8 Mar 2023Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to the relocation of Shell’s tax residence to the UK. The Commissioner’s decision is that the withheld information engages section 43(2) and the public interest lies in maintaining the exemption. However, in failing to respond to the request, or provide a refusal notice, within twenty working days upon receipt of the request, the Treasury breached section 10 (time limits for compliance) and section 17 (refusal of request) of FOIA. The Commissioner does not require further steps. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2023/0196 appeal withdrawn.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 17; FOI 43(2)
View HM Treasury
8 Mar 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about historical records. The above public authority refused the request as vexatious. The Commissioner’s decision is that the public authority 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.Keywords: President Tsai
Exemptions cited: FOI 14
View London
8 Mar 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information with regards to the Winter Gardens. Blackpool Entertainment Company Limited (BECL) refused the request as vexatious under section 14(1) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is section 14(1) of the FOIA is engaged. The Commissioner does not require any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14
8 Mar 2023Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested various information about a housing development, including correspondence between different involved parties. During the course of investigation, Rother District Council informed the Commissioner that it had responded to the request without being sure of its parameters. The Council subsequently sought clarification, which the complainant then provided. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has failed to undertake searches appropriate to the request. The Commissioner requires the Council to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: Issue a fresh response to the request as clarified by the complainant. The Council should either disclose the information or, in respect of any information it intends to withhold, issue a refusal notice within the meaning of regulation 14 of the EIR providing a basis for withholding information.
Exemptions cited: EIR 5(1)
View Rother District Council
8 Mar 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested a final inspection report and training records. The Commissioner’s decision is that Care Quality Commission (the CQC) was entitled to rely on section 40(2) to withhold the requested information. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40(2)
View CQC
8 Mar 2023Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to the Department for Digital, Culture, Media & Sport (DCMS), seeking details of meetings between it and the Betting & Gaming Council from January 2021 until April 2022. DCMS confirmed that it held information falling within the scope of the request but refused to disclose this relying on sections 35(1)(a) (formulation or development of government policy) and 40(2) (personal data) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that section 35(1)(a) applies to only some of the information which has been withheld on the basis of this exemption. However, for the information which the Commissioner accepts is exempt from disclosure on the basis of section 35(1)(a), the public interest favours maintaining this exemption. The Commissioner is also satisfied that the names of junior officials are exempt from disclosure on the basis of section 40(2) of FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 35; FOI 40
View Department for Culture, Media and Sport
8 Mar 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from Central Schools Trust (‘the public authority’). The Commissioner’s decision is that the public authority is entitled to rely on section 21 and section 40(2) of FOIA to withhold the requested information. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 21; FOI 40
View CENTRAL SCHOOLS TRUST
8 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 NHS Bedfordshire, Luton and Milton Keynes ICB
8 Mar 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information relating to an environmental permit appeal from the Borough Council of Calderdale (“the Council”). The Council provided some information but said that no further recorded information was held. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the Council does not hold any further recorded information. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 5
7 Mar 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested from Bristol City Council (the Council) information relating to the 5 July 2022 Silver Motion. The Council provided some information within scope of the request but withheld information under section 42(1) (legal professional privilege) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is the Council is entitled to rely on section 42(1) of FOIA to withhold some of the information requested. Therefore, the Commissioner does not require the Council to take any steps as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: FOI 42(1)
View Bristol City Council
7 Mar 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information about the number of traffic fines and tickets issued to drivers at a named location. West Midlands Police (‘WMP’) said that no fines or tickets were issued during the specified time period and confirmed that, consequently, no recorded information was held. The complainant disputed WMP’s position. The Commissioner’s decision is, on the balance of probabilities, that WMP holds no recorded information within the scope of the request. No steps are required as a result of this notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View West Midlands Police
7 Mar 2023Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information provided to Lancashire County Council (the “council”) in relation to pre-application planning advice. The council refused the request, citing the exception for interests of the information provider (regulation 12(5)(f)). The Commissioner’s decision is that the council has failed to demonstrate that the exception in regulation 12(5)(f) is engaged. The Commissioner requires the council to disclose the withheld information to the complainant.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(f)
View Lancashire County Council
7 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
7 Mar 2023Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The public authority has failed to respond to this request within 20 working days, as specified in the EIR. The Commissioner requires it to provide the complainant with a response to this request within 35 calendar days in accordance with its obligations under the EIR.
Exemptions cited: EIR 5(2)
7 Mar 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from the University of Manchester (“the University”) about agreements or contracts between the University and the company MITIE.The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the University does not hold 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 The University of Manchester
7 Mar 2023Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested from the Council for the Curriculum Examinations & Assessment (CCEA) correspondence between named individuals, minutes and notes regarding staffing and other operational matters. The CCEA provided some information but other information was withheld under sections 36, 40(1), 40(2), and 41 of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that section 36 of FOIA has been cited correctly and that the public interest lies in maintaining the exemption. The CCEA was also entitled to withhold personal data under section 40 of FOIA. On the balance of probability, he has decided that the CCEA does not hold any further information. However the CCEA breached sections 10(1) of FOIA. The Commissioner does not require any further steps. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2023/0193 appeal dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10; FOI 36; FOI 40(1); FOI 40(2)
View Northern Ireland Council for the Curriculum, Examinations and Assessment
7 Mar 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant asked for the minutes of a specific meeting held where all cabinet ministers agreed to increase the shareholding of the Teesworks site in 2021. Tees Valley Combined Authority (“TVCA”) answered the request explaining that the information was not held by them and included a link to the South Tees Development Corporation (STDC) board meeting.The Commissioner’s decision is that the public authority has provided a relevant response, and on the balance of probabilities, the TVCA did not hold any further information in scope of the request. However, the TVCA breached section 10 of FOIA in its handling of the request. The Commissioner does not require any steps to be taken as a result of this decision notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1(1)
View Tees Valley Combined Authority
7 Mar 2023Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested statistical information about the operation of electronic passport gates (“eGates”) at Heathrow Airport. The Home Office said that it did not hold the requested information. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Home Office has not interpreted the request correctly and that, on the balance of probabilities, it holds information falling within the scope of the request. The Commissioner does not require any steps as a result of this decision as the complainant has since pursued the same information under a new, reworded request.
Exemptions cited: EIR 5(1); EIR 9
View Waltham Forest Council
7 Mar 2023Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested copies of contracts for “additional COVID capacity” between NHS England and five private healthcare providers. The Commissioner’s decision is that NHS England has correctly applied section 40(2) and 43(2) of FOIA. However, the Commissioner has recorded procedural breaches of sections 1, 10, 16 and 17 of FOIA. The Commissioner does not require NHS England to take any steps as a result of this decision notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10; FOI 16; FOI 17; FOI 40(2); FOI 43(2)
View NHS England
7 Mar 2023Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from Ibstock Parish Council (‘the council’) relating to its accounts. The council refused the request under section 14(1) of FOIA (vexatious requests). The Commissioner’s decision is that the council was not correct to apply section 14(1) of FOIA. The Commissioner therefore requires the council 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(1)
7 Mar 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 projects currently funded or partially funded by the FCDO in the occupied Palestinian territories. The FCDO explained that it did not hold some parts of the requested information, provided some of the information falling within the scope of the request and sought to withhold further information on the basis of the following sections of FOIA: 21(1) (information reasonably accessible), 27(1)(b), (c) and (d) and 27(2) (international relations), 38(1)(a) and (b) (health and safety) and 43(2) (commercial interests). The complainant challenged the FCDO’s reliance on these exemptions with the exception of section 21(1). The Commissioner’s decision is that the withheld information is exempt from disclosure on the basis of sections 27(1)(b), (c) and (d) of FOIA. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2023/0189 appeal allowed in part.
Exemptions cited: FOI 27
View Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office
7 Mar 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information with regards to a Memorandum of Understanding. Nuneaton and Bedworth Borough Council (the council) provided some information and refused the remaining under regulation 12(4)(e) of the EIR – Internal Communications. The complainant has disputed the refusal and is of the view that further information is also held, that has not been provided. The Commissioner’s decision is that regulation 12(4)(e) of the EIR is engaged to the information that has been withheld and the Commissioner is satisfied that the council has located all the information falling within the scope of the complainant’s request. The Commissioner does not require any steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(a); EIR 12(4)(e)
View Nuneaton And Bedworth Borough Council
7 Mar 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested a copy of the food hygiene inspection report for a named business. Cherwell District Council (‘the Council’) refused the request citing section 30(1)(b) (investigations and proceedings conducted by public authorities) FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council was entitled to rely on section 30(1)(b) to refuse the request.
Exemptions cited: FOI 30
View Cherwell District Council
7 Mar 2023Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from the Department for Work and Pensions (“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 did not comply with its obligations under section 16 of FOIA to offer advice and assistance. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following steps: Provide advice and assistance to the complainant to assist in submitting a request falling within the appropriate limit.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.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12(1); FOI 16
View Department for Work and Pensions
7 Mar 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information from the London Borough of Waltham Forest (“the Council”) relating to a report on a specific property owned by the complainant.The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council is entitled to rely on regulation 5(3) (personal information) of the EIR to refuse to provide the requested information. The Commissioner does not require the Council to take any steps. Information Tribunal appeal UA-2025-000478-GIA PTA refused.
Exemptions cited: EIR 5(3)
View Waltham Forest Council
7 Mar 2023Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from the London Borough of Redbridge (“the Council”) about a particular rental property. The Council provided the complainant with the information that it holds, advising that it did not hold all of the requested information. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the Council does not hold any further information in relation to this request. The Commissioner, however, finds that the Council breached section 10(1) of FOIA, as its response was not issued within 20 working days of receiving the request. The Commissioner does not require the Council to take any steps as a result of this decision notice. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2023/0186 appeal part allowed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10
View Redbridge Council
7 Mar 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has made a meta-request to the Cabinet Office for copies of email threads identified as part of a subject access request (SAR) disclosure. The Cabinet Office refused the request under section 14(1) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the request was vexatious therefore the Cabinet Office is entitled to rely on section 14(1) to refuse it. The Commissioner does not require any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14(1)
View Cabinet Office
7 Mar 2023Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about a prisoner complaint he submitted. The Ministry of Justice (‘MoJ’) disclosed some information, but refused to disclose the name of the decision maker for the complaint, citing section 40(2) (Personal information) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the MoJ was entitled to apply section 40(2) to refuse the request. However, it breached section 10(1) (Time for compliance) of FOIA in its handling of the request. The Commissioner requires no steps as a result of this decision. First-tier tribunal (General Regulatory chamber) information rights appeal EA/2023/0160 appeal dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 40
View Ministry of Justice
7 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 Health and Safety Executive
7 Mar 2023Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested statistical information about the operation of electronic passport gates (“eGates”) at Heathrow Airport. The Home Office said that it did not hold the requested information. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Home Office has not interpreted the request correctly and that, on the balance of probabilities, it holds information falling within the scope of the request. The Commissioner does not require any steps as a result of this decision as the complainant has since pursued the same information under a new, reworded request.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Home Office
6 Mar 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested from Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council information relating to legal advice. The Council withheld the requested information under section 42 of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council was entitled to withhold the requested information under section 42. The Commissioner does not require the Council to take any steps. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2023/0191 under appeal.
Exemptions cited: FOI 42
View Sandwell Council
6 Mar 2023Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information about numbers of home visits conducted by doctors from Mount Pleasant Medical Centre (“the Medical Centre”). By the date of this notice the Medical Centre had not issued a substantive response to this request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Medical Centre has breached section 10(1) of FOIA in that it failed to provide a valid response to the request within the statutory time frame of 20 working days. The Commissioner requires the Medical Centre must provide a substantive response to the request in accordance with its obligations under FOIA. The Medical Centre must take this step within 35 calendar days of the date of this decision notice. Failure to comply may result in the Commissioner making written certification of this fact to the High Court pursuant to section 54 of FOIA and may be dealt with as a contempt of court.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10(1)
6 Mar 2023Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested certain information held about land sold by Cheshire East Council (the council). The council provided some information to the complainant with its initial response to the request and then, during the Commissioner’s investigation, it identified and released some additional information. The council has refused part of the request, citing regulation 6(1)(b) of the EIR (The Environmental Regulations 2004); it states that the relevant information is publicly available from HM Land Registry. Whilst the Commissioner has decided that the request should have been considered under FOIA, rather than the EIR, he is satisfied that the council is entitled to rely on section 21 – information reasonably accessible to the requester, of FOIA, as its basis for refusing part of the complainant’s request. The Commissioner is satisfied that, on the balance of probabilities, the council has now released all of the relevant information held that is not exempt under section 21 of
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 21
View Cheshire East Council
6 Mar 2023Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to the Department for International Trade (DIT) seeking the dates, minutes and briefings of the UK-Israel Trade Working Group for the period 2017 to September 2021. DIT provided redacted copies of the information requested. It explained that the redacted information was exempt from disclosure on the basis of the following sections of FOIA: 27(1)(a), (c), (d) and 27(2) (international relations), 35(1)(a) (formulation or development of government policy) and 40(2) (personal data). The Commissioner’s decision is that the redacted information is exempt from disclosure on the basis of sections 27(1)(a), (c), (d) and 35(1)(a). However, he has concluded that DIT breached section 17(3) of FOIA by failing to conclude its public interest test considerations, and provide the complainant with a substantive response to his request, within a reasonable timeframe.
Exemptions cited: FOI 17(3); FOI 27; FOI 35(1)(a)
View Department for Business and Trade
6 Mar 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested from the Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office (‘the FCDO’), a copy of a European Union (‘the EU’) report into violence which occurred in Gujarat, India, in February and March 2002. The FCDO refused the request on the basis that section 27 of FOIA applied (international relations). The Commissioner’s decision is that the FCDO was correct to withhold the information under section 27(a) and (b) of FOIA. The Commissioner does not require the FCDO to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 27
View Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office
6 Mar 2023Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested a copy of a research report into Benefit Sanctions. The Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) withheld the information citing section 36(2)(c). The Commissioner’s decision is that section 36(2)(c) is not engaged. The Commissioner requires the public authority to disclose the requested report on the effectiveness of benefit sanctions. 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.
Exemptions cited: FOI 36
View Department for Work and Pensions
6 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
6 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 Metropolitan Police Service (the “MPS”). The MPS 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), 27(4) (International relations), 31(3) (Law enforcement) and 40(5) (Personal information) 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 Metropolitan Police Service
6 Mar 2023Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has submitted multiple requests for information to Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (“MHRA”) about Pfizer drugs. The Commissioner’s decision is that MHRA has not demonstrated that complying with the request would impose a grossly oppressive burden and consequently it is not entitled to rely on section 14(1). The Commissioner requires MHRA to respond to the request again, without relying upon section 14(1) of FOIA. MHRA 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 Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency
6 Mar 2023Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The Commissioner’s decision is that UK Space Agency (UKSA) is entitled to withhold information about the SABRE project under section 43(2) of FOIA. Disclosure would be likely to prejudice another person’s commercial interests and the public interest favours maintaining the exemption. UKSA has indicated that it has withdrawn its reliance on section 43 with regard to some of the information and that it will now disclose this. UKSA has therefore breached section 10(1) of FOIA as it did not communicate that information within 20 working days of the request. UKSA must now take the following step to ensure it complies with the legislation: If it has not already done so, disclose to the complainant the milestone description headings and Government Financing Activity values information.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 43
View UK Space Agency
6 Mar 2023Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information about staff concerns and policies from Mount Pleasant Medical Centre (“the Medical Centre”). By the date of this notice the Medical Centre had not issued a substantive response to this request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Medical Centre has breached section 10(1) of FOIA in that it failed to provide a valid response to the request within the statutory time frame of 20 working days. The Commissioner requires the Medical Centre must provide a substantive response to the request in accordance with its obligations under FOIA. The Medical Centre must take this step within 35 calendar days of the date of this decision notice. Failure to comply may result in the Commissioner making written certification of this fact to the High Court pursuant to section 54 of FOIA and may be dealt with as a contempt of court.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10(1)
6 Mar 2023Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested a copy of a research report into Benefit Sanctions. The Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) withheld the information citing section 36(2)(c). The Commissioner’s decision is that section 36(2)(c) is not engaged. The Commissioner requires the public authority to disclose the requested report on the effectiveness of benefit sanctions. 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.
Exemptions cited: FOI 36
View Department for Work and Pensions
6 Mar 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information with regards to a planning application. The Commissioner’s decision is that East Sussex County Council (the council) has responded to the request in accordance with regulation 5(1) of the EIR. The Commissioner does not require any steps. First-tier tribunal (General Regulatory chamber) information rights appeal EA/2023/0206 appeal Withdrawn.
Exemptions cited: EIR 5(1)
View East Sussex County Council
6 Mar 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about ‘Patriotic Alternative’ from the Home Office. The Home Office refused to provide the requested information, citing sections 24(1) (National security) and 35(1)(a) (Formulation of government policy). It also refused to confirm or deny holding any further information citing section 23(5) (Information supplied by, or relating to, bodies dealing with security matters); this position was later revised to section 23(1).The Commissioner’s decision is that, where cited, section 23(1) was properly engaged. He also found that the Home Office was entitled to rely on sections 24(1) and 35(1) to withhold the remaining information. No steps are required.
Exemptions cited: FOI 23; FOI 24; FOI 35
View Home Office
6 Mar 2023Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested a copy of a research report into Benefit Sanctions. The Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) withheld the information citing section 36(2)(c). The Commissioner’s decision is that section 36(2)(c) is not engaged. The Commissioner requires the public authority to disclose the requested report on the effectiveness of benefit sanctions. 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.
Exemptions cited: FOI 36
View Department for Work and Pensions
6 Mar 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested a copy of an internal audit report regarding the accidental publication of National Insurance numbers by the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP). DWP withheld the report under section 36, prejudice to the effective conduct of public affairs. The Commissioner’s decision is that DWP is entitled to rely on section 36 and the balance of the public interest favours maintaining the exemption. The Commissioner does not require any steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 36
View Department for Work and Pensions
3 Mar 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information relating to a particular company, its proposal for a gold mine, and a planning application. The Loughs Agency refused the request in reliance on the exceptions at regulations 12(4)(e) (internal communications), 12(5)(b) (the course of justice), 12(5)(f) (the interests of the person who provided the information) and 13 (personal data) of the EIR. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Loughs Agency was entitled to rely on the exceptions at regulation 12(4)(e) and regulation 12(5)(b) in respect of the requested information. No further steps are required.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(e); EIR 12(5)(b)
View Loughs Agency
3 Mar 2023Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
Barnsley Metropolitan Borough Council (‘the Council’) has applied regulation 12(5)(e) of the EIR to some of the requested information about the Hoyland West land development. This exception concerns commercial interests. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council is entitled to withhold the information to which it has applied regulation 12(5)(e) and the public interest favours maintaining this exception. The Council has breached regulation 5(2) of the EIR as it has not made available all the relevant non-excepted information that it holds within 20 working days of the request. If it has not already done so, the Council must take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: Redact the square footage figure from paragraph 16 of the Trustee Agreement document – this matter is discussed at paragraph 32 of this notice. Disclose the non-excepted information in all four Agreement documents and the 2016 email.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(e); EIR 5
View Barnsley Council
3 Mar 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information regarding Rochdale Borough Council’s correspondence guidelines and two specific pieces of correspondence that may have been received by the authority. The Council refused to confirm or deny whether this information was held under S40(5)a of FOIA. The Commissioner considers the authority was correct to apply this exemption and does not require any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40(5)(a)
View Rochdale Metropolitan Borough Council
3 Mar 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to live email accounts held between April 2019 and August 2021 inclusive. The Commissioner’s decision is that University College London (UCL) is entitled to rely on section 12(1) to refuse to provide the requested information. However, the Commissioner finds that UCL has breached section 10(1) FOIA as it failed to provide its response with the time scale allowed. The Commissioner does not require UCL to take any steps as a result of this decision notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12
View University College London