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
17 Jan 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant made a multi-part request for information to the Office of the Public Guardian (“the OPG”) about local authority care arrangements. The OPG is an executive agency of the Ministry of Justice (“the MoJ”), the MoJ therefore being the relevant public authority. The MoJ answered some of the questions. It also said that some of the information requested was exempt from disclosure under section 40(2) (Personal information) of FOIA and that it did not hold some information about matters which did not fall within its remit (section 1). The Commissioner’s decision is that section 40(2) was applied correctly to withhold personal data about the complainant’s son’s health. He also found that, on the balance of probabilities, the MoJ did not hold information on the social care training or administrative procedures adopted by individual local authorities. He was also satisfied that one question was not a request for recorded information under section 8(1)(c) of FOIA and that the MoJ w
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 40; FOI 8
View Ministry of Justice
17 Jan 2023Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information regarding the role of Vice Chancellor and the Director role at Student services. University College Birmingham (UCB) provided some information (part 1 of the request), confirmed some information was not held (parts 2-4 of the request) and refused to disclose some information due to its “UK GDPR data protection responsibilities” (parts 5-7 of the request). On internal review UCB disclosed the information that had been withheld. The Commissioner considers that UCB has not fully responded to part 1 of the request under section 1(1) FOIA. The Commissioner considers that UCB correctly denied holding the information requested at parts 2-4 of the request under section 1(1)(a) FOIA. UCB breached section 10 FOIA in the handling of this request as it has not fully responded to part 1 of the request, it did not deny holding the information requested at parts 2-4 and it did not provide the information requested at parts 5-7 of the request within the statut
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10
View University College Birmingham
17 Jan 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, Flintshire County Council has provided all the relevant information it holds within scope of the complainant’s request about council tax matters and has complied with section 1(1) of FOIA. It is not necessary for the Council to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Flintshire County Council
17 Jan 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested a copy of an investigation report and copies of emails sent to students. The above public authority relied on section 31 of FOIA (law enforcement) to withhold the investigation report and section 40(2) of FOIA (third party personal data) to withhold part of the emails. The Commissioner’s decision is that the investigation report engages section 31 of FOIA and the balance of the public interest favours maintaining this exemption. He considers that the public authority should have relied on section 40(5B) of FOIA and refused to confirm or deny that it held any emails. The Commissioner does not require further steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 31; FOI 40(5)(b)
17 Jan 2023Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information 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 21(1) and 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.
Exemptions cited: FOI 17; FOI 21; FOI 31(1)(a)
View Home Office
17 Jan 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested papers which support evidence provided in a specified ongoing case [part 1] and certain procedures in relation to legal matters [part 2]. Ofgem refused to disclose the information requested at part 1 under section 44(1)(a), section 41 and section 40(2) FOIA. It provided information in response to part 2 of the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that Ofgem has correctly applied section 44(1)(a) FOIA to the withheld information. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 44
View Office of Gas and Electricity Markets
17 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 NHS England
17 Jan 2023Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested the content of certain emails about the use of drones at race courses as a follow-up from a previous request which had provided them with email dates and titles. The Civil Aviation Authority (the CAA) relied on sections 31(1)(a), (b), (c) and (g) of FOIA (law enforcement) to withhold the requested information. The Commissioner’s decision is that section 31 of FOIA is engaged and the balance of the public interest favours maintaining this exemption. However, the CAA did breach sections 1 and 10 of FOIA. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10; FOI 31
View Civil Aviation Authority
17 Jan 2023Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant made a request for information relating to the applicable disciplinary procedure for the post of Ombudsman. The Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman (PHSO) confirmed that it did not hold some of the requested information under section 1(1)(a) FOIA and provided links to some information it said it held in relation to parts of the request under section 1(1)(a) and (b) FOIA. The Commissioner considers that PHSO correctly denied holding some of the requested information. In relation to the information PHSO confirmed it held and provided to the complainant, this information does not fall within the scope of the request and therefore the Commissioner considers that PHSO was incorrect to confirm it held information in relation to parts of the request. The Commissioner considers that PHSO does not hold information in relation to this request and therefore PHSO should have denied holding any information falling within the scope of this request in its entirety under section
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10
View The Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman
17 Jan 2023Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from Swansea Council (“the Council”) about its handling of SAR requests. The Commissioner’s decision is that the public authority was entitled to refuse to comply with the request in accordance with section 12(1) (cost limit) of FOIA. The Commissioner also finds that the public authority did not comply with its obligations under section 16 of FOIA to offer advice and assistance. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following steps: Provide advice and assistance to the complainant to assist in submitting a request falling within the appropriate limit.The public authority must take these steps within 35 calendar days of the date of this decision notice. Failure to comply may result in the Commissioner making written certification of this fact to the High Court pursuant to section 54 of FOIA and may be dealt with as a contempt of court.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12; FOI 16
View Swansea Council
17 Jan 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information about a complaint they submitted to the Council regarding a specific piece of land and copies of information referred to in the minutes of meetings concerning the land in question. High Peak Borough Council (the Council) provided some information and withheld other information under regulations 12(4)(e) (internal communications) and 12(5)(b) (course of justice). The Commissioner’s decision is that some of the information constitutes the complainant’s own personal data, and as such regulation 5(3) of the EIR applies. The Commissioner has also determined that the Council has correctly applied regulations 12(4)(e) and 12(5)(b) to the information it withheld. The Commissioner does not require any steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(e); EIR 12(5)(b); EIR 5
View High Peak Borough Council
17 Jan 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested details of various meetings from the Home Office (the “HO”). Initially, the HO would neither confirm nor deny (“NCND”) holding any information, citing sections 23(5)(Information supplied by, or relating to, bodies dealing with security matters) and 24(2) (National security) of FOIA. It later confirmed holding information but advised it was exempt by virtue of sections 23(5), 24(1), 31(1)(a)(b) (Law enforcement), 40(2) (Personal information) and 43(2) (Commercial interests) of FOIA. Further to the service of an Information Notice, the HO again revised its position, instead relying on section 12(1) (Cost of compliance exceeds appropriate limit) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the HO is entitled to rely on section 12(1) to refuse the request. No steps are required.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12
View Home Office
17 Jan 2023Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental 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 some of the information constitutes the complainant’s own personal data, and as such regulation 5(3) of the EIR applies. The Commissioner has also determined that the Council has correctly applied regulations 12(4)(e) and 12(5)(b) to the withheld information. However, the Commissioner also finds that the Council failed to respond to parts 8 to 12 of the request within 20 working days and has therefore breached regulation 5(2) of the EIR. The Commissioner requires the Council to issue a substantive response to parts 8 to 12 of the request in accordance with its obligations under the EIR.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(e); EIR 12(5)(b); EIR 5
View High Peak Borough Council
16 Jan 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information from East Lindsey District Council (“the Council”) relating to a specific planning application. The Commissioner’s decision is that on the balance of probabilities, the Council does not hold further information within the scope of the request.The Commissioner does not require the Council to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(a)
View East Lindsey District Council
16 Jan 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to record keeping procedures (part A of the request) and correspondence between the Employment Tribunal and the Respondent’s Representative (part B of the request). The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) provided information within the scope of part A of the request but refused to confirm or deny whether it holds information in scope of part B, citing sections 40(5) (personal information) and 32(3) (court records) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the MoJ was entitled, by virtue of section 40(5A) of FOIA, to neither confirm nor deny holding the requested information in scope of part B of the request. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40(5)(a)
View Ministry of Justice
16 Jan 2023Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant, over a series of information requests, sought information from the London Borough of Wandsworth (“the Council”) relating to the appointment of a third surveyor in respect of a party wall dispute. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council failed to respond to the requests within 20 working days and has therefore breached section 10(1) of FOIA. The Council has now provided their response. The Commissioner does not require any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10(1)
View London Borough of Wandsworth
16 Jan 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested various information relating to a particular road. The City of York Council refused to comply with the requests under regulation 12(4)(b) (manifestly unreasonable requests), regulation 13 (personal information), regulation 12(4)(e) (internal communications), and regulation 12(5)(d) (confidentiality of proceedings) of the EIR. The Commissioner’s decision is that the City of York Council was entitled to apply regulation 12(4)(b) of the EIR. The Commissioner does not require the council to take any steps. Information Tribunal UA-2024-000736-GIA appeal allowed. Information Tribunal EA/2023/0063 (Remitted) under appeal.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(b)
View York City Council
16 Jan 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested from Dorset Council information relating to the running costs of a garden waste service. The Council withheld the requested information under section 43(2) (commercial interests) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the information is environmental, and that that the Council should have considered the request under the EIR. However, the Commissioner has found that the Council is entitled to withhold the information under regulation 12(5)(e) of the EIR. The Commissioner does not require the Council to take any steps. First-tier tribunal (General Regulatory chamber) information rights appeal EA/2023/0075 appeal withdrawn.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(e)
View Dorset County Council
16 Jan 2023Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The Commissioner’s decision is that that Powys County Council holds no information relevant to the complainant’s request for information about highway obstructions and regulation 12(4)(a) of the EIR is engaged in that regard. The Council did not provide a refusal or internal review within the timeframe set out under regulations 14(2) and 11(4) of the EIR but it did not breach regulation 9(1), which concerns advice and assistance. The Commissioner does not require Powys County Council to take any corrective steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 11; EIR 12(4)(a); EIR 14; EIR 9
View Powys County Council
16 Jan 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested from HM Land Registry (HMLR) information regarding the index of proprietors against [name redacted] and their executors, and a list of registered land that has been adverse possessed since 1934 where the owner was [names of individuals and estate redacted]. HMLR withheld the requested information and cited section 40(2) (personal information) and section 31(1)(a) (prevention and detection of crime) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is HMLR was entitled to rely on sections 40(2) and 31(1)(a) of FOIA to refuse to provide the information requested. Therefore, the Commissioner does not require HMLR to take any steps as a result of this decision. First-tier tribunal (General Regulatory chamber) information rights appeal EA/2023/0082 appeal dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 31(1)(a); FOI 40(2)
View HM Land Registry
16 Jan 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information redacted from the Council’s response to a subject access request. The Council relied on regulation 13 of the EIR, on the basis that the requested information is third party personal data. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council is entitled to rely on the exception at regulation 13 in respect of the withheld information. No steps are required. First-tier Tribunal (General Regulatory Chamber) Information Rights appeal EA/2023/0071 appeal allowed.
Exemptions cited: EIR 13
View Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea
16 Jan 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to a complaint. The above public authority provided some information, but the complainant considers that more is held. The Commissioner’s decision is that any information the public authority held would be the complainant’s own personal data. As such, the public authority should not confirm or deny, under FOIA, whether it holds any relevant information. The Commissioner has therefore applied section 40(5A) of FOIA himself, proactively, to avoid any inadvertent disclosure. The Commissioner does not require any further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40(5)(a)
View Chichester District Council
16 Jan 2023Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information on meetings held between ministers and McDonald’s Restaurants Ltd. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Cabinet Office cannot rely on FOIA section 35(1)(a) – formulation or development of government policy, to withhold the requested information as the public interest favours disclosure. He does not consider that FOIA section 35(1)(d) – operation of any Ministerial office, was correctly engaged by the Cabinet Office. However, the Commissioner considers that the FOIA section 41(1) – information provided in confidence was appropriately applied to two bullet points redacted on the readout of 20 March 2020 and also to the majority of the readout of 2 July 2020, excluding the first three sections set out in the confidential annex.The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. Disclose the information contained in the annex to this decision notice. The public authority must take
Exemptions cited: FOI 35(1)(a); FOI 35(1)(d); FOI 41(1)
View Cabinet Office
16 Jan 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from Royal Berkshire NHS Foundation Trust (the Trust) in relation to cases of bullying and harassment, referrals to the GMC and the job description of specific roles. The trust refused to comply with the requests, citing section 14 of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Trust is entitled to refuse to comply with the requests under section 14 of FOIA. He does not require any further action to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14
View Royal Berkshire NHS Foundation Trust
16 Jan 2023Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested the ‘DWP Excellence Plan’ from the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP). The Commissioner’s decision is that DWP does not hold any further information to that already disclosed. The Commissioner does however find that DWP breached section 10 by failing to respond within the statutory timeframe of 20 working days. The Commissioner does not require DWP to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10
View Department for Work and Pensions
16 Jan 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to the Department of Health & Social Care (DHSC) seeking an unredacted copy of parts of a Public Health England report into ‘Exercise Alice’ a hypothetical exercise about Middle East Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus conducted in 2016. DHSC argued that the redacted parts of the report were exempt from disclosure on the basis of sections 27(1)(a) (international relations) and 38(1)(b) (health and safety) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that DHSC can rely on the exemptions cited to withhold the redacted information.
Exemptions cited: FOI 27; FOI 38
View Department of Health and Social Care
16 Jan 2023Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested the DHSC to disclose copies of any correspondence, including letters and emails, between Emily Lawson and Baroness Michelle Mone since March 2020 relating to personal protective equipment sold to the government by the company PPE Medpro. The DHSC refused to disclose the information citing section 43 of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the DHSC is entitled to refuse to disclose the requested information in accordance with section 43 of FOIA. He has also recorded a breach of section 10 of FOIA, as the DHSC failed to respond to the complainant’s request within 20 working days of receipt.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 43
View Department of Health and Social Care
16 Jan 2023Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested, from the London Borough of Lambeth (‘the council’), information relating to how the council is considering redeveloping an area. The council applied Regulation 12(5)(e) (commercial confidentiality) to withhold the information from disclosure. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council was correct to apply the exception to some information within the document, however the remaining sections of the document should have been disclosed in response to the request. The Commissioner requires the council to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. To disclose the sections of the document outlined in the Annex to this decision notice.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(e)
View London Borough of Lambeth
16 Jan 2023Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about emergency preparedness. The above public authority (“the public authority”) relied on section 14(1) of FOIA to refuse the request as vexatious. The Commissioner’s decision is that the public authority is not entitled to rely on section 14(1) of FOIA to refuse this request. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. Issue a fresh response, to the request, that does not rely on section 14(1) of FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14
View Royal Surrey NHS Foundation Trust
16 Jan 2023Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from Desborough Town Council (“the Council”) relating to a project to upgrade a CCTV system.The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has failed to carry out adequate searches for information held within the scope of the request and therefore, on the balance of probabilities, has not identified all information held 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
15 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
View DAYS LANE PRIMARY SCHOOL
15 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
15 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
13 Jan 2023Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The Commissioner’s decision is that UCLAN is entitled to withhold information about the location of stored chemicals under regulation 12(5)(a) of the EIR which concerns public safety and regulation 13 which concerns personal data. UCLAN breached regulation 14(2) however, as it did not issue a refusal under the EIR within 20 working days of the request.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(a); EIR 13; EIR 14
12 Jan 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested correspondences regarding the £7.5 million donation from Blavatnik Foundation to the Bodleian and the Friends of the National Libraries. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council of the University of Cambridge (the University) does not hold the information for the purposes of FOIA. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1(1); FOI 3
12 Jan 2023Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested from the London Borough of Croydon (“the Council”) information relating to election counts for the 2022 elections.The Council initially disclosed some information in scope of the request and explained information not provided was not held at the time of the request.The Commissioner’s decision is that the information sought by the complainant is not held by the Council for the purposes of FOIA and that the Council is entitled to rely on section 3(2)(a) of FOIA. However, the Council failed to provide their response within 20 working days of the request, and therefore breached both section 10 and section 17 of FOIA. The Commissioner does not require any steps to be taken as a result of this decision notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 17; FOI 3
View London Borough of Croydon
11 Jan 2023Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information relating to a specific planning application. West Devon Borough Council (the council) initially refused the request under regulation 12(4)(b) of the EIR – manifestly unreasonable. Following a refining of the request, the council provided some information and withheld the remaining information under regulation 12(4)(e) of the EIR – internal communications. The Commissioner’s decision is that regulation 12(4)(e) of the EIR is engaged to the information that has been withheld and the Commissioner is satisfied that the council has located all the information falling within the scope of the complainant’s request. The Commissioner also found that the council breached regulation 5(2) of the EIR as it did not provide all the information that was not exempt from disclosure within the required 20 working days and it breached regulation 11(4) of the EIR as it did not carry out an internal review within the required 40 working days. As all the information that
Exemptions cited: EIR 11(4); EIR 12(4)(e); EIR 5(2)
View West Devon Borough Council
11 Jan 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from the Business Services Organisation (“BSO”) regarding how much a specific barrister and a specific solicitor have been paid for representing a particular Trust. BSO advised that some information is not held, and that the remaining information is being withheld under section 40(2) of FOIA – personal information. The Commissioner’s decision is that the BSO is entitled to rely on section 40(2) (personal information) of FOIA to refuse to provide the requested information. He also finds that on the balance of probabilities, BSO does not hold the remaining information within the scope of the request. The Commissioner does not require the BSO to take any steps as a result of this decision notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1(1); FOI 40(2)
11 Jan 2023Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information about the estimated cost of the Holocaust Memorial and Learning Centre for optimism bias. The Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (the DLUHC) stated that the information was already publicly accessible and as such it was exempt from disclosure under section 21 of the FOIA (information reasonable accessible to the applicant). The Commissioner’s decision is that the DLUHC has incorrectly applied section 21 to the request. The Commissioner requires the DLUHC to issue a fresh response to the request which does not cite section 21 of the FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 21
View Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government
11 Jan 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information about the legal ownership of summons and liability orders for Council Tax. Flintshire County Council (the Council) refused to comply with the request citing section 14(1) (vexatious request) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has correctly applied section 14(1) of FOIA. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken as a result of this decision. Information Tribunal FTT EA/2022/0289 appeal withdrawn
Exemptions cited: FOI 14
View Flintshire County Council
11 Jan 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested correspondence between Senedd Commission staff and various parties on the subject of the vote on the introduction of covid passes in Wales. The Senedd Commission (as the corporate body for The Welsh Parliament) provided some redacted information but withheld information at parts 2 and 3 of the request on the basis of section 36(2)(b)(i), (ii) and (c) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the public authority has correctly engaged the section 36(2)(b)(i) and (ii) exemptions and the balance of the public interest lies in maintaining the exemption and withholding the information.
Exemptions cited: FOI 36
10 Jan 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from Upton Bishop Parish Council (“the Council”) relating to its response to a previous decision notice served on 17 August 2022 by the ICO.The Council provided a redacted copy of information in scope of the request, and cited section 40(2) (personal information) of FOIA for the redaction of the disclosed information and stated it did not hold any further information within scope of the request.The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council is entitled to rely on section 40(2) of FOIA to withhold the redacted information, and 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 does not require any steps to be taken as a result of this decision notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 40
10 Jan 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to highway claims. Birmingham City Council (the “council”) refused the request under section 14(1) (vexatious requests). The Commissioner’s decision is that the council is entitled to rely on section 14(1) of the FOIA to refuse the request.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14(1)
View Birmingham City Council
10 Jan 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information held by Hastings Borough Council (the council) regarding the redaction of enforcement information contained within representations published on the planning pages of the council’s website.The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the council has provided the complainant with all the information that is held that is relevant to the request. The Commissioner does not require the council to take any steps as a result of this decision notice.
Exemptions cited: EIR 5
View Hastings Borough Council
10 Jan 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information regarding the use of the interactive learning application “SeeSaw” in primary schools. The Education Authority Northern Ireland (“EANI”) confirmed that some information was not held and withheld other information under section 36(2)(b) (prejudice to effective conduct of public affairs) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that, in relation to parts 1-5 of the request, EANI confirmed that the information was not held and complied with section 1(1)(a) and that in relation to part 6 of the request, it was entitled to rely on section 36(2)(b) to withhold the information. The Commissioner does not require EANI to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1(1)(a); FOI 36(2)(b)
10 Jan 2023Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested the IRB protocol of a specific health study. The London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine disclosed some information in response to the request. The Commissioner’s decision is:In failing to respond to the request within twenty working days of receipt, the public authority breached section 10 (time for compliance with the request) of FOIA. There is only one objective reading of the request and the public authority did not interpret the request in line with this objective reading. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation:Issue a fresh response to the request based on the correct objective reading.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10
View London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine
10 Jan 2023Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from Tameside Metropolitan Borough Council (the Council) about the decline of Droylsden Town Centre over the last 30 years. As of the date of this notice, the Council has not issued a substantive response to this request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council 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. The Commissioner requires the Council to provide a substantive response to the request in accordance with its obligations under FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Tameside Metropolitan Borough Council
10 Jan 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information from City of York Council (“the Council”) relating to the proposed St George's Field Multi Storey Car Park.The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council was entitled to rely on regulation 12(4)(e) (internal communications) of the EIR to refuse to provide the requested information.The Commissioner does not require the Council to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(e)
View York City Council
10 Jan 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to various drafts of a report which had yet to be published. The above public authority relied on section 31 of FOIA (law enforcement) to withhold the requested information. 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.
Exemptions cited: FOI 31
View CQC