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
1 Dec 2022Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request for information relating to Employment Tribunal Judges to the Judicial Conduct Investigations Office (“JCIO”) which falls under the remit of the Ministry of Justice (“MoJ”).The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the MoJ does not hold the requested information. However, in failing to respond to the request within the statutory timescale, the Commissioner has determined that the MoJ breached section 10(1) of FOIA.The Commissioner does not require the MoJ to take any further steps. Information Tribunal FTT EA/2022/0457 struck out.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1(1); FOI 10(1)
View Ministry of Justice
1 Dec 2022Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information from Portsmouth City Council (the council) regarding a number of site visits by the council’s enforcement officers to a named address. The council provided some information but withheld part of the information under section 40(2) of FOIA (personal information). The council later accepted that the information fell under the scope of the EIR and regulation 13(1). The Commissioner’s decision is that the council was correct in citing Regulation 13(1) of the EIR to the information it withheld. However, it breached regulation 5(2) of the EIR by providing information beyond the legislative timeframe. The council also breached regulations 14(2) and 14(3) of the EIR as it incorrectly issued its refusal under FOIA and not the EIR. The Commissioner does not require the council to take any further steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 13(1); EIR 14(3); EIR 14(2); EIR 5(2)
View Portsmouth City Council
1 Dec 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information relating to a planning application. The London Borough of Haringey (the Council) disclosed some information in the form of email exchanges, however stated further information was not held. The Council also withheld some of the requested information under section 22 of FOIA. On internal review, the Council amended their position and withheld the remaining information under regulation 12(4)(d) (unfinished documents) of the EIR. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has correctly applied regulation 12(4)(d) to the remaining information however the public interest in maintaining the exception does not outweigh the public interest in disclosure. The Commissioner also finds that the Council has breached regulation 5(2) by failing to produce a document a document identified as missing from the original disclosure. The Commissioner requires the Council to disclose the information withheld on the basis of regulation 12(4)(d) to the complainant
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(d); EIR 5(2)
View Haringey Council
1 Dec 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information about a grant application in respect of a listed structure. The Council provided some information and withheld other information under section 43 of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the requested information is environmental information within the definition at regulation 2(1)(c) of the EIR. The request should, therefore, have been handled under the EIR rather than the FOIA. He also notes that the Council has failed to consider all of the information held relevant to the request for disclosure. The Commissioner requires the Council to reconsider the request and its scope under the provisions of the EIR and issue a fresh response to the complainant.
Exemptions cited: EIR 2
1 Dec 2022Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested all correspondence between the Spectrum 10K research project and Black Country Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust (the Trust). The Trust applied section 12 FOIA as it said it would exceed the cost limit to comply with the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that section 12 FOIA was correctly applied to the request. The Trust however breached section 16 FOIA in the handling of this request. The Trust also breached section 10 FOIA in the handling of this request as it did not respond within the statutory time for compliance. The Commissioner requires the public authority to provide 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.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 12; FOI 16
View Black Country Healthcare NHS Foundation
1 Dec 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested from Coventry City Council (‘the council’) data relating to air quality collected by specific air quality sensors which are under trial by the council in parts of the city. The council withheld the data under Regulation 12(4)(d) (material which is still in the course of completion, to unfinished documents or to incomplete data). The Commissioner’s decision is that the council was not correct to withhold the requested information under Regulation 12(4)(d). The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. To disclose the requested information to the complainant.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(d)
View Coventry City Council
1 Dec 2022Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from Swansea Council (“SC”) on 22 January 2021 relating to a personal data breach from 25 May 2018. SC aggregated this request with an earlier request for information made on 3 December 2021. SC refused to comply with the request citing section 12(1) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that SC was entitled to aggregate the requests under section 12(4) of the FOIA and is entitled to rely on section 12(1) of the FOIA to refuse the requests. The Commissioner also finds that SC failed to comply with its obligations under section 16 to offer advice and assistance. Finally, the Commissioner has found that SC breached both section 10 and section 17 of FOIA because of the delays in its response. The Commissioner requires SC to provide the complainant with reasonable advice and assistance to help them refine their request so that it falls within the appropriate cost limits and ensure compliance with the legislation.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 12; FOI 16; FOI 17
View Swansea Council
1 Dec 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from the Department for Education (DfE) relating to Black Lives Matter. The DfE refused to comply with the request citing section 12 (cost limit) of FOIA.The Commissioner’s decision is that the DfE was entitled to refuse to comply with the request in accordance with section 12(1) of FOIA. The Commissioner also finds that the Department for Education complied with its obligations under section 16 to offer advice and assistance. The Commissioner does not require the DfE to take any steps.Keywords: aggregation
Exemptions cited: FOI 12(1); FOI 16
View Department for Education
1 Dec 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information regarding written instructions and subsequent advice from the QC about a quieter neighbourhood scheme. London Borough of Enfield (the “Council”) answered part of the request and cited section 42(1) of FOIA to withhold the remaining parts within scope of the request.The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has correctly applied section 42(1) of FOIA and does not require the public authority to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 42
View Enfield Council
1 Dec 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information relating to a mine in Armenia. The Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office (‘FCDO’) released some information in scope of the request but cited regulations 12(4)(d), 12(5)(a), 12(5)(e), 12(3) and 13 of the EIR to withhold the remaining information within scope.The Commissioner’s decision is that the withheld information engages regulations 12(4)(d), 12(5)(a) of the EIR and the public interest favours maintaining the exceptions. The Commissioner also considers regulation 13 of the EIR is engaged. However, the FCDO failed to provide a response to the request for information within the designated time frame and therefore breached regulation 5 as well as regulation 11(4) of the EIR by failing to provide its internal review response within the required 40 working days. No steps are required as a result of this decision notice.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(d); EIR 12(5)(a); EIR 13
View Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office
30 Nov 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The Commissioner’s decision is that the public authority has breached regulation 11 of the EIR by failing to provide a reconsideration (internal review) of a response within 40 working days. The Commissioner requires it to provide the complainant with the internal review within 35 calendar days in accordance with its obligations under the EIR.
Exemptions cited: EIR 5(2)
View London Borough of Croydon
30 Nov 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested copies of complaints (and any associated records) made to Hertfordshire Constabulary in connection with local elections. Hertfordshire Constabulary disclosed two redacted crime report documents and applied the exemptions at section 31 (Law enforcement) and section 40 (Personal information) of FOIA to withhold information. The Commissioner’s decision is that Hertfordshire Constabulary was entitled to rely on sections 31(1)(a) and (b) of FOIA to refuse to disclose the withheld information. The Commissioner requires no steps as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: FOI 31
View Hertfordshire Constabulary
30 Nov 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested from Kent County Council historic maps that are stored at the local records office. The Council refused to provide the requested information under regulation 6(1)(b) of the EIR, as it considered the information requested to be publicly available and easily accessible to the complainant. The Commissioner’s decision is that the information is publicly available and easily accessible to the complainant, and therefore regulation 6(1)(b) of the EIR is engaged. The Commissioner does not require any steps to be taken. Information Tribunal FTT UA-2024-000424-GIA dismissed.
Exemptions cited: EIR 6(1)(b)
View Kent County Council
30 Nov 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information about the decision by the then Lord Chancellor to set a revised Personal Injury Discount Rate which she had announced on 27 February 2017. The Commissioner decided that the Ministry of Justice were entitled to rely on the section 36(2) (effective conduct of public affairs) and section 42(1) (legal professional privilege) FOIA exemptions to withhold the relevant information.
Exemptions cited: FOI 36; FOI 42
View Ministry of Justice
30 Nov 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information about subjects taught in three particular schools. Powys County Council (the Council) provided some information and stated other information is not held. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the Council does not hold any additional information falling within the scope of the request. The Commissioner does not require any steps to be taken. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2022/0446 appeal struck out.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Powys County Council
30 Nov 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from the Home Office in relation to the number of deaths of people being housed under sections 95, 96, 98 or 4 of the Immigration & Asylum Act 1999. The Home Office originally refused the request under section 38(1)(b) of FOIA – health and safety. However, upon review, it changed its position and is relying on section 12(1) of FOIA – cost of compliance exceeds the appropriate limit. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Home Office was entitled to rely on section 12(1) of FOIA to refuse the request. It also complied with its duty to provide advice and assistance in line with the requirements of section 16 of FOIA. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps as a result of this decision notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12(1)
View Home Office
30 Nov 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information with regards to a specific road. The Council refused the request under regulation 12(4)(b) of the EIR – Manifestly Unreasonable. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council is able to rely on regulation 12(4)(b) of the EIR to refuse the request. The Commissioner does not require any steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(b)
View Hampshire County Council
30 Nov 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) in relation to financial crime training for CPS Officers. CPS provided some information in relation to the request, however for the remainder of the request, it advised that it does not hold the requested information. The CPS also advised that it was not required to produce the information for some parts of the request, as they are not asking for recorded information; they are asking for an opinion. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the CPS is correct to confirm that it does not hold the requested information. The Commissioner is also satisfied that the CPS was correct to refuse to provide a response to the parts of the request where the complainant has asked for opinions. The Commissioner does not require the CPS to take any steps as a result of this decision notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1(1)
View Crown Prosecution Service
30 Nov 2022Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested from Hampshire County Council (‘the council’) information relating to a waste facility proposed in Alton, Hampshire. The council initially refused parts of the request on the basis that exceptions apply. Subsequently it disclosed all of the information which it holds but redacted some information under the exception in Regulation 13(1)(personal data). The Commissioner’s decision is that the council was correct to apply Regulation 13(1) to withhold the data. He has, however, also decided that the council did not comply with the requirements of Regulation 5(2). The Commissioner does not require the council to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 13(1); EIR 5(2)
View Hampshire County Council
30 Nov 2022Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested from Lincolnshire County Council, (‘the council’), information relating to the creation of a Traffic Restriction Order (‘a TRO’) on Silver Street, Bardney. The council applied Regulation 13(1) (personal data of third parties), and Regulation 12(4)(e) (internal communications) to withhold some information. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council was correct to apply Regulation 13(1) to withhold the personal data relating to third parties. He has decided that the council was partially correct to apply Regulation 12(4)(e), however the exception was not applicable to correspondence between the council and its contractor, Balfour Beatty. Finally, the Commissioner has also decided that, on the balance of probabilities, the council was correct to state that it holds no further information falling within the scope of the complainant's request for information. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following steps to ensure compliance with t
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(a); EIR 12(4)(e); EIR 13(1)
View Lincolnshire County Council
30 Nov 2022Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested, from Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council (‘the council’), information relied upon by a councillor in a statement he made to the council regarding the ethnicity of the perpetrators of child sexual exploitation (CSE). The complainant also requested specific statistical data in respect of this. The complainant also sought metadata relating to that request. The council said that no information is held regarding the councillor’s statement, and that the complainant should remake their request to the Police for the statistical data. It disclosed information associated with the request for metadata. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, no information is held by the council falling within the scope of the complainant’s request for information regarding the councillor’s statement. He has also decided that the council has responded to the request for metadata. However, the Commissioner has decided that the council did not respond
Exemptions cited: FOI 1(1)
View Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council
30 Nov 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from the Information Commissioner (ICO) about a named individual’s involvement in a data breach at the university. The ICO explained that it did not hold information in scope of the request.The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the ICO does not hold the requested information. The Commissioner does not require the ICO to take any steps as a result of this decision notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Information Commissioner
30 Nov 2022Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
Summary wording for website: The Commissioner’s decision is that DHSC was entitled to rely on section 35(1)(a) of FOIA to withhold requested information about face coverings in relation to COVID-19, as it concerned the formulation of government policy, etc. DHSC breached section 17(1) of FOIA as it did not issue a refusal notice within the required timescale.
Exemptions cited: FOI 17; FOI 35
View Department of Health and Social Care
30 Nov 2022Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested, from the University of Oxford (Kellogg College) (the University), information relating to expenses and student committee members. The University disclosed some information, however the complainant is unhappy that an inquiry report was redacted and that the University’s response was late. The Commissioner’s decision is that while the University breached sections 10 and 17 of FOIA by failing to disclose information that was disclosable and issue a refusal notice within the statutory time for compliance, the University is entitled to withhold the remaining information under section 40(2) of FOIA (the ‘personal information’ exemption). The Commissioner does not require any steps to be taken following this decision notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 17; FOI 40
30 Nov 2022Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, Driver & Vehicle Licensing Agency does not hold the requested information about a specific motorcycle and complied with section 1(1) of FOIA. However, DVLA breached section 10(1) as it did not comply with section 1(1) within 20 working days.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10
View Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency
30 Nov 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about whether there has been any contact between a third party individual and Southeast Advisory (“SEA”) or the Judicial Office (“JO”) from January 2010 until 26 October 2021. They also requested information about whether the third party had re-applied to be a magistrate according to SEA and JO records. In addition, the complainant requested a copy of the list of duties performed by magistrates while serving on the supplemental list. The JO is an independent arms-length body that falls under the remit of the Ministry of Justice (“the MOJ”) and the MOJ is the appropriate public body for the purposes of FOIA. Therefore, the Commissioner has referred to the MOJ for the purposes of this decision notice. The MOJ has said that it does not hold any of the information requested by the complainant. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the MOJ does not hold the requested information. No steps are required as a result of t
Exemptions cited: FOI 3
View Ministry of Justice
30 Nov 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested various information from Reigate and Banstead Borough Council (‘the Council’) in relation to Project Baseball and its crematorium proposal. The Council refused to disclose two documents falling within the scope of the request citing regulation 12(5)(e) (confidentiality of commercial information) and regulation 12(5)(c) (intellectual property rights), of the Environmental Information Regulations 2004 (‘the EIR’). The Commissioner’s decision is that Reigate and Banstead Borough Council were entitled to rely on regulation 12(5)(e) of the EIR to refuse to disclose the information contained within both documents.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(e)
View Reigate and Banstead Borough Council
30 Nov 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainants requested information from Central Bedfordshire Council (“the Council”) relating to the qualifications of specific council officers and the location of scaffolding. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council is entitled to rely on section 40(2) (personal information) of the FOIA to withhold information relating to the qualifications of council officers. He is also satisfied that on the balance of probabilities, the Council does not hold any information which confirms where the scaffolding referred to in the request will be located.The Commissioner does not require the Council to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 40(2)
View Central Bedfordshire Council
30 Nov 2022Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested access to a closed file DPP 2/2549. The National Archives refused to provide the file, citing section 40(2) (personal information) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the National Archives is entitled to rely upon section 40(2), on the basis that the requested information is third party personal data and its disclosure would breach data protection law. The National Archives breached section 17(3) (Refusal of request) of FOIA as it took an unreasonable amount of time to complete its public interest considerations. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps. First-tier tribunal (General Regulatory chamber) information rights appeal EA/2022/0440 appeal allowed in part.
Exemptions cited: FOI 17(3); FOI 40(2)
View The National Archives
30 Nov 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to Consultation Paper CP22/15. The FCA refused to disclose the requested information under section 44(1)(a) FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the FCA has correctly applied section 44(1)(a) FOIA in this case. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 44
View Financial Conduct Authority
30 Nov 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information relating to a Planning Enforcement case. Cornwall Council (“the Council”) confirmed that the information was withheld under regulation 12(5)(b) (the course of justice and inquiries), regulation 12(5)(f) (Interest of the person who provided the information to the public authority) and regulation 13 (personal information) of EIR. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council correctly applied regulation 12(5)(b) to withhold the requested information and that the balance of the public interest favours maintaining that exception. The Commissioner does not require the Council to take steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(b)
View Cornwall Council
30 Nov 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information regarding legal advice sought, as well as correspondence and documentation about the erection of bilingual signage at Olympic Leisure Centre. Belfast City Council (the “Council”) cited section 42(1) of FOIA to withhold the requested information.The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has correctly applied section 42(1) of FOIA and does not require the public authority to take any steps. First-tier Tribunal (General Regulatory Chamber) Information Rights appeal EA/2023/0009 appeal allowed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 42
29 Nov 2022Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from Mid Essex Clinical Commissioning Group (the CCG), which is now Mid & South Essex Integrated Care Board, about patient choice in mental health secondary care providers. The CCG stated that it does not hold information within the scope of the request.The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the CCG is correct when it says that it does not hold the requested information. However, the CCG breached section 10(1) of FOIA as it failed to provide a response to the complainant within the statutory time limit.The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps as a result of this decision notice. First-tier tribunal (General Regulatory chamber) information rights appeal EA/2022/0438 struck out.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10(1)
View NHS Mid and South Essex ICB
29 Nov 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from South Yorkshire Police in relation to payments to Weightmans solicitors. By the date of this notice the South Yorkshire Police had not issued a substantive response to this request. The Commissioner’s decision is that South Yorkshire Police has breached section 10(1) of the FOIA in that it failed to provide a valid response to the request within the statutory time frame of 20 working days. The Commissioner requires South Yorkshire Police to provide a substantive response to the request in accordance with its obligations under FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View South Yorkshire Police
29 Nov 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to the chemical used when spraying of Japanese Knotweed, locations sprayed and the potential poisoning of dogs. The Commissioner’s decision is that Rhondda Cynon Taf County Borough Council (the Council), on the balance of probabilities, does not hold the requested information.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1(1)
View Rhondda Cynon Taf County Borough Council
29 Nov 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs (“HMRC”) about a Serial Avoiders Unit. HMRC advised it does not hold recorded information within scope of the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that on the balance of probabilities, HMRC does not hold recorded information relevant to the complainant’s request and has complied with section 1(1) of FOIA. The Commissioner does not require any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1(1)
29 Nov 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information from the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) relating to a specific heat network.The Commissioner’s decision is that on the balance of probabilities, BEIS does not hold information within the scope of the request. The Commissioner does not require BEIS to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(a)
View Department for Business and Trade
29 Nov 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested from Stockton-on-Tees Borough Council (the Council) information relating to properties listed as empty within a specific postcode area. The Council withheld information within the scope of questions 3 to 5 of the request and cited section 40(2) (personal information) of FOIA, but provided information within the scope of questions 6 and 7 of the request. The Council also, subsequently relied on section 31(1)(a) (prevention or detection of crime) of FOIA to questions 1 and 2 of the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council was entitled to withhold the information within scope of questions 3 to 5 of the request under section 40(2) of FOIA and section 31 to questions 1 and 2. Therefore, the Commissioner does not require the Council to take any steps as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: FOI 31(1)(a); FOI 40(2)
View Stockton-on-Tees Council
29 Nov 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested from University College London (“UCL”) specific information in respect of racial bias in UCL’s recruitment practices. UCL provided the information it held. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, UCL has provided all of the information it holds in recorded form in respect of this request.The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
29 Nov 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested Salisbury NHS Foundation Trust (‘the Trust’) to disclose information relating to its Emergency Preparedness, Resilience and Response (EPRR) 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 of FOIA. The Commissioner requires the Trust to confrm or deny whether it holds the requested information in accordance with section 1 of FOIA. If the Trust holds the information, it should either disclose that to the complainant or issue a refusal notice in accordance with section 17 of FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Salisbury NHS Foundation Trust
29 Nov 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant asked a series of questions of the Equality and Human Rights Commission (‘EHRC’). The EHRC responded to each question in turn disclosing relevant information. They citied sections 21, 22, 40(2) and 36(2) of FOIA to withhold some of the information in scope of the request.The Commissioner’s decision is that the EHRC was entitled to rely on sections 22, 40(2) and 36(2) to withhold the requested information. However, by failing to respond to the request within 20 working days, the EHRC breached sections 1, 10 and 17 of FOIA. No steps are required as a result of this decision notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 22; FOI 36(2); FOI 40(2)
View Equality and Human Rights Commission
29 Nov 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from South Somerset District Council (the Council) regarding non-payment of council tax by councillors. The Council stated that the information was not held.The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the Council does not hold the requested information. The Commissioner requires no further steps to be taken as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View South Kesteven District Council
29 Nov 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 Department for Business and Trade
29 Nov 2022Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested any reports sent to a specified director general on the topic of mail handling delays. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) is entitled to rely on section 12(2) to refuse to comply with the request. However, the Commissioner considers that DWP has failed to provide adequate advice and assistance in accordance with section 16. The Commissioner requires the public authority to provide the complainant with further advice and assistance. 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 12; FOI 16
View Department for Work and Pensions
29 Nov 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from the Cabinet Office about whether Lee Cain had any complaints made about them whilst working as Downing Street Director of Communications in 2020. The Cabinet Office refused to confirm or deny whether there had been any complaints as to do so would breach data protection principles. The Commissioner’s decision is that the public authority was entitled to rely on section 40(5B)(a)(i) of FOIA to refuse to confirm or deny that it held any information falling within the scope of the request. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40(5)(b)(a)(i)
View Cabinet Office
29 Nov 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested all documentation the council holds relating to the accessway and access rights at the Grange Park Droppingwell, Kimberworth which includes maps, written correspondence between the council and landowners who have access to the site, details of advice the council has sort from professionals including costs and any other documentation that mentions this access. The Commissioner’s decision is that regulation 12(5)(b) of EIR is fully engaged and that Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council (“RMBC”) is entitled to rely on regulation 12(5)(b)- of the EIR to withhold the requested information. However, RMBC breached reg 5(2) of EIR as it failed to issue its refusal notice within 20 working days.The Commissioner does not require RMBC to take any further steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(b); EIR 5(2)
View Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council
29 Nov 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested from Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs (DAERA) information relating to the commercial shipment of dogs and puppies from Northern Ireland. DAERA provided some information within scope of the request but redacted some details and applied section 43(2) (commercial interests) and section 40(2) (personal information) of FOIA to the withheld information. The Commissioner’s decision is that DAERA was entitled to withhold some of the information requested under section 43(2) of FOIA and the public interest favours maintaining the exemption. Therefore, the Commissioner does not require DAERA to take any steps as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: FOI 43(2)
View Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs (Northern Ireland)
29 Nov 2022Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested the addresses of properties which were vacant and how long they were vacant. The Commissioner’s decision is that London Borough of Hounslow (the Council) was entitled to rely on Section 40(2) of the FIOA. The Council did breached Section 10(1) of FOIA by failing to provide a valid response to the request within the statutory time frame of 20 working days. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any further steps. Information Tribunal appeal UA-2024-000944-GIA PTA refused.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10(1); FOI 40(2)
View London Borough of Hounslow
29 Nov 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 BBC