16 Nov 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information with regards to a specific stretch of road. Cumbria County Council (the council) provided some information, but the Commissioner has found that the council has not fully searched all of its records and so on the balance of probabilities finds that further information may be held. The Commissioner’s decision is that regulation 12(4)(a) of the EIR is not engaged. The Commissioner requires the council to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. Conduct a further search of its records and issue a fresh response to the complainant which confirms or denies whether further information is held. If held, that information should either be disclosed to the complainant or an adequate refusal notice should be provided. 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 sec
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(a)
View Cumbria County Council
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 upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested details of infants who died of pertussis in 2012. The above public authority relied on section 41 (breach of confidence) and 40(2) of FOIA (third party personal data) to withhold the information. The Commissioner’s decision is that the public authority has not demonstrated that either exemption is engaged and consequently is not entitled to rely on these exemptions. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. Disclose the requested information to the complainant.Keywords: small numbers
Exemptions cited: FOI 40; FOI 41
View UK Health Security Agency
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)
16 Nov 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about a “cash for honours” media statement from the Metropolitan Police Service (the “MPS”). The MPS refused to provide the requested information citing sections 31(1)(a)(b) (Law enforcement), 40(2) (Personal information) and 42(1) (Legal professional privilege) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that section 31 of FOIA is properly engaged and the public interest favours maintaining the exemption; he has therefore not found it necessary to consider the other exemptions cited. No steps are required.
Exemptions cited: FOI 31
View Metropolitan Police Service
16 Nov 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to a street works permit scheme. Oxfordshire County Council (the “council”) disclosed some information and confirmed that further information was not held. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the council has disclosed all the requested information that it holds and that it complied with section 1 of the FOIA. The Commissioner does not require the council to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1(1)
View Oxfordshire County Council
15 Nov 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about clinical advisors, a case worker, a practice, and the numbers of complaints during a particular timeframe from the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman (PHSO). Some information was provided but the remainder of the request was refused under sections 44, 40(2) and 40(1) FOIA. Some information was ‘not held’. The Commissioner’s decision is that the PHSO was correct in citing sections 40(2) and 44(1)(a) FOIA with regard to the requested information. The Commissioner does not require the PHSO to take any further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40(2); FOI 44(1)(a)
View The Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman
15 Nov 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (FCDO) about Lord Barker of Battle. At the date of this notice, FCDO has not provided a response to the request. The Commissioner’s decision is as follows: FCDO has breached section 10(1) of FOIA as it has not provided a valid response to the request within the statutory timeframe of 20 working days. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following step to ensure compliance with the legislation: Provide a response to the complainant’s request of 11 April 2022 that complies with FOIA. FCDO 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 the Act and may be dealt with as a contempt of court.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office
15 Nov 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from the governing body of Solent University Southampton (“the University”) about trigger warnings, content warnings and content notes issued to students of BA (Hons) English and Creative Writing and BA (Hons) Acting and Performance 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 Southampton
15 Nov 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested copies of communications to and from the Duke and Duchess of Sussex and/or their representatives in relation to Frogmore cottage and/or any other property and/or land holding owned and/or managed by the Crown Estate. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the Crown Estate does not hold any information within the scope of the request and has therefore complied with section 1(1) of FOIA. The Commissioner does not require the Crown Estate to take any further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View The Crown Estate
15 Nov 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information regarding whistleblowing concerns. The above public authority (“the CAA”) relied on section 31(1)(g) of FOIA to withhold the requested information.The Commissioner’s decision is that the CAA has correctly applied section 31(1)(g) of FOIA to the information it is withholding as disclosure would be likely to prejudice the exercise of its functions under sections 31(2)(a), (b), (c), (f) and (g). The public interest favours maintaining this exemption. No steps are required as a result of this decision notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 31(1)
View Civil Aviation Authority
15 Nov 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested specified information relating to bullying and intimidation allegations. Stretham Parish Council (the ‘Parish Council’) responded and said that the requested information would not be provided as it was of a confidential and sensitive nature and disclosure would prejudice the criminal investigation, but cited no FOIA exemptions in order to withhold this information. The Commissioner asked the Parish Council to respond formally in accordance with the requirements of FOIA and to do so in the form of an internal review. Ultimately, one individual provided a single screen shot. From the available evidence, the Parish Council has not responded further to the request in any way. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Parish Council has not responded appropriately to either part of the request and has thereby breached sections 1 and 17 of FOIA for the reasons set out in this notice. The Commissioner requires the Parish Council authority to issue a fresh response to p
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 17
15 Nov 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested the ICO to disclose information relating to a personal data breach incident which was reported to the ICO by Transform Hospital Group Ltd on 17 December 2020. The ICO refused to disclose the requested information citing section 44 of FOIA. At internal review the ICO also applied section 31(1)(g). The Commissioner’s decision is that the ICO is entitled to refuse to disclose the requested information in accordance with section 44 of FOIA. He therefore does not require any further action to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 44
View Information Commissioner
15 Nov 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested a copy of a report produced by the Joint Intelligence Committee. The above public authority (“the public authority”) relied on section 23 of FOIA (security bodies) to withhold the requested information. The Commissioner’s decision is that the public authority has correctly applied section 23 of FOIA. The Commissioner does not require further steps.Keywords: intelligence
Exemptions cited: FOI 23
View Cabinet Office
15 Nov 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested planning information from Mansfield District Council. Mansfield DC denied that the requested information was held. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Mansfield DC does not hold the requested information. The Commissioner does not require the Mansfield DC to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(a)
View Mansfield District Council
15 Nov 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested the cost of a specific procurement exercise. The BBC withheld the information under section 43(2) of FOIA, which concerns commercial interests. The Commissioner has decided that the BBC is entitled to withhold the requested information under section 43(2) of FOIA and that the public interest favours maintaining the exemption. The Commissioner does not require the BBC to take any corrective steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 43
View BBC
15 Nov 2022Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information relating to badger culling. The above public authority said that it had provided all the information it held. The Commissioner’s decision is that the public authority has now provided all the information it holds. However as it failed to provide all the information within 20 working days, it breached Regulation 5(2) of the EIR. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 5(1); EIR 5(2)
View Natural England
15 Nov 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from the University of Coventry (“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
View Coventry University
15 Nov 2022Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about the process for signing off a piece of guidance on care homes. The above public authority relied on section 36 of FOIA (prejudice to the effective conduct of public affairs) in order to withhold the information. The Commissioner’s decision is that DHSC has correctly applied section 36 of FOIA and that the balance of the public interest favours maintaining the exemption. However, DHSC failed to confirm that it held information or issue its refusal notice within 20 working days. It therefore breached sections 10 and 17 of FOIA. The Commissioner does not require further steps.Keywords: covid-19, pandemic, clarity of messaging
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 17; FOI 36
View Department of Health and Social Care
15 Nov 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested, from Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council (the Council), information relating to some litigation that involved the complainant themselves and a Council employee. The complainant believes that the Council unlawfully funded the litigation. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council is entitled to rely on section 42 (the ‘legal professional privilege’ exemption) to withhold the information within scope of the request. The Commissioner does not require any steps to be taken following this decision notice. First-tier tribunal (General Regulatory chamber) information rights appeal EA/2022/0421 appeal Withdrawn.
Exemptions cited: FOI 42
View Sandwell Council
14 Nov 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested London Borough of Sutton (the council) to disclose a safeguarding report. The council refused to disclose the requested information citing section 41 of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council is entitled to rely on section 41 of FOIA. He therefore does not require any further action to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 41
View London Borough of Sutton
14 Nov 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from Carterton Town Council (the council) about information held in regard to the use of the pavilion on Carterton Recreation Ground, as well as documentation relating to any such infestation at the pavilion of Carterton Recreation Ground.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. No steps are required.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
14 Nov 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested from the Department for Education (DfE) the amounts awarded to each of the schools under the Selective Schools Expansion Fund (SSEF). The DfE provided some information at the review stage whilst withholding information regarding uncompleted projects under sections 22 and 43(2) FOIA. After the Commissioner began his investigation the DfE accepted that the request should have been considered under the EIR and cited regulation 12(5)(e) (confidentiality of commercial and industrial information) as its reason for withholding the remaining requested information. The Commissioner’s decision is that the DfE has cited regulation 12(5)(e) of the EIR correctly. However, it has breached regulations 5(2) and 11(4) of the EIR. The Commissioner does not require the DfE to take any further steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(e)
View Department for Education
14 Nov 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested all Internal Process Reviews (IPRs) conducted by the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) between 1 September 2020 and 28 April 2022. DWP confirmed that it was relying on section 14(1), vexatious requests, to refuse to comply with the request as it would place a gross oppressive burden on the public authority. The Commissioner’s decision is that DWP is entitled to rely on section 14(1) to refuse to comply with this request. The Commissioner does not require DWP to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14
View Department for Work and Pensions
14 Nov 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to the Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office (FCDO) information about the attack on the Dusit D2 complex that happened in January 2019 in Nairobi, Kenya. The FCDO refused to confirm or deny whether it held any information on the basis of sections 24(2) (national security) and 27(4) (international relations) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the FCDO is entitled to refuse to confirm or deny whether it holds any information falling within the scope of the request on the basis of section 27(4) of FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 27
View Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office
14 Nov 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to a COVID-19 policy. The UK Health Security Agency (UKHSA) refused to provide the requested information, citing sections 36(2)(b)(i), 36(2)(b)(ii) and 36(2)(c) (prejudice to the effective conduct of public affairs) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that section 36(2)(b)(i) and (ii) are engaged and the public interest favours maintaining the exemption. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 36(2)(b)(i); FOI 36(2)(b)(ii)
View UK Health Security Agency
14 Nov 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested Ofsted to disclose information relating to the inspection of Welling School in February 2022. In relation to four elements of the request, Ofsted refused to disclose the information citing section 33(1)(b) of FOIA. For the fifth element of the request, Ofsted refused to confirm or deny whether it holds recorded information in accordance with section 33(3). The Commissioner’s decision is that Ofsted is entitled to rely on both sections 33(1)(b) and 33(3) of FOIA in this case. He therefore does not require any further action to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 33
View Office for Standards in Education, Children's Services and Skills
14 Nov 2022Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information in meeting invites between Lord Tyrie of the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) and representatives of several firms plus any summaries or meeting notes. The CMA refused to provide the summaries on the basis of section 44(1)(a) and disclosed the meeting invites but redacted personal data under section 40(2). The Commissioner’s decision is that the CMA correctly engaged section 44 to withhold the summary it holds for part 2c) of the request. With regard to the personal data redacted from the invites the Commissioner finds that the name of the individuals who met with Lord Tyrie are personal data but there is a lawful basis for processing this data and therefore the CMA is not entitled to rely on section 40(2) to withhold this information. The Commissioner requires the public authority to disclose the names of the individuals who met with Lord Tyrie that have been redacted from the information provided in response to part 2a) of the request.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40; FOI 44
View Competition and Markets Authority
14 Nov 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested various information in respect of Ty’r Ffynnon, a property within the boundaries of Ceredigion County Council (‘the Council’). Following the Commissioner’s investigation, the Council reconsidered items 1, 2, 3 and 9 of the request under the Environmental Information Regulations 2004 (‘the EIR’). It applied regulation 12(4)(b) (request manifestly unreasonable) in respect of item 3, and maintained its position that it did not hold information relevant to items 1, 2 and 9 of the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that if any information is held in respect of items 1, 2 and 9 of the request, that it is the complainant’s own personal data. Similarly, information in respect of item 3 of the request would also be the complainant’s own personal data. He has therefore, used his discretion to consider whether the Council is entitled to rely on regulation 5(3) of the EIR to refuse to provide the requested information. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council
Exemptions cited: EIR 5(3)
View Ceredigion County Council
14 Nov 2022Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested a copy of the ministerial diary of Rt Hon Grant Schapps MP during a 16 month period when Mr Schapps was Secretary of State for Transport. The Department for Transport (‘DfT’) refused to comply with the request, citing section 14(1) (vexatious requests) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the request is vexatious and the DfT was entitled to refuse it under section 14(1). However, in failing to confirm that it held information or issue its refusal notice within 20 working days, the DfT breached section 10 (time for compliance with the request) and section 17 (refusal of request). The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14(1); FOI 17
View Department for Transport
14 Nov 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested the National Audit Office (NAO) to disclose four monthly bank statements from IPSA for 2017 and 2018 with personal data redacted. NAO refused to disclose the requested information citing section 33(1)(a) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that NAO is entitled to refuse to disclose the requested information in accordance with section 33(1)(a) of FOIA. He therefore does not require any further action to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 33
View NI Audit Office
14 Nov 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant made a request for the Teaching Regulation Agency (“TRA”) complaints policy. The TRA is an executive agency of the Department for Education (“DfE”). For the purposes of this notice the DfE will be referenced as the Public Authority. The DfE explained that as the TRA is an executive agency of the DfE it follows the same complaints procedure as the DfE. It said that as this information was already publicly accessible it was exempt from disclosure under FOIA due to the exemption at section 21 (information reasonably accessible to the applicant). It did however provide a link to where the complaints policy could be accessed. The Commissioner considers that the DfE correctly applied section 21 FOIA in this case. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 21
View Department for Education
14 Nov 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested, from Merseyside Police, information connected to a murder investigation. Merseyside Police confirmed holding the information but refused to provide it citing sections 30(1) (Investigations and proceedings) and 40(2) (Personal information) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that section 30 is properly engaged and the public interest favours maintaining the exemption. No steps are required.
Exemptions cited: FOI 30
View Merseyside Police
14 Nov 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The public authority has failed to complete its public interest test considerations within a reasonable time in accordance with its obligations under FOIA. The Commissioner requires it to provide a substantive response to the request within 35 calendar days in accordance with its obligations under FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 17(3)
View South Yorkshire Police
14 Nov 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested the Department for Education (DfE) to disclose information relating to ‘A Fertile Heart’, which is a Relationships, Sex and Health Education (RSHE) resource that was produced by an independent group of priests and teachers and was previously mandated for use in all schools within the Archdiocese of Cardiff. The DfE disclosed some information but withheld the remainder citing sections 36(2)(b)(ii) and (ii) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the DfE is entitled to refuse to disclose the remaining withheld information in accordance with section 36(2)(b)(i) and (ii) of FOIA. He therefore does not require any further action to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 36(2)(b)(i); FOI 36(2)(b)(ii)
View Department for Education
14 Nov 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested the University of Salford (the university) to disclose an independent audit report into potential breaches of financial rules and regulations by AquaUoS. The university refused to disclose the requested information citing section 30 of FOIA. During the Commissioner’s investigation it withdrew the application of section 30 and applied section 31(1)(g) by virtue of subsection 2(b) and (c). The Commissioner’s decision is that the university is entitled to rely on section 31(1)(g) by virtue of subsection 2(b) of FOIA. He therefore does not require any further action to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 31(1)(g); FOI 31(2)(b)
View The University of Salford
14 Nov 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information regarding environmental and ecological surveys undertaken by the Council for the Hoo Peninsula and Medway. The above public authority (“the Council”) relied on regulation 12(4)(d) of the EIR (material in the course of completion, unfinished documents, and incomplete data) to withhold the information. The Commissioner’s decision is that:The information being withheld under regulation 12(4)(d) of the EIR engages that exception, and the public interest favours maintaining the exception. The Commissioner does not require the Council to take any steps as a result of this decision notice.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(d)
View Medway Council
14 Nov 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information regarding the number of injuries and deaths at private level crossings in the past five years in Scotland. Network Rail disclosed some information regarding injuries but relied on section 38(2) of FOIA to Neither Confirm nor Deny that information with regard to fatalities was held. The Commissioner’s decision is that: The information being withheld under section 38(2) of FOIA engages that exception and the public interest in maintaining the exception outweighs the public interest in disclosure. The Commissioner does not require Network Rail to take any steps as a result of this decision. First-tier tribunal (General Regulatory chamber) information rights appeal EA/2022/0419 appeal withdrawn.
Exemptions cited: FOI 38
View Network Rail
14 Nov 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested the Financial Ombudsman Service to disclose the ‘test of prejudice’ results following its determination that some information is commercially sensitive. The FOS responded and confirmed that the requested information is not held. The Commissioner’s decision is that on the balance of probabilities the FOS does not hold the requested information. He therefore does not require any further action to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
14 Nov 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested the London Borough of Lambeth (the council) to disclose their late mother’s personal file and correspondence between key staff members. The council refused to confirm or deny whether it holds any recorded information under section 41(2) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council is entitled to rely on section 41(2) of FOIA in this case. He therefore does not require any further action to be taken. First-tier tribunal (General Regulatory chamber) information rights appeal EA/2022/0408 struck out.
Exemptions cited: FOI 41
View London Borough of Lambeth
14 Nov 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG) seeking risk assessments regarding Covid-19 prepared in respect of the 2021 G7 Summit in Cornwall. MHCLG transferred the request to the Cabinet Office as it, rather than MHCLG, held information falling within the scope of the request. The Cabinet Office refused to provide this information on the basis of the exemptions contained at section 24(1) (national security) and sections 36(2)(b)(i), (2)(b)(ii) and (2)(c) (effective conduct of public affairs) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the withheld information is exempt from disclosure on the basis of section 24(1) of FOIA and that in all the circumstances of the case the public interest favours maintaining the exemption.
Exemptions cited: FOI 24
View Cabinet Office
14 Nov 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant, a law firm acting on behalf of a client, requested information held by Cheshire West and Cheshire Council (the council) about an abatement notice issued to a particular farm. Whilst the council initially refused the request in its entirety under regulation 12(3) of the EIR – third party personal data, and regulation 12(5)(b) of the EIR – course of justice, at the internal review stage it then released some of the information. The council has now gone on to provide the complainant with all of the information that they required. As the council failed to issue the refusal notice, and carry out an internal review, within the appropriate statutory time periods, the Commissioner has found a breach of regulation 14(2), and regulation 11(4), of the EIR, respectively. Furthermore, as the council has only recently identified (and released) some of the information held that is relevant to the request, the Commissioner has found a breach of regulation 5(2) of the EIR in respect of
Exemptions cited: EIR 11(4); EIR 14(2)(1); EIR 5(2)
View Cheshire West and Chester Council
14 Nov 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to the Ministry of Defence (MOD) seeking information it held about the attack on the Dusit D2 complex that happened in January 2019 in Nairobi, Kenya. The MOD confirmed that it held information falling within the scope of the request but considered this to be exempt from disclosure on the basis of sections 26(1)(b) (defence), 27(1)(a) and (c) (international relations) and 40(2) (personal data) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the MOD is entitled to withhold the information on the basis of sections 26(1)(b), 27(1)(a) and 27(1)(c).
Exemptions cited: FOI 26; FOI 27
View Ministry of Defence
12 Nov 2022Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested details of a survey conducted by the University of Leicester (‘the University’). The Commissioner’s decision is that the information is commercially sensitive and the University is entitled to withhold it under section 43(2) of FOIA. The public interest favours maintaining the exemption. The University’s response and refusal breached section 10 and section 17 as they were not provided within 20 working days. The Commissioner does not require the University to take any corrective steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 17; FOI 43
View The University of Leicester
12 Nov 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested external examiners’ reports from Staffordshire University (‘the University’). The Commissioner’s decision is that the information is commercially sensitive and the University is entitled to withhold it under section 43(2) of FOIA. The public interest favours maintaining the exemption. The Commissioner does not require the University to take any corrective steps. First-tier Tribunal (General Regulatory Chamber) Information Rights appeal EA/2022/0391 appeal allowed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 43
11 Nov 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about the Government guidance: ‘Coronavirus (COVID-19): admission and care of people in care homes’. The Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC) is withholding the information under sections 36(2)(b)(i), 36(2)(b)(ii) and 36(2)(c) of FOIA, which concern prejudice to effective conduct of public affairs. The Commissioner’s decision is as follows: At the time of the request, DHSC was entitled to withhold the information within scope of the request under section 36(2)(b)(i) and section 36(2)(b)(ii) of FOIA. The public interest favoured maintaining these exemptions. The Commissioner does not require DHSC to take any corrective steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 36
View Department of Health and Social Care
11 Nov 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested copies of tree and biodiversity surveys commissioned, produced or held by the London Borough of Haringey (the Council) in respect of a planned local authority development. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has is not entitled to withhold the information under regulation 12(4)(b) – manifestly unreasonable. The Commissioner requires the public authority to issue a fresh response to the request that does not rely on regulation 12(4)(b). 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 Haringey Council
11 Nov 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about the Government guidance: ‘Coronavirus (COVID-19): admission and care of people in care homes’. The Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC) withheld the information under sections 36(2)(b)(i), 36(2)(b)(ii) and 36(2)(c) of FOIA, which concern prejudice to effective conduct of public affairs. The Commissioner’s decision is as follows: At the time of the request, DHSC was entitled to withhold the information within scope of the request under section 36(2)(b)(i) and section 36(2)(b)(ii) of FOIA. The public interest favoured maintaining these exemptions. The Commissioner does not require DHSC to take any corrective steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 36
View Department of Health and Social Care
11 Nov 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The Commissioner’s decision is that Central Bedfordshire Council breached regulation 5(2) of the EIR by failing to provide a valid response to the request within 20 working days. The Commissioner also finds that Central Bedfordshire Council breached regulation 14(3) of the EIR as it incorrectly issued its response under FOIA and not the EIR. No steps are required. However, should the complainant request an internal review, Central Bedfordshire Council must reconsider the original request under the EIR.
Exemptions cited: EIR 5(2)
View Central Bedfordshire Council
11 Nov 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information from London Borough of Barking and Dagenham (LBBD) as to how the Controlled Parking Zone (CPZ) permit charges were calculated and the number of permits issued, and income generated in area/zone L, however, the complainant was not satisfied with the response. LBBD provided three different responses as to how parking tariffs had been calculated and the complainant believed they had not received all information available.The Commissioner’s decision is that LBBD are entitled to rely on Reg 12(4)(a) of the EIR to provide further information on how permit charges were calculated using a balance of probabilities that they have provided all the information they hold and entitled to rely on Reg 12(4)(d) to withhold the remainder of the request. Additionally, the Commissioner’s decision is that the public authority breached regulation 5(2) and regulation 11 of the EIR as a result of the delays in its response. The Commissioner does not require LBBD to take a
Exemptions cited: EIR 11; EIR 12(4)(a); EIR 12(4)(d); EIR 5(2)
View Barking and Dagenham Council