8 Nov 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information from Kirklees Council (“the Council”) relating to a specific planning application. The Council refused to provide the requested information citing regulation 12(5)(b) and regulation 12(4)(e) of the EIR.The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council is entitled to rely on regulation 12(5)(b) of the EIR to refuse to provide the requested information.The Commissioner does not require the Council to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(b)
View Kirklees Council
8 Nov 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about guidance on elective home education. The Department for Education (DfE) withheld the information under sections 36(2)(b)(ii), 36(2)(c), 40(2) and 42(1) of FOIA. These exemptions concern prejudice to the effective conduct of public affairs, personal data and legal professional privilege respectively. The Commissioner’s decision is as follows: At the time of the request DfE correctly applied section 36(2)(b)(ii) of FOIA to the information it withheld and the public interest favoured maintaining the exemption. The Commissioner does not require DfE to take any corrective steps.Keywords: home schooling
Exemptions cited: FOI 36
View Department for Education
8 Nov 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to the Ministry of Defence (MOD) seeking the ‘Special Investigation Branch (RMP)’ files into a shooting at Springhill, Belfast in July 1972 which resulted in the deaths of five civilians. The MOD disclosed some information in response to the request but argued that the remaining information was exempt from disclosure on the basis of sections 31(1)(a), (b) and (c) (law enforcement), 38(1)(a) and (b) (health and safety) and 40(2) (personal data) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the withheld information is exempt from disclosure on the basis of sections 31(1)(a), (b) and (c) and that in all the circumstances of the case the public interest favours maintaining these exemptions.
Exemptions cited: FOI 31
View Ministry of Defence
8 Nov 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information on empty commercial properties in the London Borough of Merton. The Commissioner’s decision is that the London Borough of Merton (“the Council”) appropriately applied the exemption contained in section 31(1)(a) of FOIA (law enforcement and the prevention or detection of crime) to withhold the information. The Commissioner does not require the Council to take any steps to ensure compliance with the legislation.
Exemptions cited: FOI 31(1)(a)
View Merton Council
8 Nov 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The Council requested information from Bassetlaw District Council (“the Council”) relating to the Council’s Levelling Up Fund bid. The Commissioner is not satisfied that the Council has identified all the information held within the scope of the request and therefore, his decision is that on the balance of probabilities, the Council holds further information within the scope of the request.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 following searches aimed at identifying all the information held within the scope of 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 FOIA and may be dealt with as a contempt of court.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Bassetlaw District Council
8 Nov 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information from His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs (“HMRC”) relating to heritage management plans for five named properties. The Commissioner’s decision is that HMRC is entitled to rely on regulation 12(5)(d) (confidentiality of proceedings) of the EIR to refuse to comply with the request and the public interest favours maintaining this exception. The Commissioner does not require HMRC to take any steps. First-tier tribunal (General Regulatory chamber) information rights appeal EA/2022/0410 appeal allowed.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(d)
8 Nov 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to valuation reports conducted by Land and Property Services (LPS), part of the Department of Finance. The Department provided some information, stated that it did not hold some information, and withheld some information in reliance on the exemptions at sections 40(2) and 41 of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Department was entitled to rely on the exemptions cited, and that the Department does not hold any further information relevant to the request. No steps are required.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 41
View Department of Finance
8 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 the 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
View London
8 Nov 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from His Majesty’s Land Registry (“HMLR”) relating to the Property Alert service and the monitoring of a particular property.The Commissioner’s decision is that HMLR appropriately applied the exemption contained in section 31(1)(a) of FOIA (law enforcement and the prevention or detection of crime) to withhold the information.The Commissioner does not require HMLR to take any steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. First-tier tribunal (General Regulatory chamber) information rights appeal EA/2022/0415 withdrawn.
Exemptions cited: FOI 31(1)(a)
View HM Land Registry
8 Nov 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant made a 23-part request to Causeway Coast and Glens Borough Council regarding his concerns about planning matters. The Council refused the request under regulation 12(4)(b) of the EIR on the basis that it was manifestly unreasonable. The Commissioner’s decision is that, to the extent that the requested information falls within the scope of the EIR, the Council was entitled to rely on regulation 12(4)(b) to refuse the request. No steps are required.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(b)
8 Nov 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about staff with criminal convictions for violent or sexual offences against women. The public authority refused the request as vexatious. The Commissioner’s decision is that the public authority has not demonstrated that element B of the request is vexatious and is thus not entitled to rely on section 14 of FOIA to refuse this part of the request. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: Issue a fresh response to element B of the request that does not rely on section 14(1) of FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14
View Information Commissioner
8 Nov 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information for “any and all” information held on the Police National Computer in respect of a named deceased individual. The National Police Chiefs’ Council (the ‘NPCC’) refused to confirm or deny whether it held any information citing section 38(2) of FOIA (the ‘neither confirm nor deny or ‘NCND’ provision within the health and safety exemption). During the course of the Commissioner’s investigation, the NPCC additionally relied on sections 31(3) (the NCND provision within the law enforcement exemption) and 40(5) (the NCND provision within the exemption for personal information). The Commissioner’s decision is that the NPCC was correct to NCND whether it holds any information in scope of the request by virtue of section 38 of FOIA. He has therefore not found it necessary to consider the NPCC’s reliance on the other cited NCND exemptions. No steps are required as a result of this notice.Keywords: Family
Exemptions cited: FOI 38
View National Police Chiefs Council
8 Nov 2022Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to the cost of seconded individuals. The above public authority disclosed the total figure, but not individual costs. It relied on section 43 (commercial interests) and section 40(2) of FOIA (third party personal data) to withhold this information. The Commissioner’s decision is that the public authority has correctly applied section 40(2) of FOIA to some, but not all, of the requested information. Of the information that does not engage section 40(2), the Commissioner accepts that section 43 of FOIA is engaged, but considers that the balance of the public interest favours disclosure. The public authority also breached sections 10 and 17 of FOIA in responding to the request. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: Disclose, to the complainant, the information specified in the confidential annex to this decision notice.Keywords: pay bands, salaries, secondment
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 17; FOI 40; FOI 43
View Information Commissioner
8 Nov 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information regarding correspondence from 1987 between the then Prince of Wales and the then Prime Minister. The Cabinet Office maintained that it did not hold the requested information. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Cabinet Office does not hold the requested information. The Commissioner does not require any steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Cabinet Office
8 Nov 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from Chief Constable Cambridgeshire Constabulary (the Constabulary) relating to the implementation of the Henriques Report. The Constabulary refused to comply with the request, citing section 12(1) of FOIA – cost of compliance exceeds appropriate limit.The Commissioner’s decision is that the Constabulary has failed to demonstrate that section 12(1) is engaged and therefore, it is not entitled to rely on this exemption. Further, the Commissioner finds that by failing to respond to the request within 20 working days, the Constabulary breached section 10(1) of FOIA.The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation.The Constabulary must issue a fresh response to the request which does not rely on section 12(1) of 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
Exemptions cited: FOI 10(1); FOI 12(1)
View Cambridgeshire Constabulary
8 Nov 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested intelligence information held by Cambridgeshire Constabulary on child criminal exploitation. Cambridgeshire Constabulary cited section 23(5) (Information supplied by, or relating to, bodies dealing with security matters) of FOIA to neither confirm nor deny (‘NCND’) whether it held any relevant information. The Commissioner’s decision is that Cambridgeshire Constabulary was entitled to rely on section 23(5) of FOIA to NCND whether it held the requested information. The Commissioner requires no steps as a result of this decision. Keywords: County lines, organised crime
Exemptions cited: FOI 23
View Cambridgeshire Constabulary
8 Nov 2022Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested from Derbyshire County Council (‘the council’) information relating to the council’s actions against a landowner. The landowner erected a wall which the council argues blocks part of the highway. The council withheld information under Regulation 12(5)(b) (course of justice), and Regulation 12(4)(e) (internal communications). It also argued that no information is held as regards some letters to third parties (Regulation 12(4)(a)).The Commissioner’s decision is that the council was correct to apply Regulation 12(5)(b) and Regulation 12(4)(a) to withhold information. However, he considers that one letter to a third party should be disclosed, suitably redacted to protect the rights of the individual under Regulation 13. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. To disclose a copy of the council’s letter to a complainant dated 28 April 2021, redacted as stated.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(a); EIR 12(4)(e); EIR 12(5)(b)
View Derbyshire County 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 not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested intelligence information held by Hertfordshire Constabulary on child criminal exploitation. Hertfordshire Constabulary cited section 23(5) (Information supplied by, or relating to, bodies dealing with security matters) of FOIA to neither confirm nor deny (‘NCND’) whether it held any relevant information. The Commissioner’s decision is that Hertfordshire Constabulary was entitled to rely on section 23(5) of FOIA to NCND whether it held the requested information. The Commissioner requires no steps as a result of this decision. Keywords: County lines, organised crime
Exemptions cited: FOI 23
View Hertfordshire Constabulary
8 Nov 2022Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested the Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC) to disclose all emails and records of meetings between the DHSC and the Independent Health Provider Network (IHPN) during February and May 2020. The DHSC refused the request, citing section 14 of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the DHSC is correct to refuse to comply with the request in accordance with section 14 of FOIA. He has however recorded a breach of section 10 and 17 of FOIA for failing to process the request correctly, initially. The Commissioner does not require any further action to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10; FOI 14; FOI 17
View Department of Health and Social Care
8 Nov 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested intelligence information held by Bedfordshire Police on child criminal exploitation. Bedfordshire Police cited section 23(5) (Information supplied by, or relating to, bodies dealing with security matters) of FOIA to neither confirm nor deny (‘NCND’) whether it held any relevant information. The Commissioner’s decision is that Bedfordshire Police was entitled to rely on section 23(5) of FOIA to NCND whether it held the requested information. The Commissioner requires no steps as a result of this decision. Keywords: County lines, organised crime
Exemptions cited: FOI 23
View Bedfordshire Police
8 Nov 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a two part request to the Ministry of Defence (MOD) seeking firstly the number of loan service personnel overseas broken down by country between April 2018 and March 2021, and secondly, the total sum received by the MOD for such personnel. The MOD provided the information sought by the first part of the request but withheld the information sought by the second part of the request on the basis of section 27(1)(a) (international relations) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the information falling within the scope of the second part of the request is exempt from disclosure on the basis of section 27(1)(a) and that in all the circumstances of the case the public interest favours maintaining the exemption.
Exemptions cited: FOI 27
View Ministry of Defence
8 Nov 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested regarding correspondence from 1987-1988 between the then Prince of Wales and the then Prime Minister. The Cabinet Office maintained that it did not hold the requested information. The Commissioner’s decision is that the request fell to be considered under the EIR and FOIA. In any event the Commissioner finds that the Cabinet Office does not hold the requested information. The Commissioner does not require any steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(a)
View Cabinet Office
8 Nov 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested assumptions used in the Government’s transport decarbonisation strategy. The above public authority relied on regulation 12(4)(e) of the EIR (internal communications) to withhold the information. The Commissioner’s decision is that the balance of the public interest favours disclosing the information. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: disclose the withheld information to the complainant. First-tier tribunal (General Regulatory chamber) information rights appeal EA/2022/0414 withdrawn. Keywords: policy development, safe space
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(e)
View Department for Transport
8 Nov 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested a draft version of a report produced by the Independent Loan Charge Review. HM Treasury stated that it did not hold the requested information. During the course of the Commissioner’s investigation HM Treasury accepted that in theory it could conduct further searches, but estimated that to do so would exceed the appropriate limit at section 12 of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that HM Treasury was entitled to rely on section 12 of FOIA to refuse the request. Accordingly no further steps are required. Information Tribunal FTT EA/2022/0358 appeal allowed
Exemptions cited: FOI 12
View HM Treasury
8 Nov 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant submitted an information request to the London Borough of Wandsworth (“the Council”) relating to environmental data generated by the Safety Shield Eco Census System.The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council was entitled to withhold the requested information under regulation 12(4)(d) of the EIR and that, on the balance of probabilities, the Council does not hold the full information as requested by the complainant therefore regulation 12(4)(a) also applies.The Commissioner does not require the Council to take any further steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(a); EIR 12(4)(d)
View London Borough of Wandsworth
8 Nov 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a two part request to the House of Commons (‘HoC’) asking for information relating to an investigation into complaints about the behaviour of attendees of an event at the Palace of Westminster in October 2021.The HoC relied on section 34(1) (Parliamentary privilege) of FOIA to refuse to respond to the first part of the request request and also stated it did not hold information falling within the scope of the second part of the request.The Commissioner is satisfied that, on the balance of probabilities, the HoC does not hold information in the second part of the request as it is not held in recorded form and that the HoC can rely on section 34(1) of FOIA to refuse to provide any information falling within the scope of the first part. No steps are required. First-tier tribunal (General Regulatory chamber) information rights appeal EA/2022/0407 struck out.Keywords: recorded information
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 34
View Corporate Officers of the House of Commons
8 Nov 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested legal advice obtained by Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council in relation to a planning application to build dwellings, including affordable units, within the Green Belt. Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council refused the request under Regulation 12(5)(b) of the EIR on the basis that disclosure would adversely affect the course of justice.The Commissioner’s decision is that Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council has correctly applied Regulation 12(5)(b) of the EIR. The Commissioner does not require Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council to take any steps to ensure compliance with the legislation.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(b)
View Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council
8 Nov 2022Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested the British Museum (the museum) to disclose information relating to the membership of its Chair Advisory Group (CAG). The museum disclosed some information but withheld the remainder citing section 40 and 43 of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the museum is entitled to rely on section 40 of FOIA for the information it has withheld under this exemption. However, in terms of section 43, the Commissioner has decided that this exemption is not engaged. He has also found the museum in breach of section 10 of FOIA, as it failed to respond to the complainant’s request within 20 working days of receipt. The Commissioner requires the museum to disclose the information withheld under section 43 of FOIA to the complainant.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 43
View British Museum
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
8 Nov 2022Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information regarding a specific scenario occurring within Universal Credit claims. The Commissioner’s decision is that DWP does not hold information falling within the scope of the request. 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
8 Nov 2022Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested copies of engineering reports related to Hammersmith Bridge from the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham (the “Council”). The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council is entitled to rely on regulation 12(4)(b) (manifestly unreasonable) of the EIR to refuse to comply with the request. The Council also breached the requirements of regulation 11 by failing to conduct an internal review within 40 working days. No steps are required.
Exemptions cited: EIR 11; EIR 12(4)(b)
View Hammersmith and Fulham Council
8 Nov 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from Aldenham Parish Council (“the Council”) relating to contracts awarded to companies owned by a specific individual. The Commissioner’s decision is that on the balance of probabilities, the Council has disclosed all the information it holds within the scope of the request.The Commissioner does not require the Council to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
8 Nov 2022Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested Pembroke College Oxford (the college) to disclose correspondence relating to Mahfouz Marei Mubarak bin Mahfouz and his donations to the college, including the amounts of any donations. The college refused to disclose the requested information citing sections 40, 41 and 43 of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the college is entitled to withhold the requested information in accordance with section 41 and 43 of FOIA. He has however recorded a breach of section 10 and 17(1)(b) and (c) in this case. The Commissioner does not require any further action to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 17; FOI 41; FOI 43
8 Nov 2022Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to the Ministry of Defence (MOD) seeking fives files concerning information about blinding laser weapons. The MOD refused to comply with the request on the basis of section 14(1) given the burden in processing it. The Commissioner’s decision is that the MOD is entitled to refuse to comply with the request on the basis of section 14(1) of FOIA. However, the MOD breached section 10(1) by failing to provide the complainant with a response to his request within 20 working days.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 14
View Ministry of Defence
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
7 Nov 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information regarding the Bank of England’s legal costs in defending an employment tribunal matter.The Commissioner’s decision is that Bank of England correctly relied on section 14 (vexatious or repeated requests) to not provide the requested information. First-tier Tribunal (General Regulatory Chamber) Information Rights appeal EA/2023/0026 appeal dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14
View Bank of England
7 Nov 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested from HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) all email correspondence between its Chief Executive and “HMRC Sols office” that “includes the string “DR” [disguised remuneration] or the phrase “loan charge”” over a period of eight months in 2018 and 2019. The Commissioner’s decision is that HMRC was correct to withhold information pursuant to sections 31(1)(d), 40(2) and 42 of FOIA. No other FOIA exemptions were used by HMRC to withhold information. The Commissioner does not require HMRC to take any steps as a result of this decision notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 31; FOI 40; FOI 42
7 Nov 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to an investigation conducted by the Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland. The Police Ombudsman refused to confirm or deny that it held the requested information, relying on section 44(2) of FOIA (statutory prohibitions on disclosure). The Commissioner’s decision is that the Police Ombudsman was entitled to rely on section 44(2). He does not require any steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 44
View Office of the Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland
7 Nov 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to the Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office (FCDO) seeking information about the details and funding amounts it had provided to a program of the Norwegian Refugee Council in occupied Palestinian territory for the years 2018-2020. The FCDO provided the complainant with some of the information falling within the scope of his request but sought to withhold the names of the subcontractors receiving funding on the basis of sections 38(1)(a) and (b). The Commissioner’s decision is that this information is exempt from disclosure on the basis of sections 38(1)(a) and (b) and that in all the circumstances of the case the public interest favours maintaining the exemptions. Information Tribunal FTT EA/2023/0011 appeal allowed in part.
Exemptions cited: FOI 38
View Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office
7 Nov 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested from the House of Commons (HoC) information relating to blocked website categories accessible in the HoC. The HoC provided information to some parts of the request but withheld information to the remaining parts and cited section 31(1)(a) (law enforcement) and section 24(1) (national security) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the HoC was entitled to withhold the information to request 1 under section 31(1)(a) of FOIA. Also, the public interest in maintaining the exception outweighs the public interest in disclosure. The Commissioner does not require the HoC to take any steps as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: FOI 31(1)(a)
View Corporate Officers of the House of Commons
7 Nov 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from the Department of Justice (“DoJ”) about correspondence exchanged between the DoJ and Police Service Northern Ireland (PSNI) about the subject of purchasing of sexual services, following the enacting of the Human Trafficking and Exploitation (Criminal Justice and Support for Victims) Act (N.I) 2015. The DoJ refused the request under section 14(1) of FOIA (vexatious requests). The Commissioner’s decision is that the request was vexatious and therefore the DoJ 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 Department of Justice (Northern Ireland)
7 Nov 2022Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information from Warwick District Council (“the Council”) relating to a specific building regulations application. The Council refused to provide the requested information citing regulation 13(1) (personal data) of the EIR.The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council is entitled to rely on regulation 13(1) of the EIR to refuse to provide information relating to an agent. However, the Council is not entitled to rely on regulation 13(1) to refuse to provide the remainder of the requested information. The Commissioner requires the Council to disclose the requested information, except that which relates to an agent.
Exemptions cited: EIR 13(1)
View Warwick District Council
7 Nov 2022Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested copies of business plans. The above public authority relied on regulation 12(5)(e) of the EIR to withhold the information.The Commissioner’s decision is that the public authority has not demonstrated that regulation 12(5)(e) of the EIR is engaged in relation to the indicative business plan. The final business plan does engage the exception and the public interest favours maintaining this exception. The public authority also breached regulation 5(2) of the EIR, as it disclosed information outside of the 20 working timeframe and regulation 14 as it failed to deal with the request under the EIR within 20 working days. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: disclose, to the complainant, an unredacted copy of the indicative business plan.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(e); EIR 14; EIR 5(2)
7 Nov 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to the Ministry of Defence (MOD) seeking a copy of the United Kingdom overview section from the NATO Defence Planning Capability Review 2019/2020. The MOD withheld the information on the basis of the exemptions contained at sections 23(1) (security bodies), 24(1) (national security), 26(1)(b) (defence), 27(1)(b) and 27(2) (international relations) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the information is exempt from disclosure on the basis of section 27(1)(b) and that in all the circumstances of the case the public interest favours maintaining the exemption.
Exemptions cited: FOI 27
View Ministry of Defence
7 Nov 2022Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The Commissioner decided that the Home Office (HO) had complied with FOIA in applying the section 31(1) (Law enforcement), section 42(1) (Legal professional privilege) and section 43(2) (Commercial interests) FOIA exemptions in respect of the information requested. In providing its refusal notice outside 20 working days, the Commissioner found that HO had breached section 17(1) FOIA. He did not require HO to take any steps. Information Tribunal FTT EA/2022/0355 appeal allowed in part.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 17; FOI 31; FOI 42; FOI 43
View Home Office
7 Nov 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from Doncaster Metropolitan Borough Council (“the Council”) relating to two specific drawings. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council is entitled to rely on section 40(2) (personal information) of the FOIA to refuse to provide the information requested in question 1 of the request. The Commissioner is also satisfied that on the balance of probabilities, the Council does not hold the information requested in questions 2 and 3 of the request. The Commissioner does not require the Council to take any steps. Information Tribunal FTT EA/2022/0406 appeal dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 40(2)
View Doncaster Council
7 Nov 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested the beneficiaries of Brampton Commons rights payments. The Rural Payments Agency refused to confirm or deny whether the information was held under Regulation 13 of the EIR. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Rural Payments Agency has correctly applied the exemption, and therefore does not require any steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: EIR 13
View Rural Payments Agency
7 Nov 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information about the numbers and ultimately, types of operational CCTV cameras in the Houses of Parliament. The House of Commons (the ‘HOC’) responded and refused to confirm or deny that it held the requested information, citing the ‘neither confirm or deny’ or ‘NCND’ provisions in sections 24(2) (national security), 31(3) (the exemption for law enforcement), and 38(2) (health and safety) of FOIA. It said that the associated public interest tests for all three exemptions favoured neither confirming or denying whether the information is held. The Commissioner’s decision is that the HOC was entitled to NCND whether the requested information was held by virtue of section 24(2) of FOIA for the reasons set out in this notice. As he has found section 24(2) to have been properly applied, the Commissioner has not deemed it necessary to consider the HOC’s reliance on sections 31(3) or 38(2) of FOIA. No steps are required as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: FOI 24
View Corporate Officers of the House of Commons
7 Nov 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information about CCTV cameras in operation at specified Immigration Removal Centres. The Home Office refused to provide the requested information citing section 31(1)(f) of FOIA (the exemption for the maintenance and security and good order in prisons or in other institutions where persons are lawfully detained). The Commissioner’s decision is that the Home Office was entitled to rely on section 31(1)(f) and that the balance of the public interest favours maintaining this exemption. No steps are required as a result of this notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 31
View Home Office