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
4 Jan 2023Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
In two requests, the complainant requested information associated with the price of a piece of equipment from Royal Brompton and Harefied hospitals, which is a subsidiary of Guy’s and St Thomas’ NHS Foundation Trust (‘the Trust’).The Commissioner’s decision is that the Trust has not provided a response under FOIA to the first request and has therefore not complied with section 10(1). The Trust is entitled to withhold the information requested in the second request under section 43(2) of FOIA as it is commercially sensitive. The public interest favours maintaining the exemption. The Commissioner requires the Trust to take the following step to ensure compliance with the legislation: Provide a response to the first request, of 13 March 2022, that complies with FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 43
View Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust
4 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 Bristol City Council
4 Jan 2023Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from Lancashire County Council [“LCC”] relating to projected year 7 demand. By the date of this notice LCC had not issued a substantive response to this request. The Commissioner’s decision is that LCC 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 Lancashire County Council
4 Jan 2023Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from NHS England relating to Evusheld. By the date of this notice NHS England had not issued a substantive response to this request. The Commissioner’s decision is that NHS England 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 NHS England
3 Jan 2023Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to housing applications. Hertsmere Borough Council (the “council”) refused the request, citing section 14 (vexatious and repeated requests) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council has not correctly applied section 14 of the FOIA to the request. The Commissioner requires the council to issue a fresh response to the request which does not rely on section 14 of the FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14
View Hertsmere Borough Council
3 Jan 2023Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to the SABRE (Synergetic Air Breathing Rocket Engine) project. The UK Space Agency (UKSA) disclosed information but withheld some under section 43(1) (trade secrets) and 43(2) (commercial interests). The Commissioner has decided that aspects of the withheld information engage section 43(1) (trade secrets) and the withheld information in it’s entirety engages section 43(2). The Commissioner has also decided that the public interest lies in maintaining the exemption for the majority of the information but favours disclosure for milestone description headings and associated Government Financing Activity (‘GFA’) information. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation:Disclose schedule 4, as marked up by the Commissioner in the confidential annex, to the complainant.
Exemptions cited: FOI 43
View UK Space Agency
3 Jan 2023Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to fixed terms contracts for Specialist Doctors in the Paediatric Cariology Department. By the date of this notice the Royal Brompton and Harefield NHS Foundation 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 Royal Brompton & Harefield NHS Foundation Trust
3 Jan 2023Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from NHS Business Services Authority about correspondence between the English Infected Blood Support Scheme and the Department of Health and Social Care. The Commissioner’s decision is that NHS Business Services Authority 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 NHS Business Services Authority
3 Jan 2023Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information from South Somerset District Council (“the Council”) about a specified area of land.The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council should have considered the request in this case under the EIR rather than FOIA and accordingly it has failed to carry out a reconsideration (internal review) within 40 working days of the complainant making a complaint to it about the initial response provided. The Council has therefore breached regulation 11 of the EIR.The Commissioner requires the Council to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation.Reconsider how it responded to the original request and inform the complainant of the outcome of that reconsideration in accordance with regulation 11 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 the
Exemptions cited: EIR 11
View South Kesteven District Council
3 Jan 2023Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from the Business Services Organisation [“BSO”] relating to discussions and communications of Emergency Care Summaries, Key Information Summaries, and Northern Ireland Electronic Care Records. The Commissioner’s decision is that BSO 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)
23 Dec 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested the names of two internal reviews conducted by University College London (UCL). UCL refused to provide this information on the basis of section 36(2)(c). The Commissioner’s decision is that section 36(2)(c) is engaged and the public interest favours maintaining the exemption and withholding the information.
Exemptions cited: FOI 36
View University College London
23 Dec 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested any records of discussions with the Secretary of State on the arrangement for GCSE, AS and A Level exam series since January 2020. Ofqual disclosed some information but withheld one record of a discussion on the basis of section 36(2)(c). The Commissioner’s decision is that section 36(2)(c) is engaged but the public interest favours disclosing the information. The Commissioner requires the public authority to disclose the excerpt from the email sent on the Secretary of State’s behalf on 9 November 2020 to Ofqual’s Interim Chief Regulator.
Exemptions cited: FOI 36
View Ofqual
23 Dec 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information relating to a breach of planning consent on a specific estate and specific dates.Sevenoaks District Council (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 determined that the Council incorrectly handled the request under FOIA and that the request fell to be considered under the EIR as it concerned planning and the environment. Having considered the application of regulations 13 – personal information and 12(4)(a) – information not held – which have similarities to sections 40 and 1(1) of FOIA, he is satisfied that the redacted information constitutes personal data, therefore regulation 13(1) of the EIR is engaged, and, on the balance of probabilities, the Council did not hold any further recorded information in scope of
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(a); EIR 13
View Sevenoaks District Council
23 Dec 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested a report into Beverley Town Council’s (‘the council’) failure to pay for gas for a number of years. The council withheld the information under section 40(2) (personal information) and section 41(1) (information provided in confidence). The Commissioner’s decision is that the council was correct to withhold the information under section 40(2). The Commissioner does not require the council to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40(2)
View Ilkley Town Council
23 Dec 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested copies of two internal reviews conducted by University College London (UCL). UCL refused to provide this information on the basis of section 36(2)(c). The Commissioner’s decision is that section 36(2)(c) is engaged and the public interest favours maintaining the exemption and withholding the information.
Exemptions cited: FOI 36
View University College London
23 Dec 2022Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about proposed changes to the Local Government Transparency Code. The above public authority provided some information, denied holding some information and withheld the remainder – relying on section 35 of FOIA (development of government policy) in order to do so. The Commissioner’s decision is that all the information engages section 35, but that the balance of the public interest favours disclosure of some of it. As the public authority failed to respond to the request within 20 working days, it breached both section 10 and section 17 of FOIA. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: Disclose a copy of the document titled “Government response to consultation on changes to the Local Government Transparency Code 2015”. The public authority may redact each section titled “Government response.”
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 17; FOI 35
View Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government
22 Dec 2022Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested all correspondence and communications, between the Cabinet Office and the Commissioner, during the period 1 January 2019 to 1 May 2019, which refer to the Commissioner’s ‘Outsourcing Oversight?’ report, which was laid before Parliament on 28 January 2019. The Cabinet Office withheld the majority of the requested information under section 36(2)(b)(i)(ii) and (c)(prejudice to the effective conduct of public affairs) with a separate and very small part of the information held being exempt under section 35(1)(d)(operation of a ministerial private office). The Commissioner’s decision is that the Cabinet Office failed to correctly apply section 36(2)(c) to the relevant information but that the same information is exempt under section 36(2)(b)(i) and (ii). The Commissioner considers that the balance of the public interest favours maintaining section 36(2)(b) to the withheld information. The Commissioner has also found that the Cabinet Office correctly applied sec
Exemptions cited: FOI 10(1); FOI 35(1)(d); FOI 36(2)(b)
View Cabinet Office
22 Dec 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested communications between Kirklees Metropolitan Council (the “Council”) and third parties regarding the plans to develop land identified during Local Plan hearings.The Council provided a response which stated a return of a nil return and that it did not hold any information within scope of the request.The Commissioner determined that the Council incorrectly handled the request under FOIA and that the request fell to be considered under the EIR as it concerned planning and the environment. Having considered the application of regulation 12(4)(a) – information not held – which has similarities to section 1(1) of FOIA, he is satisfied that, on the balance of probabilities, the Council did not hold the information requested by the complainant. However, the Council failed to issue a refusal notice relying on regulation 12(4)(a) of the EIR - information not held - within 20 working days, it therefore breached Regulation 14 of the EIR. The Commissioner does not require
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(a)
View Kirklees Metropolitan Council
22 Dec 2022Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to contact between UK Embassy Officials and tobacco companies. The FCDO originally withheld some information under section 43(2) (commercial interests) of FOIA and confirmed that no information was held in relation to part of the request. During the course of this investigation, the FCDO rescinded its reliance on section 43(2). The Commissioner’s decision is, in failing to respond and disclose all non-exempt information within 20 working days of receipt of the request, the FCDO breached section 10 (time for compliance with request) of FOIA. The Commissioner has also decided that, on the balance of probabilities, the FCDO does not hold any further information that falls within the scope of the request. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10
View Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office
22 Dec 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The Commissioner’s decision is that the public authority breached section 10(1) of FOIA by failing to provide a response within 20 working days.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10(1)
View South Yorkshire Police
22 Dec 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested spreadsheets tracking responses to distress calls in the English Channel. The above public authority provided copies of the spreadsheets with certain data fields redacted. It relied on sections 31 (law enforcement) and 27 (international relations) to withhold the remaining data fields. The Commissioner’s decision is that the public authority has correctly relied on section 31 of FOIA to withhold the remaining information and that the balance of the public interest favours maintaining the exemption. The Commissioner does not require further steps.Keywords: migrant boats
Exemptions cited: FOI 31
View Maritime and Coastguard Agency
22 Dec 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information from the Department of Finance (DoF) about the proposed Casement Park development. The DoF directed the complainant to some relevant publicly available information, but refused the rest of the request under regulation 12(4)(d) (material in the course of completion) of the EIR.The Commissioner’s decision is that the DoF correctly relied on regulation 12(4)(d) to refuse the request, and the balance of the public interest favours maintaining the exception. The Commissioner does not require the DoF to take any steps as a result of this decision notice.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(d)
View Department of Finance
22 Dec 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information relating to Town and Village Green applications. Wiltshire Council (the “council”) disclosed some information and withheld personal data under regulation 5(3) and regulation 13(3). The Commissioner’s decision is that the council correctly applied regulation 5(3) and regulation 13(3) to withhold the personal data of the complainant and a third party and that, in relation to information identified as falling out of the scope of the request, it complied with regulation 5(1).The Commissioner does not require the council to take any steps. First-tier Tribunal (General Regulatory Chamber) Information Rights appeal EA/2023/0023 appeal dismissed.
Exemptions cited: EIR 13; EIR 5(1); EIR 5(3)
View Wiltshire Council
22 Dec 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The Commissioner’s decision is that Devon Partnership NHS Trust is entitled to refuse the complainant’s request about its consent policy under section 14(1) of FOIA as the request is vexatious.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14
View Devon Partnership NHS Trust
22 Dec 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested from Barnsley Council, (‘the council’), information relating to the development of a link road, associated with a wider development of housing and infrastructure in the area. The council provided some information, but redacted some information under Regulation 12(5)(e) (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. First-tier tribunal (General Regulatory chamber) information rights appeal EA/20230/0123 appeal dismissed.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(e)
View Barnsley Council
22 Dec 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested from the London Borough of Enfield (the Council) information relating to disputed council fees.The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council should have relied on section 40(5B) of FOIA to refuse to confirm or deny whether any information was held and has applied this exemption himself proactively.The Commissioner does not require the Council to take any steps as a result of this notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40(5)
View Enfield Council
22 Dec 2022Complaint 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 Greater London Authority
22 Dec 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information about whether a particular superstore was liable to pay the BID levy. The Commissioner’s decision is that the response issued by East Lindsey District Council (the Council) did not comply with section 1 of the FOIA as it did not confirm or deny whether the specific information requested is held. The Commissioner requires the Council to issue a fresh response to parts 1 and 2 of the request.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View East Lindsey District Council
22 Dec 2022Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested copies of correspondence between Ashfield District Council (the Council) and its legal advisors regarding Papplewick Green Pavilion and Sports Gateway being granted use of the site. The Council withheld the information requested under section 42(1) of the FOIA (Legal Professional Privilege). The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council correctly applied section 42(1) to the request. However, in failing to respond to the request within the statutory timescale the Commissioner finds that the Council breached section 10 of the FOIA. The Commissioner does not require any steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 42
View Ashfield District Council
22 Dec 2022Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from Humberside Police (“HP”) for all records, transcripts and case notes related directly or indirectly to the disappearance and murder of Liberty (“Libby”) Squire in 2019. HP initially cited section 22 (Information intended for future publication) and then section 30 (Investigations and proceedings), section 38 and section 40(5) (Personal Information) of FOIA as its reasons to withhold the information. The Commissioner’s decision is that HP has correctly engaged section 30 of FOIA and that the public interest favours maintaining the exemption. Also, the Commissioner has found that HP breached section 17 of FOIA because of the delays in its response. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any further steps. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2023/0040 struck out.
Exemptions cited: FOI 17; FOI 30
View Humberside Police
22 Dec 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested, from South Hams District Council (“the Council”) information about its waste collection services contract. The Council disclosed some information but the complainant remained dissatisfied with one element of his request concerning ‘risk transfer’. The Council advised that it had disclosed all the information held regarding risk transfer, which the complainant disputed.The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the Council holds no further information about risk transfer and therefore complied with regulation 5(1) of the EIR. No steps are required.
Exemptions cited: EIR 5
View South Hams District Council
22 Dec 2022Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested various information about CCTV cameras installed within the Leeds area. Leeds City Council (the Council) provided some information but withheld the specific location of cameras under section 31(1)(a) (Law enforcement). The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council correctly applied section 31(1)(a) to the request. However, in failing to respond to the request within 20 working days, the Commissioner finds that the Council breached sections 10 and 17 of the FOIA. The Commissioner does not require any steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 17; FOI 31
View Leeds City Council
22 Dec 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from the ICO regarding action it takes against organisations which fail to meet statutory deadlines. The ICO stated that it does not hold information within the scope of the request.The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the ICO is correct when it says that it does not hold information within the scope of the request, and it has therefore complied with its obligations under section 1 of FOIA.The Commissioner does not require the ICO to take any steps as a result of this notice. Information Tribunal FTT EA/2023/0016 struck out.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Information Commissioner
22 Dec 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested the number of Oxford City Council and Oxford Direct Services employees who have been formally or informally disciplined due to sickness absence in every month in the past five years. The Commissioner’s decision is that Oxford City Council (OCC) has failed to comply with its duties under section 1(1)(b) of FOIA. The Commissioner requires OCC to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: OCC must issue a fresh response and disclose the requested information; or Provide a refusal notice in accordance with its obligations under section 17 of FOIA stating the FOIA exemption they wish to rely on.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Oxford City Council
21 Dec 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested copies of FOI Round Robin List maintained by Cabinet Office (“CO”) and circulated to Whitehall departments. CO withheld the information and relied on section 14(1) (vexatious request) of FOIA as its basis for doing so.The Commissioner’s decision is that CO have correctly relied on section 14 of FOIA to withhold the information. He does not require CO to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14(1)
View Cabinet Office
21 Dec 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The Commissioner’s decision is that by virtue of section 3(2)(a) of FOIA, the ICB does not hold the requested information about an Enhanced Access Services survey as it holds this information solely on behalf of Primary Care Networks.
Exemptions cited: FOI 3
View NHS Derby and Derbyshire ICB
21 Dec 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested statistics relating to ‘Prevent’ referrals. The Council refused to comply with the request, citing section 12(2) (cost of compliance exceeds appropriate limit) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is:The Council is entitled to neither confirm nor deny that it holds the requested information under section 12(2)The Council has complied with it obligations under section 16(1) (advice and assistance). The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12; FOI 16
View Warwickshire County Council
21 Dec 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested from the Merseyside Fire and Rescue Service (“the MFRS”), information relating to a fire at an Energy Storage Site (BESS) on Carnegie Road, Liverpool. The MFRS disclosed some of the requested information, applied section 43 of the FOIA (commercial interests) to withhold some correspondence, and clarified that other information is not held by it. During the Commissioner’s investigation it changed its view and applied Regulation 12(4)(a) (information not held) and Regulation 12(4)(d) (information still in the course of completion) of the EIR. The Commissioner’s decision is that the MFRS has disclosed the requested reports, that it was correct to apply Regulation 12(4)(a) to the request for a Fire Management Plan which it does not hold, and that it was correct to apply Regulation 12(4)(d) to withhold copies of correspondence relating to the reports. The Commissioner does not require the MFRS to take any steps. First-tier Tribunal (General Regulatory Chamber) Inf
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(a); EIR 12(4)(d)
View Merseyside Fire and Rescue Service
21 Dec 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to South Somerset District Council (“the Council”) for information relating to the restructure of the Senior Leadership Team (SLT).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(1)
View South Kesteven District Council
21 Dec 2022Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to IT outages. University College Birmingham (UCB) asked for clarification in relation to part 1 of the request, it denied holding information in relation to part 2 of the request and provided information in response to parts 3 and 4 of the request. UCB breached section 16 FOIA in the handling of part 1 of the request however it correctly denied holding information requested at part 2 under section 1(1)(a) FOIA. UCB also breached section 10 in the handling of this request as it did not respond within the statutory time for compliance. The Commissioner requires the public authority to provide advice and assistance in accordance with its obligations under section 16 FOIA in relation to part 1 of the request.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10; FOI 16
View University College Birmingham
21 Dec 2022Complaint 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
21 Dec 2022Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to the verification of St Faith’s School as a recognised legal entity in the UK.The Department for Education (DfE) 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, on the balance of probabilities, the DfE holds no further recorded information relevant to the complainant’s request and has complied with section 1(1) of FOIA. However, the DfE failed to provide their response withing 20 working days of the request, and therefore breached section 10 of FOIA. The Commissioner does not require any steps to be taken as a result of this decision notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10
View Department for Education
21 Dec 2022Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested from NHS England (NHSE) a copy of a report following an analysis of Lost to Follow Up patients that covers the period from April 2020 to August 2021. NHSE initially refused to provide the information, citing section 41 of FOIA. At internal review, NHSE also cited section 40(2) of FOIA but disclosed part of the information. The Commissioner’s decision is that the information does not engage section 41(1) of FOIA and has been incorrectly withheld. He accepts that part of the information was correctly withheld under section 40(2) of FOIA. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation.• Disclose the report having redacted the parts highlighted in blue by the Commissioner, as set out in the confidential annex.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40(2); FOI 41
View NHS England
20 Dec 2022Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from the London Borough of Redbridge (“the Council”) in relation to complaints against landlords/letting agents and any action taken against a specific letting agent. The Council provided the complainant with the information that it holds, advising that some further information may be held by the Citizens Advice Bureau. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the Council does not hold any further information in relation to this request. The Commissioner, however, finds that the Council breached section 10(1) of FOIA, as its refusal notice was not issued within 20 working days of receiving the request. The Commissioner does not require the Council to take any steps as a result of this decision notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1(1); FOI 10(1)
View Redbridge Council
20 Dec 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information held by Elmbridge Borough Council (the Council) relating to throwing cages at a local sports centre. It is the Commissioner’s decision that, on the balance of probabilities, the Council has provided the complainant with all the information 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. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2023/0046 appeal allowed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Elmbridge Borough Council
20 Dec 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information from Natural England in relation to badger disease control licences for 2021. Natural England provided some information in relation to the request, but explained the remaining information was withheld under section 12(5)(a) of the EIR – public safety. The Commissioner’s decision is that Natural England has correctly applied regulation 12(5)(a) of the EIR to withhold the information. The Commissioner does not require Natural England to take any steps as a result of this decision notice.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(a)
View Natural England
20 Dec 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from City of York Council (“the Council”) about the costs related to the publication and distribution of a 10-page survey they had received. The Council explained that as it could not identify the 10-page survey the complaint was referring to, it could not provide the requested information.The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has complied with its obligations under section 16(1) of the FOIA to provide adequate advice and assistance to the complainant. The Commissioner does not require the Council to take any steps as a result of this decision notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 16
View York City Council
20 Dec 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information related to the 1985 Broadwater Farm riots from the Metropolitan Police Service (the “MPS”). The MPS would initially neither confirm nor deny (“NCND”) holding the requested information. It subsequently revised its position, eventually advising that some information was not held, it would exceed the cost limit at section 12(2) to comply with part of the request and some was exempt by virtue of section 40(5) (Personal information) of FOIA; it also relied on sections 31(1)(a) & (b) (Law enforcement) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the MPS dealt appropriately with the request. No steps are required.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 12; FOI 40
View Metropolitan Police Service