13 Dec 2022Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested London Borough of Lambeth to disclose the amount of money it has spent on WeWork desk space, the number of desks and how long they were rented for. The council refused to disclose the requested information citing regulation 12(5)(e) of the EIR. The Commissioner’s decision is that the request should have been considered under FOIA. As section 43 of FOIA is comparable the Commissioner has considered whether this exemption applies to the request. The Commissioner has concluded that for the number of desks, section 43 of FOIA applies and the public interest rests in non-disclosure. However, he has concluded that section 43 of FOIA does not apply to the total amount of money spent and how long the desks were rented for. He therefore requires the council to disclose this information to the complainant.
Exemptions cited: FOI 43
View London Borough of Lambeth
13 Dec 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from the Department of Health & Social Care (“the DHSC”) about direct correspondence between two named individuals at the DHSC during a specified time period. The DHSC explained that it believes no information in scope of the request is held.The Commissioner’s decision is that the DHSC failed to provide an adequate response to the request. Consequently the Commissioner finds that the DHSC breached section 1(1) and section 10(1) of FOIA.The Commissioner requires the DHSC to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation.The DHSC must issue a fresh response to the request which is adequate for the purposes of FOIA. The DHSC 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(1)
View Department of Health and Social Care
13 Dec 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information about the selection process for jury service. The Ministry of Justice (the ‘MOJ’) initially refused the request citing section 31(1)(c) of FOIA (the exemption for the administration of justice). However, it subsequently issued a revised response in which it explained that the requested information was not held at the time of the request, and was created from staff knowledge on receipt of the request. Whilst the MOJ maintained that that document would remain exempt under section 31(1)(c), the Commissioner must consider the MOJ’s revised position. FOIA does not require public authorities to create recorded information in order to respond to requests. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the MOJ did not hold the requested information at the time of the request. No steps are required as a result of this notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10
View Ministry of Justice
13 Dec 2022Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted an information request to Sefton Metropolitan Borough Council (“the Council”) for correspondence relating to the Friends of Victoria Park and Waterloo Community Forest GardenThe Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has correctly applied section 12(1) of FOIA to the complainant’s request, however it did not, initially, comply with its obligations under section 16(1) of FOIA to provide adequate advice and assistance to the complainant. Furthermore, in failing to respond to the request within the statutory timescale, the Commissioner has determined that the Council breached section 10(1) of FOIA.As the complainant has now been provided with advice and assistance, the Commissioner does not require the Council to take any further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10(1); FOI 12(1); FOI 16(1)
View Sefton Council
12 Dec 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from Oxford City Council (“the Council”) relating to the former Director for Construction’s departure from Oxford Direct Services. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council is entitled to rely on section 40(2) (personal information) of the FOIA to refuse to provide the requested information.The Commissioner does not require the Council to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40(2)
View Oxford City Council
12 Dec 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from Egerton Parish Council (“the Parish Council”) relating to a housing needs survey. The Parish Council refused the request under section 14(1) of FOIA: vexatious requests. The Commissioner’s decision is that the request was vexatious and therefore the Parish Council was entitled to rely on section 14(1) of FOIA to refuse it.The Commissioner does not require any further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14(1)
12 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 York City Council
12 Dec 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested copies of structural drawings from Milton Keynes Council. The Commissioner’s decision is that Regulation 13 (personal information) is not engaged for some of the information. The Commissioner has also decided that, on the balance of probabilities, no further information is held, which is in scope of the request. The Commissioner also finds that the council has breached regulations 14 and 5(2) in its handling of the request. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. Disclose the documents referred in this decision notice as 34, 36, 37 and 38 to the complainant if it has not already done so. 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: EIR 13; EIR 14; EIR 5(2)
View Milton Keynes Council
9 Dec 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
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(3)
View Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office
9 Dec 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information from Manchester City Council (“the Council”) relating to proposals for a permanent Active Neighbourhood Scheme covering Levenshulme and the northern area of Burnage. The Council disclosed some information within the scope of the request, however it withheld some information under regulation 12(4)(e) of the EIR, the internal communications exception. The Council also withheld some of this information under regulation 13 of the EIR, the personal data exception. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council was entitled to rely on regulation 12(4)(e) of the EIR to withhold all of the withheld information. He has therefore not gone on to consider the Council’s application of the personal data exception. The Commissioner does not require the Council to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(e)
View Manchester City Council
9 Dec 2022Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information from Birmingham City Council (“the Council”), in relation to a specific building. The Council provided some information, but refused the remainder under section 21 of FOIA – information accessible by other means. The Council also explained that a third party may hold some further information. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council should have responded under the EIR, as the requests relates to planning and building regulations. However, as the exemption applied is similar in nature to than under the EIR, the outcome would be the same. The Council should have relied upon regulation 6(1)(b) – information available elsewhere. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps as a result of this decision notice.
Exemptions cited: EIR 14(3); EIR 6(1)(b)
View Birmingham City Council
9 Dec 2022Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant submitted an eight part request for information about a planning application. The London Borough of Croydon (“the Council”) refused parts [1] to [6] and part [8] of the request under regulation 6(1)(b) of the EIR, as the Council maintained that the information was reasonably available and accessible to the complainant via the Council’s online planning portal. In response to part [7] of the request the Council provided a narrative response. The Commissioner’s decision is that all of the information held by the Council within scope of parts [2] to [6] of the complainant’s request is readily available on the planning portal, therefore the Council is entitled to rely on regulation 6(1)(b) to refuse the request. The Commissioner considers that information within the scope of part [1] of the request was not readily available on the planning portal, therefore regulation 6(1)(b) does not apply. In respect of part [7] of the request, the Commissioner considers that further infor
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(a); EIR 6(1)(b)
View London Borough of Croydon
9 Dec 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from Sunderland City Council (“the Council”) about a DWP Counter Fraud investigation into the Council’s management of its CLLD process in relation to ESF and ERDF funding distribution. The Council explained that as there had been no specific investigation undertaken by DWP Counter Fraud, therefore, it did not hold the requested information. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the Council does not hold the requested information. 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/2022/0460 appeal allowed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Sunderland City Council
9 Dec 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information about noise complaints relating to a specific property. New Forest District Council (the “council”) withheld the information under the exception for the course of justice – regulation 12(5)(b) of the EIR. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council correctly withheld the requested information under regulation 12(5)(e). He does not require the council to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(b)
View New Forest District Council
9 Dec 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested details of the services provided by UKHSA to Pfizer relating to a number of listed service fees. UKHSA refused the request under section 41 of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the UKHSA has failed to demonstrate the exemption is engaged. The Commissioner requires UKHSA to provide descriptions of the services provided by UKHSA to Pfizer for each of the listed fees.
Exemptions cited: FOI 41
View UK Health Security Agency
9 Dec 2022Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to COVID-19. The UKHSA refused to provide the requested information, citing section 24(1) (national security) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the withheld information engages section 24(1) and the public interest favours maintaining the exemption. The UKHSA breached section 10 (time for compliance with request) in failing to provide its refusal notice within twenty working days of receipt of the request. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps. First-tier tribunal (General Regulatory chamber) information rights appeal EA/2022/0424 appeal withdrawn.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 24
View UK Health Security Agency
9 Dec 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from Essex Police (“the Police”), in relation to arrests made between 2019 and 2020, regarding online sexual offences of any kind, related to children. The Police cited section 31(1)(a)(b) and 31(3) of FOIA – law enforcement, section 38 of FOIA – health and safety and section 40(2) of FOIA – personal information. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Police cannot rely on sections 31(a)(b) and 31(3) of FOIA as it has failed to demonstrate that the exemptions are engaged. The Commissioner went on to consider section 38 – health and safety and section 40(2) of FOIA, however, the Police also failed to demonstrate that these exemptions are engaged.The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation:Provide the complainant with the request information and/or;Issue a new response to the complainant, not relying on the above sections of FOIA. The public authority must take these steps
Exemptions cited: FOI 31(1)(a); FOI 31(1)(b); FOI 31(3); FOI 38; FOI 40(2)
View Essex Police
9 Dec 2022Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The Commissioner’s decision is that Wrexham County Borough Council (‘the Council’) does not hold the requested information about the location of any buried livestock and regulation 12(4)(a) of the EIR is engaged in that regard. However the Council breached regulation 9 and regulation 14 of the EIR which concern advice and assistance and refusing a request respectively. The Commissioner does not require the Council to take any corrective steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(a); EIR 14; EIR 9
View Wrexham County Borough Council
9 Dec 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant made a request for information relating to research to support the clinical practice of the application of the Hare PCL:SV within clinical NHS in the UK. DHSC confirmed that it does not hold information falling within the scope of the request under section 1(1)(a) FOIA. The Commissioner considers that DHSC was correct to confirm that it does not hold information falling within the scope of the request under section 1(1)(a) FOIA. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Department of Health and Social Care
9 Dec 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information from the London Borough of Croydon (the Council) relating to the Council’s Guidance on planning obligations. By the date of this notice the Council had not issued a substantive response to this request.
The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has failed to respond to the request within 20 working days and has therefore breached regulation 5(2) of the EIR.The Commissioner requires the Council to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation.Issue a substantive response to the request in accordance with its obligations under 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 Freedom of Information Act and may be dealt with as a contempt of court.
Exemptions cited: EIR 5(2)
View London Borough of Croydon
9 Dec 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information regarding emails between the Council and North Wales Police. The Isle of Anglesey County Council (“the Council”) disclosed some information and relied on section 31(1)(a) of FOIA to withhold two emails in scope of the request.The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council was entitled to rely on sections 31(1)(a) and (b) of FOIA to refuse to disclose the withheld information and the public interest favours maintaining the exemption. No steps are required as a result of this decision notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 31(1)(a)
View Isle of Anglesey County Council
8 Dec 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from Brent Borough Council (“the Council”) relating to the allocation of residential properties within a specified Council area over a number of years. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has correctly applied section 12(1) of FOIA to the requested information. The Council has also fulfilled its obligation under section 16 of FOIA to provide advice and assistance to the complainant. Therefore the Commissioner requires no steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12; FOI 16
View London Borough of Brent
8 Dec 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested video footage of a specific road. Darlington Borough Council (the “council”) confirmed that it did not hold the requested information. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the council does not hold the requested information and that it complied with section 1(1) of the FOIA. He does not require the council to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1(1)
View Darlington Borough Council
8 Dec 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information about the number of Directors and Heads of Department that had been placed on Performance Improvement Plans(“PIPs”). The Financial Conduct Authority (“FCA”) refused to comply with the request under section 14(1) of FOIA (vexatious requests). The Commissioner’s decision is that the request was vexatious and therefore the FCA was entitled to rely on section 14(1) of FOIA to refuse the request. The Commissioner does not require the FCA to take any further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14(1)
View Financial Conduct Authority
8 Dec 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to Councillors who are in council tax arrears. High Peak Borough Council (the council) provided some information but refused the remaining under section 40(2) of the FOIA – Third Party Personal Data. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council is correct to withhold the information it has under section 40(2) of the FOIA. The Commissioner does not require the council to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View High Peak Borough Council
8 Dec 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested a copy of the Secretary of State for Defence’s ministerial diaries. The Ministry of Defence (MOD) refused the request under section 14(1) of the FOIA (vexatious requests). The Commissioner’s decision is that the MOD is entitled to rely on section 14(1) (vexatious request) of the FOIA to refuse to provide the requested information. He does not require the MOD to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14(1)
View Ministry of Defence
8 Dec 2022Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested to know the identity of the person who asked the police to conduct a welfare check on his late wife. Sussex Police refused the request, citing section 40(2) (Personal information) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that Sussex Police was entitled to rely on section 40(2) to refuse the request. However, it breached sections 10(1) and 17(1) of FOIA by failing to respond to the request within 20 working days. The Commissioner requires no steps as a result of this decision. First-tier tribunal (General Regulatory chamber) information rights appeal EA/2022/0444 appeal dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 17; FOI 40
View Sussex Police
8 Dec 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant made a request on 7 July 2022 for the details of 49 specified contracts identified on a spreadsheet provided in response to an earlier FOIA request. The Trust refused to comply with the request under section 12 FOIA as it said it would exceed the cost limit to do so. The Commissioner’s decision is that section 12 FOIA was incorrectly applied to the request. The Commissioner requires the public authority to provide a fresh response under the FOIA to the request dated 7 July 2022 not relying upon section 12 FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12
View Liverpool University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust
8 Dec 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from the Legal Ombudsman Service (“the Ombudsman”) about the number of Investigators and Ombudsmen employed by the Service who have been subject to incompetence proceedings. The Commissioner is not satisfied that the Ombudsman has identified all the information held within the scope of the request and therefore, his decision is that on the balance of probabilities, the Ombudsman holds further information within the scope of the request.The Commissioner requires the Ombudsman to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation.The Ombudsman must issue a fresh response to the request following searches aimed at identifying all the information held within the scope of the request The Ombudsman 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
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View The Legal Ombudsman
8 Dec 2022Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information from Tenterden Schools Trust (‘TST’) about an application to dispose of a former playing field.The Commissioner’s decision is that the requested information is environmental information which TST should have handled under the EIR. The information TST is withholding is commercially sensitive and engages regulation 12(5)(e) of the EIR. The public interest favours maintaining the exception. TST breached regulation 5(2) and 14 as it did not communicate information or cite an EIR exception within 20 working days of the request. First-tier tribunal (General Regulatory chamber) information rights appeal EA/2023/0007 struck out.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(e); EIR 14; EIR 5
View TENTERDEN SCHOOLS TRUST
8 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
8 Dec 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from the Government Legal Department (“the GLD”) linked to their historic First-tier tribunal appeal. The GLD refused the request under section 14(1) of FOIA (vexatious requests).The Commissioner’s decision is that the request was vexatious and therefore the GLD was entitled to rely upon section 14(1) of FOIA to refuse it.The Commissioner does not require any steps. First-tier tribunal (General Regulatory chamber) information rights appeal EA/2023/0014 appeal dismissed. First-tier tribunal (General Regulatory chamber) information rights appeal UA-2023-001221-GIA UT PTA refused.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14(1)
View Government Legal Department
8 Dec 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant asked a series of questions about the Councils pension funds and administration. Carmarthenshire County Council (the “Council”) answered each question in turn and at internal review clarified some responses and made a further disclosure.The Commissioner’s decision is that, on a balance of probabilities, the Council does not hold any further information in scope of the request. No steps are required as a result of this decision notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Carmarthenshire County Council
8 Dec 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested copies of certain correspondence held by the Charity Commission about a particular charity.The Charity Commission refused to provide the requested information, citing section 31(1)(g) (law enforcement), and section 40(2) (personal information), of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Charity Commission is entitled to rely on section 31(1)(g) of FOIA, as its basis for withholding all the information relevant to the request.The Commissioner does not require the Charity Commission to take any steps as a result of this decision notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 31
View The Charity Commission
8 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 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 Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency
8 Dec 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information on empty properties in Chiswick. The London Borough of Hounslow (the “council”) withheld the information under section 31(1)(a) of FOIA (law enforcement and the prevention or detection of crime). The Commissioner’s decision is that the council appropriately applied the exemption contained in section 31(1)(a) 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/2022/0437 appeal dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 31(1)(a)
View London Borough of Hounslow
8 Dec 2022Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to the review of inter-governmental relations commissioned by the Joint Ministerial Committee (“JMC”). Cabinet Office (“CO”) withheld the information and relied on section 12 of FOIA (cost of compliance exceeds appropriate limit) as its basis for doing so. The Commissioner’s decision is that CO have correctly relied on section 12 of FOIA to withhold the information. However, he also finds that CO had failed to meet its obligations under section 16 of FOIA in handling the request. The Commissioner requires CO to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. Provide the complainant with advice and assistance as to how the request maybe refined or confirm that this would not be possible in accordance with its obligations under section 16 FOIA. 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 certific
Exemptions cited: FOI 12(1); FOI 16
View Cabinet Office
8 Dec 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to the vigil held for Sarah Everard on Clapham Common. The Home Office provided some information but withheld the remainder, citing sections 21 (information accessible to applicant by other means), 24 (national security), 31 (law enforcement), 35 (formulation of government policy), 36 (prejudice to effective conduct of public affairs) and 40(2) (personal information) of FOIA. The Commissioner has considered the application of sections 31, 35 and 36 to the information withheld by virtue of those exemptions. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Home Office has correctly applied those exemptions and that the public interest lies in withholding the information. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken as a result of this decision. Information tribunal EA/2023/0018 FTT appeal allowed in part.
Exemptions cited: FOI 31; FOI 35; FOI 36
View Home Office
8 Dec 2022Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The Commissioner’s decision is that the complainant’s request is vexatious under section 14(1) of FOIA and Royal Holloway, University of London (‘the College’) is not obliged to comply with it. The College breached section 17(5) of FOIA as it has not issued the complainant with a section 14(1) refusal notice. The Commissioner does not require the College to take any steps. First-tier Tribunal (General Regulatory Chamber) Information Rights appeal EA/2023/0017 appeal allowed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14; FOI 17
7 Dec 2022Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about same-sex wards. The above public authority provided some information, but the complainant believes more is held.The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the public authority has disclosed all the relevant information it holds. However, the public authority breached section 10 of FOIA as it failed to respond to the request within 20 working days. The Commissioner does not require further steps.Keywords: creating information, accuracy of information, adequacy of information
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10
View North Bristol NHS Trust
7 Dec 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information about an investigation into Breezemount Services Ltd. The Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency (the DVSA) refused to confirm or deny whether the requested information is held by virtue of section 30(3) (Investigations and proceedings) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the DVSA is entitled to rely on section 30(3) of FOIA to refuse to confirm or deny that it holds the requested information, and that the balance of the public interest favours maintaining the exemption. The Commissioner does not require any steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 30
View Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency
7 Dec 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (FCDO) containing records of contacts between a named lawyer and the UK Government/Libya regarding the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie. The FCDO confirmed information was held but considered it exempt from disclosure under section 41(1) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the FCDO has correctly engaged the exemption and there is not sufficient public interest in disclosure to override the duty of confidence. Section 41(1) therefore provides a basis for withholding the information and the FCDO is not required to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 41
View Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office
7 Dec 2022Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to a dog breeder. Cheshire East Council refused to comply with the request, citing section 14(1) (vexatious requests) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the request was vexatious and therefore the Council was entitled to rely upon section 14(1) to refuse it. The Commissioner has also determined that the Council failed to comply with its section 16 (advice and assistance) obligations. The Commissioner does not requires the public authority to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14(1); FOI 16
View Cheshire East Council
7 Dec 2022Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about facemasks. The above public authority relied on section 14(1) of FOIA to refuse the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the public authority was entitled to rely on section 14(1) of FOIA to refuse the request. However, as it failed to issue its refusal notice within 20 working days, the public authority breached section 17(5) of FOIA. The Commissioner does not require further steps.Keywords: grossly oppressive burden
Exemptions cited: FOI 14; FOI 17
View Health and Safety Executive
7 Dec 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant submitted two separate requests for information held by Armagh City, Banbridge & Craigavon Borough Council (the council) relating to a particular planning application. The council agreed to provide the information relevant to Request 1. However, as it took over two years for the complainant to receive such information, the Commissioner has found a breach of regulation 5(2) of the EIR. Furthermore, as the council failed to comply with the complainant’s request for this information to be made available in a particular format, it has also breached regulation 6(1) of the EIR. With regard to Request 2, the council initially withheld the information under regulation 12(5)(b) – course of justice, of the EIR. At the internal review stage the council then confirmed that, with the passage of time, it was now in a position to release the information in its entirety. However, as the council failed to issue a refusal notice in response to Request 2 within 20 working days, and th
Exemptions cited: EIR 11(4); EIR 14(2); EIR 5(2); EIR 6(1)
7 Dec 2022Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about a Council vote. Bristol City Council (‘the Council’) refused the request, citing sections 36(2)(b)(i) and (ii) and section 42(1) of FOIA which concern prejudice to effective conduct of public affairs and legal professional privilege respectively. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council was entitled to rely on sections 36(2)(b)(i) and (ii) to refuse the request. However, by failing to refuse the request within 20 working days, the Council breached section 17(1) of FOIA. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: FOI 17; FOI 36
View Bristol City Council
7 Dec 2022Complaint 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 Lancashire County Council
7 Dec 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant made two information requests with regards to the maintenance of shrubs and trees for two areas of land. The Commissioner’s decision is that Derbyshire Dales District Council (the council) has provided the complainant with the requested information as per regulation 5(1) of the FOIA. The Commissioner does not require any steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 5(1)
View Derbyshire Dales District Council
7 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 Civil Procedure Rule Committee
7 Dec 2022Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to Oliver Reed’s blue plaque nomination. English Heritage (‘EH’) refused to provide the requested information, citing section 36(2)(b)(i) (prejudice to the effective conduct of public affairs). The Commissioner’s decision is that section 36(2)(b)(i) is engaged and the public interest lies in maintaining the exemption. In failing to respond to the request within twenty working days, EH breached section 10 of FOIA. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 36(2)(b)(i)
View English Heritage