20 Dec 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from Balderton Parish Council (“the Council”) relating to an agreement between the Council and the YMCA which allows the YMCA to kayak on a specific lake. The Commissioner’s decision is that on the balance of probabilities, the Council does not hold information within the scope of part 1 of the request.The Commissioner does not require the Council to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
20 Dec 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from the University of London (the University) relating to the requirement for a physical copy of a PhD thesis to be provided. The University refused the request under section 14(1) of FOIA (vexatious request).The Commissioner’s decision is that the request was vexatious and therefore the University was entitled to rely upon section 14(1) of FOIA to refuse it.The Commissioner does not require any steps to be taken as a result of this decision notice. Information Tribunal UA-2023-001573-GIA (remitted to FTT) PTA allowed. Information Tribunal EA/2023/0033 (Remitted) appeal allowed. Keywords: Tsai Ing-Wen thesis
Exemptions cited: FOI 14(1)
View London
20 Dec 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information about a named individual recalled to prison. The Parole Board for England and Wales (the ‘Parole Board’) provided some information about dates but withheld the remainder citing section 32(1)(a) of FOIA (a subsection of the exemption for court records). The Commissioner’s decision is that the Parole Board as entitled to rely on section 32(1)(a) for the exempted information. No steps are required as a result of this notice.Keywords: Prison, prisoners
Exemptions cited: FOI 32
View Parole Board
20 Dec 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested specific training material related to Project Insight from the Metropolitan Police Service (the “MPS”). The MPS refused to provide the requested information, citing sections 31(1)(a) and (b) (Law enforcement) and 40(2) (Personal information) of FOIA.During the Commissioner’s investigation, the MPS revised its position. It advised that the requested information was not held. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the civil standard of the balance of probabilities, the requested information is not held. No steps are required.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Metropolitan Police Service
20 Dec 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from the Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames (“the Council”), in relation to the Community Benefit Society (CBS) and the increase in rents for council houses being used by the CBS. The Council provide some information in relation to part 1 of the request, but advised it does not hold anything else. For part 2 of the request, the Council explained that it does not hold any information, as the CBS was not implemented. The Commissioner’s decision is that on the balance of probabilities, the Council does not hold any further information in relation to the request. The Commissioner does not require the Council to take any steps as a result of this decision notice. First-tier tribunal (General Regulatory chamber) information rights appeal EA/2023/0049 under appeal.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1(1)
View Kingston upon Thames Council
20 Dec 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested from Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole Council (the Council) information regarding an anonymous complaint letter of 2019 in respect of a planning application. The Council disclosed information to the complainant but withheld some information (a handwritten note) under regulation 13(1) (personal data) of the EIR. It also confirmed that no further information was held other than what had been disclosed. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council was entitled to withhold information under regulation 13 (1) of the EIR. He also determined that the Council does not hold further information within scope of the request. Therefore, the Commissioner does not require the Council to take any steps as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(a); EIR 13(1)
View BCP Council
20 Dec 2022Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested the 128 expressions of interest in the government’s New Hospitals programme. The Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC) refused to comply with the request, citing section 14(1) of FOIA as it considers that it would impose a grossly oppressive burden to make required redactions under section 35(1)(a) and 43(2) FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that DHSC has incorrectly relied upon section 14(1) to refuse the request. However redactions would be required under section 35(1)(a) and 43(2) FOIA. The Commissioner requires the public authority to disclose the requested information subject to any redactions under section 35(1)(a) and 43(2) FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14; FOI 35; FOI 43
View Department of Health and Social Care
20 Dec 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information from Erewash Borough Council (“the Council”) in relation to a specific planning application. The Council provided information for four of the five points in the request. However, for the other point, which relates to a draft report, the Council originally advised that it no longer existed as it was subsumed into the Council’s committee report. The Council later, advised that it was withholding the remainder of the information under regulation 12(4)(d) of the EIR – material which is still in the course of completion, unfinished documents or incomplete data. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has correctly applied regulation 12(4)(d) of the EIR (material in the course of completion) when determining the request. The Commissioner does not require the Council to take any steps as a result of this decision notice. Informational Tribunal UA-2023-001393-GIA appeal allowed.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(d)
View Erewash Borough Council
20 Dec 2022Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested a report into access to GP services and associated information. Aneurin Bevan University Health Board (‘the Board’) disclosed the report having redacted practice names under section 43(2) of FOIA, which concern commercial interests. The Board indicated it does not hold the remaining information. The Board subsequently confirmed it was also relying on section 41(1) which concerns information provided in confidence. The Commissioner’s decision is that the names of specific GP practices were provided in confidence and are also commercially sensitive . The Board is therefore entitled to withhold this information under section 41(1) and section 43(2) of FOIA. The Commissioner finds that the Board does not hold the GP “action plan” the complainant requested but that it breached section 10(1) of FOIA as it did not communicate non-exempt information to the complainant within 20 working days. Finally, the Board’s refusal notice was inadequate and did not comply wit
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10; FOI 17; FOI 41; FOI 43
View Aneurin Bevan University Health Board
20 Dec 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information relating to the Mountain Biking in Surrey Forum, in particular a PowerPoint presentation. The Commissioner’s decision is that Forestry England complied with its obligations under regulation 5(1) and (2) EIR. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: EIR 5
View Forestry Commission
20 Dec 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested a list of all councillors investigated for breach of the Councillors’ Code of Conduct in the last five years. The public authority provided some of the requested information but stated they did not hold records earlier than 2019. The Commissioner is satisfied that on the balance of probabilities, the public authority does not hold the outstanding information. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Waltham Forest Council
20 Dec 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about regarding vascular services arrangements. Chesterfield Royal Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust (the Trust) refused to comply with the request, citing section 14(1) (vexatious requests) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Trust has incorrectly relied upon section 14(1) to refuse the request. The Commissioner requires the public authority to issue a fresh response to the request not relying upon section 14(1) FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14
View Chesterfield Royal Hospital NHS Foundation Trust
20 Dec 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested DAERA to disclose all records and correspondence relating to the environmental degradation of land at Drumgoland, Newtownbutler, Co Fermanagh. DAERA refused to disclose the requested information citing regulations 12(4)(a), 12(5)(b), (d) and (e) and 13 of the EIR. The Commissioner’s decision is that DAERA does not hold some of the requested information and therefore regulation 12(4)(a) of the EIR applies to this element of the request. For the information it does hold, the Commissioner is satisfied that regulation 12(5)(b) of the EIR applies and the public interest rests in maintaining the exception. The Commissioner does not require any further action to be taken.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(a); EIR 12(5)(b)
View Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs (Northern Ireland)
20 Dec 2022Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested disclosure of information from the National Archives (“TNA”) of a closed file which relates to perjury and conspiracy to pervert the course of justice.The Commissioner’s decision is that all the information in the file engages section 40(2). However, TNA failed to comply with its obligations under section 17 of FOIA.The Commissioner does not require TNA to take any further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 17; FOI 40(2)
View The National Archives
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
19 Dec 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information relating to the Northern Ireland Non-Domestic Renewable Heat Incentive Scheme. The Department for the Economy (“DfE”) withheld the information under the exceptions for material in the course of completion – regulation 12(4)(d) of the EIR and internal communications (regulation 12(4)(e)). The Commissioner’s decision is that DfE correctly withheld the requested information under regulation 12(4)(d). He does not require DfE to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(d)
19 Dec 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The Commissioner’s decision is that Ofsted is entitled to rely on section 12(1) to refuse to comply with the request for information on investigations following complaints about peer-on-peer sexual abuse in schools as to do so would exceed the appropriate limit under section 12(1) of FOIA. There was no breach of section 16(1), which concerns advice and assistance.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12; FOI 16
View Office for Standards in Education, Children's Services and Skills
19 Dec 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested the FRC to disclose the dates Deloitte LLP and Deloitte NSE LLP provided information to ICAEW to update the register of auditors. For part of the request, the FRC confirmed that it does not hold the requested information. For the remaining part of the request, the FRC applied section 12 of FOIA (cost limit). The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the FRC does not hold the requested information for part one of the request. For part two, the Commissioner is satisfied that the FRC is entitled to rely on section 12 of FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 12
View Financial Reporting Council
19 Dec 2022Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to the Ministry of Defence (MOD) for information about meetings between itself and specific parties from April 2020 onwards. The MOD provided information in response to the request, but in doing so redacted information from the documents by virtue of section 40(2) (personal data) and section 43(2) (commercial interests) of FOIA.The Commissioner’s decision is that the MOD has met its obligations at section 1 of FOIA. He also finds that the MOD is entitled to rely on sections 40(2) and 43(2) to refuse to disclose the redacted information. However, the Commissioner finds that the MOD breached section 10 and section 17 as it failed to provide its response within the statutory timeframe.The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10; FOI 17; FOI 40; FOI 43
View Ministry of Defence
19 Dec 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested from the London Borough of Enfield (the Council) minutes from a meeting. The Council stated that it does not hold the requested information.The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the Council is correct when it says that it does not hold the requested information. The Commissioner does not require the Council to take any steps as a result of this notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Enfield Council
19 Dec 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from Loddon Parish Council (“the Council”) relating to the costs associated with Staithe public toilets. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council is entitled to rely on section 14(1) (vexatious request) of the FOIA to refuse to provide the requested information. The Commissioner does not require the Council to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14(1)
19 Dec 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from Bassetlaw District Council regarding the event “Uplift Retford.” The council withheld the requested information under section 41(1) (information provided in confidence) of the FOIA.The Commissioner’s decision is that the Bassetlaw District Council was not entitled to withhold the requested information under section 41(1). The Commissioner requires Bassetlaw District Council to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. Disclose the withheld information, subject to any necessary redactions of personal data. 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 the Act and may be dealt with as a contempt of court.
Exemptions cited: FOI 41(1)
View Bassetlaw District Council
19 Dec 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested copies of meeting minutes. London Borough of Haringey (‘the Council’) originally refused to provide the requested information, citing regulation 12(5)(f) (interests of the person who provided the information to the public authority) of the EIR. During the course of this investigation, the Council confirmed that it did not hold the requested information and cited regulation 12(4)(a) (information not held). The Commissioner’s decision is as follows: On the balance of probabilities, the Council does not hold the requested information. The Commissioner does not require any steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(a)
View Haringey Council
19 Dec 2022Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request for information to the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency (“the DVLA”) for datasets relating to the number of driving licences held at each postcode.The Commissioner’s decision is that section 40(2) (personal information) of FOIA is engaged in regards to some of the information requested in question two of the request. However where the numbers are five or over, the DVLA has failed to demonstrate that the exemption is engaged.The Commissioner requires the DVLA to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation:Disclose the requested information to the complainant, where the number of license holders are five and above.The DVLA must take these steps within 35 calendar days of the date of this decision notice. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2023/0048 appeal withdrawn.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40(2)
View Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency
19 Dec 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information on the “Primary Authority Scheme” regarding the “blocking” of enforcement action against businesses. The Commissioner’s decision is that BEIS is entitled to withhold the requested information in reliance of FOIA section 43(2) – Commercial interests. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps to ensure compliance with the legislation.
Exemptions cited: FOI 43
View Department for Business and Trade
19 Dec 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested from Rhondda Cynon Taf County Borough Council (the Council) information about coal tips. The Council withheld the information under regulation 12(4)(d) of the EIR – material which is still in the course of completion.The Commissioner’s decision is that the exception is engaged, however, the balance of the public interest favours the information being disclosed. The Commissioner requires the Council to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation.Disclose the withheld information.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: EIR 12(4)(d)
View Rhondda Cynon Taf County Borough Council
19 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 Northern Ireland Ombudsman
19 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 Sandwell and West Birmingham Hospitals NHS Trust
19 Dec 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested from Wiltshire Council (the Council’), information relating to a planning enforcement against a member of the public. The council withheld the information under Regulation 12(5)(d) and Regulation 12(5)(f). The Commissioner’s decision is that the council was correct to apply Regulation 12(5)(d) to withhold the information. He has also used his discretion to apply Regulation 13(1) and Regulation 5(3) to withhold personal data relating to a third party and to the applicant. The Commissioner does not require the council to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(d); EIR 13(1); EIR 5(3)
View Wiltshire Council
19 Dec 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about attempts to access banned websites on the MoJ’s systems. The MoJ refused to comply with the request, citing section 31(1)(a) (law enforcement). The Commissioner’s decision is that the information engages section 31(1)(a) and the public interest lies in maintaining the exemption. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 31(1)(a)
View Ministry of Justice
19 Dec 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested, from Ashfield District Council (the Council), information relating to the rent being paid to the Council for some Council offices. The request comprised seven parts. While the Council gave answers in response to the last three parts, it refused to disclose information within scope of the first four parts because it is commercially sensitive. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council was entitled to withhold the information requested in parts 1 – 4 of the request, under section 43 of FOIA (‘commercial interests’). No corrective steps are required.
Exemptions cited: FOI 43
View Ashfield District Council
19 Dec 2022Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to the Private Parking Code of Practice. The above public authority provided some information but relied on section 35 (development of government policy) and section 42 (legal professional privilege) of FOIA to withhold the remainder. The Commissioner’s decision is that sections 35 and 42 are engaged and that the balance of the public interest favours maintaining these exemptions. 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 does not require further steps. Information Tribunal EA/2023/0041 appeal allowed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 35; FOI 42
View Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government
19 Dec 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested the DHSC to disclose the 80 business responses it received to the "Total Online Restriction of Adverts for Products High in Fat, Salt and Sugar" consultation which took place in the Autumn of 2020. The DHSC refused to comply with the request in accordance with section 14 of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the DHSC is entitled to refuse to comply with the request in accordance with section 14 of FOIA. He does not require any further action to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14
View Department of Health and Social Care
19 Dec 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested a copy of a Report on Title. The above public authority relied on regulations 12(5)(b) – course of justice – and 12(5)(e) of the EIR to withhold the information. The Commissioner’s decision is that the public authority has correctly engaged regulation 12(5)(b) of the EIR and that the balance of the public interest favours maintaining the exception. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(b)
View The Manchester Metropolitan University
19 Dec 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information relating to an arrangement between Lincolnshire County Council (the Council) and a haulage company transporting waste on behalf of the Council. The Council provided some information in response to all four parts of the request; however, the complainant believes additional information is held by the Council that relates to the third part of their request.The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the Council does not hold any additional information relevant to the third part of the request. However, as the Council failed to provide the information that it did hold within 20 working days, the Commissioner has found a breach of regulation 5(2) of the EIR.The Commissioner does not require the Council to take any steps as a result of this decision notice.
Exemptions cited: EIR 5(2)
View Lincolnshire County Council
19 Dec 2022Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The Commissioner is satisfied that FOS is entitled to rely on section 14(1) to refuse to comply with the complainant’s seven requests because the requests are vexatious. FOS’ refusal breached section 17(5) as it was issued outside the 20 working day requirement in respect of the earlier requests. The Commissioner does not require FOS to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12; FOI 17
19 Dec 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested from the Northern Ireland Office (‘NIO’) emails found within the archived email inbox of the former Secretary of State, Owen Paterson, which contain references to Randox Laboratories Ltd or Lynn's Country Foods. The NIO initially refused to respond, citing the cost limit exemption under section 12 of FOIA. After the ICO’s intervention, NIO issued a fresh response and disclosed information but withheld some information citing sections 36(2)(b)(i), 36(2)(c) (prejudice to effective conduct of public affairs) and 40(2) (personal data) of FOIA.The Commissioner’s decision is that NIO was entitled to rely on sections 36(2)(b)(i), 36(2)(c) and 40(2) to withhold this information. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: FOI 36(2)(b)(i); FOI 36(2)(c); FOI 40(2)
View Northern Ireland Office
19 Dec 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information from Coventry City Council (“the Council”) relating to the removal of land from a green belt and a Local Plan.The Commissioner’s decision is that on the balance of probabilities, the Council does not hold information within the scope of question 2 of the request.The Commissioner does not require the Council to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(a)
View Coventry City Council
19 Dec 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to the sexual health testing service provided by Oldham Metropolitan Borough Council (the council). The Council initially advised that the information was not held. Following the Commissioner’s intervention the Council then stated that it would exceed the cost limits to comply with the request in its entirety, and that it was therefore relying on section 12(1) of FOIA. The Commissioner is satisfied that the Council is entitled to rely on section 12(1) as its basis for refusing the request. Furthermore, as the Council has proactively provided some information to the complainant, the Commissioner considers that it has met its obligations under section 16(1) to offer advice and assistance. The Commissioner does not require the Council to take any steps as a result of this decision notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12(1)
View Oldham Council
16 Dec 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested from West Northamptonshire Council (the Council) information relating to The Red House Nursing Home site.The Commissioner’s decision is that on the balance of probabilities, the Council does not hold information falling within the scope of the request. The Commissioner does not require the Council to take any steps as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(a)
View West Northamptonshire Council
16 Dec 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (FCDO) seeking information provided to it by a named individual. The FCDO sought to withhold the information on the basis of sections 38(1) (health and safety) and 41(1) (information provided in confidence) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the information is exempt from disclosure on the basis of section 41(1) of FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 41
View Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office
16 Dec 2022Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant submitted a multipart request to the Ministry of Defence (MOD) seeking information about the use of its land for badger culling. The MOD responded by withholding some information on the basis of regulation 12(5)(a) (defence and public safety) of the EIR and by stating that it did not hold the remainder of the information. The Commissioner’s decision is that the MOD is entitled to rely on regulation 12(5)(a) to withhold the information to which this exceptions has been applied. The Commissioner is also satisfied, on the balance of probabilities that the MOD does not hold any further information falling within the scope of the request. However, in handling the request the Commissioner has concluded that the MOD breached the following procedural regulations in the EIR: 11(4) and 14(2).
Exemptions cited: EIR 11(4); EIR 12(4)(a); EIR 12(5)(a); EIR 14(2)(1)
View Ministry of Defence
16 Dec 2022Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information regarding Coventry Airport in relation a planning matter. Warwick District Council (the “council”) provided some information, confirmed that some information was not held and withheld other information under the exception for the course of justice (regulation 12(5)(b)). The Commissioner’s decision is that the council correctly confirmed that some information was not held and correctly withheld other information under regulation 12(5)(b) but that in initially handling the request under the FOIA it breached regulation 5(1) and regulation 14 of the EIR. The Commissioner does not require the council to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(b); EIR 14; EIR 5(1)
View Warwick District Council
16 Dec 2022Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to the end of the £20 uplift to Universal Credit introduced during the Covid-19 pandemic. The Commissioner’s decision is that DWP is not entitled to rely on section 36, prejudice to the effective conduct of public affairs, to withhold the information. However, the Commissioner does consider that a small amount of information engages section 42, legal professional privilege, and the balance of the public interest favours maintaining the exemption. The Commissioner requires DWP to disclose the requested information with the exception of the information identified in the confidential annex. 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. Information Tribunal EA/2023/0031 appeal dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 36; FOI 42
View Department for Work and Pensions
16 Dec 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to the Cabinet Office seeking parts of a draft text of a free trade agreement shared by the UK with the EU concerning short term business visitors. The Cabinet Office refused to disclose the information on the basis of sections 27(1)(a)-(d) (international relations) of FOIA. During the course of the Commissioner’s investigation of this complaint responsibility for this policy area, and with it the withheld information, was transferred from the Cabinet Office to the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (FCDO). The Commissioner’s decision is that the FCDO can withhold this information on the basis of sections 27(1)(b)-(d) and that in all the circumstances of this request the public interest favours maintaining the exemptions.
Exemptions cited: FOI 27
View Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office
15 Dec 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about a Freedom of Information request and the cost of providing that information including any reason for delay in responding. The Greater London Authority (“the Authority”) has advised it does not hold recorded information within scope of the request. The Commissioner considers that the Authority were correct to confirm that it does not hold the requested information. The Commissioner does not require the Authority to take any further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Greater London Authority
15 Dec 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information from Royal Borough of Greenwich (“the Council”) relating to property boundaries. The Council has refused to disclose the requested information, citing regulation 12(4)(b) of the EIR as a basis for non-disclosure.The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has correctly applied regulation 12(4)(b) to the requested information. The Council has also fulfilled its obligation under to provide advice and assistance to the complainant. Therefore the Commissioner requires no steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(b)
View Royal Borough of Greenwich
15 Dec 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested a copy of the then Prime Minister, Boris Johnson’s ministerial diaries. The Cabinet Office refused the request under section 14(1) of FOIA (vexatious requests). The Commissioner’s decision is that the Cabinet Office is entitled to rely on section 14(1) of FOIA to refuse to provide the requested information. The Commissioner does not require the Cabinet Office to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14(1)
View Cabinet Office
15 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.
The public authority has failed to complete its public interest test considerations within a reasonable time in accordance with its obligations under FOIA. The Commissioner requires it to provide a substantive response to the request within 35 calendar days in accordance with its obligations under FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 17
View Humberside Police
15 Dec 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information from Royal Borough of Greenwich (“the Council”) relating to property boundaries. The Council has refused to disclose the requested information, citing regulation 12(4)(b) of the EIR as a basis for non-disclosure.The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has correctly applied regulation 12(4)(b) to the requested information. The Council has also fulfilled its obligation under to provide advice and assistance to the complainant. Therefore the Commissioner requires no steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(b)
View Royal Borough of Greenwich