11 Nov 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from Central and North West London NHS Trust (“the Trust”) about spend on chaplaincy services during 2018/19, 2019/20 and 2020/21 and the number of chaplains it currently employs.The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the Trust 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 Central and North West London NHS Foundation Trust
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
10 Nov 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to concerns which the Charity Commission for England and Wales (“the Charity Commission”) had received about how decisions were made within the Lythan Institute (“the charity”). The sole trustee for the charity is Fylde Borough Council (“the Council”). The Charity Commission refused to provide the information and relied on section 31(law enforcement) and section 40 (personal information) of FOIA as its basis for doing so.The Commissioner’s decision is that the Charity Commission has correctly applied section 31(1)(g) of FOIA and the public interest favours maintaining the exemption. He does not require the Charity Commission to take any further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 31
View The Charity Commission
10 Nov 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted an information request to the London Borough of Hackney (“the Council”) relating to the cyber-attack of October 2020. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council was entitled to rely on section 31(1)(a) of FOIA to withhold the requested information. As the Commissioner considers this applies to all of the requested information, he has not gone on to consider the Council’s application of section 31(1)(g) by virtue of section 31(2)(i). The Commissioner does not require the Council to take any further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 31(1)(a)
View London Borough of Hackney
10 Nov 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information with regards to a specific planning application site. Hart District Council (the council) responded that the information is not held. The Commissioner’s decision is that the request was for environmental information and that regulation 12(4)(a) of the EIR is engaged to the request as the information is not held. The Commissioner does not require any steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(a)
View Hart District Council
10 Nov 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant made a request for information regarding the employment of a doctor at GOSH. GOSH refused to confirm or deny whether it holds the requested information under section 40(5B)(a)(i) FOIA. The Commissioner considers that GOSH incorrectly applied section 40(5B)(a)(i) FOIA in this case. The Commissioner requires the public authority to confirm or deny whether it holds information within the scope of the request. If GOSH holds information it must either disclose it, or issue a refusal notice that complies with section 17 of the FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View Great Ormond Street Hospital NHS Trust
10 Nov 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from Coventry City Council (“the Council”), in relation to a specific taxi and its driver. The Council refused to confirm or deny whether the requested information was held under section 40(5B)(a)(i) of FOIA, as to do so would be disclosing personal data. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council was correct to apply section 40(5B)(a)(i) of FOIA in this case. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps as a result of this decision notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40(5)(b)(a)(i)
View Coventry City Council
10 Nov 2022Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from the London Borough of Haringey (“the Council”) in relation to the raw results of a parking consultation in a specific area. The Council explained to the complainant that once all the information had been collated, it would be publishing the information on its website. The Council later explained, in its internal review response, that it was relying on section 22 of FOIA – information intended for future publication. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council was correct to apply section 22 of FOIA in this case at the time of the request. The Commissioner does however consider that the Council breached section 17(1) of FOIA. The Commissioner does not require the Council to take any steps as a result of this decision notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 17; FOI 22
View Haringey Council
10 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 Hampshire Constabulary was entitled to apply section 12(2) of FOIA and is satisfied that Hampshire Constabulary met its obligations under section 16 to offer advice and assistance. No steps are required.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12
10 Nov 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to illegal abortion crimes. Cambridgeshire Constabulary (“the Constabulary”) refused to disclose the information and relied on section 38(1) (Health and Safety) and section 40(2) (Personal information) of FOIA as its basis for doing so. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Constabulary was entitled to rely on section 38(1) of FOIA to withhold the information requested. He does not require the public authority to take any further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 38
View Cambridgeshire Constabulary
10 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 West Midlands Police was entitled to apply section 12(2) of FOIA and is satisfied that West Midlands Police met its obligations under section 16 to offer advice and assistance. No steps are required.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12; FOI 16
View West Midlands Police
10 Nov 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from Dorset Police (“the Police”), in relation to the reduction of casualties on the road within the area and the data used to calculate these figures. The Police originally refused the request, citing section 14(1) of FOIA – vexatious or repeated request. Following on from the Commissioner issuing a decision notice, the Police issued a new response, providing the complainant with information which relates to the data used. Further information was provided by the Police in the internal review response. The Commissioner’s decision is that on the balance of probabilities, the Police does not hold any further information relevant to the complainant’s request. As such, the Police has complied with section 1(1) of FOIA. The Commissioner does not require the Police to take any steps as a result of this decision notice. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2022/0377 struck out.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1(1)
View Dorset Police
10 Nov 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant made a request for information relating to staff sickness. Evelina Hospital School (EHS) disclosed some information but withheld some information under section 40(2) FOIA given the small numbers and information already within the complainants possession which would have enabled him to attribute this information to particular individuals. The Commissioner considers that EHS correctly applied section 40(2) FOIA in this case. The Commissioner requires nom steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
10 Nov 2022Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about a specific criminal investigation which he believed was poorly handled. Durham Constabulary (‘the Constabulary’) would neither confirm nor deny (‘NCND’) holding the requested information, citing the exemption at sections 40(5A) and (5B)(a)(i) (Personal information) of FOIA. It also argued that the NCND provisions at section 31(3) (Law enforcement) and section 38(2) (Health and safety) of FOIA applied. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Constabulary was entitled to rely on sections 40(5A) and (5B)(a)(i) to issue an NCND response to the request. However, by failing to issue a refusal notice explaining this within 20 working days of receipt of the request, the Constabulary breached section 17(1) of FOIA. The Commissioner requires no steps as a result of this decision.Keywords: Evidence, IOPC
Exemptions cited: FOI 17; FOI 40
View Durham Constabulary
10 Nov 2022Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has submitted a request to the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) seeking a specific piece of internal analysis. DWP has denied holding information falling within the scope of the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, DWP does not hold the requested information. The Commissioner does, however, find that DWP breached section 10(1) as it did not deny holding the requested information within the statutory timeframe. The Commissioner does not require DWP to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10
View Department for Work and Pensions
10 Nov 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to minutes of meetings and correspondence between specific individuals. By the date of this notice the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) had not issued a substantive response to this request. The Commissioner’s decision is that BEIS 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 BEIS to take the following step to ensure compliance with the legislation.BEIS must provide a substantive response to the request in accordance with its obligations under FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Department for Business and Trade
10 Nov 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The Commissioner’s decision is that under section 1(3) of FOIA the UK Health Security Agency (UKHSA) was not obliged to comply with the request because the complainant had not provided it with the further information about the request that UKHSA had asked for. UKHSA provided adequate advice and assistance to the complainant in line with section 16(1).
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 16
View UK Health Security Agency
10 Nov 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from Cheshire East Council (“the Council”) relating to businesses located a specific address. The Council refused to provide the requested information citing section 14(1) (vexatious request) of the FOIA as its basis for doing so.The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council is entitled to rely on section 14(1) of the FOIA to refuse to provide the requested information. The Commissioner does not require the Council to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14(1)
View Cheshire East Council
10 Nov 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested, from the Metropolitan Police Service (the “MPS”), communications between its Commissioner and the Home Secretary over a three month period. The MPS disclosed some information but withheld the remainder, citing sections 21(1) (Information reasonably accessible by other means), 23(1) (Information supplied by, or relating to, bodies dealing with security matters), 24(1) (National security), 30(1)(a) (Investigations and proceedings), 31(1)(a)(b) (Law enforcement), 36(2)(b)(i)(ii) & (c) (Prejudice to effective conduct of public affairs) and 40(2) (Personal information) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the MPS was entitled to rely on sections 36(2)(b)(i)(ii) to withhold the remaining information. No steps are required.
Exemptions cited: FOI 36
View Metropolitan Police Service
10 Nov 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from the Information Commissioner (“the ICO”) about when the ICO last had communication with the DVLA. The ICO refused the request under section 14(1) of FOIA (vexatious requests).The Commissioner’s decision is that the request was vexatious and therefore the ICO was entitled to rely upon section 14(1) of FOIA to refuse it.The Commissioner does not require any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14(1)
View Information Commissioner
10 Nov 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested derivative definitions documents from the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA). The FCA confirmed that it holds one of the documents, but relied on section 21(2) of FOIA to refuse to disclose it. The FCA also stated that it was unable to confirm if it holds copies of the remaining three documents, and the work required to determine whether or not it does in fact hold them would take it beyond the appropriate cost limit, citing section 12(2) of FOIA.The Commissioner’s decision is that the FCA has correctly cited sections 21(2) and 12(2) of FOIA to refuse to comply with the request in this case.The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any remedial steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12; FOI 21
View Financial Conduct Authority
10 Nov 2022Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information with regards to access to his holdings. Barnsley Metropolitan Borough Council (the council) responded under the FOIA stating that the information was not held. The Commissioner’s decision is that the request falls under the EIR, but that regulation 5(3) of the EIR applies as the information is the complainant’s own personal data. This means that the council was not obliged to comply with the request. The Commissioner does not require the council to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 5(3)
View Barnsley Council
10 Nov 2022Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The requester seeks, from South Somerset District Council (the Council), information relating to any interests registered by certain ‘key officers’ in specified years. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council was correct to cite section 40 of FOIA (the exemption for personal information) in response; however the Council breached sections 10 and 17 of FOIA because it failed to provide an appropriate response within the statutory time for compliance.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 17; FOI 40
View South Kesteven District Council
10 Nov 2022Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested copies of applications and submissions made in 2019, and 2020, by Newcastle Upon Tyne Council (the council) in connection with Stonewall’s Diversity Champions Programme and Workplace Equality Index. They also asked for any feedback that Stonewall provided in response.The complainant remains dissatisfied with the council’s response to parts 1 and 2 of their request. The Commissioner has determined that, on the balance of probabilities, the council does not hold information relevant to part 1 of the complainant’s request.With regard to part 2 of the request, it is the Commissioner’s decision that the council is not entitled to rely on section 41(1) of the FOIA (breach of confidence) to withhold the requested information.The Commissioner requires the council to disclose the information held that is relevant to part 2 of the request. First-tier tribunal (General Regulatory chamber) information rights appeal EA/2022/0418 appeal dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 41
View Newcastle City Council
10 Nov 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested from the Gambling Commissioner (GC) information regarding the financial assessment of BetIndex. The GC provided the complainant with information relating to the request with personal information redacted, and cited section 40(2) (third party personal data) and section 31(2)(a) (law enforcement) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is the GC was entitled to rely on section 40(2) of FOIA to the information redacted. Therefore, the Commissioner does not require the GC to take any steps as a result of this decision. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2022/0366 appeal withdrawn.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40(2)
View Gambling Commission
10 Nov 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information associated with financial assessments carried out on Bet Index Limited. The Gambling Commission (GC) disclosed information it held within scope of the request but withheld the information it had previously refused which was subject to an appeal to the First Tier Tribunal (FTT), under section 31(1)(g) of FOIA - law enforcement.The Commissioner’s decision is that the Gambling Commission has correctly applied section 31(1)(g) of FOIA to 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. First-tier tribunal (General Regulatory chamber) information rights appeal EA/2022/0422 withdrawn.
Exemptions cited: FOI 31(1)(g)
View Gambling Commission
10 Nov 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information regarding specific advice provided by the Senedd Legal Service for redactions of a report on the impact of Covid 19. The Welsh Parliament cited section 42 of FOIA to withhold the requested information.The Commissioner’s decision is that The Welsh Parliament has correctly applied section 42 of FOIA and does not require the public authority to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 42(1)
9 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 Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency
9 Nov 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from Manchester City Council (the Council) asking if any disputes were logged with the anti social behaviour team from a specific address. The Council relied on section 40(5B)(a)(i) of FOIA to refuse to confirm or deny that information was held.The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council was entitled to rely on section 40(5B)(a)(i) of FOIA to refuse to confirm or deny whether any information was held.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40(5)(b)(a)(i)
View Manchester City Council
9 Nov 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information regarding a breakdown of costs of a review published by the Council. The above public authority (“the Council”) stated it did not hold the requested information. The Commissioner’s decision is that:On the balance of probabilities, the Council holds the information for its own purposes being a lead member of the Safeguarding Adults Board. The Council is therefore not entitled to rely on section 3(2) of FOIA.The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: To conduct adequate searches of the Councils systems and documents to establish if the requested information is held and issue a fresh response in accordance with its obligations under the FOIA. 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
Exemptions cited: FOI 3
View Worcestershire County Council
9 Nov 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested a copy of a traffic survey report from North Lincolnshire Council (the Council).The Commissioner’s decision is that the requested information is environmental information within the definition at regulation 2(1)(c) of the EIR. The request should, therefore, have been handled under the EIR rather than the FOIA. He also notes that the Council has failed to carry out an objective reading of the request as the complainant did not request a copy of the ‘Local Transport Plan’. The Commissioner requires the Council to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: Reconsider the request and its scope under the provisions of the EIR and issue a fresh response to the complainant.
Exemptions cited: EIR 2(1)(c)
View North Lincolnshire Council
9 Nov 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
In a multi-part request, the complainant requested information associated with a penalty charge notice he received on 28 January 2021 and later appealed. London Borough of Southwark (the ‘Council’) addressed each of the complainant’s questions but stated it did not hold some of the requested information and it withheld information requested in one question under section 40(2) of FOIA, as it considered this to be personal data.The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the Council does not hold some of the requested information as it is not held in recorded form. The Council is also entitled to withhold the qualifications under section 40(2) of FOIA as it is the personal data of another individual and disclosure would be unlawful. However, the Council breached section 10(1) of FOIA as it did not provide the complainant with a response within 20 working days of the request.The Commissioner does not require further steps. Keywords: 84 of FOIA “information record
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 40(2)
View Southwark Council
9 Nov 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information about the charge/tariff for telephone calls made by prisoners from wing payphones, and from in-cell phones, in public sector prisons in England and Wales on various dates. The MoJ initially provided some information within the scope of the request but withheld the remainder, citing sections 43(2) (commercial interests) and 22 (information intended for future publication) of FOIA. It later disclosed the requested information. The Commissioner’s decision is that the MoJ 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. However, as the information has now been provided, the Commissioner does not require any steps as a result of this notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Ministry of Justice
9 Nov 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information from Cheshire West and Chester Council (“the Council”) about the proposed development of a football stadium, hotel and sports facilities. The Council refused the request under regulation 12(4)(b) of the EIR, manifestly unreasonable requests, on the grounds that the request was vexatious. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council was not entitled to rely on regulation 12(4)(b) of the EIR to refuse the request. The Commissioner requires the Council to take the following step to ensure compliance with the legislation: revisit the request and either disclose the requested information or issue a fresh response that does not rely on regulation 12(4)(b).
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(b)
View Cheshire West and Chester Council
9 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 Frimley Health NHS Foundation Trust
9 Nov 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested from Dorset Council (“the council”) information relating to communications and records concerning Powerfuel Portland. The council disclosed some information, however the complainant argues that further information should be held by it. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council has not carried out searches on a wide enough basis in order to determine, on a balance of probabilities, whether any additional information is held for the purposes of Regulation 5(1). The Commissioner requires the council to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. To carry out further searches of its networked and file systems for relevant information, and to respond to the complainant’s request as required by the EIR.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(a)
View Dorset County Council
9 Nov 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested the driving licence application for Elaine Parent. The DVLA confirmed it held the information but refused the request under section 41(1) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the DVLA has correctly applied the exemption and the public interest lies in withholding the information. First-tier tribunal (General Regulatory chamber) information rights appeal EA/2022/0403 under appeal.
Exemptions cited: FOI 41
View Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency
9 Nov 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested the legal advice that National Highways received in relation to the A27 Arundel Bypass Project. National Highways refused to provide the requested information, citing regulation 12(5)(b) (the course of justice and inquiries) of the EIR. The Commissioner’s decision is that the exception is engaged but the public interest lies in disclosure. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: disclose the withheld information, with all personal information redacted under regulation 13 of the EIR. First-tier tribunal (General Regulatory chamber) information rights appeal EA/2022/0416 appeal allowed.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(b)
View National Highways
9 Nov 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from The Royal Parks (“TRP”) about crime, anti-social behaviour and safety in Greenwich Park. TRP provided some information within the scope of part 5 of the request but stated it does not hold any information within scope of parts 1-4 of the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, TRP does not hold any further information within the scope of the request, beyond that which it has already disclosed. The Commissioner does not require TRP to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1(1)
View Royal Parks
9 Nov 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested planning and building control information relating to a neighbouring property. Merthyr Tydfil County Borough Council (the Council) provided the information held and confirmed that no additional information was held. During the course of the Commissioner’s investigation the Council located some additional information which it disclosed to the complainant. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities the Council does not hold any additional information relevant to the request. The Commissioner does not require any steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(a)
View Merthyr Tydfil County Borough Council
9 Nov 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information about a village shop in Ashbury. Ashbury Parish Council (the Council) provided some information and withheld other information under section 36(2) (effective conduct of public affairs). The complainant disputed the application of section 36 and queried whether further information was held. During the course of the Commissioner’s investigation the Council withdrew reliance on section 36 and disclosed the withheld information. The Council also located other relevant information which it disclosed. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council does not hold any further information falling within the scope of the request. The Commissioner does not require any steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
9 Nov 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information from the London Borough of Ealing (“the Council”) concerned with [name redacted] avenue and [name redacted] avenue. Following a penalty charge for a traffic offence, the requestor asked for information about the visibility of a parking notice on these roads, the cameras that captured the traffic offence and the road markings.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 take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation.Reconsider how it responded to the original request and inform the complainant of the outcome of that reconsideration in accordance with regulation 11 of the EIR.The Council must take these steps within 35 calendar days of the date of this decision notice. Failure to comply may result in the Commiss
Exemptions cited: EIR 11
View Ealing Council
9 Nov 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about fees received from West Midlands Ambulance Service. The University of Wolverhampton (“the University”) relied on the exemption under section 43(2) of FOIA (commercial interests) in order to withhold the information it did hold. The Commissioner’s decision is that the University has correctly relied on section 43(2) of FOIA and that the balance of the public interest favours maintaining the exemption. He requires no steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 43
View The University of Wolverhampton
9 Nov 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to the death of a named individual. The Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC) refused to comply with the request, citing section 14(1) (vexatious request) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the IOPC has correctly applied section 14(1) of FOIA. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14
View Independent Office for Police Conduct
9 Nov 2022Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested an investigation file relating to a murder. The above public authority (“the public authority”) relied on section 38 (health and safety) and 40(2) of FOIA (third party personal data) to withhold the requested information. The Commissioner’s decision is that the public authority was entitled to rely on section 40(2). Section 38 is also engaged and the balance of the public interest favours maintaining this exemption. The public authority breached section 17(3) of FOIA as it took an unreasonable amount of time to complete its public interest considerations. The Commissioner does not require further steps.Keywords: murder files
Exemptions cited: FOI 17(3); FOI 38; FOI 40
View The National Archives
9 Nov 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested costs in respect of a legal case, from the Metropolitan Police Service (the “MPS”). The MPS advised that most of the information was not held, as costs are not recorded at case level. However, it advised that the fees for two barristers were held but were exempt from disclosure by virtue of section 40(2) (Personal information) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the MPS does not hold most of the information requested. Regarding the two fees, he finds that the MPS was correct to withhold the amounts under section 40 of FOIA. No steps are required.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 40
View Metropolitan Police Service
9 Nov 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information associated with a car parking planning application. The Christie NHS Foundation Trust initially handled the request under FOIA and refused the request as vexatious under section 14(1). Its final position is that the request is manifestly unreasonable under regulation 12(4)(b) of the EIR. The Commissioner’s decision is as follows: The complainant’s request is manifestly unreasonable under regulation 12(4)(b) of the EIR, by virtue of being a vexatious request. The public interest favours maintaining this exception. The Commissioner does not require The Christie NHS Foundation Trust to take any corrective steps. Information Tribunal FTT EA/2022/0436 appeal struck out.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(b)
View The Christie NHS Foundation Trust
9 Nov 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested a copy of letters relating to a planning complaint concerning their own property. Dover District Council (the Council) withheld the information requested under regulation 12(5)(b) (course of justice) and regulation 12(3) (personal data) of the EIR. The Commissioner has investigated and found that the information is exempt from disclosure under regulations 5(3) and 13(1) as it contains the personal data of the complainant and the personal data of third parties. The Commissioner does not require any steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: EIR 13; EIR 5
View Dover District Council
8 Nov 2022Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested the personal details of deceased parents who died in 2018 whilst in arrears with their child maintenance payments. The Department for Work and Pensions refused to confirm or deny whether it held the requested information on the basis of section 44(2) and 41(2). The Commissioner’s decision is that DWP is not entitled to rely on section 44(2) or 41(2) to neither confirm nor deny whether it holds the requested information. However, the Commissioner finds that DWP is entitled to rely on section 44(1)(a) to withhold the requested information. The Commissioner also finds that DWP breached section 17(1)(b) as it did not specify which exemption it was relying on at the time of its response. The Commissioner does not require DWP to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 41; FOI 44
View Department for Work and Pensions
8 Nov 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested from East Devon District Council information relating to a waste services contract. The Council disclosed some information, and withheld the remainder under section 43(2) (commercial interests) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council was not entitled to withhold the requested information under section 43(2). The Commissioner requires the Council to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: Disclose the withheld information. First-tier tribunal (General Regulatory chamber) information rights appeal EA/2022/0413 FTT consent order.
Exemptions cited: FOI 43(2)
View East Devon District Council