3 Mar 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant originally requested information from Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council (“the Council”) for copies of communications with the leader of the Council about statements made to the media in connection with a particular email referred to in the request. The request was investigated by the Commissioner under IC-172053-T2X6 and a decision notice was issued on 23 November 2022.The Council was instructed to issue a fresh response adequate for the purposes of FOIA within 35 calendar days of the issue of the decision notice.The Council responded issuing a fresh response which refused the request under section 14(1) of FOIA (vexatious request).The Commissioner’s decision is that the request was vexatious and therefore the Council was entitled to rely upon section 14(1) of FOIA. The Commissioner does not require any steps to be taken as a result of this decision notice. Information Tribunal FTT EA/2023/0169 appeal allowed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14(1)
View Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council
3 Mar 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from Newry, Mourne and Down District Council (the public authority). The Commissioner’s decision is that the public authority is entitled to rely on section 40(2) of FOIA to withhold some of the requested information. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40(2)
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)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 upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from the Office of the Public Guardian (“the OPG”) in relation to accounts filed regarding the complainant’s late mother’s finances. The OPG is an executive agency of the Ministry of Justice (“the MoJ”), the MoJ therefore being the relevant public authority. The MoJ has withheld the requested information citing section 40(2) of FOIA – personal information and section 41(1) of FOIA – information provided in confidence. The Commissioner’s decision is that the MoJ has correctly withheld the information under both section 40(2) of FOIA and section 41(1) of FOIA. However, as the MoJ failed to provide a response within 20 working days, it has breached section 10(1) of FOIA. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps as a result of this decision notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10(1); FOI 40(2); FOI 41(1)
View Ministry of Justice
3 Mar 2023Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to an individual’s employment to the Ministry of Defence (“the MoD”). The Commissioner’s decision is that the MoD has correctly relied on section 40(2) and section 40(5B) when refusing this request. The MoD did, however, breached section 10 by failing to respond within 20 working days.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 40(2); FOI 40(5)(b)
View Ministry of Defence
3 Mar 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested from Oxford Spires Academy (“the school”) information regarding GCSE mock exam results. The school refused that request under section 40(2) of FOIA (personal data) as it considered that disclosure would identify individual students. The Commissioner’s decision is that the school correctly applied section 40(2). The Commissioner does not require the school to take any steps. First-tier tribunal (General Regulatory chamber) information rights appeal EA/2023/0175 (Remitted) appeal allowed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40(2)
2 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 London Borough of Croydon
2 Mar 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information related to agenda item 49/22 in the minutes of the Trowell Parish Council (TPC) meeting of 12th July 2022 to determine why the contract for the hire of the Parish Hall by was terminated. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on a balance of probabilities, TPC does not hold the requested information. The Commissioner does not require TPC to take any further steps to ensure compliance with the legislation.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
2 Mar 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from the Cabinet Office (CO) relating to a review carried out by MyCSP into retirement Pension scheme contributions. The CO refused to comply with the request citing section 12 (cost limit) of FOIA. First-tier tribunal (General Regulatory chamber) information rights appeal EA/2023/0131 appeal allowed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12(1)
View Cabinet Office
2 Mar 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The Commissioner’s decision is that Ofcom correctly applied section 44(1) of FOIA to the request for correspondence about a complaint about the BBC as there is a prohibition on disclosure. It is not necessary for Ofcom to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 44
View Ofcom
2 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 Westminster Council
2 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 Westminster Council
2 Mar 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from Gloucestershire Police regarding a particular incident including the personal data of any officer in attendance and their supervisor. The Commissioner’s decision is that Gloucestershire Police correctly relied on Section 40(5B)(a)(i) of FOIA to refuse to confirm or deny whether it held information falling within the scope of the request. The Commissioner does not require any further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40(5)(b)(a)(i)
View Gloucestershire Constabulary
2 Mar 2023Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant, who is sight impaired, attempted to request information from the Department of Health and Social Care (“DHSC”). The Commissioner’s decision is that DHSC failed to provide adequate advice and assistance to the complainant and therefore breached its duty under section 16 of FOIA. The Commissioner requires DHSC to take the following step to ensure compliance with the legislation.Provide the complainant with a telephone number that they can use to submit verbal requests for information in the future.DHSC 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 16
View Department of Health and Social Care
2 Mar 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from Barwick in Elmet & Scholes Parish Council (“the Council”) relating to members receiving water bottles. The Council refused the request under section 14(1) of FOIA (vexatious requests). The Commissioner’s decision is that the request was vexatious and therefore the Council was entitled to rely upon section 14(1) of FOIA to refuse it. The Commissioner does not require any steps. First-tier tribunal (General Regulatory chamber) information rights appeal EA/2023/0154 dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14(1)
2 Mar 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested minutes of the Public Service Broadcasting Advisory Panel to the Department for Culture, Media and Sport (‘the DCMS’). The DCMS refused the request on the basis that section 35(1)(a) of FOIA applied (formulation of government policy). The Commissioner’s decision is that the DCMS was correct to apply section 35(1)(a) of FOIA in order to withhold the information. The Commissioner does not require the DCMS to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 35(1)(a)
View Department for Culture, Media and Sport
2 Mar 2023Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information about the policies in place. By the date of this notice, the partners of Mount Pleasant Medical Centre (“the Surgery”) had not issued a substantive response to this request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Surgery 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 Surgery to take the following step to ensure compliance with the legislation.The Surgery must provide a substantive response to the request in accordance with its obligations under FOIA. The Surgery 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
2 Mar 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about Lincoln Cathedral and arrangements for care of the Magna Carta. The above public authority denied holding some of the requested information and relied on section 31 of FOIA (law enforcement) to withhold the remainder. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the public authority does not hold the information requested by parts [1] to [5] of the request. In respect of part [6], he is satisfied that section 31 is engaged and that the balance of the public interest favours maintaining the exemption. The Commissioner does not require further steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 31
View Lincolnshire County Council
2 Mar 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from Plymouth City Council (“the Council”) relating to a grave. The Commissioner considers that the Council has carried out adequate searches for the requested information. Therefore, the Commissioner’s decision is that on the balance of probabilities, the Council has disclosed all the information it holds within the scope of the request. The Commissioner does not require the Council to take any steps. Information Tribunal FTT appeal EA/2023/0170 struck out.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Plymouth City Council
2 Mar 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information with regards to properties inherited from one previous council to another. Dorset Council (the council) provided some information and applied section 21 of FOIA to other information, as it determined it was reasonably accessible from the links it provided. The complainant considered that the council held more information. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the council has provided the information it holds. The Commissioner does not require the council to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Dorset County Council
2 Mar 2023Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested a digitised copy of the Definitive Map of Public Rights of Way, as stored for use in a GIS software application or interactive online map. Coventry City Council (the Council) stated that the information was publicly available and easily accessible and as such regulation 6(1)(b) applied. The Council also applied regulations 12(4)(e) and 13 to some of the information requested. During the course of the Commissioner’s investigation, the Council withdrew reliance on regulation 6(1)(b) and the exceptions quoted. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council breached regulations 5(1) and 5(2) of the EIR in its handling of the request. The Commissioner requires the Council to disclose the information requested in the format specified in the request.
Exemptions cited: EIR 5
View Coventry City Council
2 Mar 2023Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information about disciplining staff. By the date of this notice, the partners of Mount Pleasant Medical Centre (“the Surgery”) had not issued a substantive response to this request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Surgery 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 Surgery to take the following step to ensure compliance with the legislation.The Surgery must provide a substantive response to the request in accordance with its obligations under FOIA. The Surgery 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
2 Mar 2023Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information about numbers of patients. By the date of this notice, the partners of Mount Pleasant Medical Centre (“the Surgery”) had not issued a substantive response to this request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Surgery 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 Surgery to take the following step to ensure compliance with the legislation.The Surgery must provide a substantive response to the request in accordance with its obligations under FOIA. The Surgery 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
2 Mar 2023Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information from Boughton Malherbe Parish Council (the Council) about a village green. The Council refused to disclose the requested information due to it being commercially sensitive.The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council was entitled to withhold the information under regulation 12(5)(e) of the EIR. However, the Council breached regulation 14(3) of the EIR as it incorrectly issued its refusal under FOIA and not the EIR.The Commissioner does not require the Council to take any further steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(e); EIR 14(3)
2 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 London Borough of Croydon
2 Mar 2023Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information about patients. By the date of this notice, the partners of Mount Pleasant Medical Centre (“the Surgery”) had not issued a substantive response to this request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Surgery 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 Surgery to take the following step to ensure compliance with the legislation.The Surgery must provide a substantive response to the request in accordance with its obligations under FOIA. The Surgery 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 Mar 2023Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information from Durham County Council (DCC) for copies of planning files and maps for Broseley Homes, an application for the adoption of a road and files detailing the demolition and clean-up of West Moseley farm. DCC provided some information and relied on Regulation 6(1)(b) of the EIR (publicly accessible) to not provide the remainder. The Commissioner’s decision is that DCC is entitled to rely on regulation 6(1)(b) (form and format of information) as the relevant information it holds is easily accessible to the complainant via its planning portal. However, as DCC failed to issue a refusal notice within 20 working days, and then failed to carry out an internal review within 40 working days, the Commissioner has found a breach of Regulation 5(2), 6(2), and Regulation 11(4), of the EIR respectively. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 11(4); EIR 5(2); EIR 6; EIR 6(1)
View Durham County Council
1 Mar 2023Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The Commissioner’s decision is that the public authority breached section 10(1) of FOIA by failing to provide a response within 20 working days.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Crown Prosecution Service
1 Mar 2023Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to the School’s change in IT provider. The School provided some information in response to the request but withheld the rest, citing section 43(2) (commercial interests) and section 36(2)(b)(ii) (prejudice to the effective conduct of public affairs) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that: the majority of the withheld information engages either section 43(2) or section 36(2)(b)(ii) and the public interest lies in maintaining the exemption; the name of ‘provider C’ does not engage section 43(2); in failing to disclose all non-exempt information within twenty working days of receipt of the request, the School has breached section 10 (timescale for compliance) of FOIA. The Commissioner requires the School to take the following steps: disclose the name of provider C.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 17; FOI 36(2)(b)(ii); FOI 43(2)
1 Mar 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from the Crown Prosecution Service (the public authority). The Commissioner’s decision is that the public authority was entitled to refuse to confirm or deny whether it held information within the scope of the request, in accordance with section 12(2) (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. First-tier tribunal (General Regulatory chamber) information rights appeal EA/2023/0179 appeal dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12(2); FOI 16
View Crown Prosecution Service
1 Mar 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested various information from Ulster University (‘the University’) regarding its courses and applications. The University refused to comply with the request, citing section 43(2) (commercial interests) FOIA to refuse the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the University has correctly applied section 43(2) to the request. However, in failing to issue its refusal notice within the required timescales specified under section 10(1) FOIA, the Commissioner has recorded a breach of section 17(1) FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 43
View Ulster University
1 Mar 2023Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information regarding high rise properties owned by the London Borough of Redbridge (the Council). By the date of this notice the Council had not issued a substantive response to this request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has failed to respond to the request within 20 working days and has therefore breached regulation 5(2) of the EIR. The Commissioner requires the the Council to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. Issue a substantive response to the request in accordance with its obligations under 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 Freedom of Information Act and may be dealt with as a contempt of court.
Exemptions cited: EIR 5(2)
View Redbridge Council
1 Mar 2023Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from Nottinghamshire County Council on the reasons why two highways claims initially rejected were subsequently paid out and the number of pothole investigation sheets recording that a claim had been made. Nottinghamshire County Council withheld the requested information in relation the reasons why it subsequently paid out on claims initially rejected under Section 40(2) of FOIA and stated that it did not hold any information in connection with investigation sheets recording when claims had been made. The Commissioner’s decision is that Nottinghamshire County Council was entitled to rely on Section 40(2) of FOIA for the information it withheld. The Commissioner has also decided Nottinghamshire County Council breached Section 10 of the FOIA by failing to issue a substantive response to the complainant’s request within 20 working days stating why it was withholding the requested information.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 40(2)
View Nottinghamshire County Council
1 Mar 2023Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested guidance issued to immigration caseworkers for obtaining travel history records. Having initially relied on section 31 of FOIA (law enforcement) to withhold the requested information, the Home Office claimed a late reliance on section 12 during the Commissioner’s investigation, which concerns the cost of compliance. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Home Office is entitled to refuse to comply with the request under section 12 of FOIA as to do so would exceed the appropriate limit. Because the Home Office has made a late claim of section 12, there has been a breach of section 16(1) and 17(5) of FOIA, which concern advice and assistance and the timeliness of the section 12 refusal. The Commissioner requires the Home Office to take the following step to ensure compliance with the legislation: If it has not already done so, provide the complainant with appropriate advice and assistance as to how they might refine their request, in line with its obligatio
Exemptions cited: FOI 12; FOI 16; FOI 17
View Home Office
1 Mar 2023Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from Rushmoor Borough Council (“the Council”) in relation to the current medical referee’s registration number. The Council has withheld the requested information, relying on section 40(2) of FOIA – personal information. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council is entitled to rely on section 40(2) of FOIA to withhold the requested information. However, as the Council failed to respond to the request for information within 20 working days, it has breached section 10(1) of FOIA. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps as a result of this decision notice. First-tier tribunal (General Regulatory chamber) information rights appeal EA/2023/0138 under appeal.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10(1); FOI 40(2)
View Rushmoor Borough Council
1 Mar 2023Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information about the Transport Decarbonisation Plan. The above public authority denied holding some of the information and also relied on regulation 13 of the EIR to withhold some information. The Commissioner’s decision is that the public authority was entitled to rely on regulation 12(4)(a) of the EIR in the manner that it has because, on the balance of probabilities, it does not hold the requested information. It was also entitled to rely on regulation 13 of the EIR to withhold the name of the expert. The public authority breached regulation 9 of the EIR as it failed to provide adequate advice and assistance. The Commissioner does not require further steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(a); EIR 13; EIR 5(2); EIR 9
View National Highways
1 Mar 2023Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from Dyfed Powys Police (“the public authority”) regarding the number of times it received a completed GP pro-forma direct from a specific surgery for a shotgun license renewal since January 2021. The Commissioner’s decision is that the public authority was entitled to apply section 12(2) of FOIA and he is satisfied that it has met its obligations under section 16 of FOIA to offer advice and assistance. However, as the public authority failed to respond to the request within 20 working days, it has breached section 10(1) of FOIA. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps as a result of this decision notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10(1); FOI 12(2); FOI 16(1)
View Dyfed-Powys Police
1 Mar 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from the Department for Infrastructure (“DfI”) regarding Driving Examiner pass/fail rates per year for all Driving Examiners in Northern Ireland between 2020 and 2021. The Commissioner’s decision is that the DfI is entitled to rely on section 40(2) of FOIA – personal information, to withhold the requested information. The Commissioner does not require the DfI to take any steps as a result of this decision notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40(2)
View Department for Infrastructure (Northern Ireland)
1 Mar 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from Liverpool City Council (“the Council”) relating to a selective licensing scheme.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 Liverpool City Council
1 Mar 2023Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from the Ministry of Defence (“the public authority”) in relation to a specific report. The public authority refused to confirm or deny whether it held the requested information under section 40(5) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the public authority has correctly cited section 40(5B) of FOIA in response to the request as, if held, the information would contain third party personal information. However, as the public authority failed to respond to the request for information within 20 working days, it breached section 10(1). Additionally, as the public authority failed to issue a refusal notice within 20 working days, it has breached section 17(1) of FOIA. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps as a result of this decision notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10(1); FOI 17; FOI 40(5)
View Ministry of Defence
1 Mar 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information provided to Wilshire Council by a residential land promoter. Wiltshire Council (the “council”) refused the request, citing the exceptions for commercial confidentiality (regulation 12(5)(e) and interests of the information provider (regulation 12(5)(f)).The Commissioner’s decision is that the council is entitled to rely on regulation 12(5)(e) of the EIR to refuse to provide the requested information. The Commissioner does not require the council to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(e)
View Wiltshire Council
1 Mar 2023Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from St. Edburg’s Primary School (“the School”) in relation to applications and admissions to the Reception year entry class in 2022. The School advised that it was withholding the information as it was “personal information”, however it did not cite a specific exemption of FOIA to withhold it. The Commissioner’s decision is that the School should have cited section 40(2) of FOIA – personal data – to withhold the information and has therefore applied the exemption himself proactively. As the School failed to provide a valid refusal notice, it has breached section 17(1) of FOIA. The Commissioner does not require any steps to be taken as a result of this decision notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 17; FOI 40(2)
View ST MARK'S CHURCH OF ENGLAND PRIMARY SCHOOL
1 Mar 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information in the form of a series of questions about a recruitment competition held by the Education Authority Northern Ireland (“the EA”) relating to assistant information governance officer roles.The EA provided some information in scope of the request and cited section 40 (personal information) of FOIA for withholding part of the requested information.The Commissioner’s decision is that the EA is entitled to rely on section 40 of FOIA to withhold the requested information and has complied with section 1(1) of FOIA.The Commissioner does not require any steps to be taken as a result of this decision notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40(2)
1 Mar 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested that DCMS provide all relevant information held in relation to Lauglines/Laughlines Ltd. The Public Authority refused the request on the grounds that it was vexatious and engaged section 14(1) FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14(1)
View Department for Culture, Media and Sport
1 Mar 2023Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested both the questions asked and the responses received from organisations that London Borough of Hackney (“LBH”) consulted with about Low traffic Neighbourhoods (LTN's), specifically those from Disability back up, Age concern, Living streets, and London travel watch. LBH provided a response to the complainant’s request, however, the complainant is not satisfied with the response, as they consider that LBH did not provide all the requested information.LBH originally advised that the information was publicly available, citing regulation 6(1)(b) of the EIR. LBH also advised that it does not hold any further information in relation to the request, citing regulation 12(4)(a) of the EIR. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the Council does not hold any further information within the scope of the request and therefore, regulation 12(4)(a) of the EIR is engaged. The Commissioner also finds that LBH has breached reg 11(4) as it failed to
Exemptions cited: EIR 11(4); EIR 12(4)(a); EIR 6(1)(b)
View London Borough of Hackney
28 Feb 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from the House of Commons (‘the public authority’). The Commissioner’s decision is that the public authority is entitled to rely on section 40(2) of FOIA to withhold some of the requested information. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View Corporate Officers of the House of Commons
28 Feb 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)
28 Feb 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from the Chief Constable of Sussex Police (“Sussex Police”). The Commissioner’s decision is that Sussex Police is entitled to rely on section 40(5B) (personal information) of FOIA to refuse to confirm or deny whether any information is held. First-tier tribunal (General Regulatory chamber) information rights appeal EA/2023/0132 appeal dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40(5)(b)
View Sussex Police
28 Feb 2023Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested from Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council information in connection with a planning application submitted by Network Rail. Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council has disclosed some of the requested information but withheld the remainder under Regulations 12(4)(e), 12(5)(e) and 13(1) of the EIR. The Commissioner’s decision is that Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council has correctly applied Regulation 13(1) to the third-party personal data redacted but has failed to successfully apply Regulations 12(4)(e) and 12(5)(e) of the EIR. Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council has also breached Regulations 5(2) and 11(4) of the EIR. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. Disclose the information withheld under Regulations 12(4)(e) and 12(5)(e) of the EIR. 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 C
Exemptions cited: EIR 11(4); EIR 12(4)(e); EIR 12(5)(e); EIR 13(1); EIR 5(2)
View Sandwell Council