16 Feb 2023Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant made four requests to the Department for International Trade (“DIT”) for information regarding Saudi Arabia and the provision of further education. The DIT refused the requests under section 14(1) of FOIA (vexatious requests).On 7 February 2023, a machinery of government of change was announced whereby the DIT was merged into a new government department, the Department for Business and Trade (“DBT”).This Decision Notice has therefore been issued to the DBT in respect of information originally requested from the DIT.The Commissioner’s decision is that the requests were vexatious and therefore the DBT was entitled to rely upon section 14(1) of FOIA to refuse them. DBT breached section 10 of FOIA by failing to respond to the requests within 20 working days of receipt.The Commissioner does not require any steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 14(1)
View Department for International Trade
16 Feb 2023Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information with regards to two planning applications. Coventry City Council (the council) provided information to the complainant. The complainant believed that he has not been provided with the information requested. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council does not hold the information falling within the scope of the request, therefore regulation 12(4)(a) of the EIR is engaged. He also finds that the council breached regulation 14(3)(a) of the EIR by failing to respond with a refusal notice that stated clearly that the requested information was not held. The Commissioner does not require the council to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(a); EIR 14(3)(a)
View Coventry City Council
16 Feb 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested from North East Lincolnshire Council (‘the council’) information relating to any investigation carried out by the council in respect of a named company, including correspondence with third parties and other information. The council applied section 12 (appropriate limit) to part of the request. It also applied section 40(5A) to refuse to confirm or deny whether personal data is held about two named individuals. Furthermore, it applied section 30(1)(b) in respect of the information held as part of an investigation. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council was correct to apply the exceptions cited. The Commissioner does not require the council to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12; FOI 30(1); FOI 40(5)(a)
View North East Lincolnshire Council
16 Feb 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainants have requested a report into an allegation concerning a late relative, from the Metropolitan Police Service (the “MPS”). The MPS would neither confirm nor deny whether it held the report, citing section 40(5B) (Personal information) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the MPS was entitled to rely on section 40(5B). No steps are required.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View Metropolitan Police Service
16 Feb 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 Ministry of Justice
16 Feb 2023Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from Great Western Hospitals 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 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 the above 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 12(1); FOI 16
View Great Western Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust
16 Feb 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested to know the number of times, between March and July 2020, that the Prime Minister and the Home Secretary met. The Home Office refused the request, citing section 12(1) (Cost of compliance exceeds appropriate limit) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Home Office was entitled to apply section 12(1) to refuse the request. The Commissioner requires no steps as a result of this decision. First-tier tribunal (General Regulatory chamber) information rights appeal EA/2023/0089 appeal withdrawn.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12
View Home Office
16 Feb 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested the cost of providing security and protection to the Royal Family for a three year period, from the Home Office. The Home Office refused to provide the requested information citing sections 24(1) (National security), 31(1) (Law enforcement) and 38(1) (Health and Safety) of FOIA.The Commissioner’s decision is that section 24(1) is engaged and the public interest favours maintaining the exemption; the other exemptions have therefore not been further considered. No steps are required. Information Tribunal FTT appeal EA/2023/0165 dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 24
View Home Office
15 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
View Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust
15 Feb 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about two sets of civil proceedings where he was named as the defendant. The Ministry of Justice (‘the MoJ’) refused the request, citing sections 32 (Court records) and 40 (Personal information) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the MoJ was entitled to rely on sections 32(1)(a) and (c) of FOIA to refuse the request. The Commissioner requires no steps as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: FOI 32
View Ministry of Justice
15 Feb 2023Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested from Horsham District Council information relating to a planning application. The Council disclosed held information. The complainant believed that further information was held. During the course of investigation, the Council acknowledged that its original searches had been deficient, and that further information had since been identified. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council does hold further information. 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 the information held within its scope.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(a)
View Horsham District Council
15 Feb 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information held by the British Library (the Library) about the PhD thesis of Dr Tsai Ing-Wen (the current President of Taiwan). The Commissioner’s decision is that the Library is entitled to rely on section 14(1) of FOIA when refusing the request on the basis that it is vexatious. The Commissioner does not require the Library to take any steps as a result of this decision notice. First-tier tribunal (General Regulatory chamber) information rights appeal EA/2023/0152 appeal dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14(1)
View British Library
15 Feb 2023Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information about the discharge of a planning condition. The above public authority stated that it held no information beyond that available on its Planning Portal. The Commissioner’s decision is that the public authority holds no information, beyond that already published, that falls within the scope of the request. However it does appear to hold some similar information to that which was requested and was therefore under a duty to provide appropriate advice and assistance. The Commissioner therefore finds that the public authority breached regulation 9 of the EIR. The Commissioner does not require further steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: EIR 5(1); EIR 9
View North Somerset Council
15 Feb 2023Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information relating to the Castlegate Conservation Area consultation.Sheffield City Council (“the Council”) provided information in scope of the request, but redacted some of the pages, and cited regulation 13(1) (personal information) of the EIR for the redactions.The Commissioner finds that regulation 13(1) of the EIR is not engaged, and the Council breached regulation 5 of the EIR, in that it failed to provide its response within 20 working days of receipt of the request for information.The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following step to ensure compliance with the legislation. Disclose the specific information that is being withheld under regulation 13(1) of the EIR.The public authority 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 c
Exemptions cited: EIR 13(1)
View Sheffield City Council
15 Feb 2023Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from Bristol City Council (“the Council”) about the declared interests of the elected Mayor. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council was correct to withhold some information within the scope of the request under section 40(2) of FOIA, with the exception of specified information detailed in the confidential annex. The Commissioner requires the Council to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation.The Council should provide the complainant with the information detailed in the confidential annex. The confidential annex has not been provided to the complainant.The Council must take these steps within 35 calendar days of the date of this decision notice. Failure to comply may result in the Commissioner making written certification of this fact to the High Court pursuant to section 54 of the Act and may be dealt with as a contempt of court. First-tier tribunal (General Regulatory chamber) information rights appeal EA/2023/
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 40
View Bristol City Council
15 Feb 2023Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from UK Anti-Doping (UKAD) relating to Athlete Biological Passports (ABP). UKAD provided some information, stated that it did not hold some information, and withheld some information under section 31 (law enforcement) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that UKAD has correctly cited section 31 of FOIA and that the public interest does not favour the releases of this information. However, it breached section 10(1) and 17(1) of FOIA. The Commissioner does not require UKAD to take any steps. First-tier tribunal (General Regulatory chamber) information rights appeal EA/2023/0149 under appeal.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 17; FOI 31
View UK Anti-Doping
15 Feb 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about the Royal Borough of Greenwich’s (“the Council”) Twitter account and the Leader of the Council’s Twitter account. The complainant also requested telephone records between the Council and an Academy Trust, and made a meta-request for information held referring to the handling of an earlier request. The Council refused the request under section 14(1) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council is entitled to rely on section 14(1) to refuse the request. The Commissioner does not require any steps. First-tier tribunal (General Regulatory chamber) information rights appeal EA/2023/0158 appeal dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14(1)
View Royal Borough of Greenwich
15 Feb 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information relating to legal advice sought about the ‘Norwich Western Link Road’ project from Norfolk County Council (‘the Council’). This was a refined request over a shorter time period, for the same information as their previous request, which became the subject of a decision notice issued under case reference IC-129579-H6R9 . As with the previous request, the Council refused this refined request on the basis of regulation 12(4)(b) (manifestly unreasonable) with reference to the likelihood of regulation 12(5)(b) (course of justice) being engaged for much of the information captured by the request. As with the previous request, the Commissioner’s decision is that the Council was entitled to rely on regulation 12(4)(b) to refuse the request.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(b)
View Norfolk County Council
14 Feb 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about complaints received by London Borough of Lambeth (the Council) in February 2022. The Council provided some information, but refused the rest of the request by virtue of section 12(1) (cost of compliance exceeds appropriate limit) of FOIA.The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council was entitled to refuse to comply with the rest of the request in accordance with section 12(1) of FOIA.The Commissioner does not require the Council to take any further steps as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12(1)
View London Borough of Lambeth
14 Feb 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information about the people involved in making the decision on their application for a specific role. The University of Cambridge (the University) provided some information in scope of the request but refused to disclose the remainder, citing section 40(2) (personal information) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the University was entitled to apply section 40(2) in this case. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View The University of Cambridge
14 Feb 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 step: 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
14 Feb 2023Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested from Oxford City Council information relating to financial support for organisations during the COVID-19 pandemic. The Council initially withheld the information under section 43(2) (commercial information). At internal review stage, the Council withdrew reliance upon section 43(2), and applied section 12 (costs), whilst at the same time offering the complainant advice and assistance in order to submit a request that would not engage section 12. The complainant has not disputed the Council’s application of section 12, but has made a new request based on the Council’s advice and assistance. To date, the Council has not issued a response to the complainant’s new request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has breached section 10, as it has not issued a response to the complainant’s new request. The Commissioner requires the Council to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: Issue a response to the complainant’s new reques
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Oxford City Council
14 Feb 2023Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from Goldsmiths, University of London (“the University”) relating to whether staff had given any trigger warnings to students about the content of course materials on their children’s literature courses and whether any materials had been withdrawn during the most recent academic year.The Commissioner’s decision is that the University failed to provide an adequate response to the request and has not conducted sufficient searches to determine if it holds information within scope.The Commissioner requires the University to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation.The University must conduct more thorough searches for information within scope of the request and issue a fresh response to the request, which is adequate for the purposes of FOIA. The University 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 fac
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10
14 Feb 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from Fulham Cross Academy Trust (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.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40(2)
14 Feb 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested that the Department for Transport (DfT) disclose the Heywood Report on HS2. The DfT refused the request under section 35(1)(a) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the DfT has correctly applied the exemption and the public interest lies in withholding the information. The Commissioner does not require the DfT to take any steps as a result of this decision notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 35
View Department for Transport
14 Feb 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 Independent Office for Police Conduct
14 Feb 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested from the Department for Transport information relating to train operating companies’ retail costs for selling tickets. The DfT withheld the requested information under section 44 of FOIA (prohibitions on disclosure). The Commissioner’s decision is that the DfT was entitled to withhold the requested information under section 44. The Commissioner does not require the DfT to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 44
View Department for Transport
14 Feb 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The Commissioner’s decision is that the NMUH has correctly withheld the requested information under section 40(2) of FOIA. The Commissioner does not require the NMUH to take any steps as a result of this decision notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40(2)
View North Middlesex University Hospital NHS Trust
14 Feb 2023Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information from Trowbridge Town Council (“the Council”) relating to the costs associated with a redevelopment project.The Commissioner’s decision is that withheld information engages regulation 12 (4)(d) (material in the course of completion) but the balance of the public interest favours disclosure.The Commissioner requires the Council to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation.Disclose the withheld information.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)(d)
14 Feb 2023Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information in respect of a winning tender in relation to a Traffic Regulation Order Consultancy tender. Dacorum Borough Council (‘the Council’) refused the request citing section 43(2) (commercial interests) FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council was not correct to apply section 43(2) to withhold most of the information. The Commissioner has also recorded a breach of sections 10(1) and 17(1) in respect of its handling of this request for information.
Exemptions cited: FOI 43
View Dacorum Borough Council
14 Feb 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from Luddington Parish Council (“the Council”) relating to letter which they sent to the Council. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council is entitled to rely on section 40(1) (personal information) of the FOIA to refuse to provide the withheld information.The Commissioner does not require the Council to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40(1)
14 Feb 2023Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from Desborough Town Council (“the Council”) relating to a proposed one way system. 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 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 Council to take the following step to ensure compliance with the legislation.The Council must provide a substantive response to the request in accordance with its obligations under FOIA. 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 FOIA and may be dealt with as a contempt of court.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
14 Feb 2023Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested all emails containing three specific words from a particular date and within a particular former employee’s email account. The Department for Transport (DfT) refused to comply with the request under section 14 FOIA as it considers it to be vexatious. The Commissioner’s decision is that the DfT was not entitled to rely on section 14(1) of FOIA to refuse this request. The Commissioner requires the public authority to provide a fresh response to this request not relying upon section 14 FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14
View Department for Transport
14 Feb 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested that London Borough of Lambeth (the Council) provide information in relation to a scaffold/ Health and Safety incident that the complainant alleges occurred in May 2017.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1(1)
View London Borough of Lambeth
14 Feb 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to ‘cover notes’ sent to Private Office for requests made under FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Home Office was entitled to apply section 36(2)(b)(i) and (ii) of FOIA to withhold the requested information at parts 1 and 2(a). The Commissioner requires no steps as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: FOI 36(2)(b)(i); FOI 36(2)(b)(ii)
View Home Office
14 Feb 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information relating to a building regulation regularisation application. London Borough of Southwark (the Council) refused to provide the requested information, citing Regulation 13(1) (personal information) of the EIR. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has correctly applied Regulation 13(1) of the EIR. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: EIR 13
View Southwark Council
14 Feb 2023Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested a copy of a report dated December 2020 (“first report”) relating to a complaint made about an ex-employee of The University of Bristol (“the university”). The university confirmed that information relating to points 2 to 6 of the complainant’s request was provided through subsequent correspondence with the complainant and their legal representative outside the provisions of the FOIA regime, but withheld the first report and its Terms of Reference under section 32(2) of FOIA (Court, inquiry or arbitration records), section 36(b) and (c) of FOIA (Record of a qualified person’s opinion) and section 40 of FOIA (Personal information). First-tier tribunal (General Regulatory chamber) information rights appeal EA/2023/0172 under appeal.The Commissioner’s decision is that the university has correctly relied on section 36 and section 40 of FOIA to withhold the information. He does not require the public authority to take any steps. Information Tribunal EA/2023/0172
Exemptions cited: FOI 32(2); FOI 36; FOI 40
14 Feb 2023Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information from the Royal Borough of Greenwich (“the Council”) relating to West Greenwich Low Traffic Neighbourhood. The Commissioner’s decision is that some of the withheld information does not engage regulation 12(4)(e) (internal communications). The remainder of the withheld information does engage regulation 12(4)(e), but the balance of the public interest favours disclosure.The Commissioner requires the Council to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation.Disclose the withheld information making any appropriate personal data redactions.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 FOIA and may be dealt with as a contempt of court.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(e)
View Royal Borough of Greenwich
14 Feb 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant made a request for evidence, forms and relevant notes completed during a particular Ofsted inspection. Ofsted refused to disclose the requested information under section 33(2) FOIA. The Commissioner considers that Ofsted was correct to rely upon section 33(2) FOIA in this case. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 33
View Office for Standards in Education, Children's Services and Skills
14 Feb 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested from Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames (“the Council”) information regarding the number of times the Council used a specific response “Local Government Act 1972” (LGA) to FOIA requests. The Council refused to comply with the request and cited section 12(1) (cost of compliance) of FOIA.The Commissioner’s decision is the Council was entitled to refuse to comply with the request in accordance with section 12(1) of FOIA. However, the Council failed to provide adequate advice and assistance in accordance with section 16(1) of FOIA.The Commissioner requires the Council to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation.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 Cou
Exemptions cited: FOI 12(1)
View Kingston upon Thames Council
13 Feb 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information about Spelthorne Borough Council’s (‘the Council’) decision to pause development in Staines town centre, pending the adoption of a Local Plan. The Council refused the request, citing regulations 12(4)(b) (Manifestly unreasonable) and 12(4)(c) (Request formulated in too general a manner) of the EIR. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council was entitled to apply regulation 12(4)(b) to refuse the request. The Commissioner requires no steps as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(b)
View Spelthorne Borough Council
13 Feb 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from Bolton Council (“the Council”) about the sale of Council properties to the housing association, Bolton at Home, specifically about how the properties were valued. The Council refused to provide the requested information citing section 12(1) (cost limit) of FOIA as its basis for doing so.The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council is entitled to rely on section 12(1) (cost limit) to refuse to provide the requested information. He also finds that the Council met its obligations under section 16(1) of FOIA. The Commissioner does not require the Council to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1(1); FOI 16(1)
View Bolton Council
13 Feb 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
Homes for Lambeth (HfL) is entitled to refuse the complainant’s request as manifestly unreasonable under regulation 12(4)(b) of the EIR, because of the disproportionate burden complying with it would cause to HfL. HfL indicated that the request might be refined and, as such, there was no breach of regulation 9(1) which concerns advice and assistance. It is not necessary for HfL to take any steps.Keywords: Roman Rise
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(b); EIR 9
View London Borough of Lambeth
13 Feb 2023Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested teaching materials, provided by a third party, in support of sex education lessons. The above public authority (“the public authority”) provided some information, but relied on section 43 of FOIA (commercial interests) to withhold the remainder. The Commissioner’s decision is that the public authority is entitled to rely on section 43 of FOIA and that the balance of the public interest favours maintaining the exemption. The public authority breached sections 10 and 17 of FOIA in dealing with the request. The Commissioner does not require further steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 17; FOI 43
13 Feb 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to correspondence sent by and/or to the then Home Secretary, Priti Patel, in 2020 which mentioned the ‘death penalty’. The Home Office refused to provide the requested information citing sections 27 (international relations), 35(1)(a), (b) and (d) (formulation of government policy), 36(2)(b)(i), 36(2)(b)(ii) and 36(2)(c) (prejudice to effective conduct of public affairs), 40(2) (personal information) and 42(1) (legal professional privilege). The Commissioner has investigated its application of sections 35, 36, and 42 to the information withheld by virtue of those exemptions. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Home Office correctly relied on sections 35, 36 and 42 and that the balance of the public interest favoured maintaining the exemptions. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: FOI 35; FOI 36; FOI 42
View Home Office
13 Feb 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from the Charity 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. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40(2)
View The Charity Commission
13 Feb 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to speeding vehicles at a specific location. West Mercia Police (WMP) disclosed some information and withheld other information under the exemptions for law enforcement (section 31) and personal data (section 40). The Commissioner’s decision is that sections 31(1)(a) and (b) are properly engaged and that the public interest favours maintaining the exemption. The Commissioner does not require any steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 31(1)
View West Mercia Police
13 Feb 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The Commissioner’s decision is that the complainant’s request for information about a planning application is manifestly unreasonable under regulation 12(4)(b) of the EIR, and that there has been no breach of regulation 9, which concerns advice and assistance. It is not necessary for Haringey London Borough Council to take any further steps. First-tier tribunal (General Regulatory chamber) information rights appeal EA/2023/0151 appeal withdrawn.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(b); EIR 9
View Haringey Council
13 Feb 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested the total number of tickets issued and revenue received at Camberwell New Road/Warner Road/Camberwell Passage box junction. Transport for London (TfL) refused to disclose the requested information under section 31(1)(b), 31(1)(g) with subsection 31(2)(a) and section 43(2) FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that TfL has correctly applied section 31(1)(b) and 31(1)(g) with subsection 31(2)(a) FOIA to refuse to the withheld information. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken. First-tier tribunal (General Regulatory chamber) information rights appeal EA/2023/0136 appeal withdrawn.
Exemptions cited: FOI 31
View Transport for London
13 Feb 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant made a request for information relating to the applicable disciplinary arrangements and processes and the Code of Conduct specifically for the role of Ombudsman. The Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman (PHSO) confirmed that it did not hold the requested information under section 1(1)(a). The Commissioner considers that PHSO was correct to confirm that it does not hold information falling within the scope of this request under section 1(1)(a) FOIA. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken. First-tier tribunal (General Regulatory chamber) information rights appeal EA/2023/0142 appeal allowed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View The Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman