29 Nov 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested London Ambulance Service NHS Trust (the trust) to disclose information relating to its decision to restrict his contact with the trust. The trust disclosed the recorded information it holds falling within the scope of the complainant’s request. The Commissioner’s decision is that on the balance of probabilities the trust does not hold any further recorded information to that already provided. He has however found the trust in breach of section 10 of FOIA. The Commissioner does not require any further action to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View London Ambulance Service NHS Trust
29 Nov 2022Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested details of a finance agreement between Cornwall Council (the council) and Greenwich Leisure Limited (GLL). It is the Commissioner’s decision that the council is entitled to rely on section 43(2) of FOIA as its basis for refusing part 1 and part 2 of the complainant’s request. However, as the council failed to cite an exemption in its refusal notice, or at the internal review stage, the Commissioner has found a breach of section 17(1) of FOIA. The Commissioner does not require the council to take any steps as a result of this decision notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 17; FOI 43(2)
View Cornwall Council
29 Nov 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from London Borough of Havering (“the Council”) about the number of young people with Education Health Care Plans. The Council provided the information that it holds, however, the complainant was not satisfied with some of the information, as they felt it was incorrect.The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the Council has provided the complainant with the information it holds in relation to the request. The Commissioner cannot consider the accuracy of the information provided. The Commissioner does not require the Council to take any steps as a result of this decision notice. Information Tribunal FTT EA/2022/0405 appeal withdrawn.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View London Borough of Havering
29 Nov 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to an honour granted to Anne Donaghy, Chief Executive of Mid and East Antrim Borough Council. The Executive Office refused the request on the basis of section 37(1)(b) of FOIA (information relating to the conferring of honours or dignities). The Commissioner’s decision is that the Executive Office was entitled to refuse the request in reliance on the exemption at section 37(1)(b). No steps are required.
Exemptions cited: FOI 37
29 Nov 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information about a transport study. The Commissioner’s decision is that the above public authority has failed to respond to the request within 20 working days and has therefore breached Regulation 5(2) of the Environmental Information Regulations. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: Issue a substantive response, under the EIR, to the request.
Exemptions cited: EIR 5(2)
View London Borough of Croydon
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 London Borough of Croydon
29 Nov 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested a section of the National Risk Assessment relating to infectious diseases. The above public authority on section 24 of FOIA (national security) to withhold that information. The Commissioner’s decision is that the public authority is entitled to rely on section 24 of FOIA and that the balance of the public interest favours withholding the information. The Commissioner does not require further steps.Keywords: covid-19, risk register
Exemptions cited: FOI 24
View Department of Health and Social Care
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 London Borough of Croydon
29 Nov 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to the Ministry of Defence (MOD) seeking minutes of all meetings of the Ships’ Names and Badges Committee since 1 January 2015. The MOD provided copies of the minutes it held but redacted some information on the basis of sections 26(1)(b) (defence), 36(2)(b)(i) and (ii) (effective conduct of public affairs), and 40(2) (personal data) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that withheld information is exempt from disclosure on the basis of sections 26(1)(b) and 36(2)(b)(i) and (ii).
Exemptions cited: FOI 26; FOI 36
View Ministry of Defence
29 Nov 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about any predictive policing programmes that Humberside Police is currently using or trialling. Humberside Police confirmed that it was trialling a predictive algorithm but it refused to disclose any information about it, citing sections 31(1)(a) and (b) (Law enforcement) of FOIA. During the Commissioner’s investigation it agreed to withdraw its application of section 31 to all but one part of the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that Humberside Police has not demonstrated that either section 31(1)(a) or (b) is engaged in respect of the remaining part of the request. He also finds that Humberside Police breached sections 10(1) and 17 of FOIA by failing to state why the exemption applied within the statutory time for compliance. The Commissioner requires Humberside Police issue a fresh response to parts (2) – (7) of the request, stating, for each part, whether recorded information is held, and if it is held, disclosing it.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 17; FOI 31
View Humberside Police
29 Nov 2022Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about certain staff guidance. Tate disclosed some relevant information and withheld some under section 22, section 41 and section 43 of FOIA which concern information intended for future publication, information provided in confidence and commercial interests respectively. The Commissioner’s decision is that Tate is entitled to withhold some of the information the complainant has requested under section 22(1) and section 41(1) of FOIA. Tate breached section 10(1) and section 17(1) of FOIA as it did not communicate information or issue a refusal within the required timescale of 20 working days. The Commissioner does not require Tate to take any corrective steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 17; FOI 22; FOI 41
View Tate
29 Nov 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 London Borough of Croydon
28 Nov 2022Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The Commissioner’s decision that South Wales Police is correct to rely on section 40(5) of FOIA to neither confirm nor deny it holds the requested information about an investigation as to do so would disclose the personal data of a third person. South Wales Police breached section 17(1) of FOIA as it did not issue its refusal within 20 working days of the request. First-tier tribunal (General Regulatory chamber) information rights appeal EA/2022/0409 PTA refused.
Exemptions cited: FOI 17; FOI 40
View South Wales Police
28 Nov 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested an electronic copy of Her Majesty’s Government’s submission to the Ousley review into the Justice and Security Act 2013. The MOJ cited initially section 22 of FOIA and refused to provide the requested information because it was intended for future publication. Following an internal review, the MOJ additionally cited section 36(2)(c) of FOIA (the exemption for prejudice to effective conduct of public affairs). The Commissioner’s decision is that the MOJ was correct to apply section 36(2)(c) of FOIA in this case at the time of the request. As he upheld the MOJ’s reliance on section 36, the Commissioner has not found it necessary to consider its citing of section 22 of FOIA. No steps are required as a result of this notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 36
View Ministry of Justice
28 Nov 2022Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) to disclose copies of correspondence regarding asbestos in the Walthamstow Town complex between 2015 and 2020. HSE confirmed it does not hold the requested information. The Commissioner’s decision is that on the balance of probabilities, HSE does not hold the requested information, in accordance with regulation 12(4)(a) of the EIR. However, the Commissioner has found HSE in breach of regulation 11 and 14 for failing to specify the exception it was relying on in its refusal notice to the complainant and carrying out its internal review within 40 working days of receipt. The Commissioner does not require any further action to be taken.
Exemptions cited: EIR 11; EIR 12(4)(a); EIR 14
View Health and Safety Executive
28 Nov 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested specified policy and procedural information relating to the Judicial Conduct Investigations Office (the ‘JCIO’), which falls under the remit of the Ministry of Justice (the ‘MOJ’). Ultimately, the MOJ said that it did 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 this notice. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2023/0027 struck out.Keywords: Judicial Office, section 3(2)
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Ministry of Justice
28 Nov 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested specified policy, procedural and complaints information relating to the Judicial Conduct Investigations Office (the ‘JCIO’), which falls under the remit of the Ministry of Justice (the ‘MOJ’). Ultimately, MOJ provided some of the requested information, some of it with redactions under section 40 (the exemption for personal information) and section 21 (information accessible to applicant by other means). As the complainant has not challenged or commented further on the disclosed information or the redactions, the Commissioner has not considered these aspects further. For parts 1b) and 4 of the request, the MOJ said that it did 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 for these parts of the request. No steps are required as a result of this notice. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2023/0029 struck out.Keywords: Judicial Office,
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Ministry of Justice
28 Nov 2022Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested ministerial correspondence with Steve Brine MP about particular companies and information associated with any meetings with Steve Brine MP about those same companies. The final position of the Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC) is to refuse the request under section 12(2) of FOIA, which concerns the cost of complying with section 1(1)(a).The Commissioner’s decision is as follows: DHSC is not entitled to rely on section 12(2) of FOIA to refuse the request but is entitled to rely on section 12(1). DHSC failed to comply adequately with its duty under section 16(1) of FOIA to provide advice and assistance to the complainant. The Commissioner requires DHSC to take the following step to ensure compliance with the legislation: DHSC should provide the complainant with reasonable assistance to see if the request can be refined so that it remains meaningful for the complainant but can be complied with within the appropriate limit.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12; FOI 16
View Department of Health and Social Care
28 Nov 2022Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information with regards to a Public Open Space (POS). Rutland County Council (the council) provided the complainant with some information but refused the remaining under regulation 12(4)(e) of the EIR – Internal Communications. The Commissioner’s decision is that regulation 5(3) of the EIR applies as the information is the complainant’s own personal data. This means that the council was not obliged to comply with the request. The Commissioner does not require the council to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 5(3)
View Rutland County Council
28 Nov 2022Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant made a request to the Judicial Conduct Investigations Office (the ‘JCIO’), which falls under the remit of the Ministry of Justice (the ‘MOJ’). He asked for a copy of the formal misconduct decision for a named judge. The MOJ refused to provide this, citing section 40(2) of FOIA, the exemption for personal information. During the course of the Commissioner’s investigation, the MOJ revised its position and advised the complainant that the requested information was not held for the reasons set out in this notice. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the MOJ does not hold the requested information. However, by failing to respond to the request within the statutory 20 working days’ time limit, the MOJ has breached section 10 of FOIA. No steps are required as a result of this notice.Keywords: Judicial Office, section 3(2)
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10
View Ministry of Justice
28 Nov 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested specified policy, procedural and complaints information relating to the Judicial Conduct Investigations Office (the ‘JCIO’), which falls under the remit of the Ministry of Justice (the ‘MOJ’). Ultimately, the MOJ said some of the information regarding FOIA procedures was held and had been provided to him in response to his previous request. As the complainant has not challenged or commented further on the disclosed information, the Commissioner has not considered this aspect any further. The MOJ also said that it did not hold any of the information requested by the complainant at part 1b) of his request. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the MOJ does not hold the requested information at part 1b) of the request. No steps are required as a result of this notice. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2023/0028 struck out.Keywords: Judicial Office, section 3(2)
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Ministry of Justice
28 Nov 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested copies of correspondents regarding a legal proceedings case. The Commissioner’s decision is that Crown Prosecution Service (‘the CPS’) was entitled to rely on section 40(1) to withhold the requested information. The Commissioner does not require any further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40(1)
View Crown Prosecution Service
28 Nov 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested Nuclear Decommissioning Authority (NDA) to confirm whether it is in the process of purchasing land adjoining or in the vicinity of the low level waste repository site at drigg Cumbria and, if so, to provide a map of that land. NDA refused to disclose this information citing regulation 12(5)(e) of the EIR. The Commissioner’s decision is that NDA is not entitled to refuse to disclose the withheld information under regulation 12(5)(e) of the EIR.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(e)
View Nuclear Decommissioning Authority
28 Nov 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from Northumberland County Council (“the Council”) about changes to Bellingham Middle School’s catchment area. The Council confirmed that it held the information requested. The complainant disputes whether this information was in scope of the request and therefore whether the response provided by the Council meets the requirements under section 1(1)(a) of FOIA (General right of access to information held by public authorities). The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council’s response complied with section 1(1)(a) of FOIA. The Commissioner does not require the Council to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1(1)(a)
View Northumberland County Council
28 Nov 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested a copy of a document titled “Broadcast Action for Migrant Incidents”. The above public authority (“the public authority”) relied on sections 31 (law enforcement) and 38 (health and safety) of FOIA to withhold the information. The Commissioner’s decision is that the public authority has failed to demonstrate that either exemption applies and is consequently not entitled to rely on either exemption. The public authority breached section 10 of FOIA as it failed to respond to the request within 20 working days. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: Disclose a copy of the document to the complainant. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2023/0044 withdrawn.Keywords: distress calls
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 31; FOI 38
View Maritime and Coastguard Agency
28 Nov 2022Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted seven requests for information related to Special Educational Needs and Disabilities (SEND) from Bristol City Council (‘the Council’). The Council refused all requests on the basis of section 14(1) (vexatious requests) as it considered that compliance would impose a disproportionate burden on its resources. During the course of the Commissioner’s investigation, the Council informed the Commissioner that in the event that he concluded that section 14(1) did not apply, it wished to rely on section 12(1) (cost of compliance exceeds appropriate limit) FOIA in respect of four of the requests and section 21 (information accessible to the applicant by other means) in respect of three. The Commissioner’s decision is that section 14(1) does not apply to any of the requests for information. The Commissioner has also determined that the Council was entitled to rely on section 12(1) in respect of the three cases it was able to aggregate, but that it does not apply to the
Exemptions cited: FOI 12(1); FOI 14(1); FOI 21
View Bristol City Council
28 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
28 Nov 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested details of meetings between the EHRC and third parties. The EHRC disclosed information with details redacted under section 41 (information provided in confidence). The Commissioner’s decision is that the withheld information engages section 41 and the public interest favours maintaining the confidence. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 41
View Equality and Human Rights Commission
28 Nov 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to the Insolvency Service seeking a breakdown of the defendants’ legal costs in a respect of disqualification proceedings brought against them by the Insolvency Service. The Insolvency Service withheld the information on the basis of sections 32(1)(a) and (b) (court records) and section 43(2) (commercial interests) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the withheld information is exempt from disclosure on the basis of section 32(1)(a) of FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 32
View The Insolvency Service
28 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 Swindon Borough Council
26 Nov 2022Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted five requests for information about service complaints, information requests and subject access requests that they had previously submitted to the public authority. With regard to the four requests the authority handled under FOIA, on the balance of probabilities the authority has disclosed all the relevant information it holds and complied with section 1(1) of FOIA. The remaining relevant information is already reasonably accessible to the complainant and therefore exempt under section 21(1) of FOIA. The authority’s response to one of the requests breached section 10(1) and section 17(1) as it was provided outside the required 20 working day timescale. First-tier tribunal (General Regulatory chamber) information rights appeal EA/2023/0055 under appeal.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10; FOI 17; FOI 21
View Information Commissioner
26 Nov 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, Transport for Greater Manchester does not hold the specific information the complainant has requested associated with its transport strategy and therefore regulation 12(4)(a) of the EIR is engaged.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(a)
View Mayor of Greater Manchester
26 Nov 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, Legal Services Agency Northern Ireland does not hold the requested communications and complied with section 1 of FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Legal Services Agency (Northern Ireland)
25 Nov 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested from Tonbridge and Malling Borough Council all internal correspondence relating to Planning Committee Three meeting held on the 19th November 2020. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, Tonbridge and Malling Borough Council does not hold any additional information apart from that already disclosed. The Commissioner does not requires the public authority to take any steps to ensure compliance with the legislation.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Tonbridge and Malling Borough Council
25 Nov 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information from Herefordshire Council (“the Council”) relating to a specific planning application.The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council is entitled to rely on regulation 13(1) (personal data) to refuse to provide the withheld information.The Commissioner does not require the Council to take any steps. Information Tribunal EA/2023/0002 FTT appeal allowed.
Exemptions cited: EIR 13(1)
View Herefordshire Council
25 Nov 2022Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from Leeds City Council (“the Council”) relating to staff sickness levels, exit interviews, complaints, disciplinary actions and settlement agreements. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council is entitled to rely on section 12(1) (cost limit) of the FOIA to refuse to provide the requested information.However, he finds that the Council failed to provide reasonable advice and assistance and therefore failed to meet its obligations under section 16(1) of the FOIA. The Commissioner requires the Council to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation.The Council must provide the complainant with advice and assistance to help them submit a request falling within the appropriate limit.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 Act and may
Exemptions cited: FOI 12; FOI 16
View Leeds City Council
25 Nov 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from the University of Bedfordshire (“the University”) about trigger warnings, content warnings and content notes issued to students of BA(Hons) Acting, BA (Hons) Performing Arts, BA (Hons) English Literature and BA (Hons) English Language and Literature courses.The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the University does not hold 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
View University of Bedfordshire
25 Nov 2022Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about enforcement action taken by South Lakeland District Council (‘the Council’) in respect of a breach of planning that he had reported. The Council refused the request on the grounds that the information was exempt from disclosure under sections 36 (Prejudice to effective conduct of public affairs), 40 (Personal information) and 41 (Information provided in confidence) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that some of the information was the complainant’s own personal data and was exempt from disclosure under section 40(1) of FOIA. The Council was entitled to rely on sections 36(2)(b)(i) and (ii) to refuse the remaining parts of the request. However, by failing to respond to the request within 20 working days, the Council breached sections 1, 10 and 17 of FOIA. The Commissioner requires no steps as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10; FOI 17; FOI 36; FOI 40
View South Holland District Council
25 Nov 2022Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information relating to the sale of a decommissioned hospital site. The Trust withheld information under section 43(2) (commercial interests) of FOIA. It also confirmed that it held no further information relevant to the request. The Commissioner’s decision is as follows:The Trust should have handled the request under the Environmental Information Regulations (‘the EIR’) and therefore breached regulation 14(3) as it incorrectly issued its refusal under FOIA and not the EIR. The withheld information engages regulation 12(5)(e) (commercial or industrial information) and the public interest favours maintaining the exception.On the balance of probabilities, the Trust holds no further information relevant to the request.The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(e); EIR 14(3)
View Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust
25 Nov 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information from the City and County of Swansea (“the Council”) relating to a specific planning application.The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council is entitled to rely on regulation 12(4)(e) (internal communications) to refuse to provide the withheld information.The Commissioner does not require the Council to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(e)
24 Nov 2022Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested copies of bond prospectuses and correspondence relating to Thurrock Council’s (‘the Council’) investments in the solar energy sector. The Council refused the requests, citing sections 41 (Information provided in confidence) and 43(2) (Commercial interests) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council was entitled to rely on section 43 of FOIA to refuse the request. However, the Council breached sections 1 and 10 of FOIA by failing to respond to the request within the 20 working day time for compliance. The Commissioner requires no steps as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10; FOI 43
View Thurrock Council
24 Nov 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about investments Thurrock Council (‘the Council’) has made in the renewable energy sector. The Council disclosed some information, but it refused to disclose the remainder, citing sections 36(2)(c) (Prejudice to effective conduct of public affairs), 41 (Information provided in confidence) and 43(2) (Commercial interests) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that sections 41 and 43(2) of FOIA are not engaged. Section 36(2)(c) is engaged, but the public interest favours disclosure. The Council breached sections 1 and 10 of FOIA by failing to respond to the request within the 20 working day time for compliance. The Commissioner requires the Council to disclose the information requested at parts (2A) – (2G) of the request.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10; FOI 36; FOI 41; FOI 43
View Thurrock Council
24 Nov 2022Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about borrowing that Thurrock Council (‘the Council’) has undertaken to finance its investments in the renewable energy sector. The Council disclosed some information, but it refused to disclose the remainder, citing sections 36(2)(c) (Prejudice to effective conduct of public affairs) and 43(2) (Commercial interests) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that Thurrock Council is entitled to rely on section 36(2)(c) of FOIA to withhold information on the interest rates it was charged by lenders. However, for the remaining information, he finds that while section 36(2)(c) is engaged, the public interest favours disclosure. He finds that section 43(2) of FOIA is not engaged. The Council breached sections 1 and 10 of FOIA by failing to respond to the request within the 20 working day time for compliance. The Commissioner requires the Council to disclose the information requested at parts (2), (2.1), (2.2), (2.4) (2.5) and (3) of this request.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10; FOI 36; FOI 43
View Thurrock Council
24 Nov 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested from Oldham Metropolitan Borough Council information relating to its decision to remove a plot of land from sale. The Council disclosed some information and withheld the remainder (being a ‘confidential briefing note’) under regulation 12(5)(b) of the EIR. The Council subsequently revised its position to withholding the information under regulations 12(4)(e), 12(5)(d), and 13. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council was entitled to withhold the requested information under regulation 12(5)(d). The Commissioner does not require the Council to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(d)
View Oldham Council
24 Nov 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested from the Department for Transport (DfT) the background analysis undertaken in terms of price elasticity that informed the announcements on rail fare increases on two specific dates. The DfT refused to provide the information citing section 41(1) FOIA – information provided in confidence. The Commissioner’s decision is that the DfT was correct in relying on section 41(1) FOIA. The Commissioner does not require the DfT to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 41(1)
View Department for Transport
24 Nov 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to payments made to a third party. The Home Office refused to confirm or deny whether the requested information was held, citing section 24(2) (national security), section 31(3) (law enforcement) and section 43(3) (commercial interests). The Commissioner’s decision is that the Home Office is entitled to rely upon section 24(2) to refuse to confirm or deny whether the requested information is held. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 24(2)
View Home Office
24 Nov 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information regarding the amount of compensation which would be awarded to an individual who had been discriminated due to their disability. The Commissioner’s decision is on the balance of probabilities, the Financial Ombudsman Service (the FOS) does not hold the requested information under Section 1(1)(a) FOIA. The Commissioner does not requires the FOS to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
24 Nov 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information relating to High Speed Two Limited’s (“HS2”) Phase One project. HS2 refused to provide the information and relied on regulation 12(4)(b) (manifestly unreasonable) of EIR as its basis for doing so. The Commissioner’s decision is that HS2 have failed to demonstrate that regulation 12 (4)(b) of EIR is engaged. He requires HS2 to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. Disclose the information or issue a fresh response that does not rely on section 12(4)(b) of EIR. The public authority must take these steps within 35 calendar days of the date of this decision notice. Failure to comply may result in the Commissioner making written certification of this fact to the High Court pursuant to section 54 of FOIA and may be dealt with as a contempt of court.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(b)
View High Speed Two (HS2) Limited
24 Nov 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 London Borough of Croydon
24 Nov 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 Health and Safety Executive