23 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 Greater Manchester Mental Health NHS Foundation Trust
23 Jan 2023Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The Commissioner’s decision is that the public authority has breached regulation 11 of the EIR by failing to provide a reconsideration (internal review) of a response within 40 working days. The Commissioner requires it to provide the complainant with the internal review within 35 calendar days in accordance with its obligations under the EIR.
Exemptions cited: EIR 11
View Portsmouth City Council
23 Jan 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 Portsmouth City Council
23 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 Sandwell and West Birmingham Hospitals NHS Trust
23 Jan 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information regarding legal advice sought and issued around a second independence referendum in Scotland, and information relating to the legality of a second referendum. The Scotland Office refused the requests as it considered that the cost to comply would exceed the appropriate limit under section 12(2) of FOIA.The Commissioner’s decision is that the Scotland Office was entitled to rely on section 12(1) of FOIA, to withhold the requested information. It has also complied with its duty to provide advice and assistance in line with the requirements of section 16 of FOIA.The Commissioner does not require the Scotland Office to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12(1)
View Scotland Office
23 Jan 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information with regards to ownership of land. Gateshead Council (the council) identified that the majority of the request was not a request for recorded information, but were questions asking for explanations or opinions, and so it was not required by the EIR to respond. For the part that was a request for recorded information, the council initially stated the information was not held. At internal review, it amended its response to refuse the request as vexatious under section 14(1) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the FOIA). During the Commissioner’s investigation, the council determined the request should have been handled under the EIR, and no longer considered the request vexatious. It instead refused the request under regulation 12(4)(a) of the EIR – information not held. The Commissioner’s decision is that the information is not held and therefore regulation 12(4)(a) of the EIR is engaged.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(a)
View Gateshead Council
23 Jan 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information regarding an offer of building work made by their neighbour. Isle of Anglesey County Council (the “council”) disclosed the requested information. The complainant considers that further relevant information should be held.The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the council holds no further information falling within the scope of the request and that it, therefore, complied with regulation 5(1) of the EIR. The Commissioner does not require the council to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 5(1)
View Isle of Anglesey County Council
23 Jan 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested from Norfolk County Council, (‘the council’), information relating to the sale of Holt Hall by the council. The council refused the request on the basis that Regulation 12(5)(e) applied (commercial confidentiality). The Commissioner’s decision is that the council was correct to apply Regulation 12(5)(e) to withhold the information. The Commissioner does not require the council to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(e)
View Norfolk County Council
23 Jan 2023Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information from the DfE relating to the proposed sale of part of the Morgan Road playing field site owned by Reading School. The DfE disclosed some information but refused to disclose the remainder citing regulation 12(5)(e) and 13 of the EIR. The Commissioner’s decision is that the DfE is entitled to rely on regulations 12(5)(e) and 13 of the EIR for all remaining withheld information, except the name of the current developer. The Commissioner requires the DfE to disclose the name of the current developer to the complainant.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(e); EIR 13
View Department for Education
23 Jan 2023Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information from Kirklees Metropolitan Borough Council regarding a warehouse planning application. The council withheld the requested information under regulations 12(5)(f) (interests of the information provider) and 13 (personal data) of the EIR. 2.The Commissioner’s decision is that Kirklees Metropolitan Borough Council was entitled to withhold the information under regulations 12(5)(f) and 13, and that all other information has been disclosed. However the council breached regulation 5(2) of the EIR because it did not meet the statutory 20 working day time limit for responding to a request. The Commissioner does not require any steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(f); EIR 13; EIR 5(2)
View Kirklees Metropolitan Council
23 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(1)
View Department for Business and Trade
23 Jan 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to licensed establishments under ASPA [Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act] 1986. The Home Office provided some information within the scope of the request but refused to provide the remainder, citing section 38(1) (health and safety) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Home Office correctly relied on section 38(1)(a) and (b) of FOIA to withhold the remaining information and that the balance of the public interest favours maintaining the exemption. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken as a result of this decision. First-tier tribunal (General Regulatory chamber) information rights appeal EA/2023/0091 appeal allowed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 38
View Home Office
20 Jan 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The Commissioner’s decision is that University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust is entitled to rely on section 40(2) of FOIA to withhold the requested information about job applicants as it is the special category personal data of third parties and disclosure would be unlawful.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust
20 Jan 2023Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from Suffolk County Council (“the Council”). The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council 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 Council did not comply with its obligations under section 16 of FOIA to offer advice and assistance; it must now do so.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12(1); FOI 16
View Suffolk County Council
20 Jan 2023Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested from the British Museum (the Museum) information relating to discussions between BP and staff at the Museum on specified dates. The Museum provided some information but withheld other information under sections 40(2) and 43(2) of the FOIA. The Museum later provided some limited further information. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Museum has correctly applied section 43(2) to the withheld information and that the public interest favours maintaining the exemption. He also finds that the Museum correctly applied section 40(2) to some of the information withheld on that basis. However, some of the personal data has been inappropriately withheld. The Museum also breached sections 1 and 10 of FOIA by releasing information beyond the time for compliance. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation.Disclose the names and job roles of the senior BP employees contained in the withheld i
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10; FOI 40(2); FOI 43(2)
View British Museum
20 Jan 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to the British Museum (the Museum) seeking full legible photographic copies of the eleven tabots also known as the ‘Ethiopian altar tablets’. The Museum confirmed that it held the requested information but considered this to be exempt from disclosure on the basis of section 27(1)(a) (international relations) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the information is exempt from disclosure on the basis of section 27(1)(a) and that in all the circumstances of the case the public interest favours maintaining the exemption.
Exemptions cited: FOI 27
View British Museum
20 Jan 2023Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from the General Medical Council (“the GMC”). The Commissioner’s decision is that the request was vexatious and therefore the 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/2023/0268 appeal dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14(1)
View GMC
20 Jan 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested details of a proposed business case. The above public authority relied on section 22 (due to be published) and 43 (commercial interests) of FOIA in order to withhold the requested information. The Commissioner’s decision is that the public authority has correctly engaged section 22 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 22
View Calderdale and Huddersfield NHS Foundation Trust
20 Jan 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (FCDO) seeking information relating to meetings between Alexander Nix, CEO Cambridge Analytica and ministers in December 2016. The FCDO disclosed information falling within the scope of the request but withheld certain information on the basis of sections 27(1)(a) and (d) (international relations) and 40(2) (personal data) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the FCDO is entitled to rely on sections 27(1)(a) and (d) to withhold the disputed information.
Exemptions cited: FOI 27
View Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office
20 Jan 2023Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested correspondence between members of staff and academic articles. The University refused the request, citing section 12(1) as its basis for doing so. The Commissioner’s decision is that the University was incorrect to rely upon section 12(1) but the request can be refused under section 12(2). The Commissioner is also satisfied that the University complied with its obligations under section 16 (advice and assistance). The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12(1); FOI 12(2); FOI 16
View The University of Cambridge
19 Jan 2023Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information about the way the above public authority delivers its religious education curriculum. The Commissioner’s decision is that the public authority has failed to respond to the request within 20 working days and has therefore breached section 10 of FOIA. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: provide a substantive response to the request in accordance with its obligations under FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
19 Jan 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from the Ministry of Justice (‘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/2023/0182 no right of appeal.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View Ministry of Justice
19 Jan 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested details about an entry on its gifts and hospitality register from the Metropolitan Police Service (the “MPS”). The MPS provided some information but refuse the remainder citing sections 24(1) (National security), 27(1)(a) and (c) (International relations), 31(1)(a) (Law enforcement), 38(1)(b) (Health and Safety) and 40(2) (Personal information) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the MPS was entitled to rely on section 27 of FOIA. No steps are required. First-tier tribunal (General Regulatory chamber) information rights appeal EA/2023/0084 appeal dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 27
View Metropolitan Police Service
19 Jan 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to a road safety audit. Newcastle City Council (the “council”) disclosed the requested information. The complainant considers that the council failed to provide all the information that it holds. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the council holds no further recorded information relevant to the complainant’s request and that it has complied with section 1(1) of FOIA. The Commissioner does not require the council to take any steps. First-tier tribunal (General Regulatory chamber) information rights appeal EA/2023/0076 appeal struck out.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1(1)
View Newcastle City Council
19 Jan 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested from Belfast City Council (“the Council”) a copy of a Health and Safety Work Related Transport Audit that it had conducted. The Council refused the request, citing section 36(2)(b)(ii) (Prejudice to effective conduct of public affairs) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council was entitled to rely on section 36(2)(b)(ii) to withhold the requested information. The Commissioner requires no steps as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: FOI 36
19 Jan 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested copies of written correspondence with the Chinese Embassy between specific dates from the Metropolitan Police Service (the “MPS”). The MPS would neither confirm nor deny (“NCND”) holding any information, citing sections 27(4)(a)(b) (International relations), 31(3) (Law enforcement) and 40(5) (Personal information) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the MPS was entitled to rely on section 27(4) to NCND holding the requested information. No steps are required.
Exemptions cited: FOI 27
View Metropolitan Police Service
19 Jan 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested a copy of the ministerial diaries for the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, Robert Jenrick. The Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (DLUHC) refused the request on the basis of section 14(1) (vexatious request) as it would require a disproportionate burden to comply. The Commissioner’s decision is that the DLUHC was entitled to rely on section 14(1) FOIA to refuse to comply with the request.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14(1)
View Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government
19 Jan 2023Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant made a request to the Charity Commission for information relating to its investigation into Central Mosque Northampton. The Charity Commission withheld the requested information, relying on the exemptions under sections 31(1) (law enforcement) and 40(2) (personal information) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Charity Commission was entitled to rely on section 31(1)(g) of FOIA to withhold the requested information. However, he has recorded a procedural breach of section 10 of FOIA, as the Charity Commission failed to respond to the complainant’s request within 20 working days of receipt. The Commissioner does not require the Charity Commission to take any steps as a result of this decision notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 31(1)
View The Charity Commission
19 Jan 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information from the London Borough of Wandsworth (“the Council”) about correspondence sent by the Council to a freeholder company (the “named company”) of three blocks of flats, regarding a planning matter. The Council initially handled the request under FOIA and disclosed some of the information requested but refused to provide an email chain citing the personal information exception under section 40(2) of FOIA. The Council subsequently disclosed the email chain but with redactions, still citing section 40(2) of FOIA. During the course of the Commissioner’s investigation, the Council accepted that it should have cited the equivalent EIR exception for personal data (regulation 13(1) of the EIR) to redact the personal data of third parties from the email chain. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council was correct to apply regulation 13(1) of EIR to the personal data of third parties from the email chain. The Council breached the requirements of regulati
Exemptions cited: EIR 13(1)
View London Borough of Wandsworth
18 Jan 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information about an investigation into the Moorcroft by-election. Staffordshire Police advised that it does not hold recorded information within scope of the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the request does not relate to recorded information and therefore Staffordshire Police does not hold such recorded information relevant to the complainant’s request. Staffordshire Police has complied with section 1(1) of FOIA. The Commissioner therefore does not require Staffordshire Police to take any corrective steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1(1)
View Staffordshire Police
18 Jan 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested building regulation information relating to specific properties. Bath & North East Somerset Council (the “council”) disclosed some information and refused to provide other information, citing 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(1) of the EIR. The Commissioner does not require the council to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 13
View Bath and North East Somerset Council
18 Jan 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested copies of communications with the organisers of MIPIM and SDEN ltd about the attendance at the MIPIM 2017 event by senior officers at the London Borough of Sutton (“the Council”), including the former chief executive and former interim chief executive, and the managing director of SDEN. The Council refused to comply with the request citing section 12 (cost limit) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council was entitled to refuse to comply with the request in accordance with section 12(1) of FOIA. The Commissioner also finds that the Council complied with its obligation under section 16 to offer advice and assistance. The Commissioner does not require the Council to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12(1)
View London Borough of Sutton
18 Jan 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information relating to a planning enforcement case. Harrogate Borough Council (the “council”) disclosed some information and refused to provide other information, citing regulation 13 (personal information) of the EIR. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council is entitled to withhold the information on the basis of regulation 13(1) of the EIR. The Commissioner does not require the council to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 13(1)
18 Jan 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to Thurrock Council (“the Council”) for information relating to policies regarding representation and consent to act on behalf of the data subject.The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the Council does not hold any information within the scope of the request and has therefore complied with section 1 of FOIA.The Commissioner does not require the Council to take any further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Thurrock Council
18 Jan 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about complaints received by the Charity Commission for England and Wales (“the Commission”) about the Animal Protection Services (“the charity”). The Commission disclosed some information but refused to provide the remainder of the information relying on section 31(law enforcement) of FOIA as its basis for doing so. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Commission has correctly applied section 31(1)(g) of FOIA and the public interest favours maintaining the exemption. He does not require the Commission to take any further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 31(1)(g)
View The Charity Commission
18 Jan 2023Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested disclosure of a safeguarding report by Carmarthenshire County Council (the council).
The council explained that no safeguarding report had been produced but instead disclosed a draft safeguarding response to the complainant containing redactions relying on section 40(2) of FOIA (personal data).
The Commissioner’s decision is that the council should have relied on section 41 of FOIA (information provided in confidence) to withhold the information.
The Commissioner’s decision is that the council 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/2023/0343 appeal withdrawn.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 41
View Carmarthenshire County Council
18 Jan 2023Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information associated with a particular planning application. The above public authority relied on regulation 12(4)(b) of the EIR to refuse the request as manifestly unreasonable. The Commissioner’s decision is that the public authority was entitled to rely on regulation 12(4)(b) of the EIR and that the public interest favours maintaining the exception. However, he considers that the public authority breached regulation 9 of the EIR as it failed to provide adequate advice and assistance. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: provide the complainant with advice and assistance to help him refine his request such that it will no longer impose a manifestly unreasonable burden. First-tier tribunal (General Regulatory chamber) information rights appeal EA/2023/0065 appeal dismissed.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(b); EIR 9
View Ashford Borough Council
18 Jan 2023Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The public authority has failed to respond to these requests within 20 working days, as specified under FOIA. The Commissioner requires it to provide the complainant with responses to these requests within 35 calendar days in accordance with its obligations under FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Greater London Authority
18 Jan 2023Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from South Somerset District Council (“the Council”) about the Council’s gifts and benefits register from 2018 to 2020. The Council explained that some of the requested information was available online but the rest was not held. The Commissioner’s decision is as follows: On the balance of probabilities, the Council holds no further recorded information relevant to the complainant’s request and has complied with section 1(1) of FOIA. The Commissioner therefore does not require the Council to take any corrective steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View South Kesteven District Council
18 Jan 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to a named officer. British Transport Police (BTP) provided some information within the scope of the request but neither confirmed nor denied holding the remaining requested information, citing sections 40(5B) (personal information) and 31(3) (law enforcement) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that BTP was entitled to rely on section 40(5B) of FOIA to refuse to confirm or deny whether it holds that information. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View British Transport Police
18 Jan 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information on correspondence between Nadhim Zahawi and David Cameron regarding Greensill Capital and its access to the Coronavirus Large Business Interruption Loan Scheme or any other Covid finance scheme. The Commissioner’s decision is that on the balance of probabilities BEIS does not hold information in the scope of the requests. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Department for Business and Trade
18 Jan 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information with regards to Research and development (R&D) tax credit claims. HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) refused to provide the information under section 31(1)(d) (prejudice to tax collection) of the FOIA as it determined that releasing the information would prejudice the assessment and payment of tax credits. The Commissioner’s decision is that section 31(1)(d) of the FOIA is engaged and the public interest test favours maintaining the exemption. The Commissioner does not require any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 31
17 Jan 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information about a specific piece of land referred to in the minutes of two meetings. High Peak Borough Council (the Council) withheld the information under regulations 12(4)(e) (internal communications) and 12(5)(b) (course of justice). The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has correctly applied regulation 12(4)(e) and 12(5)(b) to the request. The Commissioner does not require any steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(e); EIR 12(5)(b)
View High Peak Borough Council
17 Jan 2023Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested compliance records and road inspections reports for “the roads in Salford” over the past six years. Salford City Council (the ‘Council’) refused to comply with the request citing section 12 (cost of compliance exceeds appropriate limit) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council was entitled to refuse to comply with the request in accordance with section 12(1) of FOIA. The Commissioner also finds that the Council has complied with its obligations under section 16 of FOIA to offer advice and assistance. However, whilst noting the Council’s explanation, he finds that the request was not responded to within the statutory 20 working days’ time limit which is a breach of section 10(1) of FOIA. No steps are required as a result of this notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 12; FOI 16
View Salford City Council
17 Jan 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested from the Surrey Heath Borough Council information regarding a Building Control application. Surrey Heath Borough Council provided a link to the publicly information available on its planning portal but withheld the remainder of the information under Regulations 13(1) and 12(5)(d) of the EIR. The Commissioner’s decision is that Surrey Heath Borough Council has correctly applied Regulation 13(1) of the EIR. The Commissioner does not requires the public authority to take any steps to ensure compliance with the legislation.
Exemptions cited: EIR 13(1)
View Surrey Heath Borough Council
17 Jan 2023Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested details of successful planning applications in an area of natural beauty. Newry, Mourne and Down District Council (the council) said that it does not hold the information in the format requested, and directed the complainant to remake his request to the Northern Ireland Statistics and Research Agency. It applied Regulation 6(1)(a) and (b) to refuse the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council was not correct to refuse the request on the basis that section 6(1)(a) and (b) applies. The Commissioner requires the council to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. Disclose the information to the complainant in the form and format requested.
Exemptions cited: EIR 6(1)
17 Jan 2023Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from Bristol City Council (‘the Council’). The Commissioner’s decision is that the public authority is entitled to rely on section 40(2) of FOIA to withhold some of the requested information. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 17; FOI 40
View Bristol City Council
17 Jan 2023Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from the Department for Education (DFE) about a particular Multi-Academy Trust (MAT). DFE redacted some information in accordance with section 40(2) (third party personal information) of FOIA.The Commissioner’s decision is that DFE was entitled to withhold the redacted information under section 40(2) of FOIA as it is personal data of a third party and its disclosure would be unlawful. However, the Commissioner finds that DFE breached section 10(1) of FOIA as it did not provide its response to the complainant within the statutory timeframe.The Commissioner does not require DFE to take any further steps as a result of this decision notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 40
View Department for Education
17 Jan 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from the IOPC about the employment details of a specific officer. The Commissioner’s decision is that the IOPC has 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.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Independent Office for Police Conduct
17 Jan 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from London Borough of Lewisham (“the public authority”) about its Section 106 and Community Infrastructure Levy payments. 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 Lewisham Council