31 Jan 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested that the British Business Bank (‘the BBB’) provide certain information regarding two commercial entities; Maven and Mercia (M and M) and the Northern Power House funds which M and M manage. The BBB disclosed relevant information it said it held and provided advice and guidance as to why some of the information was not held. It is the Commissioners decision that the BBB has provided all of the information held within scope of the request. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2023/0103 appeal dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View British Business Bank
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 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 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 partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested the price paid for the hire of a named park for a music festival in July 2022. Sheffield City Council (the ‘Council’) refused to provide the requested information citing the EIR Regulation 12(5)(e) (the exception for commercial confidentiality). The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council was entitled to rely in Regulation 12(5)(e) of the EIR and correctly handled the request under this legislative regime. However, the Council breached Regulation 11(4) of the EIR by failing to provide an internal review within 40 working days. No steps are required as a result of this notice.Keywords: Rental, costs
Exemptions cited: EIR 11(4); EIR 12(5)(e)
View Sheffield City Council
31 Jan 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested all written and electronic communications sent to or received by a Planning Enforcement Officer between June 2020 and January 2021, including but not limited to communications with others within the Council planning department and the owners of (specific properties) and/or their agents/architects, in connection with complaints made on 24th June 2020 and subsequently that work at Nos XX and XX. The Council withheld the information citing regulation 12(4)(e) (Internal Communications) of the EIR. It is the Commissioners decision that the Council have correctly applied exception 12(4)(e).
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(e)
View Hammersmith and Fulham Council
31 Jan 2023Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
In a 21 part request, the complainant has requested a variety of information about North West Ambulance Service NHS Trust’s processes, procedures and performance. Their complaint concerns the Trust’s response to 16 parts of the request. The Commissioner’s decision is as follows: The Trust has disclosed all the information it holds within scope of parts 18 and 21 of the request and complied with section 1(1) of FOIA in respect of those parts. The Trust correctly applied sections 12(1), 21(1), 36(2)(c), 38(1) and 40(2) to the information it withheld regarding the remaining 14 parts of the request in scope of the complaint. The public interest favours maintaining these exemptions. The Trust’s handling of the request breached section 10(1) and 17(1) of FOIA but there was no breach of section 16(1). It is not necessary for the Trust to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10; FOI 16; FOI 17; FOI 21; FOI 36; FOI 38; FOI 40
View North West Ambulance Service NHS Trust
31 Jan 2023Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has made a series of requests for information connected to previous allegations he had made. The above public authority refused to confirm or deny that it held the requested information. The Commissioner’s decision is that the public authority was entitled to rely on section 40(5A) to refuse to confirm or deny if it held any information within the scope of elements [1], [2], [3], [10], [11], [12], [14], [15] and [16] because the information, if it were held, would be the complainant’s own personal data. It was entitled to rely on section 40(5B) of FOIA to refuse to confirm or deny that it held information within the scope of elements [4], [5] and [6] as doing so would reveal the personal data of one or more third parties. It was not entitled to rely on either exemption to refuse to confirm or deny that it held any information within the scope of elements [7], [8], [9], [13], [17] or [18]. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following steps to ensu
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View Crown Prosecution Service
31 Jan 2023Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from Devon and Cornwall Police (“the Police”) in relation to taxpayer costs for several different activities in relation to failed sting operations, the amount of resources used and for all policies, practices and procedures, which are legally applicable to the targeting of the complainant. All of the above are from the period 1997 onwards. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Police is entitled to rely on section 12(1) of FOIA to refuse the request. However, as the Police failed to respond to the request within 20 working days, it breached section 10(1) of FOIA. The Commissioner does not requires the Police to take any steps as a result of this decision notice. First-tier tribunal (General Regulatory chamber) information rights appeal EA/2023/0083 under appeal.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10(1); FOI 12(1); FOI 16(1)
View Devon and Cornwall Police
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 the Department of Finance (‘the public authority’). The Commissioner’s decision is that the public authority should have relied on section 40(5B) (personal information) of FOIA to refuse to confirm or deny whether any of the requested information was held.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40(5)
View Department of Finance
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 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)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
30 Jan 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The Commissioner’s decision is that South West Water is entitled to rely on regulation 12(5)(b) of the EIR, which concerns the course of justice, to withhold the requested information about discharges into the sea. It is not necessary for South West Water to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(b)
View South West Water
30 Jan 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to bonfires. Mid and East Antrim Borough Council (the “council”) refused the request under section 14(1) (vexatious request) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council is entitled to rely on section 14(1) refuse to provide the requested information. He does not require the council to take any steps. First-tier tribunal (General Regulatory chamber) information rights appeal EA/2023/0087 appeal dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14(1)
30 Jan 2023Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from Birmingham City Council (“the Council”) relating to penalty charge notices. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council is entitled to rely on section 12(1) (cost limit) of the FOIA to refuse to provide the information requested in part 2 of the request. Therefore, the Council is entitled to charge a fee to comply with part 2 of the request.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 refine part 2 of their request so that it falls 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 fa
Exemptions cited: FOI 12; FOI 16
View Birmingham City Council
30 Jan 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested minutes and emails of meetings with an external organisation from the Home Office (the “HO”). The HO refused to provide the requested information relying on sections 27(1)(a)(b) (International relations) and 35(1)(a) (Formulation of government policy) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the HO was entitled to rely on section 27 to refuse the request. No steps are required. First-tier tribunal (General Regulatory chamber) information rights appeal EA/2023/0088 appeal dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 27
View Home Office
30 Jan 2023Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from Brighton and Hove City Council (“the Council”) relating to parking permits issued by the Council. The Commissioner’s decision is that on the balance of probabilities, the Council holds further information within the scope of the request.The Commissioner requires the Council to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation.The Council must issue a fresh response to the request following searches aimed at identifying all information held within the scope of the request. The Council must take this step within 35 calendar days of the date of this decision notice. Failure to comply may result in the Commissioner making written certification of this fact to the High Court pursuant to section 54 of the FOIA and may be dealt with as a contempt of court.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Brighton and Hove City Council
30 Jan 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information about the closure of Water Street, Manchester to traffic. Manchester City Council (the Council) withheld the information requested under sections 24 (national security) and 38 (health and safety). The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council correctly applied section 24 of the FOIA to the withheld information. The Commissioner does not require any steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 24
View Manchester City Council
30 Jan 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information about an investigation into his company. The Security Industry Authority (the SIA), provided some information, withheld some information under sections 30(1) (investigations) and 31 (law enforcement) and stated other information was not held. The complainant disputed SIA’s response to one part of his request that it did not hold any recorded information. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the SIA does not hold the information in question. The Commissioner does not require any steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Security Industry Authority
30 Jan 2023Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from Bristol City Council (“the Council”) about Avon Mutual Bank (“the Bank”), specifically a copy of a due diligence report. The Council refused to provide the requested information, citing the commercial interests exemption under section 43(2) of FOIA as its basis for withholding the information. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has correctly applied section 43(2) to some of the withheld information, however, for much of the withheld information the exemption is not engaged. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: Disclose the withheld information, other than the information for which the Commissioner has decided that the exemption is engaged, as listed in the confidential annex to this notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 43(2)
View Bristol City Council
30 Jan 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from the Financial Ombudsman Service (“the FOS”) relating to a decision made by their predecessor the Personal Investment Authority Ombudsman Bureau (PIAOB), in 1999.The FOS stated it did not hold any information within scope of the request.The Commissioner’s decision is that on the balance of probability, the FOS does not hold any recorded information in scope of the complainant’s request and has complied with section 1(1) of FOIA. The Commissioner does not require any steps to be taken as a result of this decision notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
28 Jan 2023Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The Commissioner’s decision is that the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency (DVLA) has correctly applied section 31 of FOIA (law enforcement) to a request for blank letter templates. DVLA now intends to disclose one document it had previously withheld and so breached section 10(1) in that regard as it did not communicate this information within 20 working days of the request.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 31
View Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency
28 Jan 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
West Midlands Ambulance Service University NHS Foundation Trust (‘WMAS’) has correctly applied section 43(2) of FOIA to requested information about spending on paramedic training as disclosure would be likely to prejudice its commercial interests. It is not necessary for WMAS to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 43
View West Midlands Ambulance Service University NHS Foundation Trust
27 Jan 2023Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information provided during a consultation. The above public authority relied variously on sections 36 (prejudice to the effective conduct of public affairs) and 41 of FOIA (breach of confidence) to withhold the requested information. The Commissioner’s decision is that the public authority was entitled to rely on section 36 of FOIA and that the balance of the public interest favours maintaining the exemption. The public authority breached section 17 of FOIA as it failed to identify, in its refusal notice, an exemption it later came to rely upon. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 17; FOI 36
View Equality and Human Rights Commission
27 Jan 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about the inspection of HSE's investigation material relating to an incident involving one of their clients in 2017. 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
27 Jan 2023Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested the Care Quality Commission (CQC) to disclose information relating to Mental Health Act complaints and an inspection of an NHS Trust’s Mental Health Services. The CQC refused to disclose the inspection information citing section 31(1)(g) by virtue of 31(2)(c) of FOIA (law enforcement), section 40, section 41 and section 44 of FOIA. For the complaints information the CQC refused to disclose on the basis of the same exemptions. The Commissioner’s decision is that the CQC is entitled to refuse to disclose the inspection information in accordance with section 31(1)(g), by virtue of 31(2)(c) of FOIA and for the complaints information the CQC is entitled to refuse the request on the basis of section 40(2). The CQC however breached section 10 of FOIA by failing to respond to the complainant’s request within 20 working days of receipt.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 31; FOI 40
View CQC
27 Jan 2023Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested all information relating to the Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) and National Guidance. The Commissioner’s decision is that Commissioner of the City of London Police (the Police) has not interpreted the request correctly and therefore, on the balance of probabilities, holds further information within the scope of the request. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. Provide a fresh response based on the interpretation outlined in paragraph 20 of this decision notice. 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 1
View City of London Police
27 Jan 2023Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested correspondence from Department for Digital, Culture, Media & Sport that it received from named parties concerning contracts entered into (by the named parties) with certain betting operators. The Commissioner’s decision is that Department for Digital, Culture, Media & Sport wrongly relied on sections 41 (information provided in confidence) and 43(2) (Commercial interests) to withhold requested information from the complainant.
Exemptions cited: FOI 41; FOI 43
View Department for Culture, Media and Sport
27 Jan 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about the circumstances in which a driving licence can be issued to a person without a permanent residential address. The above public authority disclosed the majority of the requested information, but withheld a small section, relying on section 31 of FOIA in order to do so. The Commissioner’s decision is that the public authority has correctly applied section 31 of FOIA and that the balance of the public interest favours maintaining the exemption. The Commissioner does not require further steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 31
View Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency
27 Jan 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from Wiltshire Police regarding any police operations relating to hunt and anti-hunt activities in Wiltshire. Wiltshire Police refused to confirm or deny whether relevant information is held, and applied sections 30(3) and 31(3) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that Wiltshire Police was correct to refuse to apply the exemptions in sections 30(3) and 31(3) of FOIA. The Commissioner does not require Wiltshire Police to take any steps. First-tier tribunal (General Regulatory chamber) information rights appeal EA/2023/0102 appeal dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 30; FOI 31(3)
View Wiltshire Police
27 Jan 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested from Thames Valley Police (TVP) information relating to disability hate crimes. TVP refused to comply with the request and cited section 12(1) (cost of compliance) of FOIA.The Commissioner’s decision is TVP was entitled to refuse to comply with the request in accordance with section 12(1) of FOIA. The Commissioner also finds that TVP complied with its obligations under section 16(1) of FOIA to offer advice and assistance. Therefore, the Commissioner does not require TVP to take any steps as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12(1); FOI 16(1)
View Thames Valley Police
27 Jan 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from Abbey Multi-Academy Trust (the Trust) relating to a change of logo at one of its schools. Having provided some information, the Trust later withheld some information falling within scope under section 43(2) of FOIA (commercial interests). After the Commissioner began his investigation, the Trust also cited section 14(1) of FOIA (vexatious requests) to refuse the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the request was vexatious and therefore the Trust was entitled to rely upon section 14(1) of FOIA to refuse it. The Commissioner does not require any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14
View ABBEY MULTI ACADEMY TRUST
26 Jan 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The Commissioner’s decision is that the Animal and Plant Health Agency is entitled to rely on section 38(2) and section 43(3) of FOIA to neither confirm nor deny it holds the requested information about culling of pigs at a named farm. To do so would be likely to endanger another individual’s health or safety and would be likely to prejudice another person’s commercial interests. First-tier tribunal (General Regulatory chamber) information rights appeal EA/2023/0098 dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 38; FOI 43
View Animal and Plant Health Agency
26 Jan 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The Commissioner’s decision is that the Animal and Plant Health Agency is entitled to rely on section 38(2) and section 43(3) of FOIA to neither confirm nor deny it holds the requested information about culling of pigs at a named farm. To do so would be likely to endanger another individual’s health or safety and would be likely to prejudice another person’s commercial interests. First-tier tribunal (General Regulatory chamber) information rights appeal EA/2023/0101 dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 38; FOI 43
View Animal and Plant Health Agency
26 Jan 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The Commissioner’s decision is that MHRA has correctly applied sections 38(1), 41(1) and 43(2) of FOIA to requested information about a COVID-19 vaccine as disclosure would be likely to endanger individuals’ health, was provided in confidence and is commercially sensitive respectively. It is not necessary for MHRA to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 38; FOI 41; FOI 43
View Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency
26 Jan 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to Cabinet Office for information relating to honours and awards for the late John Gielgud. Cabinet Office refused to comply with the request on the basis that it was vexatious by virtue of section 14(1) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that Cabinet Office was entitled to rely on section 14(1) of FOIA to refuse to comply with the request. No steps are required.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14(1)
View Cabinet Office
26 Jan 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested from Hinckley and Bosworth Borough Council information relating to noise monitoring in respect of a Noise Abatement Notice. The Council withheld the requested information under regulation 12(5)(b) (course of justice). The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council was entitled to withhold the requested information under regulation 12(5)(b). The Commissioner does not require the Council to take any steps. First-tier tribunal (General Regulatory chamber) information rights appeal EA/2023/0085 appeal allowed in part.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(b)
View Hinckley and Bosworth Borough Council
26 Jan 2023Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested from Surrey County Council information concerning its decision not to grant Planning Inspectorate consent for the erection of a compound and structure on registered common land at Newlands Corner, despite the requirements of Section 38 of the Commons Act 2006. Surrey County Council withheld the requested information under Regulation 12(5)(b) of the EIR stating it was covered by legal professional privilege and disclosure would adversely affect the course of justice. The Commissioner’s decision is that Surrey County Council has correctly applied Regulation 12(5)(b) of the EIR. However, it breached Regulation 5(2) of the EIR by taking in excess of 20 working days to respond to the complainant’s request. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps to ensure compliance with the legislation.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(b); EIR 5(2)
View Surrey County Council
26 Jan 2023Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested the draft and final versions of evaluations of remote Work Capability Assessments undertaken by DWP and any submissions provided by the contractor. The Commissioner’s decision is that section 22A is not engaged in relation to the majority of the draft and final versions of the evaluations. However, the Commissioner considers that section 22A is engaged for a small amount of the information and the balance of the public interest favours maintaining the exemption. With regards to the request for submissions from the contractor, the Commissioner is satisfied that on the balance of probabilities, DWP does not hold any information falling within the scope of this request. The Commissioner requires the public authority to disclose the information falling within the scope of RFI1 and RFI1a with the exception of the draft versions of the already published report. The public authority must take these steps within 35 calendar days of the date of this decision notice
Exemptions cited: FOI 22A
View Department for Work and Pensions
26 Jan 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information from the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (“BEIS”) regarding a specific spreadsheet which details the emissions reductions that will be delivered under a specific strategy. BEIS refused to provide the information, citing regulations 12(4)(d) and 12(4)(e) of the EIR to withhold the information. The Commissioner’s decision is that BEIS has correctly applied regulation 12(4)(d) – material in the course of completion and regulation 12(4)(e) – internal communications of the EIR, when determining this request. The Commissioner does not require BEIS to take any steps as a result of this decision notice.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(d); EIR 12(4)(e)
View Department for Business and Trade
26 Jan 2023Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant’s representative has requested details of objections made to Reading Borough Council (the council) about her client’s planning application. The council withheld the information under Regulation 13(1) of the EIR (personal information) and Regulation 12(5)(f) (interests of the person who provided the information). The Commissioner’s decision is that some of the information is exempt under Regulation 5(3) as it is personal data belonging to the applicant, (i.e., the complainant). He has also decided that the council was correct to withhold the information under Regulation 13(1). However, he has also decided that the council did not comply with the requirements of Regulation 5(2) and Regulation 14(2). The Commissioner does not require the council to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 13(1); EIR 14(2); EIR 5(2)
View Reading Borough Council
26 Jan 2023Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested the most recent version of minutes for a Universal Credit Programme Board (UCPB) meeting held in February 2020.The Commissioner’s decision is that the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) has failed to fully consider all the information specified in the complainant’s request.The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation:Issue a fresh response to the complainant that confirms it holds the requested information. The DWP should either disclose the information or, in respect of any information it intends to withhold, issue a refusal notice within the meaning of section 17 of FOIA providing a basis for withholding information. Specifically, the DWP should provide a fresh response clarifying what information is held in relation to the most recent version of the meeting minutes in question.The public authority must take these steps within 35 calendar days of the date of this decision notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Department for Work and Pensions
26 Jan 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information on the withdrawal of police protection services for the Duke and Duchess of Sussex. The Home Office said that it did not hold the majority of the information described in the request, although it confirmed the date that security for the couple ended. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the Home Office does not hold the information described in the request. No steps are required as a result of this decision.Keywords: Royal protection
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Home Office
26 Jan 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to modern slavery and missing persons. Nottinghamshire Police provided some information but withheld the remainder, citing sections 21 (information accessible to applicant by other means) and 31 (law enforcement) of FOIA. The Commissioner has considered the application of sections 31(1)(a) and (b) to the information in scope of part (2) of the request withheld by virtue of those exemptions. The Commissioner’s decision is that Nottinghamshire Police has correctly applied those exemptions and that the public interest lies in withholding the information. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: FOI 31
View Nottinghamshire Police
26 Jan 2023Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from Scarborough Borough Council (“the Council”) in relation to a lease for North Bay Railway. The Council advised that it does not hold information that falls within the scope of the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the Council does not hold information that falls within the scope of the request. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps as a result of this decision notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1(1); FOI 10(1)
26 Jan 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (“FCDO”) relating to a visit by Elizabeth Truss to Australia in January 2022. The FCDO initially refused to comply with the request citing section 14 (vexatious requests) of FOIA.However, in its submission to the Commissioner, the FCDO cited section 12 (cost limit) of FOIA as the basis upon which the request was refused.The Commissioner’s decision is that the FCDO was entitled to refuse to comply with the request in accordance with section 12(1). The Commissioner finds that the FCDO complied with its obligations under section 16 of FOIA to offer advice and assistance.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12; FOI 16
View Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office
25 Jan 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested various information in respect of Health Service Guidelines HSG (94)5 and mental illness. The Isle of Wight NHS Trust (‘the Trust’) acknowledged the request, but did not send a formal response. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Trust has not responded to the request and has therefore breached section 10(1) FOIA. First-tier tribunal (General Regulatory chamber) information rights appeal EA/2023/0157 appeal withdrawn.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10(1)
View Isle of Wight NHS Trust