Home Office refused to provide the requested information, citing sections 24(1) (National security) and 40(2) (Personal information) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Home Office was entitled to rely on section 24(1) to withhold the requested information. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: FOI 24
View Home Office
14 Mar 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to incidents/accidents for the Old Bailey within a specified timeframe. The MoJ initially considered the information was exempt from disclosure. It revised its position during the Commissioner’s investigation and provided the information it holds that falls within the scope of the request. The complainant disputed the amount of information disclosed. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the MoJ does not hold further information within the scope of the request. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Ministry of Justice
14 Mar 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information about the highest value Independent Savings Account (ISA) in the UK. HM Revenue & Customs (HMRC) relied on section 44(1) of the FOIA (statutory prohibition on disclosure) to withhold the information. The Commissioner’s decision is that the public authority has correctly relied upon section 44 of the FOIA. The Commissioner does not require any steps to be taken. First-tier tribunal (General Regulatory chamber) information rights appeal EA/2023/0164 appeal dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 44
13 Mar 2023Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (“BEIS”) relating to the strategy document ‘Working safely during coronavirus (COVID-19)’. BEIS refused to comply with the requested citing section 12 (cost limit) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that BEIS was entitled to reuse to comply with the request in accordance with section 12(1) of FOIA. The Commissioner also finds that BEIS did not comply with its obligations at section 16 to offer advice and assistance. However, appropriate advice and assistance has been provided via BEIS’s response to the Commissioner’s investigation. The Commissioner does not require BEIS to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12(1); FOI 16
View Department for Business and Trade