4 Feb 2023Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The Commissioner’s decision is that the complainant’s request about the Blakelands planning application can be categorised as manifestly unreasonable under regulation 12(4)(b) of the EIR. In relation to the timeliness of its responses, Milton Keynes City Council (MKCC) breached regulations 5(2), 14(2) and 11(4). It is not necessary for MKCC to take any steps. First-tier tribunal (General Regulatory chamber) information rights appeal EA/2023/0121 appeal allowed.
Exemptions cited: EIR 11; EIR 12(4)(b); EIR 14; EIR 5
View Milton Keynes Council
4 Feb 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The Commissioner’s decision is that North West Ambulance Service NHS Trust (NWAS) is entitled to withhold the requested information about 999 call-handling under section 38 of FOIA, which concerns health and safety. It is not necessary for NWAS to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 38
View North West Ambulance Service NHS Trust
3 Feb 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information relating to the number of bonfires and money spent on organising the events and making repairs after. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, Causeway Coast and Glens Borough Council (the Council) does not hold the requested information.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(a)
3 Feb 2023Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about the so-called Bethnal Green trio. The above public authority refused to confirm or deny that it held information within the scope of the request and relied on sections 23 (security bodies) 24 (national security) and 27 of FOIA (international relations) in order to do so. The Commissioner’s decision is that the public authority is entitled to rely on both sections 23(5) and 24(2) of FOIA in order to refuse to confirm or deny that it holds the requested information. In respect of section 24(2), the balance of the public interest favours maintaining the exemption. The public authority breached section 17 of FOIA by not responding within 20 working days. The Commissioner does not require further steps.Keywords: territory of national security
Exemptions cited: FOI 17; FOI 23; FOI 24
View Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office
3 Feb 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from Derbyshire County Council (“the Council”) relating to contents of a file held by the Council on the complainant’s business. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council is entitled to rely on section 40(2) (personal information) of FOIA to withhold information relating to some of the documentation it holds regarding the complainant’s business. He is also satisfied that, on the balance of probabilities, the Council does not hold any further information concerning a report from 2006 which the complainant requested in their internal review request.The Commissioner does not require the Council to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 40(2)
View Derbyshire County Council
3 Feb 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information on multiple separate occasions relating to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II’s Platinum Jubilee celebrations, the Lying in State and Funeral from the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS).The Commissioner's decision is that DCMS was entitled to aggregate the requests under section 12(4) and was entitled to refuse to comply with the request under section 12(1) of FOIA. The Commissioner also finds that DCMS complied with its obligations under section 16 of FOIA to offer advice and assistance.The Commissioner does not require DCMS to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12; FOI 16
View Department for Culture, Media and Sport
3 Feb 2023Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested access to death duty records relating to four members of the Royal Family. The above public authority relied on section 31 of FOIA to withhold the information. The Commissioner’s decision is section 31 of FOIA is engaged and that the balance of the public interest favours maintaining this exemption. However, the public authority breached section 17 of FOIA in responding to the request as it failed to complete its public interest considerations within a reasonable period of time. The Commissioner does not require further steps.Keywords: royal will, sealed will, court order
Exemptions cited: FOI 17; FOI 31
View The National Archives
3 Feb 2023Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested a breakdown of the support provided to Ukraine and, in particular, the proportion of that support that has made it to Ukraine. The above public authority relied on sections 24 (national security), 26 (defence) and 27 (international relations) in order to withhold the requested information. The Commissioner’s decision is that the public authority is entitled to rely on section 27 of FOIA and that the balance of the public interest favours maintaining the exemption. The public authority also breached section 17 of FOIA in responding to the request. The Commissioner does not require further steps.Keywords: supply chains, Russia, ministerial statements
Exemptions cited: FOI 17; FOI 27
View Ministry of Defence
3 Feb 2023Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information on the University of Southampton’s mediation service. The University refused the request as it considered it was vexatious under section 14(1) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is the University was not correct to apply section 14 to refuse the request. The Commissioner requires the public authority to issue a fresh response to the request not relying upon section 14(1) FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14
View University of Southampton
3 Feb 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council (“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. First-tier tribunal (General Regulatory chamber) information rights appeal EA/2023/0117 dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12; FOI 16
View Sandwell Council
3 Feb 2023Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested correspondence between Horsham District Council (the “council”) and specific individuals relating to a planning matter. The council refused to provide the information, citing the exceptions in regulation 12(5)(f) (interests of the person who provided the information to the public authority) and regulation 13 (personal information) of the EIR. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council is entitled to withhold information on the basis of regulation 13 of the EIR but that it did not respond to the request in time and breached regulation 5(2). The Commissioner does not require the council to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 13(1); EIR 5(2)
View Horsham District Council
3 Feb 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from Wolverhampton Homes, which is an Arm’s Length Management Organisation that manages council homes on behalf of City of Wolverhampton 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. First-tier tribunal (General Regulatory chamber) information rights appeal EA/2023/0106 struck out.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View Wolverhampton City Council
2 Feb 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested correspondence relating to the takeover of Newcastle United Football Club. The above public authority relied on section 27 of FOIA (international relations) to withhold the requested information. The Commissioner’s decision is that the public authority has correctly applied section 27 of FOIA and that the public interest favours maintaining the exemption. The Commissioner does not require further steps.Keywords: Saudi Arabia, diplomat, Ken Costa
Exemptions cited: FOI 27
View Cabinet Office
2 Feb 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from Hertsmere Borough Council (“the Council”) relating to damaged wheelie bins and the number of freedom of information requests refused by the Council. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council is entitled to rely on section 14(1) (vexatious request) of the FOIA to refuse to provide the requested information.The Commissioner does not require the Council to take any steps. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2023/0062 appeal dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14(1)
View Hertsmere Borough Council
2 Feb 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The Commissioner’s decision is that HM Revenue & Customs is entitled to withhold some of the requested correspondence between its senior officials about the loan charge policy under section 36(2)(b) of FOIA as disclosing it would be likely to prejudice the effective conduct of public affairs. It is not necessary for HM Revenue & Customs to take any steps. Information Tribunal FTT EA/2023/0099 under appeal.
Exemptions cited: FOI 36
2 Feb 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a meta-request to the Cabinet Office for all internal and external correspondence and communications about the handling of four previous information requests. The Cabinet Office refused the request under section 14(1) (vexatious requests) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Cabinet Office is entitled to rely on section 14(1) of FOIA. The Commissioner does not require any steps. In relation to this Notice, although agreeing with the decision itself, the Cabinet Office have raised concerns with us about its drafting – particularly in relation to the ‘Other Matters’ section. The ICO has considered all the points raised by the Cabinet Office and agrees the drafting of the Notice could have been clearer. In particular, the ‘Other Matters’ section refers to matters raised by the complainant in relation to the conduct of officials that are neither within the ICO’s remit, nor that we are substantively commenting on. Indeed, the intent of this section was
Exemptions cited: FOI 14(1)
View Cabinet Office
2 Feb 2023Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested the equality impact assessment (EIA) relating to the relaxation conditions of Section 60 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act in the Best Use of Stop and Search Scheme (BUSSS). The Commissioner’s decision is that the Home Office was entitled to apply section 35(1)(a) of FOIA to withhold the requested information. The Home Office however breached section 17(1) of FOIA as it did not issue a refusal notice within the required timescales. First-tier tribunal (General Regulatory chamber) information rights appeal EA/2023/0116 appeal allowed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 17; FOI 35(1)(a)
View Home Office
2 Feb 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested various information regarding a legal consultation in respect of the service of a section 215 notice under the Town & Country Planning Act from Mid Suffolk District Council (‘the Council’). The Council withheld the information citing regulation 12(5)(b) (the course of justice) of the EIR. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has correctly applied regulation 12(5)(b) to the withheld information.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(b)
View Mid Suffolk District Council
2 Feb 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about any decisions made to block members of the public email addresses, in order to prevent correspondence and access to written responses from the Cabinet Office, during the period June to September 2020. The Cabinet Office advised that they do not hold the requested information. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the Cabinet Office do not hold the information requested. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Cabinet Office
2 Feb 2023Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from Rochdale Borough Council (“the Council”) relating to a drag queen story hour.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.However, the Commissioner finds that the Council failed to provide reasonable advice and assistance and therefore failed to meet its obligations under section 16(1) of the FOIA. The Commissioner requires the Council to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation.Provide the complainant with advice and assistance to help them submit a request falling 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 54 of the FOIA and may be dealt with as a contempt of court.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12; FOI 16
View Rochdale Metropolitan Borough Council
2 Feb 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested data about Counter Terrorism (“CT”) arrests from the Metropolitan Police Service (the “MPS”). The Commissioner’s decision is that the information is not held by the MPS for the purposes of FOIA. No steps are required.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Metropolitan Police Service
2 Feb 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant wrote to the General Register Office (“GRO”), which is part of the Home Office, raising queries about six birth registrations. The Commissioner’s decision is that the request was not compliant with section 8(1)(c) (Request for information) of FOIA so the Home Office was not obliged to respond to it. No steps are required.
Exemptions cited: FOI 8
View Home Office
2 Feb 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested the provenance, dates and source of intelligence contained within an assessment used as a briefing in 1971. The Police Service of Northern Ireland (PSNI) refused to provide the information on the basis of sections 23(1) (security bodies), 30(1) (investigations), 38(1) (health and safety) and 40(2) by virtue of section 40(3)(a)(i) (third party personal data) of FOIA. The Commissioner is satisfied that the requested information is exempt from disclosure on the basis of section 23(1) of FOIA. The Commissioner does not require PSNI to take any steps. First-tier tribunal (General Regulatory chamber) information rights appeal EA/2023/0115 appeal allowed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 23
View Police Service of Northern Ireland
2 Feb 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information about farmland acquired by High Speed Two (HS2) Limited. HS2 disclosed some information and refused to provide other information, citing regulation 12(5)(a) (adversely affect public safety) and regulation 13 (personal information) of the EIR. The Commissioner’s decision is that HS2 correctly withheld the requested information under regulation 12(5)(a). The Commissioner does not require HS2 to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(a)
View High Speed Two (HS2) Limited
2 Feb 2023Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from Swansea Bay University Health Board (“the Health Board”) about waiting lists and Covid deaths. The Health Board provided some information within the scope of the request, but maintains that it does not hold some of the requested information for the purposes of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Health Board does hold the information requested in part 3 of the request for the purposes of FOIA; it was therefore not entitled to rely on section 3(2) of FOIA to refuse this part of the request and that the Health Board 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 Health Board to disclose the information it holds within the scope of part 3 of the request, or issue a valid refusal notice with does not rely on section 3(2) of FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10(1); FOI 3
2 Feb 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested all information held by HSE regarding a particular accident that occurred in April 2018. The Health and Safety Executive withheld the requested information, citing section 30(1)(b) (investigations and proceedings) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the exemption is engaged and the public interest lies in maintaining the exemption. The Commissioner does not require any further steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 30
View Health and Safety Executive
2 Feb 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from London Borough of Lambeth (“the Council”) relating to money received from the Central Hill Estate for rent and service charges and other income in the financial year 2019 - 2020.The Council stated it had supplied all the information within scope of the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has complied with section 1(1) of FOIA by disclosing all relevant information in scope of the request. The Commissioner does not require any steps to be taken as a result of this decision notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View London Borough of Lambeth
2 Feb 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested a copy of the Valuation Office Agency’s (‘the VOA’) FOIA policy. The VOA said that it does not have its own FOIA policy, and, therefore, that it does not hold the requested information. The Commissioner’s decision is that the VOA does not hold the information the complainant has requested. The Commissioner requires no steps as a result of this decisionKeywords: Practice recommendation
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Valuation Office Agency
2 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 General Dental Council
1 Feb 2023Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to Liverpool University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust (“the Trust”) for documentation relating to Liverpool University’s (“the university”) interest in Duncan House. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Trust breached section 10(1) of FOIA by failing to provide a valid response to the request within the statutory timeframe of 20 working days. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation.Respond to the complainant’s 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 10(1)
View Liverpool University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust
1 Feb 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from West Midlands Police (“the public authority”) in relation to how many staff had been dismissed since 2012/2013. The public authority refused to comply with the request, citing section 12 of FOIA – cost of compliance exceeds the appropriate amount. The Commissioner’s decision is that the public authority was entitled to refuse to comply with the request in accordance with section 12 of FOIA. The Commissioner also finds that the public authority has 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 as a result of this decision notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12; FOI 16
View West Midlands Police
1 Feb 2023Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information from the Environment Agency (EA) relating to salmon stock exploitation rates. EA refused the request under regulation 12(4)(b) as manifestly unreasonable. The Commissioner’s decision is that EA is entitled to rely on regulation 12(4)(b) of the EIR to refuse to comply with the request and that the public interest favours maintaining the exception. However, EA breached regulation 14(2) of the EIR by not issuing a refusal notice stating that it was relying on an exception within the statutory timeframe. The Commissioner does not require any steps. First-tier tribunal (General Regulatory chamber) information rights appeal EA/2023/0111 appeal dismissed.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(b); EIR 14(2)(1)
View Environment Agency
1 Feb 2023Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council (the Council) about a particular museum. The Council provided the complainant with some information within the scope of the request. The complainant believes that the Council has not responded to all of their request.The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council met its obligations under section 1 of FOIA, however it breached section 10(1) as it failed to provide its response within the statutory timeframe.The Commissioner does not require the Council to take any further steps on this matter.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10(1)
View Sandwell Council
1 Feb 2023Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information relating to footpaths, bridleways and byways. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, Rhondda Cynon Taf County Borough Council (the Council) does not hold the requested information. The Commissioner does however find that the Council breached Regulation 5(2), by not responding to the request within 20 working days. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any further steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 5; EIR 5(2)
View Rhondda Cynon Taf County Borough Council
1 Feb 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from Kent Police (the Police) relating to an alleged criminal offence. The Police stated that it could neither confirm nor deny that it holds the requested information.The Commissioner’s decision is that the Police correctly cited section 40(5) of FOIA to neither confirm nor deny that it holds the requested information. The Commissioner does not require the Police to take any further steps in relation to this matter. First-tier tribunal (General Regulatory chamber) information rights appeal EA/2023/0109 appeal dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40(5)
View Kent Police
1 Feb 2023Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested copies of reports from the Ormiston Academies Trust (the Trust), regarding the City of Norwich School’s (CNS) performance and compliance. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Trust, on the balance of probabilities, has not disclosed all the information it holds within the scope of the request. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. Disclose the Annex C “New Health and Safety Dashboard report – June 2019” to the complainant. 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. Information Tribunal FTT EA/2023/0162 struck out.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1(1)
View ORMISTON ACADEMIES TRUST
31 Jan 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has asked West Midlands Police (‘WMP’) about requests to have information deleted from the Police National Computer (‘the PNC’). WMP responded to part of the request, but refused the remainder, citing section 12 (cost of compliance exceeds appropriate limit) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that WMP was entitled to apply section 12(1) of FOIA to refuse the second and third parts of the request. The Commissioner requires no steps as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12; FOI 16
View West Midlands Police
31 Jan 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 The National Archives
31 Jan 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant made a request for the full findings and decision regarding a GMC investigation about a named doctor. The GMC refuse to disclose the requested information under section 40(2) FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that section 40(2) FOIA was applied correctly by the GMC in this case. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View GMC
31 Jan 2023Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 40
View Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office
31 Jan 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from London Borough of Redbridge (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 Redbridge Council
31 Jan 2023Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested copies of all board minutes, agendas and associated documents from April 2020 relating to the SEND Programme from Suffolk County Council (“SCC”). The Commissioner’s decision is that SCC was entitled to rely on section 22 of FOIA at the time of the request and withhold the information until the planned publication date. However, the Commissioner also notes that the information which was withheld under section 22 FOIA has now been published. Also, the Commissioner has found that SCC has breached both section 10 and section 17 of FOIA because of the delays in its response. The Commissioner does not require SCC to take any further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 17; FOI 22
View Suffolk County Council
31 Jan 2023Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested copies of invoices received by Northamptonshire Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust (the Trust), relating to Annex 6 of the Trust’s constitution (relating to the Council of Governors) and the Trust’s Nominations and Remuneration Committee. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Trust breached section 10(1) of FOIA by failing to provide a valid response to the request within the statutory time frame of 20 working days. No steps are required. Information Tribunal FTT EA/2023/0100 appeal struck out.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Northamptonshire Healthcare NHS Trust
31 Jan 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information relating to the London Borough of Lambeth’s (the Council) decision to replace windows in the complainant’s building. The Council stated that the requested information was not held. In June 2021 the complainant contacted the Commissioner for a decision. The Commissioner found that the Council had failed to conduct an internal review that met the requirements of regulation 11(3)(a) (internal review) of the EIR and instructed it to conduct a fresh internal review. The Council conducted a fresh internal review and maintained that information within scope of the request was not held. The Commissioner’s decision is that further information within scope of the request is not held. He does not require any steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(a)
View London Borough of Lambeth
31 Jan 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
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: FOI 12; FOI 16
View Regulator of Social Housing
31 Jan 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 Ministry of Defence
31 Jan 2023Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested details of crimes reported at 28 separate commercial premises. The above public authority relied on section 40(5B) of FOIA (third party personal data) to refuse to confirm or deny that the information is held. The Commissioner’s decision is that the public authority is not entitled to rely on section 40(5B) of FOIA. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. Confirm or deny whether it holds information in respect of each of the 28 premises and, if it does, it must either provide the information or issue a refusal notice that complies with section 17 of FOIA.Keywords: identifiable information
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View Leicestershire Police
31 Jan 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from Warborough and Shillingford Parish Council (“the Council”).The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council is entitled to rely on section 14(1) (vexatious request) of the FOIA to refuse to provide the requested information.The Commissioner does not require the Council to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14
31 Jan 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information with regards to her own property. Great Yarmouth Borough Council (the council) responded under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the FOIA) providing some information and advising the remaining is not held. The Commissioner’s decision is that the request falls under the EIR, but that regulation 5(3) of the EIR applies as the information is the complainant’s own personal data. This means that the council was not obliged to comply with the request. The Commissioner does not require any steps. First-tier tribunal (General Regulatory chamber) information rights appeal EA/2023/0114 appeal withdrawn.
Exemptions cited: EIR 5(3)
View Great Yarmouth Borough Council
31 Jan 2023Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about the charges brought against three individuals. The above public authority relied on section 40(5B) of FOIA (third party personal data) refused to confirm or deny that it held information within the scope of the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the public authority is not entitled to rely on section 40(5B) of FOIA to refuse to confirm or deny that any information is held. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. Confirm, to the complainant, whether it holds information within the scope of the request. The public authority must issue a single confirmation or denial covering all three individuals – it is not required to issue three separate responses. If information is held, the public authority must either disclose the information or issue a refusal notice that complies with section 17 of FOIA. Once again, the public authority is not required to dis-agg
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View Crown Prosecution Service