10 Jan 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a multi-part request to Pension Protection Fund (PPF), for information about a whistleblowing investigation and a particular recruitment process. PPF disclosed some information in response to the request, but withheld some information, citing section 40(2)(third party personal information) of FOIA.The Commissioner’s decision is that PPF is entitled to rely on section 40(2) to refuse to disclose the withheld information.The Commissioner does not require PPF to take any steps as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40(2)
View Pension Protection Fund
10 Jan 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested specified building control related information for a named building. Surrey Heath Borough Council (the ‘Council’) said some of the information was exempt under section 21 of FOIA as it was reasonably accessible online. Ultimately, it said to respond to the remainder of the request was ‘manifestly unreasonable’ citing Regulation 12(4)(b) of the EIR. The complainant did not complain about the Council’s reliance on section 21 of FOIA so the Commissioner has not considered this aspect any further. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council was entitled to rely on Regulation 12(4)(b) of the EIR to refuse to comply with the remainder of the request for the reasons set out in this notice. No steps are required to ensure compliance with the legislation.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(b)
View Surrey Heath Borough Council
10 Jan 2023Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from London Borough of Waltham Forest (“the Council”) relating to food safety inspection reports for the canteen at a named primary school. The Council applied section 30(3) of FOIA.The Commissioner’s decision is that section 30(3) is engaged, however the public interest in confirming or denying whether the information is held outweighs the public interest in maintaining the non-confirmation or denial.The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation.Either confirm or deny whether it holds information within the scope of the complainant’s request. If held, the Commissioner requires it to provide either the information or a valid refusal 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 5
Exemptions cited: FOI 30
View Waltham Forest Council
10 Jan 2023Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant submitted an information request to the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham (“the Council”) for a copy of a report and related correspondence in reference to a specific planning application.The Commissioner’s decision is the Council was entitled to withhold the requested information under regulations 12(4)(d) and 12(5)(d). However in failing to respond to the request and internal review within the statutory timescale, the Commissioner has determined that the Council has breached regulations 5(2) and 11(4) of the EIR.The Commissioner does not require the Council to take any further steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 11(4); EIR 12(4)(d); EIR 12(5)(d); EIR 5(2)
View Hammersmith and Fulham Council
10 Jan 2023Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested a copy of a file relating to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth’s visit to the Isle of Man, in 1972. After initially maintaining that it did not hold the requested information, the MoJ revised its position and confirmed that, at the time of the request, it did hold the file. It said that ‘open’ parts of the file had since been transferred to the National Archives (‘TNA’) and therefore, at the time of the request, that information would have been exempt from disclosure under section 22 (Information intended for future publication) of FOIA. As regards the ‘closed’ information, the MoJ refused to disclose this, citing sections 37(1)(a) (Communications with the Sovereign) and 41 (Information provided in confidence) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that, at the time of the request, the MoJ was entitled to rely on section 22 to refuse to disclose the ‘open’ information. The MoJ was also entitled to rely on section 37(1)(a) of FOIA to withhold the ‘closed’ inform
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 22; FOI 37
View Ministry of Justice
10 Jan 2023Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested the first draft of an external research report commissioned by the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP). DWP withheld the information on the basis of sections 36(2)(b)(i), 36(2)(b)(ii) and 36(2)(c). The Commissioner’s decision is that section 36 is not engaged but section 35(1)(a) is engaged and the balance of the public interest favours maintaining the exemption. The Commissioner also finds that DWP has breached sections 10 and 17 by not providing its substantive response within the statutory timeframe. The Commissioner does not require DWP to take any remedial steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 35; FOI 36
View Department for Work and Pensions
10 Jan 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information regarding criminal convictions held by taxi drivers in Isle of Wight. The Commissioner’s decision is that Isle of Wight Council (the Council) has correctly withheld the information under Section 40(2) of FOIA. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40(2)
View Isle of Wight Council
10 Jan 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from the Office for Nuclear Regulation (ONR) regarding a list of all the INF1 reports that it has received since 1 January 2015. The ONR refused to comply with the request in accordance with section 14 of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the ONR is entitled to refuse to comply with the request in accordance with section 14(1) of FOIA – vexatious or repeated requests. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any further steps as a result of this decision notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14(1)
View Office for Nuclear Regulation
10 Jan 2023Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested from Rugby Borough Council information relating to the transfer of land to a third party by way of a lease. The Council disclosed some information and withheld the remainder 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. In respect of the withheld information, the Commissioner has considered whether the Council is entitled to rely upon the equivalent part of the EIR - regulation 12(5)(e) (confidentiality of commercial or industrial information) - but is not satisfied that the Council has demonstrated that it is engaged. In respect of whether the Council has identified all relevant information that it holds, the Commissioner is satisfied that the Council has identified all recorded information it holds that falls within the scope of the request. The Commissioner requires the Council to take the following steps to
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(a); EIR 12(5)(e)
View Rugby Borough Council
9 Jan 2023Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested from Oxfordshire Clinical Commissioning Group, which is now Buckinghamshire, Oxfordshire & Berkshire West Integrated Care Board (“BOB ICB”), information in respect of instances of “Black Alert” or instances where appointments could not be made due to operational issues at a particular medical practice. BOB ICB initially refused the request under section 14 of FOIA (vexatious requests). At internal review, BOB ICB maintained its position as regards section 14(1) of FOIA (vexatious requests) but also provided the complainant with some information in relation to the request and stated that it did not hold the rest. The Commissioner’s decision is that the request was not a vexatious request. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14
View NHS Buckinghamshire, Oxfordshire and Berkshire West ICB
9 Jan 2023Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from Rossendale Borough Council (the Council) relating to Temporary Event Notices (TEN) for a specific venue. The Commissioner is not satisfied that the Council has identified and provided all the information held that is relevant to the request. He has therefore decided that, on the balance of probabilities, the Council holds further information that falls within the scope of the request. The Commissioner requires the Council to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation.Issue a fresh response to part one of the request following a thorough search that identifies all the information the Council holds that falls within the scope of that part of the request. Any further information that is identified should either be disclosed to the complainant, or an adequate refusal notice issued.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1(1)
View Rossendale Borough Council
9 Jan 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about protest marches from the Metropolitan Police Service (the “MPS”). The MPS provided some information but would neither confirm nor deny (“NCND”) holding any further information by virtue of sections 30(3) (Investigations and proceedings) and 40(5) (Personal information) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the MPS was entitled to rely on section 30(3) of FOIA. No steps are required.
Exemptions cited: FOI 30
View Metropolitan Police Service
9 Jan 2023Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from Kirby Muxloe Parish Council (“the Council”). By the date of this notice the Council had not issued a substantive response to this request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has breached section 10(1) of FOIA in that it failed to provide a valid response to the request within the statutory time frame of 20 working days.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10(1)
9 Jan 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information on a procurement exercise entitled “Local Site Operator for Air Quality Monitoring Stations ID: 496981”. The Commissioner’s decision is that the request should have been considered under the EIR and the Council is entitled to withhold the requested information in reliance of EIR regulations 12(5)(d) - confidentiality of proceedings and 12(5)(b) – the course of justice. 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 12(5)(d)
View Southwark Council
9 Jan 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested a copy of an inspection report, undertaken in relation to the work of a specific registered gas engineer, at a specific property. The Health and Safety Executive denied holding the requested information. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the public authority does not hold the requested information. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps. to ensure compliance with the legislation.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Health and Safety Executive
9 Jan 2023Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant submitted a series of refined requests for copies of communications between a local councillor and a building developer. The London Borough of Lambeth (the Council) initially relied on regulation 12(4)(b) and later 12(4)(a) to refuse the requests, stating that it was unable to identify information within scope. However, during the course of the Commissioner’s investigation the Council was able to identify and disclose some information to the complainant. The Commissioners decision is that the Council has now complied with the request, however it has breached regulation 5(1) and 5(2) by failing to provide the information to the complainant within the statutory timeframe of 20 working days. The Commissioner does not require any steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 5(1); EIR 5(2)
View London Borough of Lambeth
9 Jan 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested details of criminal investigations she believes were opened into two judges, one of whom she named. The above public authority relied on section 30 (criminal investigations) and section 40(5B) of FOIA (third party personal data) in order to refuse to confirm nor deny that it held any relevant information. The Commissioner’s decision is that the public authority was entitled to rely on section 40(5B) of FOIA to refuse to confirm or deny that it held any information about the named judge. In respect of the un-named judge, the Commissioner is satisfied that section 30(3) of FOIA is engaged and that the balance of the public interest favours maintaining the exemption. The Commissioner does not require further steps.Keywords: small numbers
Exemptions cited: FOI 30; FOI 40(5)(b)
View Police Service of Northern Ireland
9 Jan 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about a social media monitoring contract. The above public authority refused to confirm or deny that it held relevant information, relying on sections 23 (security bodies), 24 (national security), 30 (criminal investigations) and 31 (law enforcement) of FOIA in order to do so. The Commissioner’s decision is that the public authority is entitled to rely on section 23(5) of FOIA to refuse to confirm or deny whether it holds information within the scope of element [4] of the request. The public authority has correctly engaged section 31(3) to neither confirm nor deny holding information within the scope of the remaining elements of the request and the balance of the public interest favours maintaining this exemption. The Commissioner does not require further steps.Keywords: police capabilities, mosaic effect
Exemptions cited: FOI 23; FOI 31
View West Yorkshire Police
9 Jan 2023Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to the NHS England Emergency Preparedness, Resilience and Response Framework. By the date of this notice Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust (the Trust) had not issued a substantive response to this request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Trust has breached section 10(1) of FOIA in that it failed to provide a valid response to the request within the statutory time frame of 20 working days.The Commissioner requires the Trust to take the following step to ensure compliance with the legislation.The Trust must provide a substantive response to the request in accordance with its obligations under FOIA. The Trust 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 FOIA and may be dealt with as a contempt of court.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust
9 Jan 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information regarding a data breach investigation. The above public authority relied on section 44 of FOIA (statutory prohibition) to withhold the requested information. The Commissioner’s decision is that the public authority is entitled to rely on section 44 of FOIA to withhold the information. The Commissioner does not require further steps. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2023/0066 struck out.Keywords: Data Protection Act 2018, lawful gateways
Exemptions cited: FOI 44
View Information Commissioner
9 Jan 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information regarding a number of planning applications.Lewes District Council provided some information, and it withheld some information on the bases of Regulation 13 (personal information), and Regulation 12(5)(f) (Interests of the information provider) of the EIR. It also stated that some information was not held.The Commissioner’s decision is that Lewes District Council was correct to withhold information on the bases of Regulation 13 and Regulation 12(5)(f). Furthermore that, on the balance of probabilities, the council does not hold some of the requested information and therefore Regulation 12(4)(a) of the EIR applies to this element of the request. The Commissioner does not require any steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(a); EIR 12(5)(f); EIR 13
View Lewes District Council
9 Jan 2023Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust (“the Trust”) about diagnostic nerve procedures. By the date of this notice the Trust had not issued a substantive response to this request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Trust has breached section 10(1) of FOIA in that it failed to provide a valid response to the request within the statutory time frame of 20 working days.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10(1)
View Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust
9 Jan 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested from the Cabinet Office (“CO”) copies of evidence sent to the Minister for the Constitution regarding delivery of political campaign leaflets during the pandemic prior to a specific date. A letter had been sent to all parties on that date. CO initially confirmed holding information within the scope of the request but refused to provide it (citing section 35 – formulation/development of government policy) as its basis for doing so. It revised this position at internal review, albeit after considerable delay. It said that the information it first thought to be in the scope of the request was not. It asserted that it did not hold any information within the scope of the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Cabinet Office does not hold any information within the scope of the request. No steps are required.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Cabinet Office
9 Jan 2023Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information from Armagh City, Banbridge and Craigavon Borough Council in relation to the sale or transfer of land to Southern Regional College (SRC) for development. The Council initially refused all parts of the request in reliance on the exception at regulation 12(5)(e) (confidentiality of commercial information) of the EIR. It subsequently sought to rely on regulation 12(4)(d) (unfinished documents) in respect of some parts. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has failed to demonstrate that regulation 12(4)(d) is engaged. He also finds that the Council has failed to demonstrate that the public interest in maintaining the exception at regulation 12(5)(e) outweighs the public interest in disclosure. The Commissioner requires the Council to disclose the requested information.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(d); EIR 12(5)(e)
9 Jan 2023Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to a near miss incident involving a Royal Navy submarine and a ferry in 2018. The Ministry of Defence (MOD) confirmed that it held information falling within the scope of the request but that it considered this to be exempt from disclosure on the basis of sections 24 (national security), 26(1)(b) (defence), and 44(1)(a) (statutory prohibitions on disclosure) of FOIA. The MOD also refused to confirm or deny whether it held information in respect of one part of the request, in reliance on section 40(5B) (third party personal data). The Commissioner’s decision is that the MOD was entitled to rely on section 26(1)(b) in respect of the withheld information, and section 40(5B) in respect of the refusal to confirm or deny that information was held. The Commissioner does not require the MOD to take any further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 26; FOI 40(5)(b)
View Ministry of Defence
7 Jan 2023Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, Defra does not hold the requested information about the former Prince of Wales’ consent for the Environment Act 2021. Regulation 12(4)(a) of the EIR is therefore engaged. However, Defra did not comply with regulation 9(1) of the EIR as there was advice and assistance it could have usefully given to the complainant. That assistance has now been given, in effect, through this notice and therefore it is not necessary for Defra to take any further steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(a); EIR 9
7 Jan 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, Bangor University does not hold the requested information about trigger warnings and has complied with section 1(1) of FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Bangor University
7 Jan 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The Commissioner is satisfied that Leeds and York Partnership NHS Foundation Trust has satisfactorily addressed the complainant’s request and has complied with section 1(1) and 10(1) of FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10
View Leeds and York Partnership NHS Foundation Trust
6 Jan 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested from Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council (the Council) information it holds with Social Services and partner bodies regarding the complainant’s deceased relative [name redacted]. The Council withheld the requested information and cited section 40(2) (personal information) and section 41 (information provided in confidence) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council is entitled to rely on sections 40(2) and 41 of FOIA to refuse to provide the information requested. Therefore, the Commissioner does not require the Council to take any steps as a result of this decision. First-tier tribunal (General Regulatory chamber) information rights appeal EA/2023/0342 appeal withdrawn.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40(2); FOI 41
View Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council
6 Jan 2023Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The Commissioner’s decision is that the Charity Commission is entitled to withhold the name of the corporate trustee of a specific charity under section 38 and section 40(2) FOIA, which concern health and safety and personal data respectively. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2023/0052 appeal dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 38; FOI 40
View The Charity Commission
5 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 two specific files dating from the 1940s concerning the Netherlands. The FCDO refused to disclose the files on the basis that they were exempt from disclosure under section 23(1) (security bodies) and sections 27(1)(a) and 27(2) (international relations) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the requested information is exempt from disclosure on the basis of section 23(1) of FOIA. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2023/0059 appeal struck out.
Exemptions cited: FOI 23
View Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office
5 Jan 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, Ofgem does not hold any further recorded information within scope of the complaint’s requests about how energy companies spend money raised by standing charges. He does not require Ofgem to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 5; FOI 1
View Office of Gas and Electricity Markets
5 Jan 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) seeking a copy of the Secretary of State’s ministerial diary for the period February 2020 to April 2021. DCMS refused the request on the basis of section 14(1) (vexatious) of FOIA given the burden in complying with it. The Commissioner’s decision is that DCMS is entitled to rely on section 14(1) of FOIA to refuse to comply with the request.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14(1)
View Department for Culture, Media and Sport
5 Jan 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about ‘written off’ police cars from the Metropolitan Police Service (the “MPS”). The MPS provided some information, but refused to provide the remainder citing section 31(1)(a) of FOIA (Law enforcement) of FOIA.The Commissioner’s decision is that section 31(1)(a) is engaged and that the public interest favours maintaining the exemption. No steps are required.
Exemptions cited: FOI 31
View Metropolitan Police Service
5 Jan 2023Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested various information in respect of a loan awarded by Homes England to Project Etopia, including its full assessment and decision process that led to the award. Homes England refused the request citing regulation 12(4)(e) (Internal Communications) of the EIR and regulation 12(5)(e) (Confidentiality of Commercial or Industrial Information). The Commissioner’s decision is that Homes England has correctly applied regulation 12(4)(e) to all information which constitutes an internal communication. However, Homes England has failed to demonstrate that regulation 12(5)(e) is engaged in respect of the remaining information.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(e); EIR 12(5)(e)
View Homes England
5 Jan 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information about assessments for a job application. The Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (the “Department”) disclosed information and confirmed that further information was not held. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the Department has disclosed all the relevant information that it holds and complied with section 1(1). The Commissioner does not require the Department to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1(1)
View Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government
5 Jan 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to the Department for Business, Energy & Industrial Strategy (BEIS) for copies of the Secretary of State’s diaries for the period February 2020 to March 2021. BEIS refused the request on the basis of section 14(1) (vexatious) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that BEIS is entitled to rely on section 14(1) of FOIA to refuse to provide the requested information.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14(1)
View Department for Business and Trade
5 Jan 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested reports by Hanbury Strategy. HM Treasury (“HMT”) refused to provide these citing the FOIA exemptions at section 35 (formulation/development of government policy) and section 43 (prejudice to commercial interests) as its basis for doing so. It upheld this at internal view. The Commissioner’s decision is that HMT is entitled to rely on section 35 as its basis for withholding the requested information. No steps are required.
Exemptions cited: FOI 35
View HM Treasury
5 Jan 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to HM Treasury (HMT) for a copy of the then Chancellor’s ministerial diary for the period February 2020 to March 2021. HMT refused the request on the basis of section 14(1) (vexatious) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that HMT is entitled to rely on section 14(1) of FOIA to refuse to provide the requested information.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14(1)
View HM Treasury
5 Jan 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to the Department for International Trade (DIT) seeking a copy of the Secretary of State’s ministerial diary for the period December 2019 to March 2021. DIT refused the request on the basis of section 14(1) (vexatious) of FOIA given the burden in complying with it. The Commissioner’s decision is that DIT is entitled to rely on section 14(1) of FOIA to refuse to comply with the request.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14(1)
View Department for International Trade
5 Jan 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested copies of the advice given by the Charity Commission to a specific Charity. The Charity Commission refused to provide the requested information, citing section 31(1)(g) (law enforcement). The Commissioner’s decision is that the Charity Commission is entitled to withhold the information under section 31(1)(g) (law enforcement). The Commissioner doesn’t require the public authority to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 31(1)(g)
View The Charity Commission
5 Jan 2023Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested costs associated with a legal settlement. The above public authority eventually disclosed the information, but outside the statutory timeframe. The Commissioner’s decision is that the public authority breached section 10 of FOIA as it failed to communicate the requested information within 20 working days. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Waltham Forest Council
4 Jan 2023Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from East West Railway Company (“EWR”) about the recruitment process for a particular project and the resignation date of a particular individual involved in the project. The Commissioner’s decision is that EWR 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 East West Railway Company Limited
4 Jan 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information held by Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office concerning the Duke and Duchess of Sussex. The Commissioner’s decision is that Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office was entitled to rely on section 40(5B)(a)(i) to neither confirm nor deny that it held the requested information.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office
4 Jan 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to judicial training materials. The MoJ denied holding the requested information. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the MoJ does not hold the requested information. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Ministry of Justice
4 Jan 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to settlement agreements. The University of Cambridge (the “University”) refused the request under the exemption for commercial interests – section 43(2) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the information is commercially sensitive and the University is entitled to withhold it under section 43(2) of FOIA. The public interest favours maintaining the exemption.The Commissioner does not require the University to take any corrective steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 43(2)
View The University of Cambridge
4 Jan 2023Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information from Epping Forest District Council (“the Council”) relating to a specific planning application. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has failed to demonstrate that regulation 12(4)(b) is engaged and therefore, the Council is not entitled to rely on this exception.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 that does not rely on regulation 12(4)(b) of the EIR.The Council must take these steps within 35 calendar days of the date of this decision notice. Failure to comply may result in the Commissioner making written certification of this fact to the High Court pursuant to section 54 of FOIA and may be dealt with as a contempt of court.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(b)
View Epping Forest District Council
4 Jan 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested a copy of a Traffic Regulation Order in a specific format. The City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council (the “council”) disclosed information falling within the scope of the request and confirmed that it did not hold other information in the requested format. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council disclosed all the relevant information it holds and complied with regulation 5(1) and that it correctly directed the complainant to information already publicly available and easily accessible in another form or format in accordance with regulation 6(1).The Commissioner does not require the council to take any steps. First-tier Tribunal (General Regulatory Chamber) Information Rights appeal EA/2023/0012 appeal dismissed.
Exemptions cited: EIR 5(1); EIR 6(1)
View City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council
4 Jan 2023Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from Oxford City Council (“the Council”) relating to contracts awarded by Oxford Direct Services to a specific company. 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 Act and may be dealt with as a contempt of court.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Oxford City Council
4 Jan 2023Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested correspondence and communications to and from the then Prince of Wales (now King Charles III) in his capacity as the then Duke of Cornwall regarding the Prince’s consent for the Data Protection Act 2018 within a specific time frame. After excessive delay in responding, the Department for Digital Culture Media and Sport (“DCMS”) responded. It said it held an email containing a letter seeking the Prince’s Consent but that it was withholding it under section 37(1)(a)(a) (Communications with the heir to the throne). It also explained that some information within that email was also being withheld under section 40. It denied holding other information also described in the requests. It upheld its position at internal review. The Commissioner’s decision is that DCMS is entitled to rely on section 37(1)(aa) as its basis for refusing to provide the information described in the request. In failing to respond within 20 working days, DCMS has not complied with its obl
Exemptions cited: FOI 27
View Department for Culture, Media and Sport