28 Feb 2023Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested a copy of an internal “self-assessment” report held by the London Borough of Havering (the council). The council refused to provide the requested information, citing section 36 - effective conduct of public affairs, of FOIA. It is the Commissioner’s decision that the council has failed to demonstrate that section 36 of FOIA is engaged. In addition, as the council failed to issue a refusal notice within 20 working days, the Commissioner has also found a breach of section 17 of FOIA. The Commissioner requires the council to reconsider the complainant’s request and either release the information that they have requested, or issue a refusal notice that meets the statutory requirements of FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 17; FOI 36
View London Borough of Havering
28 Feb 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from the Gambling Commission (‘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. He is also satisfied that the public authority does not hold any further information within the scope of the request. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 40
View Gambling Commission
28 Feb 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested a copy of a report and associated correspondence. East Riding of Yorkshire Council (the council) provided some information but refused to provide the report under section 41(1) of the FOIA – Information provided in confidence. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council was correct to refuse the report under section 41(1) of the FOIA. The Commissioner does not require any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 41
View East Riding of Yorkshire Council
28 Feb 2023Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested a copy of a petition from City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council (“the Council”). The Council disclosed part of the wording of the petition and the number of signatories but withheld the information about the signatories and the lead petitioner citing the personal information exemption under section 40(2) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council is entitled to rely on section 40(2) (personal information) of FOIA to withhold the information withheld on that basis. However, he finds that the Council has breached section 10(1) of FOIA in that it failed to provide a full response to the request within the statutory time frame of 20 working days.The Commissioner requires the Council to take the following step to ensure compliance with the legislation: Disclose the further information it has identified within scope of the request during the course of the Commissioner’s investigation, that is the paragraph, which forms part of the wording of t
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 40(2)
View City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council
28 Feb 2023Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from Transport for London (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 requires the public authority to take the following steps: Provide a response to the complainant regarding question 5 of the request.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 40(2)
View Transport for London
28 Feb 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from Wrexham County Borough 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 all of the requested information. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps. Keywords: Residential care placements
Exemptions cited: FOI 40(2)
View Wrexham County Borough Council
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)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested, from the London Borough of Enfield (‘the Council’), information relating to the conversion of Refuge House (an office block) into residential units. The request was initially handled under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (‘FOIA’), and information was disclosed. Subsequently the complainant contacted the Council numerous times about certain missing information, and further disclosures followed. However, the complainant argued that the Council had still not disclosed all information held within scope of the request, despite the Council saying that it had. During the Commissioner’s investigation, the Council changed its position, saying that the request falls under the EIR (not FOIA) and should have been refused under regulation 12(4)(b) (‘manifestly unreasonable’) on the grounds of costs. The Commissioner’s decision is that regulation 12(4)(b) is engaged and should be maintained – the Council is entitled to refuse the request as manifestly unreasonable
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(b); EIR 9(1)
View Enfield Council
28 Feb 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested a specified report from Thanet District Council (the ‘Council’) by the Independent Monitoring Officer. The Council ultimately refused to provide the full report (a summary version having already been released on its website) citing section 40(2) of FOIA (the exemption for personal information). The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council was entitled to withhold the full report by virtue of section 40(2) of FOIA. No steps are required as a result of this notice. First-tier tribunal (General Regulatory chamber) information rights appeal EA/2023/0185 appeal dismissed. Keywords: Misconduct, audit
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View Thanet District Council
28 Feb 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from High Peak Borough 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
View High Peak Borough Council
28 Feb 2023Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information relating to the planning department’s involvement with a property. The Commissioner’s decision is that Brighton and Hove City Council (the Council) has correctly applied Regulation 12(4)(b) when refusing this request for information. The Commissioner also finds that the Council breached: Regulation 9 as it failed to provide any advice and assistance to the complainant when refusing the request. Regulation 14 as the Council failed to provide a refusal notice within 20 working days. Regulation 11 as it failed to conduct an internal review within 40 working days. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. Provide the complainant with advice and assistance to help them to refine their request to one that does not impose a manifestly unreasonable burden. The public authority must take these steps within 35 calendar days of the date of this decision notice. Failure to comply m
Exemptions cited: EIR 11; EIR 12(4)(b); EIR 14; EIR 9
View Brighton and Hove City Council
28 Feb 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information following the arrests of six councillors. Nottinghamshire Police refused to disclose any of the requested information, citing section 31(1)(a) of FOIA (the exemption of the prevention or detection of crime). The Commissioner’s decision is that Nottinghamshire Police was entitled to apply section 31(1)(a) of FOIA to withhold the requested information. No steps are required as a result of this notice.Keywords: allegations of fraud, misconduct
Exemptions cited: FOI 31
View Nottinghamshire Police
28 Feb 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested biographical information of panel members and any conflicts of interest these members have. The Commissioner’s decision is that Department for Communities (the DFC) has correctly relied on section 40(2) of FOIA when refusing to disclose the requested information. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any further action.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40(2)
28 Feb 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information about the decision to pollard trees on a particular road. Cheshire East Council (the Council) withheld the information under regulation 12(4)(e) (internal communications) of the EIR. During the course of the Commissioner’s investigation the Council withdrew reliance on regulation 12(4)(e) and stated that the information was exempt under regulations 12(5)(b) (course of justice) and regulation 13 (third party personal data). The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council was entitled to withhold the requested information under regulation 12(5)(b). The Commissioner does not require the Council to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(b)
View Cheshire East Council
28 Feb 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from Rhondda Cynon Taf County Borough Council (“the Council”) relating to Cynon Valley Indoor Bowls Club being used as a Covid 19 vaccination centre.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.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Rhondda Cynon Taf County Borough Council
28 Feb 2023Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information from Perranuthnoe Parish Council (“the Council”) relating to a Neighbourhood Development plan and the a specific planning application.The Commissioner’s decision is that on the balance of probabilities, the Council holds further information within the scope of the request.The Commissioner requires the Council to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation.The Council must issue a fresh response to the request following searches aimed at identifying all information held within the scope of the request. The Council 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 the Act and may be dealt with as a contempt of court.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(a)
28 Feb 2023Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from the Department of Health and Social Care (“DHSC”) about correspondence relating to the types of potential integrated care contract providers during the formulation of the Health and Social Care Bill.The Commissioner’s decision is that DHSC has not been able to conduct sufficient searches to determine if it holds information within the scope of the request. The Commissioner requires DHSC to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: DHSC must issue a fresh response to the request, which does not rely on section 1 of FOIA unless adequate searches can be carried out. DHSC 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 1
View Department of Health and Social Care
28 Feb 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to a named individual in a named court. The Commissioner decided that the Ministry of Justice were entitled to rely on section 32(3) FOIA to neither confirm nor deny that the requested information is held. The Commissioner does not require the Ministry of Justice to take any steps as a result of this decision notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 32
View Ministry of Justice
28 Feb 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The Commissioner’s decision is that the elements of the complainant’s three requests for information that are covered by FOIA are vexatious requests under section 14(1) of FOIA and the Office for National Statistics (ONS) is not obliged to comply with them. It is not necessary for the ONS to take any steps. Information Tribunal UA-2024-001681-GIA appeal allowed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14
View Office for National Statistics
28 Feb 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested email correspondence from Tunbridge Wells Borough Council which it disclosed with redactions made under Section 40(2) of the FOIA for the contact details of its officers. The Commissioner’s decision is that Tunbridge Wells Borough Council was entitled to rely on Section 40(2) of FOIA for the redactions made. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40(2)
View Tunbridge Wells Borough Council
28 Feb 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested that Barnsley Metropolitan Borough Council (the Council) provide information in relation to one of its employees. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council correctly relied on Section 40(5B)(a)(i) of the FOIA to refuse to confirm or deny whether it held information falling within the scope of the request. The Commissioner does not require the Council to take any steps as a result of this decision notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40(5)(b)(a)(i)
View Barnsley Council
28 Feb 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from East Kent Hospitals University NHS Foundation Trust (“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); FOI 16
View East Kent Hospitals University NHS Foundation Trust
28 Feb 2023Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information from the Regulator of Social Housing (“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: EIR 12(4)(b); EIR 14(2); EIR 9
View Richmond upon Thames Council
27 Feb 2023Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a multi-part request to South Somerset District Council (SSDC) regarding information which was published on its website, and information which was made available to the media and the police. SSDC disclosed the information for some of the request, but withheld the rest by virtue of section 40 (personal information) of FOIA.The Commissioner’s decision is that SSDC was correct to rely on section 40(1) of FOIA to refuse to disclose the information sought by the final two parts of the request. However, SSDC breached sections 10(1) and 17(1) of FOIA by failing to respond within 20 working days.The Commissioner does not require SSDC to take any steps as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 17; FOI 40
View South Kesteven District Council
27 Feb 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested the analysis from an internal pulse survey within the Cabinet Office HR team, relating to Bullying Harassment and Discrimination (BH&D). Cabinet Office refused to provide the requested information, relying on section 36(2)(c) of FOIA as its basis for doing so. The Commissioner’s decision is that Cabinet Office was entitled to rely on section 36(2)(c) to refuse the request. No steps required.
Exemptions cited: FOI 36(2)(c)
View Cabinet Office
27 Feb 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to the Cabinet Office seeking minutes, agendas and briefing materials for the Build Back Better Business Council meetings. The Cabinet Office confirmed that it held information falling within the scope of the request but considered this to be exempt from disclosure on the basis of sections 35(1)(a) (formulation or development of government policy), 35(1)(d) (operation of a Ministerial Office) and 41(1) (information provided in confidence) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the withheld information is exempt from disclosure on the basis of section 35(1)(a) and that in all the circumstances of the case the public interest favours withholding the information.
Exemptions cited: FOI 35(1)(a)
View Cabinet Office
27 Feb 2023Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested legal advice relating to an application for the designation of a Neighbourhood Area and Neighbourhood Forum in the Bell Green area. The London Borough of Lewisham (the “council”) disclosed some information and withheld legal advice under the exemption for legal professional privilege (section 42 of the FOIA). The council subsequently reconsidered the request under the EIR and withheld the information under the exception for the course of justice (regulation 12(5)(b)). The Commissioner’s decision is that the council wrongly handled the request under the FOIA and breached regulation 5(2) and regulation 14(1) but that it is entitled to rely on regulation 12(5)(b) 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)(b); EIR 14(1); EIR 5(2)
View Lewisham Council
27 Feb 2023Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested various information about the Appleby Fair 2022. Appleby-in-Westmoreland Town Council (the Council) provided some information, but withheld other information under section 43 (commercial interests) of the FOIA. During the course of the Commissioner’s investigation the Council disclosed some of the information it originally withheld. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council does not hold any additional information relevant to the request. The Commissioner has also determined that the Council was not entitled to rely on section 43 to withhold the requested information. The Commissioner requires the Council to disclose the remaining information it has withheld relevant to the request.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 43
27 Feb 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested various information in relation to named individuals regarding Natural Resources Wales’ (NRW) Strategic Review of Charging Programme (SRoC) for the period from June 2019 to the date of their request 6 (July 2022). NRW refused the request on the basis that it was vexatious citing section 14(1) FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that NRW was entitled to rely on section 14(1) FOIA to refuse the request.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14(1)
View Natural Resources Wales
27 Feb 2023Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) seeking a copy of the Secretary of State’s ministerial diary for the period 1 March 2020 to 16 April 2020. The DWP refused the request on the basis of section 14(1) (vexatious) of FOIA given the burden in complying with it as well as section 14(2) (repeated requests). The Commissioner’s decision is that neither section 14(1) nor section 14(2) provide a basis to refuse the request.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14(1); FOI 14(2)
View Department for Work and Pensions
27 Feb 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The Commissioner’s decision is that the complainant’s request to the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) about its Work Programme and placement schemes is a vexatious request under section 14(1) of FOIA. Under section 17(6), the DWP was not obliged to issue the complainant with a further refusal notice. It is not necessary for the DWP to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14; FOI 17
View Department for Work and Pensions
27 Feb 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information containing references to the National Security Bill in UK-Israel Trade Working Group minutes or briefings. The Department for Business and Trade (DBT) refused to confirm or deny whether it held such information and cited section 27(4) (prejudice to international relations). The Commissioner’s decision is that DBT is entitled to rely on section 27(4) as its basis for refusing to confirm or deny whether it holds the requested information. The Commissioner does not require DBT to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 27
View Department for Business and Trade
27 Feb 2023Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested from Middlesbrough Council information relating to the procurement of specific software. The Council withheld the requested information under section 43(2) (Commercial interests) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has failed to demonstrate that section 43(2) is engaged. The Commissioner requires the Council to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation:Disclose the withheld information, ensuring that any personal data is redacted subject to the terms of the Data Protection Act 2018.
Exemptions cited: FOI 43(2)
View Middlesbrough Council
27 Feb 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
In a five part request, the complainant has requested information about a sickness recording system (known as ‘SAP’). HM Land Registry (‘HMLR’) disclosed information relevant to three parts and has advised it does not hold recorded information within scope of the remaining parts. The Commissioner’s decision is as follows: On the balance of probabilities, HMLR holds no further recorded information relevant to the complainant’s request and has complied with section 1 of FOIA. The Commissioner does not require HMLR to take any further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1(1)
View HM Land Registry
24 Feb 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information relating to a neighbours building extension. The Commissioner’s decision is that Royal Borough of Kingston Upon Thames (the Council) is entitled to rely on regulation 13(1) of EIR to withhold the requested information. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any additional steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 13(1)
View Kingston upon Thames Council
24 Feb 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested correspondence and related records submitted by the DfE in response to a complaint they made. The Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) disclosed some information but withheld the remainder citing section 44 of the FOIA as its basis for doing so. The Commissioner’s decision is that the ICO is entitled to rely on section 44 of the FOIA to withhold the requested information. The Commissioner does not require the ICO to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 44
View Information Commissioner
24 Feb 2023Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information from London Borough of Croydon (“the Council”) relating to leaf clearance policies. The Council provided the complainant with some information within the scope of the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that, at the time of the request, the Council did hold more information within the scope request which it did not disclose at the time of issuing its initial response. As the Council has since disclosed this additional information the Commissioner does not require any steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 5(2)
View London Borough of Croydon
24 Feb 2023Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information regarding the London Borough of Lewisham’s (the Council) reasonable adjustment processes and procedures. The Commissioner’s decision is that: The Council has correctly applied section 12 and was entitled to refuse the request. The Commissioner also finds that the Council did not comply with its obligations under section 16 of FOIA to offer advice and assistance The Council failed to respond within 20 working days and therefore breached section 17 of FOIA. The Commissioner now requires the Council to provide the complainant with advice and assistance to help them submit a request falling within the appropriate limit, or state that it is not possible to refine the request in such a way as to fall within the appropriate limit. 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
Exemptions cited: FOI 12(1); FOI 16; FOI 17
View Lewisham Council
24 Feb 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about how much funding Onside Advocacy, a local charity, receives from Worcestershire County Council (the Council). The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the Council does not hold the information described in the request. No steps are required as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Worcestershire County Council
24 Feb 2023Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information regarding the number of Member Enquiries (MEQ) submitted per Elected member. The Commissioner’s decision is that the London Borough of Enfield (the Council) has failed to demonstrate that the exemption at section 40(2) is engaged with regard to the number of MEQs submitted by each Councillor and the names of these Councillors. The Commissioner finds that the Council has correctly relied on section 40(1) to withhold the requestors on personal data and does not require an further steps. The Commissioner decision is that the Council has breach Section 10(1) of FOIA as it has not responded to the request within the required timescale. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. Disclose the amount of MEQs submitted by each Councillor and the names of these Councillors. The public authority must take these steps within 35 calendar days of the date of this decision notice. Fail
Exemptions cited: FOI 10(1); FOI 40(1); FOI 40(2)
View Enfield Council
24 Feb 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about a particular case officer. The above public authority (“the public authority”) relied on section 40(2) of FOIA to withhold the information. The Commissioner’s decision is that the public authority is entitled to rely on section 40(2) of FOIA to withhold the information.The Commissioner does not require further steps to be taken.Keywords: job performance
Exemptions cited: FOI 40(2)
View Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman
24 Feb 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information relating to neighbouring properties foundation depths. The Commissioner’s decision is that Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames (the Council) was entitled to rely on Regulation 13(1) when refusing this request. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any further steps. First-tier tribunal (General Regulatory chamber) information rights appeal EA/2023/0249 appeal dismissed.
Exemptions cited: EIR 13(1)
View Kingston upon Thames Council
24 Feb 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information about an ongoing dispute over the ownership of a piece of land. The Environment Agency disclosed some information but withheld the rest under regulation 12(5)(b) (course of justice) and regulation 12(4)(e) (internal communications). The Commissioner’s decision is that the Environment Agency is that the EA has correctly withheld the information under regulation 12(5)(b). The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(b)
View Environment Agency
24 Feb 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information relating to foundation depths at two properties. The Commissioner’s decision is that Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames (the Council) was entitled to rely on regulation 13(1) of EIR to withhold the requested information. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any additional steps. First-tier tribunal (General Regulatory chamber) information rights appeal EA/2023/0248 appeal dismissed.
Exemptions cited: EIR 13(1)
View Kingston upon Thames Council
24 Feb 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested the medical advice behind the decision to stop shielding for vulnerable individuals. The Commissioner’s decision is that the DHSC has provided all of the information that fell within the scope of the request and therefore complied with section 1 (general right of access). The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Department of Health and Social Care
23 Feb 2023Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about an investigation. The above public authority initially said it did not hold any information before refusing the request as vexatious. The Commissioner’s decision is that the request was vexatious and therefore the public authority was not obliged to comply with it. The public authority breached section 17 of FOIA. The Commissioner does not require further steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14; FOI 17
View North Lincolnshire Council
23 Feb 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about speed tolerance levels from Staffordshire Police. Staffordshire Police disclosed some information but refused to disclose the remainder citing sections 31(1)(a) and (b) (Law enforcement) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that Staffordshire Police was entitled to rely on sections 31(1)(a) and (b). No steps are required.
Exemptions cited: FOI 31
View Staffordshire Police
23 Feb 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested “Full copies of both phases of the Targeted Review of Awarding of PPE Contracts reports.” The Commissioner’s decision is that Government Internal Audit Agency correctly relied on section 33 (prejudice to audit functions) to withhold the requested information.
Exemptions cited: FOI 33
View Government Internal Audit Agency
23 Feb 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
In the three parts of the request that are the focus of this decision, the complainant asked the Office for Standards in Education, Children’s Services and Skills (‘Ofsted’) some questions relating to a particular inspection. They asked Ofsted whether it had considered some evidence the complainant said they had provided to Ofsted, in relation to safeguarding concerns and the alteration of reports; whether Ofsted had investigated the complainant’s concerns; and whether Ofsted had required any action to be taken in view of the complainant’s evidence. The Commissioner’s decision is that Ofsted is entitled to neither confirm nor deny (‘NCND’) holding any information, under section 40(5A) of FOIA (personal information); that Ofsted responded to the request within the statutory time for compliance; and the Commissioner has not found a breach of section 16 (advice and assistance). The Commissioner does not require any steps to be taken following this decision notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 16; FOI 40(5)(a)
View Office for Standards in Education, Children's Services and Skills
23 Feb 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information about staff redundancies. Oxford City Council (the “council”) disclosed some information and withheld information relating to job roles under the exemption for personal data (section 40(2)). The Commissioner’s decision is that the council is entitled to rely on section 40(2) (personal information) of the FOIA to refuse to provide the requested information. The Commissioner does not require the council to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40(2)
View Oxford City Council