24 Nov 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested estimated completion dates for specific projects. The above public authority (“the public authority”) disclosed some information and relied on regulation 12(4)(d) of the EIR (material in the course of completion) to withhold the remainder. The Commissioner’s decision is that regulation 12(4)(d) of the EIR is engaged but the balance of the public interest favours disclosure. The public authority breached regulation 5(2) 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 the withheld information to the complainant.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(d); EIR 5(2)
View High Speed Two (HS2) Limited
24 Nov 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from the Vehicle Certification Agency (“VCA”) regarding headlight installation and detection systems in vehicles. The VCA stated that it did not hold the requested information, however it provided the complainant with some background information which it did hold.The Commissioner’s decision is that the VCA has complied with section 1 of FOIA and, on the balance of probabilities, does not hold the requested information.Therefore the Commissioner requires no steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Vehicle Certification Agency
24 Nov 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested, from The National Archives (TNA), access to information relating to the murder (committed in the 1940s) of a relative of the complainant. Although some information was made available by TNA, other information was withheld under section 38(1)(a) of FOIA (the exemption for ‘health and safety’). The Commissioner’s decision is that TNA was entitled to rely on section 38(1)(a). The Commissioner does not require any steps to be taken following this decision notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 38
View The National Archives
24 Nov 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant made a request for information relating to fitness to practise complaints about two named radiographers. HCPC refused to disclose the information requested in relation to one of the radiographers under section 40(2) FOIA and refused to confirm or deny whether the information is held regarding one of the radiographers under section 40(5B)(a)(i) of FOIA. The Commissioner considers that HCPC was correct to refuse to disclose the information requested about one of the named radiographers under section 40(2) FOIA and was also correct to effuse to confirm or deny whether the requested information is held regarding one of the named radiographers under section 40(5B)(a)(i) of FOIA. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View Health and Care Professions Council
24 Nov 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested numerical ratings for Bedfordshire Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust and Milton Keynes University Hospital NHS Foundation Trust at the stage it is held by NHS Bedfordshire, Luton and Milton Keynes Integrated Care Board (the ICB) Board. The ICB refused to provide the requested information as it said it was still in discussions with NHS England before taking the core standards to the ICB Board. The Commissioner considers that as at the time of the request, as the required information had not been taken to the ICB Board it wasn’t yet at the stage of being held by the ICB Board. Whilst it would therefore appear that numerical ratings are held by the ICB and under discussion with NHS England, they have not yet been provided to the ICB Board. On this basis the information the complainant requires was not held by the ICB at the time of the request under section 1(1)(a) FOIA. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View NHS Bedfordshire, Luton and Milton Keynes ICB
24 Nov 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant made a request for information regarding what action if any has been taken in response to the alleged breaking of BBC impartiality rules on social media by Gary Lineker. The BBC refused to confirm or deny whether it holds the requested information under section 40(5B)(a)(i) FOIA. The Commissioner considers that the BBC 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 BBC
24 Nov 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information about wastewater and sewage spills. The above public authority relied on regulation 12(4)(e) – internal communications – and regulation 12(5)(d) of the EIR – confidentiality of proceedings – to withhold the information. The Commissioner’s decision is that none of the information falling within scope engages regulation 12(5)(d) and a small portion does not engage regulation 12(4)(e) either. The remainder does engage regulation 12(4)(e), but the balance of the public interest favours disclosure. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: Disclose, to the complainant, the information identified in Confidential Annex A. Appropriate redactions may be made to protect personal data. Information Tribunal EA/2022/0453 appeal consent order.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12; EIR 12(4)(e); EIR 12(5)(d)
View Southern Water
24 Nov 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about migrant vessel incidents. The above public authority refused the request as vexatious. The Commissioner’s decision is that the public authority has not demonstrated that the request is vexatious and consequently is not entitled to rely on this exemption. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. Issue a fresh response to the request that does not rely on section 14(1) of FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14
View Maritime and Coastguard Agency
24 Nov 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to in relation to 60+ London Oyster photocard holders. Transport for London (TfL) responded to all parts of the request. The complainant remained dissatisfied with the information provided in relation to part h of the request. TfL applied section 12 FOIA as it said it would exceed the cost limit to comply with part h of the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that section 12 FOIA was correctly applied to part h of the request. TfL breached section 16 FOIA in its handling of this request. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12
View Transport for London
24 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 HM Treasury
23 Nov 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information from Wealden District Council (‘the council’) relating to the location of badger setts and planning documents relating to this. The council refused the request under Regulation 12(4)(b) (manifestly unreasonable request).The Commissioner’s decision is that the council was correct to apply Regulation 12(4)(b). The Commissioner does not require the council to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(b)
View Wealden District Council
23 Nov 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information from Kent County Council (‘the council’) relating to the location of badger setts and planning documents relating to this. The council refused the request under Regulation 12(4)(b) (manifestly unreasonable request). The Commissioner’s decision is that the council was correct to apply Regulation 12(4)(b). The Commissioner does not require the council to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(b)
View Kent County Council
23 Nov 2022Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information held by North Northamptonshire Council (the council) about a complaint they have made regarding alleged anti-social behaviour. The complainant also asked for the number of abatement notices issued by the council within the last five years that concerned dog related noise nuisance. During the course of the Commissioner’s investigation, the council provided the complainant with the information that they had requested about abatement notices. Given that this information was not provided within 20 working days, the Commissioner has found a breach of regulation 5(2) of the EIR. With regard to the remaining part of the request, it is the Commissioner’s decision that the council should have refused to confirm or deny whether it held such information under regulation 13(5)(a) of the EIR, and section 40(5B)(a)(i) of FOIA. The Commissioner does not require the council to take any steps as a result of this decision notice.
Exemptions cited: EIR 13(5a); EIR 5(2); FOI 40(5)(b)(a)(i)
View North Northamptonshire Council
23 Nov 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to the Ministry of Defence (MOD) seeking specific information about the bombing of McGurk’s bar in Belfast in 1971. The MOD explained that it could not locate any information falling within the scope of the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that on the balance of probabilities the MOD does not hold any information falling within the scope of the request.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Ministry of Defence
23 Nov 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to the cost of Covid-19 vaccines. The Department for Business, Energy & Industrial Strategy (‘BEIS”) refused to release information in scope of the request and cited section 43(2) of FOIA to withhold the information.The Commissioner’s decision is that the withheld information engages section 43(2) of FOIA and the public interest favours maintaining the exemption. No steps are required as a result of this decision notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 43(2)
View Department for Business and Trade
23 Nov 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to the Department for Digital, Culture, Media & Sport (DCMS) seeking copies of the minutes, agendas and briefing materials for meetings of the Public Service Broadcasting Advisory Panel. DCMS confirmed that it held the requested information but considered it to be exempt from disclosure on the basis of section 35(1)(a) (formulation or development of government policy) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the withheld information is exempt from disclosure on the basis of section 35(1)(a) and that in all the circumstances of the case the public interest favours withholding the information.
Exemptions cited: FOI 35
View Department for Culture, Media and Sport
23 Nov 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information about business rates. East Suffolk Council (the “council”) refused the request citing the exemptions for personal data (section 40) and information provided in confidence (section 41). During the Commissioner’s investigation the council confirmed that it was also relying on the exemption for law enforcement to withhold the information (section 31(1)(a)). The Commissioner’s decision is that the council correctly withheld the information under section 31(1)(a) of the FOIA and that the public interest favours maintaining the exemption. The Commissioner does not require the council to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 31(1)(a)
View East Suffolk Council
23 Nov 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from Kent County Council (the “council”) relating to changes to special educational needs and disabilities (SEND) home to school transport provision. The council disclosed some information and withheld other information under the exemptions for information intended for future publication (section 22) and prejudice to the effective conduct of public affairs (section 36). The council subsequently dropped its reliance on exemptions and disclosed the withheld information. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council breached section 10(1) of FOIA by failing to comply with section 1(1) within the statutory time frame of 20 working days. No steps are required.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10(1)
View Kent County Council
23 Nov 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant made a request to the Metropolitan Police Service (the “MPS”), for information held in its Counter Terrorism Internet Referral Unit (CTIRU) dedicated database. The MPS refused to provide the requested information, relying on sections 24(1) (National security), 30(1)(a) (Investigations and proceedings) and 31(1)(a) (Law enforcement) of FOIA. It also refused to confirm or deny holding any further information by virtue of section 23(5) (Information supplied by, or relating to, bodies dealing with security matters) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that section 31 of FOIA is properly engaged and the public interest favours maintaining the exemption. He also finds that the MPS was entitled to rely on section 23(5) of FOIA. No steps are required.Keywords: CTIRU
Exemptions cited: FOI 23; FOI 31
View Metropolitan Police Service
23 Nov 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested ‘Prevent’ data from the Metropolitan Police Service (the “MPS”). The MPS refused to provide the requested information, citing sections 24(1) (National security) and 31(1)(a) and (b) (Law enforcement) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the MPS was entitled to rely on section 24(1). No steps are required.Keywords: PREVENT
Exemptions cited: FOI 24
View Metropolitan Police Service
23 Nov 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to the Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office (FCDO) containing five questions about rendition to Libya. The FCDO refused to confirm or deny whether it held any information falling within the scope of questions 1 to 4 on the basis of sections 23(5) (security bodies), 24(2) (national security), 27(4) (international relations) and 40(5) (personal data) of FOIA. It refused to comply with question 5 on the basis of section 14(1) (vexatious). The Commissioner’s decision is that the FCDO can refuse to confirm or deny whether it holds any information falling within the scope of questions 1 to 4 on the basis of sections 23(5) and 24(2) of FOIA and that it can refuse to comply with request 5 on the basis of section 14(1) of FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14; FOI 23; FOI 24
View Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office
23 Nov 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information relating to the location of badger setts and planning documents relating to this. The council refused the request under Regulation 12(4)(b) (manifestly unreasonable request). The Commissioner’s decision is that the council was correct to apply Regulation 12(4)(b). The Commissioner does not require the council to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(b)
View Rother District Council
23 Nov 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 Thames Valley Police (TVP) was entitled to apply section 12(2) of FOIA and he is satisfied that TVP met its obligations under section 16(1) to offer advice and assistance. No steps are required.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12(1); FOI 16(1)
View Thames Valley Police
23 Nov 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested from Flintshire County Council (“FCC”) specific information in respect of council tax. FCC provided the information it held. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, FCC 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
View Flintshire County Council
23 Nov 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council (“the Council”) for copies of communications with the leader of the Council about statements made to the media in connection with a particular email referred to in the request.The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council failed to provide an adequate response to the request. Consequently the Commissioner finds that the Council breached section 1(1) and section 10(1) of FOIA.The Commissioner requires the Council to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation.The Council must issue a fresh response to the request which is adequate for the purposes of FOIA. 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 FOIA and may be dealt with as a contempt of court.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10
View Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council
22 Nov 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information as to how many FCA employees had outside paid employment in 2019/2020/2021. The FCA refused to comply with the request under section 12 FOIA as it considered it would exceed the cost limit to do so. The Commissioner considers that the FCA was correct to apply section section 12 FOIA in this case.The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12
View Financial Conduct Authority
22 Nov 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested a range of geographic information system (GIS) information. Norwich City Council (the “council”) refused to provide the information citing the exceptions for commercial confidentiality (regulation 12(5)(e)) and intellectual property (regulation 12(5)(c). The Commissioner’s decision is that the council was entitled to rely on regulation 12(5)(e) to refuse the request. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(e)
View Norwich City Council
22 Nov 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from the University of Manchester (“the University”) about trigger warnings, content warnings and content notes issued to students for certain modules of its English Literature degree course.The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the University does not hold 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 The University of Manchester
22 Nov 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information with regards to a housing development. The Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (the Department) provided some information, redacting some information under regulation 12(3) of the EIR – personal data, and refused the remaining under regulation 12(4)(e) of the EIR – Internal Communications. The complainant has disputed the application of regulation 12(4)(e) of the EIR. The Commissioner’s decision is that regulation 12(4)(e) of the EIR is engaged but finds the public interest test favours disclosure of the withheld information. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. Provide the complainant with the information withheld under regulation 12(4)(e) of the EIR making any appropriate personal data redactions.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
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(e)
View Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government
22 Nov 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested King Edward VI Academy Trust (the trust) to disclose its contract with GL Assessment. The trust disclosed some information but withheld the remainder citing section 43 of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the trust has failed to demonstrate that section 43 of FOIA applies to the remaining withheld information. He therefore requires the trust to disclose the remaining withheld information to the complainant.
Exemptions cited: FOI 43
22 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 Devon County Council
22 Nov 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about a named third party. The Commissioner’s decision is that Royal Borough of Greenwich was entitled to withhold the requested information under section 40(2) of FOIA as it is personal data of a third party and its disclosure would be unlawful.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View Royal Borough of Greenwich
22 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 Hertsmere Borough Council
22 Nov 2022Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant asked a series of questions about the Soho Rd BID and planters placed in the area. The West Midlands Combined Authority (the “WMCA”) failed to answer the request until they responded to a request for internal review.The Commissioner’s decision is that, on a balance of probabilities, the WMCA does not hold any further information in scope of the request. However, they failed to provide a response to the request for information until their internal review which was outside the designated time frame and therefore breached section 10 and section 17 of FOIA. No steps are required as a result of this decision notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10; FOI 17
View West Midlands Combined Authority
22 Nov 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information about a death. This was followed by a “meta-request” for information generated by the first request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the above public authority failed to respond to either request within 20 working days and has therefore breached section 10 of FOIA. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: Issue a substantive response, under the FOIA, to both requests.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Essex Police
22 Nov 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from the Isle of Wight Council relating to the implementation of the Local Government Pension Scheme Regulations 2020. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Isle of Wight Council did not provide a valid refusal notice within the statutory timeframe, and has therefore breached section 17 of the FOIA. No steps are required.
Exemptions cited: FOI 17
View Isle of Wight Council
22 Nov 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant made a request for information. The Commissioner’s decision is that the above public authority failed to respond to the request within 20 working days and has therefore breached section 10 of FOIA. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. Issue a substantive response, under the FOIA, to the request it dealt with under reference 2918636.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Lancashire County Council
22 Nov 2022Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted an information request to Dyfed Powys Police relating to the number and type of homicide offences within a 12-month period. The Commissioner’s decision is that Dyfed Powys Police correctly applied section 30(1)(a) to the request. However in failing to respond to the request within the statutory timescale, the Commissioner has determined that Dyfed Powys Police breached section 10(1) of FOIA. The Commissioner does not require any further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10(1); FOI 30
View Dyfed-Powys Police
22 Nov 2022Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested legal advice relating to Temporary Event Notices (TENs). Warwick District Council (the “council”) withheld the information under the exemption for legal professional privilege (section 42 of the FOIA). During the Commissioner’s investigation the council reconsidered the request under the EIR and withheld the information under the exception for the course of justice (regulation 12(5)(b)). The Commissioner’s decision is that the council correctly withheld the information under regulation 12(5)(b) but that in initially handling the request under the FOIA it breached regulation 14(3) by failing to issue a valid EIR refusal notice. The Commissioner does not require the council to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(b); EIR 14(3)
View Warwick District Council
22 Nov 2022Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested from the Department for Education (DfE) additional information to that already disclosed on the existing Excel spreadsheet (by school) of the results of the Condition Improvement Fund (CIF). The DfE refused the request, under sections 43(2), 36(2)(c), and section 22 FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the withheld information engages sections 22 and 36(2)(c) FOIA and that the public interest favours maintaining the exemptions. However, the DfE breached section 10(1) FOIA by not responding to the complainant within the statutory timeframe. The Commissioner does not require the DfE to take any further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 22; FOI 36(2)(c)
View Department for Education
22 Nov 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested, from South Yorkshire Police (“SYP”) information about Hillsborough claims. SYP initially withheld this information citing the exemptions at sections 36(2)(b)(i)(ii) & (c) (Prejudice to effective conduct of public affairs), 38(1) (Health and safety), 40(2) (Personal information), 41 (Information provided in confidence), 42(1) (Legal professional privilege), 43(2) (Commercial interests) and 44(1)(a) (Prohibitions of disclosure) of FOIA. During the Commissioner’s investigation SYP revised its position. It disclosed some information, said some was not held and refused the remainder citing sections 38(1) (Health and Safety) and 40(2) (Personal information) of FOIA; at a very late stage it subsequently reintroduced reliance on section 42(1) of FOIA. The complainant has agreed to a reduced scope.The Commissioner has considered the reduced request and finds that none of the exemptions cited are engaged. He requires SYP to disclose the information described in
Exemptions cited: FOI 38; FOI 40; FOI 42
View South Yorkshire Police
22 Nov 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
English summaryThe complainant requested various information in respect of a particular planning application within the boundaries Denbighshire County Council (‘the Council’). The Council provided some information, however the complainant considers it has not identified all information falling within the scope of their request. 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.Welsh SummaryGofynnodd yr achwynydd am wybodaeth amrywiol mewn perthynas â chais cynllunio penodol o fewn ffiniau Cyngor Sir Ddinbych ('y Cyngor'). Fe roddodd y Cyngor rywfaint o wybodaeth, ond mae'r achwynydd o'r farn nad yw’r Cyngor wedi adnabod yr holl wybodaeth sy'n dod o fewn rhychwant y cais. Penderfyniad y Comisiynydd, yn ôl pwysau tebygolrwydd, yw nad yw'r Cyngor yn cadw unrhyw wybodaeth ychwanegol sy'n dod o fewn rhychwant y cais. Nid yw
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(a)
View Denbighshire County Council
22 Nov 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested from the Metropolitan Police Services (the MPS) information relating to police officers and misuse of social media. The MPS disclosed some of the information but refused further information to the request by virtue of section 40(2)(3A)(a) (personal information) and subsequently also relied on section 30(1)(a)(i) (Investigations and proceedings) of FOIA.The Commissioner’s decision is that the MPS was entitled to withhold the information requested under section 40(2) of FOIA. Therefore, the Commissioner does not require the MPS to take any steps as a result of this decision. First-tier tribunal (General Regulatory chamber) information rights appeal EA/2022/0434 appeal allowed in part.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40(2)
View Metropolitan Police Service
22 Nov 2022Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested papers considered at three meetings of the New Hospital Committee. The above public authority disclosed some information but eventually relied on regulations 12(5)(b) – course of justice - 12(5)(e) – commercial confidentiality – and 13 of the EIR – personal data – in order to withhold the information. The Commissioner’s decision is that the public authority has correctly relied on all three exceptions to withhold information. As the public authority failed to deal with the request, under EIR, within 20 working days, it breached regulation 14 of the EIR. The Commissioner does not require further steps. First-tier tribunal (General Regulatory chamber) information rights appeal EA/2022/0384 appeal dismissed.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(b); EIR 12(5)(e); EIR 13; EIR 14
View Liverpool University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust
22 Nov 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information about a complaint made to the public authority regarding a particular property. The Commissioner’s decision is that London Borough of Barnet was entitled to rely on Regulation 12(5)(b) to withhold the requested information.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(b)
View Barnet Council
22 Nov 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information the National Archives about a police investigation into the circumstances surrounding a death of an individual. The Commissioner’s decision is that the National Archives 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. No steps are required. As a response has been issued, the Commissioner does not require the National Archives to take any further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View The National Archives
21 Nov 2022Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information from the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (DLUHC) about a grant given to the Carbis Bay Hotel (the Hotel), Cornwall, in 2014 by the Coastal Communities Fund. DLUHC provided some information within the scope of the request but refused to provide the remaining information. It cited the exceptions under regulation 12(5)(e) of the EIR (the confidentiality of commercial information exception) and regulation 13 of the EIR (the personal data exception). There was also a dispute between the amount of information located by DLUHC and the amount of information that the complainant believed should be held by it.The Commissioner’s decision is that DLUHC has correctly applied regulation 12(5)(e) to some, but not all, of the information withheld on this basis; DLUHC has correctly applied regulation 13 to the information withheld on this basis; on the balance of probabilities, no further information falling within the scope of the request is h
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(e); EIR 13; EIR 5(1)
View Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government
21 Nov 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to plaintiffs who are public officials in the six libel actions. The Northern Ireland Courts and Tribunals Service (NICTS) confirmed that it did not hold the information requested. The Commissioner’s decision is that on the balance of probabilities, NICTS does not hold the information. He does not require NICTS to take any action.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Northern Ireland Courts and Tribunals Service
21 Nov 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from the University of Kent (“the University”) about trigger warnings, content warnings and content notes given to students in a number of course modules. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the University 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
21 Nov 2022Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant’s request was made to Hampshire, Southampton and Isle of Wight CCG. The CCG is now part of Hampshire and Isle of Wight Integrated Care System (the public authority). The complainant requested all relevant documentation, evidence and factual information used by the public authority in correspondence with them over a complaint they made about the care they received from South Coast Fatigue (SCF). The public authority went through the complainant’s multi part request and provided its response under FOIA to each. The complainant is not happy with the information provided and does not consider the public authority has fully complied with its obligations under FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that on the balance of probabilities the public authority has provided all the recorded information it holds and has therefore now met its obligations under FOIA. It is noted that the public authority provided additional information to the complainant during the Commissioner’s invest
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10
View NHS Hampshire and Isle of Wight ICB