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 not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about third party companies. The Home Office refused to confirm or deny that it held the requested information, citing 24(2) (national security) and section 43(3) (commercial interests) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Home Office is entitled to rely upon section 24(2) in order to neither confirm or deny that it holds the requested information. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 24(2)
View Home Office
21 Nov 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested, from Ofsted, a list of inspections that involved a named Ofsted inspector. The Commissioner’s decision is that Ofsted was correct to rely on section 40 of FOIA (the exemption for personal information) to withhold the information. The Commissioner does not require any steps to be taken following this decision notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View Office for Standards in Education, Children's Services and Skills
21 Nov 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information from West Lancashire Borough Council (“the Council”) about a strategic flood risk assessment (SFRA) and a complaint relating to the SFRA. The Council’s response did not clearly state whether the information requested in each part of the request was held or whether it was withholding any information that was held. The Commissioner therefore asked the Council to carry out an internal review. The Council then issued a further response to the complainant, but this did not constitute an internal review. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has failed to carry out a reconsideration (internal review) of a response it provided under the EIR within 40 working days. It has therefore breached regulation 11 of the EIR.The Commissioner requires the Council to complete an internal review which confirms explicitly whether it holds information within scope of each part of the request and then either provide that information or issue a refusal notice tha
Exemptions cited: EIR 11
View West Lancashire Borough Council
21 Nov 2022Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the Environment Agency holds no information within scope of the complainant’s related requests about a physical file on Emscote Gardens and complied with regulation 5(1) of the EIR. The Environment Agency did not comply with regulation 5(2) as it did not provide a response to the requests within the required timescale.
Exemptions cited: EIR 5
View Environment Agency
21 Nov 2022Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from Chelsea and Westminster Hospital NHS Foundation Trust (the Trust) relating to the number of patients that have died, having tested positive for Covid-19, with a Do Not Resuscitate (DNR)/Do Not Attempt CPR (DNACPR) order on their record. The Trust refused to comply with some of the request, citing section 12 (cost limit) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Trust is entitled to rely on section 12(1) of the FOIA to refuse some of the complainant’s request. The Commissioner does not consider that it would be possible to refine the request meaningfully in order to bring the cost of compliance within the cost limit and is therefore satisfied that the Trust has not breached section 16(1) (duty to provide advice and assistance). However, he has recorded procedural breaches of section 1(1) (general right of access), section 10(1) (time for compliance), and section 17(1) (provision of a valid refusal notice) of FOIA. The Commissioner does n
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10; FOI 12; FOI 16; FOI 17
View Chelsea and Westminster Hospital NHS Foundation Trust
21 Nov 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested for a copy of the recent correspondence which The Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea (“the Council”) sent to the Department of Education (“DfE”) relating to Holland Park School (“the school”). The Council refused to disclose the information and relied on section 36 of FOIA (prejudice to the effective conduct of public affairs) as its basis for doing so. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council have correctly applied section 36(2)(b)(ii) of FOIA to withhold the information. He does not require the public authority to take any further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 36(2)(b)(ii)
View Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea
21 Nov 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested Islington Council (‘the Council’) to disclose information relating to the bin shed/lumber store on Finsbury estate EC1. The council disclosed some the information but refused to disclose the remainder citing section 43 of FOIA. During the Commissioner’s investigation further information was disclosed to the complainant and the Council changed its position to rely on section 40. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council is entitled to rely on section 40 of FOIA for the remaining withheld information. He therefore does not require any further action to be taken. Information Tribunal EA/2022/0449 FTT Appeal Allowed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View Islington Council
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 partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested Lewisham Homes (LH) to disclose all contracts, agreements and correspondence with Ace Security Services from 2017 onwards. LH disclosed some information but withheld the remainder under sections 40 and 43 of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that LH is entitled to withhold the remaining withheld information under section 43 of FOIA. LH breached section 10 of FOIA by failing to respond to the complainant’s request within 20 working days of receipt. The Commissioner does not require any further action to be taken. Information Tribunal EA/2022/0443 FTT appeal allowed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 43
21 Nov 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested, from the University of York (the University), information relating to student committee meetings and correspondence about a student committee member. The Commissioner’s decision is that the University was correct to withhold information within scope of points 1 and 6 of the request under section 40(2) of FOIA. The Commissioner does not require any steps to be taken as a result of this decision notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
21 Nov 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information about the kennelling of stray dogs. Wigan Metropolitan Borough Council (the “council”) withheld the information under the exemptions for information provided in confidence (section 41), legal professional privilege (section 42) and commercial interests (section 43(2)). The Commissioner’s decision is that the council correctly withheld the information under section 42(1) and section 43(2) of FOIA and that the public interest favours maintaining the exemptions. The Commissioner does not require the council to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 42(1); FOI 43(2)
View Wigan Council
21 Nov 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council (“the Council”) about communications between two named individuals at the Council, over a specified three month period, relating to complaints about a particular matter referenced within 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(1); FOI 10(1)
View Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council
21 Nov 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested from the University of Southampton (the University) information concerning special considerations requests relating to examinations during January 2022 that referenced COVID-19 or Coronavirus. The University said it can neither confirm nor deny whether it holds information within the scope of questions 1 and 2 of the request, as it considered that doing so would breach the data protection principles.The Commissioner’s decision is that the University was not entitled to neither confirm nor deny that it holds the information requested.The Commissioner requires the University to take the following steps:Issue a fresh response, which must confirm or deny whether the requested information is held and, if information is held, either disclose that information or issue a valid refusal notice compliant with section 17 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
Exemptions cited: FOI 40(5)(b)
View University of Southampton
21 Nov 2022Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested the terms of reference relating to the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency’s (DVLA) review of its requirement to return expiring/expired driving licences. The DVLA initially withheld the information under section 35(1)(a) of FOIA. During the Commissioner’s investigation the DVLA revised its position stating that the requested information is not held. The Commissioner’s decision is that the DVLA does not hold the requested information but has failed to comply with section 1 of FOIA. The Commissioner finds that the DVLA did comply with section 16. The Commissioner does not require the DVLA to take any steps. Information Tribunal EA/2022/0412 (Remitted) under appeal.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 16
View Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency
21 Nov 2022Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested lesson materials relating to the School’s PHSE and RSE teaching. The School refused to provide the requested information, citing section 43(2) (commercial interests) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is as follows: The School failed to comply with section 10(1) (time for compliance with request) as it failed to provide a valid refusal notice within 20 working days. The School also failed to comply with section 17(1) (refusal of request) as it failed to provide a valid refusal notice. The withheld information engages section 43(2) and that the public interest favours maintaining the exemption. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 17; FOI 43(2)
21 Nov 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information with regards to a specific planning application. Calderdale Council (the council) initially provided some information, but during the Commissioner’s investigation, it amended its position and advised the complainant that the actual information requested was not held. The Commissioner’s decision is that the requested information is not held and therefore exempt under regulation 12(4)(a) of the EIR. The Commissioner does not require any steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(a)
View Calderdale Council
18 Nov 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested from Shropshire Council data on vehicular frequency on a particular road and any laws and rules regulating such frequency. The Commissioner’s decision is that Shropshire Council has failed to adequately respond to the request within 20 working days and has therefore breached Regulations 5(1) and 5(2) of the EIR. The Commissioner requires the Council to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. Issue a substantive response, under the EIR, to the request. The Council must take these steps within 35 calendar days of the date of this decision notice. Failure to comply may result in the Commissioner making written certification of this fact to the High Court pursuant to section 54 of the Freedom of Information Act and may be dealt with as a contempt of court.
Exemptions cited: EIR 5(1); EIR 5(2)
View Shropshire Council
18 Nov 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested all the data the MHRA relied on to approve the Pfizer, AstraZeneca and Moderna COVID-19 vaccines. The MHRA refused to comply with the request under section 14(1) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the MHRA has correctly applied the exemption and refused the request on the basis of section 14(1) of the FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14
View Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency
18 Nov 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
Summary wording for website: The complainant made three requests for information regarding the professional qualifications of individuals who investigate and respond to complaints made to the GMC about doctors. The GMC refused to confirm or deny whether it holds information under section 40(5B)(a)(i) FOIA in relation to one request. It applied section 12 FOIA as it considers it would exceed the cost limit to comply with one request.In relation to one request it said that this request was not a valid request for recorded information under section 8 FOIA. The Commissioner considers that the GMC was correct to apply section 40(5B)(a)(i) and section 12 FOIA in this case. It was also correct that some of the requests was not valid under section 8 FOIA. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken. First-tier tribunal (General Regulatory chamber) information rights appeal EA/2023/0001 appeal dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12; FOI 40; FOI 8
View GMC
18 Nov 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The Commissioner’s decision is that that the Crown Estate holds no information relevant to the complainant’s request for a map of a particular area of the seabed and regulation 12(4)(a) of the EIR is engaged in that regard. The Commissioner does not require the Crown Estate to take any corrective steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(a)
View The Crown Estate
18 Nov 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from Lancashire County Council (“the Council”) relating to the implementation of wheelie bin stickers by the Council. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council 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.As a response to the request has been provided no steps are required.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Lancashire County Council
18 Nov 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested past examination papers and scoring for several BSc Computer Science courses at Goldsmiths, University of London over the last two years. The University refused the request under section 43 of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the public authority has demonstrated the exemption is engaged and the public interest favours maintaining the exemption and withholding the information.
Exemptions cited: FOI 43
18 Nov 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant made a multi-part request to the Department for International Trade (DfIT) for numbers of export licence applications between two named companies for specific goods. The DfIT provided answers to the first parts of the request but refused to provide the numbers for parts 7-10 of the request under both section 43 and 41 of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the public authority has failed to demonstrated either exemption is engaged and therefore is not entitled to rely on either exemption to withhold the information at parts 7 – 10 of the request. The Commissioner requires the DfIT to disclose to the complainant the information requested at parts 7-10 (inclusive) of the request.
Exemptions cited: FOI 43
View Department for International Trade
18 Nov 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested from Shropshire Council information on any rules and regulations in place in relation to the obstruction of roads and footpaths in Shrewsbury town centre and Shropshire. The Commissioner’s decision is that Shropshire Council has failed to adequately respond to the request within 20 working days and has therefore breached Regulations 5(1) and 5(2) of the EIR. The Commissioner requires the Council to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. Issue a substantive response, under the EIR, to the request. The Council must take these steps within 35 calendar days of the date of this decision notice. Failure to comply may result in the Commissioner making written certification of this fact to the High Court pursuant to section 54 of the Freedom of Information Act and may be dealt with as a contempt of court.
Exemptions cited: EIR 5(1); EIR 5(2)
View Shropshire Council
18 Nov 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested from Shropshire Council information on whether traders can obstruct town centre highways with their bins and also information on the existence of a communal bin store at a particular property. The Commissioner’s decision is that Shropshire Council has failed to adequately respond to the request within 20 working days and has therefore breached Regulations 5(1) and 5(2) of the EIR. The Commissioner requires the Council to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. Issue a substantive response, under the EIR, to the request. The Council must take these steps within 35 calendar days of the date of this decision notice. Failure to comply may result in the Commissioner making written certification of this fact to the High Court pursuant to section 54 of the Freedom of Information Act and may be dealt with as a contempt of court.
Exemptions cited: EIR 5(1); EIR 5(2)
View Shropshire Council
18 Nov 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested a copy of the original Legal Charge document (not a land registry copy) between the Council of the City and County of Swansea and the other party involved.The Commissioner’s decision is that on the balance of probabilities that Swansea Council (“SC”) holds no further recorded information relevant to the complainant’s request and has complied with section 1(1) of FOIA. The Commissioner does not require SC to take any further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Swansea Council
18 Nov 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested the DHSC’s record of processing activity (‘ROPA). The DHSC refused to comply with the request, citing section 14(1) (vexatious request) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the request is vexatious and the DHSC is entitled to rely upon section 14(1) to refuse it. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14(1)
View Department of Health and Social Care
18 Nov 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested the amount Charlotte Keel Medical Practice was paid per-patient in 2020 for carrying out their contracted services. The Integrated Care Board (ICB) refused the request under section 43(2) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the ICB has correctly applied the exemption and the public interest lies in withholding the information.
Exemptions cited: FOI 43
View NHS Bristol, North Somerset and South Gloucestershire ICB
18 Nov 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant made a request for information regarding cyclists and pedestrian safety. Transport for London (TfL) confirmed that it did not hold the requested information. The Commissioner considers that, on the balance of probabilities, TfL was correct to confirm that it does not hold the requested information under section 1(1)(a) FOIA. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken. First-tier tribunal (General Regulatory chamber) information rights appeal EA/2022/0417 struck out.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Transport for London
17 Nov 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information associated with a deceased persons driving licence processing. The DVLA confirmed it held the information but refused the request under section 41(1) and 31(1)(c) of FOIA.The Commissioner’s decision is that the DVLA was entitled to apply the exemption at section 41(1) of FOIA for withholding the information and the public interest favours maintaining this exemption. No steps are required as a result of this decision notice. First-tier Tribunal (General Regulatory Chamber) Information Rights appeal EA/2022/0448 appeal dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 41(1)
View Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency
17 Nov 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
Summary wording for website: The complainant requested information from Selby District Council (“the Council”) relating to information about the Council’s complaints procedure and a planning appeal. The Council disclosed some information to the complainant, however this was not disclosed within the 20 working day time limit as set out in section 10(1) of FOIA.The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has not complied with sections 1(1)(b) and 10(1) of FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10
17 Nov 2022Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The Commissioner’s decision is that DHSC does not hold any further information within scope of the complainant’s request for correspondence between Owen Paterson and Lord Bethell and Matt Hancock about Covid and Randox Laboratories Ltd. As such, DHSC complied with section 1(1) of FOIA but breached section 10(1) as it did not comply with section 1(1) within 20 working days.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10
View Department of Health and Social Care
17 Nov 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested, from HM Land Registry, the “selling price details” for two properties in 1989 and 1994. The Commissioner’s decision is that HM Land Registry was entitled to refuse the request under section 21 of FOIA (‘information accessible to applicant by other means’). The Commissioner does not require any steps to be taken following this decision notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 21
View HM Land Registry
17 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 Merseyside Police was entitled to apply section 12(2) of FOIA and is satisfied that Merseyside Police met its obligations under section 16(1) to offer advice and assistance. No steps are required.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12; FOI 16
View Merseyside Police
17 Nov 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested The Royal Mint (RM) to disclose the total number of one ounce gold, silver and platinum “Britannia's” minted since 2013 to 2021 year by year. RM refused to disclose the requested information under section 43 of FOIA (commercial interests). The Commissioner’s decision is that RM is not entitled to refuse to disclose the requested information in accordance with section 43 of FOIA. He therefore requires RM to disclose the requested information to the complainant. First-tier tribunal (General Regulatory chamber) information rights appeal EA/2022/0423 appeal allowed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 43
17 Nov 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information relating to the crossover between badger vaccination zones and badger culling zones. Natural England (‘NE’) refused to confirm or deny that it held the requested information, citing regulation 12(6), by virtue of regulation 12(5)(a) (public safety). The Commissioner’s decision is that NE is entitled to rely upon regulation 12(6) to neither confirm nor deny that it holds the requested information. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12
View Natural England
17 Nov 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from Oxfordshire Clinical Commissioning Group (the CCG), which is now Buckinghamshire, Oxfordshire & Berkshire West Integrated Care Board, about the implementation of a ‘Black Alert’ status by a specific GP practice. The CCG provided the complainant with some information, and stated that it did not hold the rest. The complainant believes that the CCG has not responded to all of their request.The Commissioner’s decision is that the CCG met its obligations under section 1 of FOIA, and therefore does not require it to take any further steps on this matter.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View NHS Buckinghamshire, Oxfordshire and Berkshire West ICB
17 Nov 2022Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has made two requests for information held by Redcar and Cleveland Borough Council (the council) about the legal status of a particular piece of land, and associated matters. The Commissioner is satisfied that the council does not hold information relevant to Request 1, and therefore regulation 12(4)(a) of the EIR is engaged. The Commissioner has also decided that regulation 12(4)(a) of the EIR can be applied to part of Request 2, as some of the requested information is not held. The Commissioner is also satisfied that, on the balance of probabilities, the council has provided all the information that it does hold that is relevant to Request 2. As the council failed to issue a refusal notice within 20 working days in respect of Request 1, and part of Request 2, within the required statutory time period, the Commissioner has found a breach of Regulation 14(2) of the EIR. The Commissioner has also found a breach of regulation 5(2) of the EIR in respect of Request 2, as th
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(a); EIR 14(2)(1); EIR 5(2)
View Redcar and Cleveland Council
17 Nov 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information about plans to develop reusable masks. By the date of this notice London Ambulance Service NHS Trust (“the Trust”) had not issued a substantive response to this request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Trust has breached section 10(1) of FOIA in that it failed to provide a valid response to the request within the statutory time frame of 20 working days. The Trust must provide a substantive response to the request in accordance with its obligations under FOIA. The Trust must take this step within 35 calendar days of the date of this decision notice. Failure to comply may result in the Commissioner making written certification 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 10
View London Ambulance Service NHS Trust
17 Nov 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to all agendas and minutes of Council meetings. By the date of this notice the Council had not issued a substantive response to this request. The Commissioner’s decision is that St Ive Parish Council (the Council) has breached section 10(1) of 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 the Council to take the following step to ensure compliance with the legislation. The Council must provide a substantive response to the request in accordance with its obligations under FOIA. The Council must take this step within 35 calendar days of the date of this decision notice. Failure to comply may result in the Commissioner making written certification 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 10
17 Nov 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested copies of Cabinet Office internal guidance used by the pension administrator, MyCSP, to calculate Civil Service Injury Benefit (CSIB). The Commissioner’s decision is that the Cabinet Office does not hold the requested information. The Commissioner does not require any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Cabinet Office
16 Nov 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information regarding Local Partnerships and whether a specific exemption applied to them. His Majesty’s Treasury (HMT) answered part of the request and cited section 42(1) of FOIA to withhold the remaining parts requested.The Commissioner’s decision is that HMT has correctly applied section 42(1) of FOIA and does not require the public authority to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 42(1)
View HM Treasury
16 Nov 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from the Department of Work and Pensions (DWP) about how the DWP use personal information and how they comply with their personal information charter.
The Commissioner’s decision is that the DWP 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.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Department for Work and Pensions
16 Nov 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested from the Department for Education (DfE) information relating to major incidents at the DfE. The DfE provided the complainant with some of the information requested but applied section 31(1)(a) (law enforcement) of FOIA to the withheld information. The Commissioner’s decision is that the DfE was entitled to rely on section 31(1)(a) to the withheld information. Also, the public interest in maintaining the exception outweighs the public interest in disclosure. The Commissioner does not require the DfE to take any steps as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: FOI 31(1)(a)
View Department for Education
16 Nov 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested from Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (“DLUHC”) information relating to a smoking room constructed in the Ministry. DLUHC stated it neither confirms nor denies whether it holds the information requested, and cited section 31(3) by virtue of section 31(1)(a) (prejudice to law enforcement) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is DLUHC is entitled to neither confirm nor deny whether it holds the information requested, and to rely on section 31(3) by virtue of section 31(1)(a) of FOIA. To do so would be likely to prejudice the prevention or detection of crime. The public interest favours maintaining this exemption. Therefore, the Commissioner does not require DLUHC to take any steps as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: FOI 31
View Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government
16 Nov 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information from Erewash Borough Council (the Council) relating to objections it had received against a planning application. The Council provided the information which it holds within the scope of the request, 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 which it holds in relation to the request. The Commissioner cannot consider the accuracy of the information provided. 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/2022/0428 struck out.
Exemptions cited: EIR 5(1)
View Erewash Borough Council
16 Nov 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about the UK’s deployment of Reaper drones. The above public authority relied on sections 26 (defence) and 27 (international relations) of FOIA to withhold the information. The Commissioner’s decision is that the public authority is entitled to rely on section 26 and that the balance of the public interest favours maintaining the exemption. The Commissioner does not require further steps.Keywords: small numbers
Exemptions cited: FOI 26
View Ministry of Defence
16 Nov 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, EHRC does not hold any further information within scope of the complainant’s request for information about legal assistance and EHRC’s strategic priorities and has complied with section 1(1) of FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Equality and Human Rights Commission
16 Nov 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to dismissed decisions. The Financial Ombudsman Service (‘FOS’) withheld the requested information, citing section 31(1)(c) (law enforcement) and section 40(2) (personal information) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the withheld information engages section 31(1)(c) and the public interest lies in maintaining the exemption. The Commissioner does not requires the public authority to take any steps. First-tier tribunal (General Regulatory chamber) information rights appeal EA/2022/0433 appeal Allowed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 31(1)(c)