15 Dec 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested from Tees Valley Combined Authority (“TVCA”) information in respect to job creation since May 2017, as a result of the specific intervention of the Tees Valley Mayor’s office. TVCA provided some information. The Commissioner’s decision is that TVCA failed to provide an adequate response to the request. Consequently, the Commissioner finds that TVCA breached section 1(1) and section 10(1) of FOIA.The Commissioner requires TVCA to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation.TVCA must issue a fresh response to the request which is adequate for the purposes of FOIA. TVCA must take these steps within 35 calendar days of the date of this decision notice. Failure to comply may result in the Commissioner making written certification of this fact to the High Court pursuant to section 54 of FOIA and may be dealt with as a contempt of court.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Tees Valley Combined Authority
15 Dec 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information relating to a proposed Traffic Regulation Order (“TRO”). Bolton Council (the “council”) withheld the information under the exception for material in the course of completion – regulation 12(4)(d) of the EIR. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council correctly handled the request under the EIR and correctly withheld the requested information under regulation 12(4)(d). He does not require the council to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(d)
View Bolton Council
15 Dec 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested a copy of the then Minister for the Cabinet Office/Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster’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 not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information held by Ards and North Down Borough Council (the council) relating to an alleged breach of planning control. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council is entitled to rely on regulation 12(5)(b) of the EIR – course of justice and inquiries, as its basis for refusing the request. The Commissioner does not require the council to take any steps as a result of this decision notice.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(b)
15 Dec 2022Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about disaster response plans. The above public authority provided some information, but the complainant considers more is held. The Commissioner’s decision is that the public authority has complied with its obligations under section 1(1) of FOIA in response to some parts of the request, but not to others. The public authority also breached section 10 of FOIA as it failed to provide a response within 20 working days. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. In respect of each of elements [6]-[19] (inclusive), the public authority must: confirm explicitly whether or not it holds the requested information and, if the information is held: Either provide a copy of that information or issue a refusal notice that complies with section 17 of FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10
View Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust
15 Dec 2022Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about disaster response plans. The above public authority provided some information, but the complainant considers more is held. The Commissioner’s decision is that the public authority has complied with its obligations under section 1(1) of FOIA in response to some parts of the request, but not to others. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. In respect of elements [2], [5], [8], [9] and [13], the public authority must, for each element: Confirm explicitly whether or not it holds the requested information; and, if the information is held: Either provide a copy of that information or issue a refusal notice that complies with section 17 of FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust
15 Dec 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested communications between the Planning Inspectorate (“the PI”) and South Hams District Council (“SHDC”) relating to a planning appeal. The PI provided information that fell within the scope of the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the PI does not hold any further information that has not already been disclosed. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any further steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(a)
View Planning Inspectorate
15 Dec 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about adverse reactions to the coronavirus vaccination. The Medicines & Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (‘MHRA’) refused to comply with the request, citing section 14(1) (vexatious requests) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the MHRA has incorrectly relied upon section 14(1) to refuse 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 Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency
15 Dec 2022Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested a copy of a valuation report. The Council disclosed two reports with redactions made under 12(5)(e) (commercial confidentiality). The Commissioner’s decision is as follows:The withheld information engages regulation 12(5)(e) and the public interest lies in maintaining the exemption. The Council breached regulation 14(3) (refusal to disclose information), as it failed to issue a valid refusal notice.The Council also breached regulation 5(2) (duty to make environmental information available upon request) as it failed to disclose all information that fell within the scope of the request within 20 working days.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(e); EIR 14(3); EIR 5(2)
View Lewisham Council
15 Dec 2022Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested a copy of a report prepared by the Prime Minister’s Implementation Unit (PMIU) for the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP). DWP withheld the requested information citing section 36(2)(b) and section 40(2). The Commissioner’s decision is that section 36(2)(b) is engaged in relation to the disputed information but the balance of the public interest favours disclosure of the majority of the information. The balance of the public interest favours maintaining the exemption for a small amount of the requested information. The Commissioner requires the public authority to disclose the requested information with the exception of the information set out 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 cour
Exemptions cited: FOI 36
View Department for Work and Pensions
15 Dec 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about adverse reactions to the coronavirus vaccination. The Medicines & Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (‘MHRA’) refused to comply with the request, citing section 14(1) (vexatious requests) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the MHRA has correctly relied upon section 14(1) to refuse the request. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14
View Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency
15 Dec 2022Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested a copy of a report and covering paper prepared by the Prime Minister’s Implementation Unit (PMIU) for the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) and information relating to the decision to redact those papers under section 36. DWP withheld the requested information citing section 21, section 36(2)(b) and section 40(2). The complainant disputed DWP’s refusal to disclose the unredacted PMIU report and cover paper. The Commissioner’s decision is that section 36(2)(b) is engaged in relation to the disputed information but the balance of the public interest favours disclosure of the majority of the information. The balance of the public interest favours maintaining the exemption for a small amount of the requested information. The Commissioner is satisfied that the previously published information is exempt under section 21. The Commissioner requires the public authority to disclose the requested information with the exception of the information set out in the
Exemptions cited: FOI 36
View Department for Work and Pensions
15 Dec 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about adverse reactions to the coronavirus vaccination. The Medicines & Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (‘MHRA’) refused to comply with the request, citing section 14(1) (vexatious requests) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the MHRA has incorrectly relied upon section 14(1) to refuse 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 Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency
14 Dec 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested a copy of the latest version of the Gangs Operating Model from the Metropolitan Police Service (the “MPS”). The MPS advised that it did not hold such a document, although it did hold a draft document which was not officially signed off and not used. The Commissioner’s decision is that the draft document was caught within the scope of the request. The Commissioner would ordinarily require the MPS to either disclose the draft document or issue a valid refusal notice under section 17 of FOIA. However, he is considering a further complaint from the complainant under reference IC-187488-P9X0, which concerns its actual disclosure and so no steps are ordered in this notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 8
View Metropolitan Police Service
14 Dec 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the OPCC does not hold the requested information about the Labour party’s use of Durham Miners’ Hall and has complied with section 1(1) of FOIA. The Commissioner does not require the OPCC to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
14 Dec 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to the death of a named individual. The Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC) refused to comply with the request, citing section 14(1) (vexatious request) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the IOPC has correctly applied section 14(1) of FOIA. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14(1)
View Independent Office for Police Conduct
14 Dec 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested, from the Metropolitan Police Service (the “MPS”), information held in its Project Alpha database. The MPS advised that to provide the requested information would exceed the cost limit at section 12(1) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the MPS was entitled to cite section 12(1). No steps are required.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12; FOI 16
View Metropolitan Police Service
14 Dec 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information regarding the transfer of Church property to a third-party charity. The Charity Commission (“the Commission”) relied on section 31(1)(g) of FOIA to withhold the requested information.The Commissioner’s decision is that:The Charity Commission has correctly applied section 31(1)(g) of FOIA to information it is withholding as disclosure would be likely to prejudice the exercise of its functions under sections 31(2)(a), (b), (c), (f) and (g). The public interest favours maintaining this exemption. No steps are required as a result of this decision notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 31(1)(g)
View The Charity Commission
14 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 Conwy County Borough Council
14 Dec 2022Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant made a request to NHS England for information relating to the use of NHS facilities for any private practice. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, NHS England holds no further recorded information relevant to the complainant’s request and has complied with section 1(1) of FOIA. However, the Commissioner has recorded a procedural breach of section 10(1) of FOIA. The Commissioner does not require NHS England to take any steps as a result of this decision notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10
View NHS England
14 Dec 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information regarding potential metal theft on their property. The Commissioner’s decision is that Lewisham Homes Limited (‘Lewisham’) has breached section 1(1) FOIA as it does hold information relevant to the request. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. Disclose the Decision made by the First Tier Tribunal, please ensure that information containing personal data is not disclosed. The public authority must take these steps within 35 calendar days of the date of this decision notice. Failure to comply may result in the Commissioner making written certification of this fact to the High Court pursuant to section 54 of FOIA and may be dealt with as a contempt of court.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1(1); FOI 10
14 Dec 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about adverse reactions to the coronavirus vaccination. The Medicines & Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (‘MHRA’) refused to comply with the request, citing section 14(1) (vexatious requests) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the MHRA has correctly relied upon section 14(1) to refuse the request. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14
View Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency
14 Dec 2022Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested the Department for Transport (DfT) to disclose copies of the Business Cases for the electrification of the Bolton to Wigan railway line and the re-opening of the Exeter to Okehampton railway line. The DfT disclosed some information but withheld the remainder under regulation 12(5)(d) and 12(5)(e) of the EIR. The Commissioner’s decision is that the DfT is entitled to refuse to disclose the remaining withheld information under regulation 12(5)(e) of the EIR. It however breached regulation 5 by failing to respond to the request within 20 working days of receipt. The Commissioner does not require any further action to be taken.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(e); EIR 5
View Department for Transport
14 Dec 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested legal advice relating to the housing of unaccompanied asylum-seeking children in hotels. The Home Office confirmed it held information within the scope of the request but refused to provide it, citing section 42(1) (legal professional privilege) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Home Office is entitled to rely on section 42(1) of FOIA to withhold the requested information. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: FOI 42
View Home Office
14 Dec 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information on local Conservation Area Appraisals and related material. South Cambridgeshire District Council (‘SCDC’) referred the complainant to some information on the general subject, which was in the public domain. However, it refused the request, citing regulation 12(4)(b) (manifestly unreasonable request) of the EIR. The Commissioner’s decision is that SCDC was entitled to rely on regulation 12(4)(b) to refuse the request. The Commissioner requires no steps as a result of this decision. Information Tribunal appeal UA-2024-000433-GIA PTA refused.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(b)
View South Cambridgeshire District Council
14 Dec 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested the Maritime and Coastguard Agency (the MCA) to disclose complete copies of the Module B certificates and all secondary module certificates that are required by the Recreational Craft Directive (RCD) for the Clipper 70 Yachts. The MCA disclosed the recorded information it holds but the complainant disputes that there is more. The Commissioner’s decision is that on the balance of probabilities the MCA has disclosed all the recorded information it holds to the complainant. No further recorded information falling within the scope of the complainant’s request is therefore held. The Commissioner does not require any further action to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Maritime and Coastguard Agency
14 Dec 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant made two requests for information about Penalty Charge Notices (“PCNs”). The above public authority refused both requests as vexatious, but also relied on section 40(2) of FOIA (third party personal data) to withhold some information. The Commissioner’s decision is that the public authority was entitled to rely on section 14(1) of FOIA to refuse both requests in their entirety. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14
View Warwickshire County Council
14 Dec 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The Complainant has requested procedures and policies around the Fusion Sickness Management system. The Commissioner’s decision is that based on the balance of probabilities HM Land Registry do not hold any further information within the scope of the request beyond that which has already been provided. The Commissioner does not require HM Land Registry to take any remedial steps.
First-tier Tribunal (General Regulatory Chamber) Information Rights appeal EA/2023/0161 no right of appeal.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View HM Land Registry
13 Dec 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The Commissioner’s decision is that MHRA is entitled to withhold information associated with its Yellow Card Scheme under section 41(1) of FOIA which concerns information provided in confidence. He does not require MHRA to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 41
View Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency
13 Dec 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information from London Borough of Croydon (“the Council”) in relation to Kenley Intensification Zone Transport Study. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Borough failed to respond to the complainant’s request within 20 working days of receipt and has therefore breached regulation 5(2) of the EIR. The Commissioner requires the Borough to provide a substantive response to the request in accordance with the EIR.
Exemptions cited: EIR 5(2)
View London Borough of Croydon
13 Dec 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to South Yorkshire Police’s relationship with the company ‘Dataminr’ (a real time AI platform that detects the earliest signals of high-impact events emerging risks from within publicly available data.) The Commissioner’s decision is that the Home Office was entitled to refuse to comply with the request in accordance with section 24(2). No steps are required.
Exemptions cited: FOI 24(2)
View South Yorkshire Police
13 Dec 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested copies of photos. Wiltshire Council (the “council”) relied on regulation 6(1)(b) (form and format of information) because it considered the information was already accessible to the complainant. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council is entitled to rely on regulation 6(1)(b) request as the relevant information it holds is easily accessible to the complainant in another form or format. He does not require the council to take any steps. First-tier Tribunal (General Regulatory Chamber) Information Rights appeal EA/2022/0432 appeal allowed.
Exemptions cited: EIR 6(1)(b)
View Wiltshire Council
13 Dec 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested Mid Devon District Council (the council) to disclose information relating to a particular item that came up in the Cabinet Agenda in February 2022, which had not been in the Forward Plan for 28 days. The council disclosed some information, but withheld the remainder in accordance with regulation 12(5)(b) of the EIR. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council was entitled to refuse to disclose the remaining information in accordance with regulation 12(5)(b) of the EIR. He has however recorded a breach of regulation 5 of the EIR. The Commissioner does not require any further action to be taken.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(b)
View Mid Devon District Council
13 Dec 2022Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information about a Homes England pay review. The Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (the DLUHC) withheld the information requested under section 35(1)(a) (formulation or development of government policy) of the FOIA. During the course of the Commissioner’s investigation, the DLUHC disclosed some of the withheld information, but maintained that the remaining information was exempt under sections 35, 40(2) (personal information) and 41 (information provided in confidence). The Commissioner’s decision is that the DLUHC correctly applied sections 35 and 41 to the withheld information. The Commissioner has also determined that with the exception of one redaction, the DLUHC has correctly applied section 40(2) to the request. The Commissioner requires DLUHC to disclose the information withheld under section 40(2) on page 6 of the Homes England new Pay Business Case.
Exemptions cited: FOI 35; FOI 40; FOI 41; FOI 41
View Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government
13 Dec 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The Commissioner is satisfied that DfE does not hold some of the requested information about a previous request the complainant submitted and complied with section 1(1) of FOIA. DfE is entitled to rely on section 14(1) to refuse to comply with the remainder of the request because it is vexatious. The Commissioner does not require DfE to take any corrective steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 14
View Department for Education
13 Dec 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested from London Borough of Bromley (the Council) information relating to dwellings in Bromley. The Council provided a response to each question within the request. It subsequently confirmed that no further information was held within scope of question 2 of the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the Council has provided the complainant with the information it holds in relation to the request and has complied with section 1(1) of FOIA. The Commissioner cannot consider the accuracy of the information provided. He therefore, does not require the Council to take any steps as a result of this decision notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1(1)
View Bromley Council
13 Dec 2022Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested from HM Land Registry (HMLR) the ‘Title Number and UPRN Look Up dataset’. This dataset contains HMLR title numbers and Unique Property Reference Numbers (UPRN) for freehold and leasehold land and property registered in England and Wales. HMLR refused to provide this information citing section 21 of FOIA and, after the Commissioner began his investigation, citing section 31 of FOIA regarding the same information. The Commissioner’s decision is that HMLR has incorrectly cited section 21 of FOIA in this instance for the reasons given later in this decision notice but correctly cited section 31 of FOIA. The Commissioner does not require HMLR to take any further steps. Information Tribunal FTT EA/2023/0030 appeal dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 21; FOI 31
View HM Land Registry
13 Dec 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA), about emails exchanged within the department during specified periods of UK lockdown. The request contained specific references to search terms to be used, including named email accounts and specific word terms, that the complainant considered might indicate a social gathering. DEFRA refused the request under section 14(1) of FOIA (vexatious requests).The Commissioner’s decision is that the request was vexatious and therefore DEFRA was entitled to rely upon section 14(1) of FOIA to refuse it. The Commissioner does not require any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14(1)
13 Dec 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about the Trust’s Emergency Preparedness, Resilience and Response plans and arrangements. The Trust refused to confirm or deny holding the information but failed to specify under which exemption(s). The Commissioner’s decision is that the Trust is not entitled to refuse to confirm or deny holding the information and has therefore breached section 1(1)(a) of FOIA. The Commissioner requires the Trust to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: Confirm or deny whether the Trust holds the requested information in accordance with section 1(1) of FOIA. If it holds the information, the Trust should either disclose it to the complainant or issue a refusal notice in accordance with section 17 of FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Salisbury NHS Foundation Trust
13 Dec 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested from the University College London (UCL) information relating to the registration of late professor [name redacted] at UCL from 1981. UCL disclosed information relating to part 1 of the request, and with regard to the remaining parts, UCL stated that it does not hold any additional information within the scope of the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, UCL does not hold any further information falling within the scope of the request, other than what has been provided to the complainant. Also, the Commissioner finds that UCL has complied with section 1(1) of FOIA, and therefore, he does not require UCL to take any steps as a result of this decision notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1(1)
View University College London
13 Dec 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested from the University of Oxford (the University) information relating to the funds raised by the Friends of the National Libraries (FNL), to enable it to acquire the Honresfield Library, and the contribution made by Len Blavatnik or the Blavatnik Foundation. The University stated that the information requested is not held for the purposes of FOIA, but is held solely on behalf of another person, namely, the FNL.The Commissioner’s decision is that the requested information is not held by the University for the purposes of FOIA, since it is held on behalf of another person. Therefore, the Commissioner does not require it to take any steps as a result of this decision notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 3
View The University of Oxford
13 Dec 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information from Bolsover District Council (“the Council”) relating to a planning application.The Council relied on both regulation 12(5)(e) (commercially confidential) and regulation 12(5)(f) (impact on provider) to withhold the requested information.The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has correctly engaged both regulation 12(5)(e) and regulation 12(5)(f) and that the combined public interest of maintaining both exceptions outweigh the public interest in disclosure. The Commissioner does not require the Council to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(e); EIR 12(5)(f)
View Bolsover District Council
13 Dec 2022Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The Commissioner’s decision is that MHRA is entitled to withhold information associated with its Yellow Card Scheme under sections 40(2) and 41(1) of FOIA which concern personal data and information provided in confidence respectively. MHRA’s response to the request did not comply with section 10(1) or 17(1) of FOIA, which concern timeliness. The Commissioner does not require MHRA to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 17; FOI 40; FOI 41
View Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency
13 Dec 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) in relation to thermal cameras and temperature screening products. By the date of this notice MHRA had not issued a substantive response to this request. The Commissioner requires MHRA to provide a substantive response to the request in accordance with its obligations under FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency
13 Dec 2022Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to the Cabinet Office seeking copies of the ‘FOI and EIR round robin list’ issued by the Clearing House for 20 June 2019 to 20 August 2019 and 20 June 2020 to 13 July 2020 (the latter date being the date of the request). The complainant explained that she did not want to be provided with the names of the requesters. The Cabinet Office provided the complainant with copies of the lists but redacted the information contained in the ‘advice’ column on the basis that all of it was exempt under sections 36(2)(b)(i) and (ii) (effective conduct of public affairs) and that parts of it were also exempt under sections 23(1) (security bodies), 24(1) (national security) and 40(2) (personal data) of FOIA. During the course of the Commissioner’s investigation the Cabinet Office disclosed (due to the passage of time) the majority of the advice contained in the 2019 lists. The Commissioner’s decision is that although sections 36(2)(i) and (ii), are engaged the public
Exemptions cited: FOI 23; FOI 24; FOI 36; FOI 40
View Cabinet Office
13 Dec 2022Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information about a planning decision. The above public authority provided some information and relied on Regulation 6(1)(b) of the EIR (publicly accessible) to not provide the remainder. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the public authority holds no further recorded information within the scope of the request. As the public authority disclosed some information outside of the 20 working day timeframe, it breached regulation 5(2) of the EIR. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 5(1); EIR 5(2)
View Wealden District Council
13 Dec 2022Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from the University of Hertfordshire (“the University”) about trigger warnings, content warnings and content notes issued to students for certain modules of its English Literature degree course.The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the University does not hold further information within the scope of the request. However, in failing to respond to the request within the statutory timescale, the Commissioner has determined that the University breached section 10(1) of FOIA.The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10
View University of Hertfordshire
13 Dec 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested from the Metropolitan Police (the MPS) information about two particular limited companies. The MPS stated that it would neither confirm nor deny that it holds the requested information.The Commissioner’s decision is that the MPS has correctly cited section 40(5) of FOIA to neither confirm nor deny that it holds the requested information.The Commissioner does not require the MPS to take any steps in relation to this matter.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40(5)
View Metropolitan Police Service
13 Dec 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested copies of correspondence between National Resources Wales (‘NRW’) and King Charles III (who was the Prince of Wales at the time). NRW handled the request under both FOIA and the EIR. The Commissioner’s decision is as follows: The withheld information engages section 37(1)(aa) and is therefore exempt from disclosure. On the balance of probabilities, NRW does not hold any further information that would fall within the scope of the request.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(a); FOI 1; FOI 37
View Natural Resources Wales
13 Dec 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested, from the Metropolitan Police Service (the “MPS”), information that would, if held, be on its Counter-Terrorism Internet Referral Unit (“CTIRU”) database. The MPS would neither confirm nor deny (“NCND”) holding the information citing sections 23(5) (Information supplied by, or concerning, certain security bodies), 24(2) (National security) and 31(3) (Law enforcement) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the MPS was entitled to rely on sections 23(5) and 31(3) to NCND holding any information. No steps are required.
Exemptions cited: FOI 23; FOI 31
View Metropolitan Police Service