7 Dec 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested from Herefordshire Council (the Council) information relating to limited companies that pay business rates. The Council withheld the information and cited section 31(1)(a) (law enforcement) of FOIA.The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council was entitled to withhold the information requested under section 31(1)(a) of FOIA. Also, the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosure. Therefore, the Commissioner does not require the Council to take any steps as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: FOI 31(1)(a)
View Herefordshire Council
7 Dec 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested a copy of that FCA’s internal policy document on the use of the DBAAT system and the number of files which were found not to have dealt with disclosure properly. The FCA aggregated these requests and confirmed it would exceed the cost limit under section 12 FOIA to comply. It did however confirm that it does not hold the internal policy requested. The Commissioner’s decision is that section 12 FOIA was correctly applied to the request. The FCA also complied with its obligations under section 16 FOIA by providing advice and assistance to the requester as to how the request could be refined. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12
View Financial Conduct Authority
7 Dec 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant made a 28-part request for information relating to matters concerning British Steel Pension Scheme (BSPS). FOS 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 correctly applied to the request. FOS also complied with its obligations under section 16 FOIA by providing advice and assistance to the requester as to how the request could be refined. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12
7 Dec 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information in respect of charitable organisations and churches occupying property owned by Pembrokeshire County Council (‘the Council’) on concessionary terms. The Council confirmed that subsidised rents are not granted, but informed the complainant that it was aware that there are historical agreements whereby the rent could be considered to be subsidised, and cited section 12 (cost of compliance) to refuse to comply with this aspect of the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has complied with its obligations under section 1(1) FOIA in respect of the request. He has also determined that the Council was entitled to rely on section 12(2) FOIA to establish whether it held relevant information in respect of possible historical agreements.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 12
View Pembrokeshire County Council
7 Dec 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested the final report of the Broadway Theatre Working Group as well as any correspondence between the Mayor and/or the Deputy Mayor of Lewisham and any correspondence between Council Officers regarding the work of that group. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the College does not hold further requested information. The Commissioner does not require the Council to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Lewisham Council
7 Dec 2022Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant’s request to Warrington Borough Council (the Council) comprised three parts, and related to a particular letter. The complaint to the Commissioner is focused on the third part of the request, where the complainant requested copies of internal correspondence discussing the letter. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council was entitled to rely on section 36(2)(b) of FOIA to withhold the information within scope of the third part of the request, but the Council breached sections 10 and 17 of FOIA because it did not respond to the request within 20 working days. The Commissioner does not require any steps to be taken following this decision notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 17; FOI 36
View Warrington Council
6 Dec 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from Belfast Health and Social Care Trust (“the Trust) about projects they organise for the Irish traveller community and how many travellers have attended those projects since 2019. The Trust provided information about the projects it commissioned under contract but explained that it did not hold the requested information about the numbers in attendance.The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the Trust does not hold the requested information about attendance numbers.
The Commissioner does not require the Trust to take any steps as a result of this decision notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Department of Health and Social Care
6 Dec 2022Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested LNER to disclose details of complaints logged against Train Managers from 1 November 2021 to the date of their request. LNER refused to comply with the request, citing section 12 of FOIA.The Commissioner’s decision is that LNER is entitled to rely on section 12 of FOIA. However, LNER failed to comply with section 16 of FOIA (duty to provide advice and assistance). The Commissioner requires LNER to provide advice and assistance to the complainant in accordance with section 16 of FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12; FOI 16
View London North Western Railways
6 Dec 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested correspondence exchanged with the Cabinet Office’s FOI Clearing House regarding requests about Grenfell Tower. The above public authority provided some information but relied on either section 23 (security bodies) or section 24 of FOIA (national security) to withhold the information. The Commissioner’s decision is that the public authority has either correctly cited section 23 or has correctly cited section 24 and, if it is section 24, the balance of the public interest favours maintaining that exemption. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 23; FOI 24
View Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government
6 Dec 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested incoming and outgoing messages from a HM Treasury (HMT) smartphone issued to Lord Amyas Morse for use in his capacity leading the independent Loan Charge Review. The Commissioner’s decision is that HMT does not hold the requested information. The Commissioner does not require any steps. First-tier Tribunal (General Regulatory Chamber) Information Rights appeal EA/2023/0003 allowed in part.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View HM Treasury
6 Dec 2022Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to costs of litigation. The above public authority eventually disclosed some information but relied on section 43 of FOIA (commercial interests) and section 40(2) of FOIA to withhold the remainder. The Commissioner’s decision is that the public authority is entitled to rely on section 40(2) in the manner that it has done. He also finds that section 43 of FOIA is engaged in respect of the hourly rates agreed and that the balance of the public interest favours maintaining the exemption. The Commissioner does not accept that section 43 is engaged in relation to the name of the firm or chambers that has been retained. The public authority breached section 10 of FOIA as it disclosed information outside of the 20 working day timeframe. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation.Disclose, to the complainant, the name of the law firm or chambers that has been withheld.Ke
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 43
View Department of Health and Social Care
6 Dec 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested London Borough of Richmond Upon Thames (the Council) to disclose all correspondence relating to pre-application advice for any proposals for any work that requires Planning Permission at Udney Park. The Council refused to disclose the requested information, citing regulations 12(5)(d), 12(5)(e) and 12(5)(f) of the EIR. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council is entitled to refuse to disclose the requested information in accordance with regulation 12(5)(f) of the EIR. He does not require any further action to be taken. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2023/0074 appeal allowed.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(f)
View Richmond upon Thames Council
6 Dec 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information from Durham County Council (“the Council”) relating to the transportation of waste to a specific property. The Commissioner’s decision is that on the balance of probabilities, the Council does not hold information within the scope of the request.The Commissioner does not require the Council to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(a)
View Durham County Council
6 Dec 2022Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information relating to a particular planning application, including copies of objections to it. Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council (‘SMBC’) disclosed the information in response to the request. However, the complainant argued that SMBC should proactively publish comments and objections to individual planning applications on its website, and that by failing to do so, SMBC was not complying with its obligations under regulation 4 (Dissemination of environmental information) of the EIR. The Commissioner’s decision is that regulation 4 of the EIR does not require SMBC to proactively publish comments and objections to planning applications on its website. However, SMBC breached regulation 5(2) of the EIR by failing to comply with the request within 20 working days of receipt.
Exemptions cited: EIR 4; EIR 5(2)
View Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council
6 Dec 2022Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, East Riding of Yorkshire Council (‘the Council’) has disclosed all the recorded information it holds within scope of the request for information about a ‘Beverley Energy Network’ project. The Council is entitled to rely on regulation 12(5)(e) of the EIR to withhold some of the requested information in order to protect commercial confidentiality. The Council breached regulation 14(2) of the EIR as its refusal was provided outside the 20 working day requirement, and it breached regulation 14(3) of the EIR as it incorrectly issued its refusal under FOIA and not the EIR.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(e); EIR 14; EIR 5
View East Riding of Yorkshire Council
5 Dec 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information from the London Borough of Croydon (“the Council”) in relation to a specific planning application. The Council originally advised that the information was publicly available, citing regulation 6(1)(b) of the EIR. The Council also advised that it does not hold any further information in relation to the request, citing regulation 12(4)(a) of the EIR. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the Council does not hold any further information and, therefore, regulation 12(4)(a) of the EIR is engaged. The Commissioner also finds that the information in question is both publicly available and easily accessible. The Council was therefore entitled to rely on regulation 6(1)(b) of the EIR. The Commissioner does not require the Council to take any steps as a result of this decision notice.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(a); EIR 6(1)(b)
View London Borough of Croydon
5 Dec 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested London Borough of Redbridge (the Council) to disclose a list of companies, housing associations and developers that received pre-planning advice during a specified time period. They also asked for the form of advice or consultation and the planning application reference for those that proceeded to a formal application. The Council disclosed a small amount of information but refused to disclose the remainder under section 43 of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the request should have been processed under the EIR and regulations 12(5)(e) and (f) do not apply. He requires the Council to disclose the remaining withheld information to the complainant.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(e); EIR 12(5)(f)
View Redbridge Council
5 Dec 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested a deceased individual’s criminal records from the National Police Chiefs’ Council (‘the NPCC’). The NPCC would neither confirm nor deny holding the information, citing section 38(2) (Health and safety). The Commissioner’s decision is that the NPCC was not entitled to rely on the exemption cited. The Commissioner requires the NPCC to confirm or deny whether the requested information is held. If information is held, it must either be disclosed or the NPCC must issue a fresh refusal notice in compliance with section 17 of FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 38
View National Police Chiefs Council
5 Dec 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant made a request for information relating alternative dispute resolution between a complainant and the PHSO similar to the Financial Ombudsman Service's Independent Assessor. PHSO confirmed that it does not hold information falling within the scope of the request under section 1(1)(a) FOIA. The Commissioner considers that PHSO 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. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2023/0025 under appeal.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View The Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman
5 Dec 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from Endeavour Learning Trust (“the Trust”) about funding received from the National Tutoring Programme and how it has been spent by each of the Trust’s schools.The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the Trust does not hold further information within the scope of the request. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
5 Dec 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) relating to Sports Survival Package Loans awarded to Premiership Rugby Clubs.The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, HMRC does not hold information within the scope of the request.The Commissioner does not require HMRC to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
5 Dec 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to the Research Information and Communications Unit (‘RICU’). The Home Office refused to provide this information citing section 24 of FOIA (the exemption for national security). The Commissioner’s decision is that the Home Office correctly relied on section 24 to withhold the information. No steps are required as a result of this notice.
Keywords: CONTEST Strategy, Prevent, counter-terrorism, radicalisation
Exemptions cited: FOI 24
View Home Office
5 Dec 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from the Cabinet Office about specified correspondence relating to a named report. By the date of this notice, the Cabinet Office had not issued a substantive response to this request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Cabinet Office has failed to complete its deliberations on the balance of the public interest within a reasonable time and has therefore breached section 17(3) of FOIA. The Commissioner requires the Cabinet Office to take the following step to ensure compliance with the legislation.Having confirmed whether or not information is held within the scope of the request: either disclose the requested information, if held, or, to the extent that information is to be withheld, issue a refusal notice in accordance with the requirements of section 17 of the FOIA.The Cabinet Office must take this step within 35 calendar days of the date of this decision notice. Failure to comply may result in the Commissioner making written certification
Exemptions cited: FOI 17
View Cabinet Office
5 Dec 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from the Defence Infrastructure Organisation (Ministry of Defence) relating to offences committed concerning particular military Byelaws. The Ministry of Defence (“the MOD”) refused the request under section 14(1) of FOIA (vexatious request).The Commissioner’s decision is that the request was vexatious and therefore the MOD 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. First-tier tribunal (General Regulatory chamber) information rights appeal EA/2023/0005 appeal dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14(1)
View Ministry of Defence
5 Dec 2022Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from the Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC) about communications between Matt Hancock and another individual during a specified timeframe. The DHSC provided some information but withheld other information under section 40(2), section 43(2) and section 35(1)(d) of FOIA. During the Commissioner’s investigation the DHSC withdrew its reliance on section 43(2) and provided the information and the complainant accepted the application of section 35(1)(d). During the Commissioner’s investigation, the DHSC also cited section 14(1) regarding WhatsApp messages. The Commissioner’s decision is that the DHSC has not demonstrated that complying with the request in terms of the WhatsApp messages would impose a grossly oppressive burden and consequently it is not entitled to rely on section 14(1). However, he finds that the DHSC was correct in citing section 40(2). The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following steps to ensure com
Exemptions cited: FOI 14(1); FOI 40(2)
View Department of Health and Social Care
5 Dec 2022Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested the Charity Commission (the CC) to disclose information relating to complaints he submitted to them about the National Trust. The CC confirmed that some of the information is not held. It refused to disclose some under section 31(1)(g) by virtue of section 31(2)(c) and refused to confirm or deny whether the remainder was held in accordance with section 31(3) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the CC does not hold some of the requested information. In relation to the application of sections 31(1)(g) by virtue of section 31(2)(c) and 31(3) of FOIA, the Commissioner is satisfied that the CC has applied these correctly. He has however recorded a breach of section 10 of FOIA, as the CC failed to respond to the complainant’s request within 20 working days of receipt. The Commissioner does not require any further action to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 31(1)(g); FOI 31(3)
View The Charity Commission
5 Dec 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant made three multi-part requests for information to Harrow Council (the ‘Council’) for internal email chains about penalty charge notices (‘PCN’), together with related questions about the Council’s Parking Service. The Council initially refused the requests under section 12 of FOIA (exceeds cost limit). At internal review, the Council amended its position and instead cited section 14(1) of FOIA (vexatious requests).The Commissioner’s decision is that the requests were vexatious and therefore the Council was entitled to rely upon section 14(1) of FOIA to refuse them. The Commissioner does not require any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14(1)
View Harrow Council
5 Dec 2022Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested financial information about the provision of additional healthcare capacity by two private hospitals. Some information within scope of the request has now been published. NHS England has disclosed other information and is withholding the remainder under sections 31, 41 and 43 of FOIA. These concern law enforcement, information provided in confidence and commercial interests respectively. The Commissioner’s decision is as follows: NHS England is entitled to withhold entire copies of the actual invoices it holds under section 31(1) of FOIA and the public interest favours maintaining the exemption in that respect. However it would be possible to disclose a little of the information in each of the invoices – as presented in each invoice - without the risk of potential fraud occurring. Section 31(1) is not engaged in respect of that specific information. NHS England is entitled to withhold the validation reports under section 43(2) and the public interest favou
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 17; FOI 31; FOI 43
View NHS England
5 Dec 2022Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information concerning the business case for the creation of the Government Commercial Organisation (GCO). The Cabinet Office originally withheld all the requested information under section 36(2)(b)(i) and (ii)(prejudice to effective conduct of public affairs) of the FOIA, with section 40(2) (third party personal data) also being applied to a small amount of the information. During the Commissioner’s investigation the Cabinet Office additionally applied sections 35(1)(a)(formulation or development of government policy), 42(1)(legal professional privilege) and 43(2)(prejudice to commercial interests) to different parts of Annexes B of the withheld information.The Commissioner’s decision is that the Cabinet Office correctly applied sections 35(1)(a), 42(1) and 43(2) to the relevant information and that the balance of the public interest favours maintaining each respective exemption. The Commissioner finds that the Cabinet Office failed to correctly apply sec
Exemptions cited: FOI 10(1); FOI 35(1)(a); FOI 36(2)(b)(i); FOI 42(1); FOI 43(2)
View Cabinet Office
5 Dec 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from Northumberland County Council (“the Council”) about the implementation of a statutory proposal to reorganise the North Tyne and Redesdale area to the primary/secondary education model. The Council provided some information within scope of the request. The Complainant believes the Council holds further information within the scope of the request. The Council’s position is that no further information is held. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the Council does not hold any further information within the scope of the request, beyond that which it has already disclosed. The Commissioner does not require the Council to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1(1)
View Northumberland County Council
5 Dec 2022Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested London Borough of Waltham Forest (the Council) to disclose information relating to Council owned Local Authority Trading Companies (LATC’s). The Council disclosed some information but stated that the remainder is exempt from disclosure under section 21 of FOIA, as it is accessible to the complainant by other means. For one element, it stated that the information has been provided but it was not in full. The Commissioner’s decision is that section 21 of FOIA applies, except in relation to the turnover of each LATC. For the email addresses requested, although the Council states that this information has been provided, the complainant and Commissioner cannot see where or when this information was disclosed. The Commissioner requires the Council to disclose the turnover of each LATC and either provide the email addresses requested or issue a refusal notice for this information, in accordance with section 17 of FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 21
View Waltham Forest Council
5 Dec 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested various information from Brentwood Borough Council (‘the Council’) in respect of an investigation regarding an alleged infestation of flies at a named location. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has failed to carry out a reconsideration (internal review) of a response provided under the EIR within 40 working days. It has therefore breached regulation 11 of the EIR.
Exemptions cited: EIR 11
View Brentwood Borough Council
2 Dec 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested copies of proposal documents and correspondence relating to a proposed Active Neighbourhood Scheme. Transport for Greater Manchester (TfGM) disclosed reports and correspondence with redactions for personal data under regulation 13(1) and withheld draft plans, including drawings and maps under regulation 12(4)(d) of the EIR. The Commissioner’s decision is that TfGM has correctly applied the regulation 13 exception to withhold the personal data from the information disclosed and has also correctly engaged regulation 12(4)(d) to the draft plans and the balance of the public interest favours maintaining the exception.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(d); EIR 13
View Mayor of Greater Manchester
2 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 Bedford Borough Council
2 Dec 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information from Cumbria County Council (“the Council”) relating to a drainage and wetland scheme.The Commissioner’s decision is that on the balance of probabilities, the Council does not hold information within the scope of the request. The Commissioner does not require the Council to take any steps. First-tier Tribunal (General Regulatory Chamber) Information Rights appeal EA/2023/0013 appeal dismissed.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(a)
View Cumbria County Council
2 Dec 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information from West Sussex County Council (“the Council”) relating to an inspection that took place on a specific road. The Commissioner’s decision is that on the balance of probabilities, the Council has disclosed all the information it holds within the scope of the request.The Commissioner does not require the Council to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(a)
View West Sussex County Council
2 Dec 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information held by Bridgend Council (the Council) with regards to HMO (House in Multiple Occupation) density by ward. The Council initially refused the request. Following an internal review, whilst it provided a list of HMO properties by ward, it did not provide the specific information requested by the complainant, stating that this was not held.It is the Commissioner’s decision that the Council holds all of the requested information.The Commissioner requires the Council to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation.Either provide all the outstanding information held that is relevant to the request to the complainant, or issue a refusal notice that complies with section 17 of FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Bridgend County Borough Council
2 Dec 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information held by Ceredigion Council (the Council) with regards to HMO (House in Multiple Occupation) density by ward. The Council initially failed to respond to the request. Following an internal review, the Council then provided part of the requested information; however, it advised that some of the information was not held.The Commissioner is satisfied that the Council holds all of the information requested by the complainant.The Commissioner requires the Council to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation.Either provide the outstanding information that is relevant to the request to the complainant, or issue a refusal notice that complies with section 17 of FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Ceredigion County Council
2 Dec 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information held by Rhondda Cynon Taf County Borough Council (the Council) with regards to HMO (House in Multiple Occupation) density by ward. The Council has provided the complainant with some information. However, it advised that it does not hold part of the requested information. It is the Commissioner’s decision that the Council does hold all of the requested information. The Commissioner requires the council to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. Either provide the outstanding information held that is relevant to the request to the complainant, or issue a refusal notice that complies with section 17 of FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Rhondda Cynon Taf County Borough Council
2 Dec 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested from Uttlesford District Council (the Council) information relating to a Compulsorily Purchase Order (CPO) over a specific property. The Council provided some information within the scope of the request but withheld information under section 42(1) (legal professional privilege) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council is entitled to rely on section 42(1) of FOIA to withhold some of the information requested. Therefore, the Commissioner does not require the Council to take any steps as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: FOI 42(1)
View Uttlesford District Council
2 Dec 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from Ribble Valley Borough Council (“the Council”) relating to wells in Clitheroe. The Council disclosed some information in response to the request, however the complainant believes the Council holds further information within the scope of the request. The Commissioner is not satisfied that, on the balance of probabilities, the Council does not hold further information within the scope of the request. The Commissioner requires the Council to issue a fresh response to the request following searches aimed at identifying all the information held within the scope of the request.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1(1)
View Ribble Valley Borough Council
2 Dec 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from the BBC about its reporting of an allegation of a crime. The BBC responded that the requested information was covered by the derogation and hence excluded from FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that this information was held by the BBC for the purposes of journalism, art or literature and so was not covered by FOIA. He therefore upholds the BBC’s position and requires no remedial steps to be taken in this case.
Exemptions cited: FOI 3
View BBC
2 Dec 2022Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information from Bolton Council in relation to a Traffic Regulation Order (“the TRO”) proposed for the junction of Wigan Road/ Old Fold Road, Westhoughton. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, Bolton Council has provided all the information it holds in relation to the request.The Commissioner’s decision is that Bolton Council breached regulation 5(2) of the EIR by failing to provide a response within 20 working days.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(a); EIR 5(2)
View Bolton Council
2 Dec 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from the British Broadcasting Corporation (“BBC”) about demographics of listeners to BBC jazz programmes. The BBC responded that the requested information was covered by the derogation and hence excluded from FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that this information was held by the BBC for the purposes of journalism, art or literature and so was not covered by FOIA. He therefore upholds the BBC’s position and requires no remedial steps to be taken in this case.
Exemptions cited: FOI 3
View BBC
2 Dec 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to the proposed formation of a wholly-owned subsidiary company by South Warwickshire Foundation Trust. NHS England (NHSE) provided some redacted information but withheld the documents making up the business case on the basis of section 41 of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that NHSE has correctly applied the exemption and the public interest lies in withholding the information.
Exemptions cited: FOI 41
View NHS England
2 Dec 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information from Hayle Harbour Authority (“HHA”) relating to the removal of sand at Hayle Harbour. HHA claimed that it did not constitute a public authority for the purposes of FOIA and was not therefore obliged to respond to the request. The complainant referred HHA to a decision notice from 2011 in which the Commissioner found that HHA is a public authority for the purposes of the EIR. HHA provided no further response. The Commissioner has considered whether HHA continues to be a public authority for the purposes of the EIR. The Commissioner’s decision is that HHA is a public authority for the purposes of the EIR and therefore bound by its provisions and that HHA did not deal with the request for information as required by the EIR.The Commissioner requires HHA to either disclose the requested information or issue a refusal notice meeting the requirements of regulation 14 of the EIR.
Exemptions cited: EIR 2(2)(c)
1 Dec 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to allegations of child sexual abuse and/or exploitation related to the Jehovah's Witness organisation. The Commissioner’s decision is that Cheshire Constabulary was entitled to apply section 12(2) of FOIA and he is satisfied that Cheshire Constabulary met its obligations under section 16(1) to offer advice and assistance. No steps are required.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12; FOI 16(1)
View Cheshire Constabulary
1 Dec 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to school provisions for teaching Relationships and sex education (RSE) and Personal, social, health and economic education (PSHE). North Yorkshire County Council (the “council”) refused the request under the exemption for commercial interests (section 43(2)). The Commissioner’s decision is that the information is commercially sensitive and the council is entitled to withhold it under section 43(2) of FOIA. The public interest favours maintaining the exemption. The Commissioner does not require the council to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 43(2)
View North Yorkshire County Council
1 Dec 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant made a request for information regarding whether any disciplinary action had been taken in relation to DfE staff or politicians who attended an event during Covid restrictions. The DfE refused to confirm or deny whether it holds the requested information under section 40(5B)(a)(i) FOIA. The Commissioner considers that the DfE was correct to apply section 40(5B)(a)(i) FOIA to refuse to confirm or deny whether the requested is held. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View Department for Education
1 Dec 2022Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to a street crossing. Liverpool City Council (the “council”) disclosed some information and withheld other information under the exemption for information relating to research (section 22A). The Commissioner’s decision is that the council did not respond to the request in time and breached section 10(1) and that it correctly withheld the information under section 22A. The Commissioner does not require the council to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10(1); FOI 22A
View Liverpool City Council