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 First-tier tribunal (General Regulatory chamber) information rights appeal EA/2023/0136 appeal withdrawn.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 requested from Vale of White Horse Council information relating to the accounts for a mobile home park that is run by the Council. The Council withheld the requested information under section 43(2) (commercial interests) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council is entitled to withhold the requested information under section 43(2). The Commissioner does not require the Council to take any steps. First-tier tribunal (General Regulatory chamber) information rights appeal EA/2023/0119 under appeal.
Exemptions cited: FOI 43(2)
View Vale of White Horse District Council
13 Feb 2023Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested the recommendations from Internal Process Reviews and the resulting tracked actions. The Commissioner’s decision is that section 35(1)(a) is not engaged for some of the withheld information and for the information that does engage section 35(1)(a), the public interest favours disclosure. The Commissioner requires the public authority to disclose the withheld information with the exception of the agreed section 40(2) redactions. 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 35
View Department for Work and Pensions
13 Feb 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The Commissioner’s decision is that section 14(1) of FOIA is engaged in respect of two requests the complainant submitted to the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) for correspondence about COVID-19 vaccine developers. That requests can be categorised as vexatious due to the disproportionate burden that complying with them would cause to MHRA. It is not necessary for MHRA to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14
View Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency
10 Feb 2023Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The public authority has failed to respond to this request within 20 working days, as specified in the EIR. The Commissioner requires it to provide the complainant with a response to this request within 35 calendar days in accordance with its obligations under the EIR.
Exemptions cited: EIR 5(2)
View Ashfield District Council
10 Feb 2023Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested from Oxford City Council information relating to the potential development of a site. The Commissioner’s decision is that the information requested is environmental and therefore the Council should have dealt with the request under the Environmental Information Regulations 2004 and not the FOIA. The Commissioner requires the Council to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: Reconsider and respond to the complainant’s request dated 10 February 2022 under the EIR.
Exemptions cited: FOI 39
View Oxford City Council
10 Feb 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested from Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames (the Council) information relating to council tax payments. The Council refused to comply with the request and cited section 12 (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 of FOIA. The Commissioner also finds that the Council complied with its obligations under section 16(1) of FOIA to offer advice and assistance. Therefore, the Commissioner does not require the Council to take any steps as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12(1); FOI 16(1)
View Kingston upon Thames Council
10 Feb 2023Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to the decision to place South Africa on the red list during the pandemic. The DfT applied section 14(2) (repeat requests), section 35(1)(a) (formulation of government policy), section 35(1)(b) (ministerial communications) and section 27(1) (international relations). The Commissioner’s decision is that: Section 14(2) does not apply and therefore the DfT is not entitled to rely upon it to refuse the request.Section 35(1)(a) is engaged and the public interest lies in maintaining the exemption. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14(2); FOI 35(1)(a)
View Department for Transport
10 Feb 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant made a request for information regarding Avon and Wiltshire Mental Health Partnership NHS Trust’s (the Trust) work on the SARI Supporting Trans People guidance. The Trust initially withheld some information under section 40(2) FOIA (third party personal data). However it subsequently confirmed that the Trust did not hold this information under section 1(1)(a) FOIA and directed the complainant to the public authority that would hold the required information. The Commissioner considers that the Trust was correct to confirm that it does not hold the information it had originally withheld under section 40(2) FOIA in accordance with section 1(1)(a) FOIA. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Avon and Wiltshire NHS Trust
10 Feb 2023Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to the complex care pathway for patients. By the date of this notice Essex Partnership University NHS Foundation Trust (“the Trust”) had not issued a substantive response to this request. The Commissioner requires the Trust to provide a substantive response to the request in accordance with its obligations under FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Essex Partnership University NHS Foundation Trust
10 Feb 2023Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to the Ministry of Defence (MOD) seeking a list of editions of ‘JSP 398 - UK Rules of Engagement’ and a copy of the latest edition. The MOD provided him with a list of editions and a redacted copy of the latest edition. It explained that the redactions had been made on the basis of sections 23(1) (security bodies), 24(1) (national security) and 26(1)(a) and (b) (defence) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the MOD can rely on section 23(1) or sections 26(1)(a) and (b) to withhold the redacted information. The only exception to this conclusion is in respect of the redaction contained at paragraph 33, page 8 of Part 2 of JSP 398; the Commissioner does not accept that this redaction is exempt from disclosure on the basis of sections 26(1)(a) and (b) of FOIA. Information Tribunal EA/2023/0144 appeal withdrawn.
Exemptions cited: FOI 23; FOI 26
View Ministry of Defence
10 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 pay information for consultants by pay threshold, gender, ethnicity and age.The Commissioner’s decision is that DHSC has not demonstrated that complying with the request would impose a grossly oppressive burden and consequently it is not entitled to rely on section 14(1).The Commissioner requires DHSC to take the following step to ensure compliance with the legislation: To respond to the request again, without relying upon section 14(1) of FOIA. 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.Keywords: Datasets
Exemptions cited: FOI 14(1)
View Department of Health and Social Care
10 Feb 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested risk assessments relating to Afghanistan. The above public authority relied on sections 24 (national security), 27 (international relations) and 35 (formulation of government policy) of FOIA to withhold some information and relied on section 23(5) of FOIA (security bodies) to refuse to confirm or deny whether further information was held. The Commissioner’s decision is that the public authority has correctly applied sections 24, 27 and 35 of FOIA to the information it has confirmed it holds and that the public interest favours maintaining each exemption. The Commissioner is also satisfied that the public authority was entitled to refuse to confirm or deny whether further information was held. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 24; FOI 27; FOI 35
View Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office
10 Feb 2023Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested from London Borough of Southwark (the Council) information relating to the complainant’s deceased relative. The Council disclosed some information but refused parts of the request under section 41(1) (information provided in confidence) and section 40(2) (personal information) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is the Council is entitled to rely on section 41(1) to question 2 of the request and section 40(2) to question 9 to refuse to provide the information requested. The Commissioner does not require the Council to take any steps as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40(2); FOI 41(1)
View Southwark Council
10 Feb 2023Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested from London Borough of Richmond upon Thames (the Council) information relating to the complainant’s deceased relative. The Council refused the request under section 41(1) (information provided in confidence) and section 40(2) (personal information) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is the Council is entitled to rely on sections 41(1) and 40(2) of FOIA to refuse to provide the information requested. However, the Council breached section 17(1) of FOIA as its refusal notice was issued outside the required timescales. The Commissioner does not require the Council to take any steps as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: FOI 17; FOI 40(2); FOI 41(1)
View Richmond upon Thames Council
10 Feb 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from Greater Manchester Police (the public authority). The Commissioner’s decision is that the public authority is entitled to rely on section 40(5B) (personal information) of FOIA to refuse to confirm or deny whether any information is held.The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40(5)(b)
View Greater Manchester Police
10 Feb 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from Hertfordshire Constabulary (‘the public authority’). The Commissioner’s decision is that the public authority is entitled to rely on section 40(5B) (personal information) of FOIA to refuse to confirm or deny whether any information is held.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View Hertfordshire Constabulary
10 Feb 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The Commissioner’s decision is that the complainant’s request for information about a permissive access policy is manifestly unreasonable under regulation 12(4)(b) of the EIR and Natural Resources Wales is not obliged to comply with it. It is not necessary for Natural Resources Wales to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(b)
View Natural Resources Wales
10 Feb 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested from North Yorkshire County Council (the Council) information regarding Long Lane and Selby Road, Wistow. The Council provided information to the request but with some redactions as it constitutes third party personal information, and therefore relied on regulation 13(1) of EIR. The Council considered that all of the recorded information held relating to this request and which is not exempt, had been provided to the complainant. It also confirmed it does not hold further information within the scope of the request. The Commissioner’s decision is the Council was entitled to withhold information under regulation 13(1) of EIR. He also determined that on the balance of probabilities, the Council does not hold further information within scope of the request. The Commissioner does not require the Council to take any steps as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(a); EIR 13(1)
View North Yorkshire County Council
10 Feb 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested “all documentation re the Executive Groups”. Liverpool University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust (the Trust) refused to comply with the request under section #14 FOIA as it considers it to be vexatious. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Trust was entitled to rely on section 14(1) of FOIA to refuse this request. The Commissioner does not require further steps. First-tier tribunal (General Regulatory chamber) information rights appeal EA/2023/0078 under appeal.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14
View Liverpool University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust
10 Feb 2023Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant submitted two requests for information held by Bristol City Council (the council) about Stoke Lodge Playing Fields. Whilst the council initially refused both requests under section 14 of FOIA, it later changed its position, now relying on the exception at regulation 12(4)(b) - manifestly unreasonable, of the EIR, to refuse both requests. Whilst the Commissioner finds that the EIR is the correct information access regime, he has decided that the council is not entitled to rely on regulation 12(4)(b) as its basis for refusing either request. The Commissioner has also found a breach of regulation 14(2) of the EIR, as the council failed to issue a refusal notice in response to either request within 20 working days. The Commissioner requires the council to reconsider and respond to Request 1 and Request 2 again, without relying on regulation 12(4)(b) of the EIR. First-tier tribunal (General Regulatory chamber) information rights appeal EA/2023/0139 appeal allowed.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(b); EIR 14(2)(1)
View Bristol City Council
10 Feb 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested a copy of Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs George Eustice's ministerial diaries within a particular time period. Defra refused to comply with the request, citing section 14(1) (vexatious requests), based on the grossly oppressive burden that complying with the request would impose. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Defra is entitled to rely upon section 14(1) to refuse to comply with the request. The Commissioner does not require Defra to take any further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14
10 Feb 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested pre-application planning advice. Thanet District Council (the “council”) refused the request, citing the exceptions for the confidentiality of proceedings (regulation 12(5)(d)) and the interests of the information provider (regulation 12(5)(f)). The Commissioner’s decision is that the council was entitled to withhold the requested information under regulation 12(5)(d). The Commissioner does not require the council to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(d)
View Thanet District Council
9 Feb 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from the University of Sheffield (“the University”) relating to communications sent via e-mail to and from certain groups. The University treated part of the complainant’s request as a Subject Access Request and refused to disclose some of the remaining information (“the withheld information”) citing section 40(5B)(a)(i) of FOIA as a basis for non-disclosure. In relation to the information requested in part 3 of the complainant’s request, as outlined in paragraph 5 below, the University stated that it did not hold such information.The Commissioner’s decision is that the University has incorrectly applied section 40(5B)(a)(i) of FOIA to the withheld information, however in relation to part 3 his decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the University does not hold information within the scope of that part of the complainant’s request.The Commissioner requires the University to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legi
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View The University of Sheffield
9 Feb 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from Hampshire Constabulary (the Police) about a historical murder case. The Police refused to disclose the requested information, citing section 30 (investigations and proceedings) and section 40 (personal information) of FOIA as its basis for doing so.The Commissioner’s decision is that the Police correctly relied on section 30 of FOIA to withhold the requested information, and that the public interest favours maintaining the exemption.The Commissioner does not require the Police to take any further steps. First-tier tribunal (General Regulatory chamber) information rights appeal EA/2023/0146 appeal withdrawn.
Exemptions cited: FOI 30
9 Feb 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from the Education Authority Northern Ireland (“the EA”) about school buses. The EA provided some information in response to the request but explained that it did not hold some of the other information requested.The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the EA does not hold the requested information. The Commissioner does not require the EA to take any steps as a result of this decision notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
9 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
9 Feb 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from Portsmouth City Council (“the Council”) about the number of staff involved with elective home education and the training they had received. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council is entitled to rely on section 40(2) of FOIA to withhold the requested information. The Commissioner does not require the Council to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40(2)
View Portsmouth City Council
9 Feb 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to nurses proven of misconduct due to misuse of social media from the Nursing and Midwifery Council (the Council).The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council 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 NMC
9 Feb 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information about the appointment of Commissioners. The above public authority accepted that it was subject to the EIR, but stated that the requested information was not environmental. It did however, provide some of the information voluntarily. The Commissioner’s decision is that the information the public authority has not already provided to the complainant is not environmental information and therefore the public authority is not obliged by the EIR to provide it. As the information is not environmental and the public authority is not covered by FOIA, the Commissioner would be unable to require any remedial steps to be taken. First-tier tribunal (General Regulatory chamber) information rights appeal UA-2024-000721-GIA dismissed.
Keywords: fishermen’s commissioners, elections, purpose
Exemptions cited: EIR 2(1)
9 Feb 2023Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested from Telford & Wrekin Council information in relation to a number of planning applications. Telford & Wrekin Council disclosed some of the requested information but withheld the remainder under Regulations 12(4)(e), 12(5)(f) and 13 of the EIR. Following the Commissioner’s intervention, Telford & Wrekin Council disclosed information previously redacted and withheld. The Commissioner’s decision is that Telford & Wrekin Council breached Regulations 5(1) and 5(2) of the EIR by failing to respond to the initial request within 20 working days and by failing to provide all the information it held. Telford & Wrekin Council also breached Regulation 14(2) of the EIR by failing to issue a refusal notice within 20 working days. The Commissioner does not require Telford & Wrekin Council to take any steps to ensure compliance with the legislation.
Exemptions cited: EIR 14(2)(1); EIR 5(2)
View Telford and Wrekin Council
9 Feb 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested correspondence between the Serious Fraud Office’s Departmental Trade Unions and Sir David Calvert-Smith in connection with his 21 July 2022 report. The Attorney General’s Office (AGO) refused the request, citing the exemption for prejudice to the effective conduct of public affairs (section 36(2)). The Commissioner’s decision is that the AGO was entitled to rely on section 36(2)(b)(ii) to refuse the request. The Commissioner does not require the AGO to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 36(2)(b)(ii)
View Attorney General's Office
9 Feb 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to the Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office (FCDO) seeking a list of what bottles of wine from the Government’s Wine Cellar which were provided for functions at 10 Downing Street over the period January 2020 to December 2021. The FCDO withheld the information falling within the scope of the request on the basis of sections 27(1)(a), (b) and (c) (international relations) and section 36 (effective conduct of public affairs) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the withheld information is exempt from disclosure on the basis of the exemptions contained at sections 27(1)(a), (b) and (c) and that in all the circumstances of the request the public interest favours maintaining the exemptions. First-tier tribunal (General Regulatory chamber) information rights appeal EA/2023/0124 appeal allowed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 27
View Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office
9 Feb 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from Humberside Police. The Commissioner’s decision is that Humberside Police was entitled to refuse to comply with the request in accordance with section 12(4) (aggregation of related requests) of FOIA and is entitled to rely on section 12(1) of the FOIA to refuse the requests. The Commissioner also finds that Humberside Police did comply with its obligations under section 16 of FOIA to offer advice and assistance.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12; FOI 16
View Humberside Police
9 Feb 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from Framlingham Town Council (“the Council”) relating to legal advice sought by the Council.The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council is entitled to rely on section 42(1) (legal professional privilege) of FOIA to withhold the requested information.The Commissioner does not require the Council to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 42(1)
9 Feb 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to HM Revenue & Customs (HMRC) seeking information about a number of Anti Avoidance Board meetings. HMRC disclosed some of the information falling within the scope of the request but sought to withhold the remaining information on the basis of sections 36(2)(b)(i), (ii) and 36(2)(c) (effective conduct of public affairs), 40(2) (personal data) and 44(1) (prohibition on disclosure) of FOIA. The complainant sought to challenge the application of the section 36 exemptions. The Commissioner’s decision is that HMRC is correct to rely on sections 36(2)(b)(i), (ii) and 36(2)(c) and that in all the circumstances of the case the public interest favours maintaining these exemptions. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2023/0081 dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 36
9 Feb 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a multipart request to Nottinghamshire County Council (the Council) seeking information about reports made under the ‘Lorry Watch’ scheme. The Council provided information falling within the scope of the request but explained that it was seeking to withhold some information on the basis of sections 24(1) (national security) and 40(2) (personal data) of FOIA. The information in question explained why reports made under the scheme were not fully processed for certain periods of time. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council is entitled to apply these exemptions in the manner in which it has. First-tier tribunal (General Regulatory chamber) information rights appeal EA/2023/0104 appeal dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 24; FOI 40(2)
View Nottinghamshire County Council
9 Feb 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested from Coventry City Council information relating to the expenditure of council tax, and specifically all receipts relating to it. The Council denied that the information was held. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council does not hold the information. The Commissioner does not require the Council to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Coventry City Council
9 Feb 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to the Government Internal Audit Agency (GIAA) seeking copies of reports undertaken by the European Commission on the work undertaken by the GIAA during the years 2018-2021. The GIAA provided a list and brief summary of the six audit reports in scope but withheld copies of the reports themselves on the basis of section 27(2) (international relations) of FOIA. The complainant disputed the GIAA’s decision to withhold two of these reports. The Commissioner’s decision is that the GIAA is entitled to withhold these reports on the basis of section 27(2) of FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 27
View Government Internal Audit Agency
8 Feb 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested a copy of a report which was written following an investigation into the conduct of local councillors, from Stratford on Avon District Council (the “Council”). The Council refused to provide the report, citing sections 36(2)(c) (Prejudice to effective conduct of public affairs) and 40(2) (Personal information) of FOIA.The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council was entitled to rely on section 36 to refuse to provide the requested information. No steps are required.
Exemptions cited: FOI 36
View Stratford-on-Avon District Council
8 Feb 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information on the number of prosecutions raised against residents. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on a balance of probabilities, the Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead (“RBWM”) does not hold the requested information.The Commissioner does not require RBWM to take any steps to ensure compliance with the legislation.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Windsor and Maidenhead Council
8 Feb 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to the Port Approval for the Port of Immingham. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Home Office was entitled to apply section 31(1)(a) and (e) of FOIA to withhold the requested information. The Commissioner requires no steps as a result of this decision. First-tier tribunal (General Regulatory chamber) information rights appeal EA/2023/0092 appeal dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 31
View Home Office
8 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)
View NHS England
8 Feb 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council (‘the public authority’). The Commissioner’s decision is that the public authority 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/2023/0128 appeal dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council
8 Feb 2023Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information about why a particular site was removed from the Danes Moss Landscape Character Area. Cheshire East Council (the Council) stated that it did not hold the requested information and, as such, relied on regulation 12(4)(a) (information not held) of the EIR. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the Council does not hold the requested information, in accordance with regulation 12(4)(a) of the EIR. However, the Commissioner finds that the Council breached regulation 14 of the EIR by failing to issue a refusal notice within the statutory timescale. The Commissioner does not require any steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(a); FOI 14
View Cheshire East Council
8 Feb 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to its “Desistance and Disengagement Programme” from the Home Office. The Home Office refused to provide the requested information citing sections 24(1) (National security), 38 (1) (Health and safety) and 40(2) (Personal information) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Home Office was entitled to rely on section 24(1) to withhold the requested information. He requires no steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 24
View Home Office
8 Feb 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information regarding planning complaints received by Harrow Council between 8 April 2019 and 19 April 2019.The Commissioner is satisfied that Harrow Council has provided the complainant with all the requested information it holds.
Exemptions cited: EIR 5
View Harrow Council
8 Feb 2023Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested a copy of an investigation report. The above public authority finally came to rely on section 36 (effective conduct of public affairs) and section 40(2) of FOIA (third party personal data) to withhold the requested information. The Commissioner’s decision is that the public authority has correctly engaged section 36 of FOIA, but the public interest favours disclosing the majority of the information. There is a small amount of identifiable information in the report which the public authority may rely on section 40(2) of FOIA to withhold. The remainder is not personal data. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. Disclose, to the complainant, a copy of the withheld information. The public authority may redact the information specified in the confidential annex to this noticeKeywords: suspicion of wrongdoing, independent report, audit
Exemptions cited: FOI 36; FOI 40
View University Hospitals of Leicester NHS Trust
8 Feb 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from the General Medical Council (GMC) relating to FTP investigations. GMC refused the request under section 14(1) of FOIA (vexatious requests). The Commissioner’s decision is that the request was vexatious and therefore GMC 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/2023/0090 appeal dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14(1)
View GMC
8 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 Liverpool City Council