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
7 Nov 2022Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The Commissioner’s decision is that that Lewisham Council is entitled to rely on regulation 12(4)(e) of the EIR to withhold information about a Low Traffic Neighbourhood consultation but the public interest favours disclosure. He also finds that, on the balance of probabilities, Lewisham Council holds no information relevant to the remaining two parts of the request and regulation 12(4)(a) is engaged in that regard. The Commissioner requires Lewisham Council to take the following step to ensure compliance with the legislation: Disclose the information requested in part 2 of the request.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(a); EIR 12(4)(e)
View Lewisham Council
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 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 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
5 Nov 2022Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested copies of Personal, Health and Social Education (PHSE) lessons provided by a third party supplier. The above public authority relied on section 41 (actionable breach of confidence) and section 43(2) of FOIA in order to withhold the requested information. The Commissioner’s decision is that public authority is entitled to rely on section 41 of FOIA. The public authority breached both section 10 and sections 17 of FOIA as it responded to the request late. The Commissioner does not require further steps. First-tier Tribunal (General Regulatory Chamber) Information Rights appeal EA/2022/0352 appeal struck out.
Keywords: PHSE lesson content
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 17; FOI 41
5 Nov 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested a list of all the fields in a casework database. The above public authority relied on section 31 of FOIA (law enforcement) to withhold the information. The Commissioner’s decision is that section 31 of FOIA is engaged and the balance of the public interest favours maintaining this exemption. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Keywords: database, hackers, system architecture
Exemptions cited: FOI 31
View Information Commissioner
4 Nov 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested from Norfolk County Council information relating to legal advice sought about the ‘Norwich Western Link Road’ project. The Council withheld the requested information under regulation 12(5)(b) (course of justice) of the EIR. The Council subsequently advised the Commissioner that it would also seek to rely upon the exception provided by regulation 12(4)(b) (manifestly unreasonable requests), due to the volume of the withheld information that had been identified. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council was entitled to rely upon regulation 12(4)(b). The Commissioner does not require the Council to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(b)
View Norfolk County Council
4 Nov 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from London Borough of Southwark (the Council) about the Canada Estate QHIP 17/18 Major Works. 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
View Southwark Council
4 Nov 2022Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant submitted a request to the London Borough of Hackney (the Council) seeking information about pre-planning application exchanges between it and the prospective developers of the 55 Morning Lane (Tesco) site. The Council withheld this information on the basis of regulations 12(5)(d) (confidentiality of proceedings), 12(5)(e) (confidentiality of commercial information) and 12(5)(f) (interests of the person who provided the information) of the EIR.The Commissioner’s decision is that requested information is exempt from disclosure on the basis regulation 12(5)(d) and that in all the circumstances of the request the public interest favours maintaining the exception. However, the Commissioner has concluded that the Council has breached regulations 5(2) and 11(4) by failing to respond to the request and complete the internal review within the time limits required by the legislation.
Exemptions cited: EIR 11(4); EIR 12(5)(d); EIR 5(2)
View London Borough of Hackney
4 Nov 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information regarding the number of licensed vehicles in the UK, based on 2011 Census. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Department for Transport (the DFT) has not demonstrated that section 40(2) is engaged and therefore is not entitled to rely on this exemption. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. Send withheld information to the complainant which has been suppressed as the value ‘C.’ 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: FOI 40(2)
View Department for Transport
4 Nov 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to the London Borough of Hillingdon (the Council) seeking information about its use of an IT program ‘RentSense’ provided by the company Mobysoft. The Council provided the complainant with some information but sought to withhold further information on the basis of sections 36(2)(c) (effective conduct of public affairs) and 43(2) (commercial interests). The complainant challenged the Council’s reliance on the former exemption to withhold a copy of a Cabinet Member Report. The Commissioner’s decision is that section 36(2)(c) does not provide a basis to withhold the Cabinet Member Report.
Exemptions cited: FOI 36
View Hillingdon Council
4 Nov 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from HM Treasury about the cost of photographs taken of the Chancellor. HM Treasury explained that as the photographs were taken by its own communications team, there were no external costs and, therefore, it did not hold the requested information.The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, HM Treasury does not hold the requested information. The Commissioner does not require HM Treasury to take any steps as a result of this decision notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View HM Treasury
4 Nov 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from Birmingham City University (‘BCU’) about the number of staff in their employment who have been suspended since 2010 and have returned, the reasons for the suspension and whether they went through the disciplinary processes in place at BCU. The Commissioner’s decision is that BCU has correctly withheld the information under section 40(2) of FOIA. The Commissioner requires no further steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40(2)
View Birmingham City University
4 Nov 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from the Council of the University of Durham (“the University”) about trigger warnings, content warnings and content notes issued to students of English Literature and English Literature and History undergraduate degree 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
4 Nov 2022Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from the Castle Point Borough Council (“the Council”) relating to a list of financial contributions for affordable housing made in the last 10 years. The Council refused to comply with the request citing section 12 (cost limit) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that: The Council was entitled to refuse to comply with the request under section 12(1) of the FOIA. The Council 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 also finds that the Council did not comply with its obligation under section 16 to offer advice and assistance. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following step to ensure compliance with the legislation: Provide the complainant with reasonable assistance on how to limit the scope of their request so that it can be complied with within the appropriate limit.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 12(1); FOI 16
View Castle Point Borough Council
4 Nov 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information regarding out of hours payments. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, Epping Forest District Council (“the Council”) has failed to comply with its duty under section 1(1) of FOIA because it has failed to identify all the information it holds within the scope of the request. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. Provide the data it holds within the scope of the request relating to the [missing] department. Assure itself that no further relevant information is held outside of the Itrent system and, if it is, either provide it or issue a refusal notice that complies with section 17 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 certification of this fact to the High Court.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1(1)
View Epping Forest District Council
4 Nov 2022Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from the Castle Point Borough Council (“the Council”) relating to a list of financial contributions for affordable housing made in the last 10 years. The Council refused to comply with the request citing section 12 (cost limit) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that: The Council was entitled to refuse to comply with the request under section 12(1) of the FOIA. The Council 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 also finds that the Council did not comply with its obligation under section 16 to offer advice and assistance. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following step to ensure compliance with the legislation: Provide the complainant with reasonable assistance on how to limit the scope of their request so that it can be complied with within the appropriate limit. Information Tribunal FTT EA/202
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 12(1); FOI 16
View Castle Point Borough Council
4 Nov 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
Summary wording for website: The complainant requested information from Birmingham City Council (“the Council”) relating to the percentage of people who paid a penalty charge. The Commissioner’s decision is the Council failed to provide an adequate response to the request. Consequently the Commissioner finds that the Council breached section 1(1) and section 10(1) of the FOIA. The Commissioner requires the Council to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. The Council must issue a fresh response to the request which is adequate for the purposes of the FOIA. The Council must take these steps within 35 calendar days of the date of this decision notice. Failure to comply may result in the Commissioner making written certification of this fact to the High Court pursuant to section 54 of FOIA and may be dealt with as a contempt of court.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1(1); FOI 10(1)
View Birmingham City Council
3 Nov 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to the financial records of Ormesby St Margaret with Scratby Parish Council (the Council) for the current financial year of 2022-2023. By the date of this notice the Council had not issued a substantive response to this request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has breached section 10(1) of FOIA in that it failed to provide a valid response to the request within the statutory time frame of 20 working days.The Commissioner requires the Council to take the following step to ensure compliance with the legislation:The Council must provide a substantive response to the request in accordance with its obligations under FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
3 Nov 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested, from Belfast Health and Social Care Trust (the Trust), the daily number of patients of a certain age on ventilation in a specified hospital during a specified period of time. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Trust was correct to cite section 40(2) of FOIA. The Commissioner does not require the Trust to take any steps following this decision notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View Department of Health and Social Care
3 Nov 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information regarding the number of suppliers that were served the Request for Information Notices (“the notices”) by the Office of Gas and Electricity Markets (“Ofgem”). Ofgem refused to disclose the information and relied on regulation 12(5)(b) of EIR (course of justice).The Commissioner’s decision is that, Ofgem has failed to demonstrate that regulation 12(5)(b) of the EIR is engaged. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation.Disclose the withheld information to the complainant.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(5)(b)
View Office of Gas and Electricity Markets
3 Nov 2022Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested internal guidance on the registration of certain charities. The above public authority initially withheld information, before later disclosing it – however, the complainant believes that more information is held. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the public authority has disclosed all the information it holds. The public authority breached section 10 of FOIA as it provided information outside of the 20 working day timeframe. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10
View The Charity Commission
3 Nov 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested confirmation of the number of people claiming benefits at a specified address. The Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) refused to confirm or deny whether it held the information as it constituted the personal data of a third party and was exempt under section 40(5). The Commissioner’s decision is that DWP is entitled to rely on section 40(5) to refuse to confirm or deny whether the requested information is held. The Commissioner does not require DWP to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View Department for Work and Pensions
3 Nov 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to policing. The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) denied holding the information requested at part (2) of the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the MoJ does not hold information within the scope of that part of the request. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Ministry of Justice
3 Nov 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a two part request to Department for International Trade (DIT). This first part sought information about a particular senior civil servant’s involvement with the export of certain products by a UK arms manufacturer. The second part sought records concerning a specific license application made by that manufacturer. DIT responded by stating that it did not hold any information falling within the first part of the request. In relation to the second part of the request it disclosed some information but withheld further information on the basis of sections 36(2)(b)(i) and (ii) (effective conduct of public affairs), 40(2) (personal data), 41(1) (information provided in confidence) and 43(2) (commercial interests) of FOIA. The complainant argued that DIT would be likely to hold information falling within the first part of the request and challenged its decision to withhold information falling the second part of the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that on the
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 36; FOI 41
View Department for International Trade
3 Nov 2022Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information regarding whistleblowing concerns. The above public authority (“the Commission”) relied on section 31(1)(g), section 40, and section 41 of FOIA to withhold the requested information. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Charity 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. However, the Commissioner has concluded that the Commission breached section 10(1) and 17(1) of FOIA by failing to respond to the request within 20 working days. No steps are required as a result of this decision notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 31(1)(g)
View The Charity Commission
3 Nov 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to current Taiwanese President Tsai Ing Wen’s student record. The public authority provided some information in response to the request, but stated the remainder was not held. The Commissioner’s decision is that on the balance of probabilities the University does hold further information under section 1(1)(a) FOIA in relation to the request and breached section 10(1) FOIA as it failed to provide a response within the statutory time for compliance. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: the University of London must either disclose the further information it holds in relation to part 1 of the request, or issue a refusal notice that complies with section 17 of the FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View London
3 Nov 2022Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested copies of agreements between Thanet District Council (‘TDC’) and Brett Aggregates (‘BA’), and other information, relating to BA’s operations at the council-owned Port of Ramsgate. TDC disclosed a facilities agreement and accompanying deeds of variation, with redactions made under regulation 12(5)(e) (Confidentiality of commercial or industrial information). It said that at the time of the request it did not hold the other information specified in the request. During the Commissioner’s investigation TDC reconsidered the withheld information and it identified information in the facilities agreement which had previously been withheld under regulation 12(5)(e), which it agreed could be disclosed. The Commissioner’s decision is that regulation 12(5)(e) was applied correctly to withhold commercially confidential information in the deeds of variation and in the facilities agreement. The Commissioner is also satisfied that at the time of the request, TDC did not h
Exemptions cited: EIR 11(4); EIR 12(4)(a); EIR 12(5)(e)
View Thanet District Council
3 Nov 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to companies that had used the ‘VIP’ route for gaining covid related contracts.The UK Health Security Agency(“UKHSA”) disclosed the names of the 50 suppliers but could not confirm or deny whether it held information relating to the names of ministers or senior officials who referred the companies to the ‘VIP’ route, and in doing so, relied on section 12(2) of FOIA (cost of compliance exceeds appropriate limit).Commissioner’s decision is that UKHSA has failed to demonstrate that section 12(2) is engaged.The Commissioner requires UKHSA to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation:• Disclose the information about the referrers to the complainant. OR• Issue a fresh response to the request, which do not rely on section 12(2) 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 certification of this
Exemptions cited: FOI 12
View UK Health Security Agency
3 Nov 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from Swansea Council (“the Council”) about payments made to suppliers of Health and Social Care in the borough. The Council provided a partial response, providing a link and stated the information was available online, which they failed to do within 20 working days. The Council also failed to provide an internal review to the complainant, after their clear dissatisfaction with the Councils response. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has breached section 10(1) of FOIA, in that it failed to provide a valid response to the request within the statutory time frame of 20 working days. The Commissioner requires the Council to take the following step to ensure compliance with the legislation. • The Council must provide a substantive response to the request in accordance with its obligations under the FOIA.The Council must take this step within 35 calendar days of the date of this decision notice. Failure to comply may result in the Commission
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Swansea Council
3 Nov 2022Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information regarding public participation and on legal costs. The above public authority (“the public authority”) stated that it did not hold some of the information. It withheld the remaining information relying on section 36 (prejudice to the effective conduct of public affairs), section 40(2) (personal data) and section 41 (actionable breach of confidence) to withhold information. The Commissioner’s decision is that the public authority does not hold any information within the scope of element [1]. In respect of element [2], he is satisfied that the public authority has appropriately applied sections 40(2) and 41 of FOIA. The Commissioner considers that section 36 is only engaged in respect of a small quantity of information but, where it is engaged, the public interest favours maintaining the exemption. Where the exemption is not engaged, the information does fall within the scope of the request. The public authority breached sections 10 and 17 of FOI
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10; FOI 17; FOI 36; FOI 40
View Oxford Health NHS Foundation Trust
3 Nov 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to the International Herpetological Society’s reptile shows at Doncaster race course. Doncaster Metropolitan Borough Council (the “council”) withheld the information under the exemption for prejudice to the effective conduct of public affairs (section 36(2)(b) and section 36(2)(c)). The Commissioner’s decision is that the council was entitled to rely on section 36(2)(b) to refuse the request. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: FOI 36(2)(b)
View Doncaster Council
3 Nov 2022Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about fees received from West Midlands Ambulance Service. The above public authority denied holding some of the requested information and relied on section 43(2) of FOIA (commercial interests) in order to withhold the information it did hold. The Commissioner’s decision is that the public authority has correctly relied on section 43(2) of FOIA and that the balance of the public interest favours maintaining the exemption. On the balance of probabilities, the public authority holds no further information within the scope of the request. The public authority did however breach sections 10 and 17 of FOIA in responding to the request. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 17; FOI 43
3 Nov 2022Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested from Stroud District Council all emails and written communications relating to planning applications S.21/0388/FUL and S.21/00389LBC between the applicant and/or the applicant’s agent and the local planning authority. Stroud District Council disclosed some of the requested information but made redactions under Regulations 13 and 12(5)(e) of the EIR. The Commissioner’s decision is that Stroud District Council has successfully engaged Regulation 13(1) in relation to the names, email addresses and phone numbers of the applicant and the applicant’s agent architects and the email addresses and phone numbers of its planning employees. However, the Commissioner finds that Stroud District Council has not engaged Regulation 13(1) in relation to the names of its planning department employees. With regard to Regulation 12(5)(e) the Commissioner’s decision is that Stroud District Council has not successfully engaged the exemption. The Commissioner’s decision is therefore
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(e); EIR 13(1)
View Stroud District Council
3 Nov 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information relating to a planning application. Selby District Council (the Council) refused to provide the information, citing regulation 12(5)(f) (interests of the person who provided the information to the public authority) of the EIR. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council is entitled to withhold information on the basis of regulation 13 (personal information) of the EIR. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: EIR 13
3 Nov 2022Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from the United Kingdom Health Security Agency (“UKHSA”), in relation to detailed age brackets for SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern and variants under investigation in England. UKHSA advised that it does not hold the information specified, in accordance with section 1(1)(a) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, UKHSA does not hold the requested information. However, he has decided that UKHSA did not comply with the requirements of section 10(1) of FOIA, as it did not respond to the request within 20 working days. The Commissioner does not require the UKHSA to take any steps as a result of this decision notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1(1)(a); FOI 10(1)
View UK Health Security Agency
2 Nov 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
Summary wording for website: The complainant requested information relating to a planning application. Cornwall Council (the “council”) withheld the information under the exemption for information provided in confidence (section 41 of the FOIA). The Commissioner’s decision is that the council wrongly handled the request under the FOIA and breached regulation 5(1) of the EIR. The Commissioner requires the council to issue a new response to the request under the EIR.
Exemptions cited: EIR 5(1)
View Cornwall Council
2 Nov 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested from Kirklees Metropolitan Borough Council information relating to pre-application advice sought by a prospective developer. The Council withheld the requested information under regulations 12(4)(e) (internal communications), 12(5)(e) (confidentiality of commercial information), 12(5)(f) (interests of the information provider) and 13 (personal data) of the EIR. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council was entitled to withhold the requested information under regulations 12(4)(e), 12(5)(f), and 13, and that all other information has been disclosed. The Commissioner has not found it necessary to consider the application of regulation 12(5)(e) as the information falls under the other exceptions. The Commissioner does not require the Council to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(e); EIR 12(5)(f); EIR 13; EIR 5(1)
View Kirklees Metropolitan Council
2 Nov 2022Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information about the schedule of works carried out by London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham (LBHF) and its contractors on or around a specific residential property. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, LBHF has disclosed the information which it holds within the scope of the request. It has therefore complied with regulation 5(1) of the EIR. However, the Commissioner finds that, as LBHF only located and disclosed the information at a later date as part of a SAR response much later than the required 20 working days, it breached regulation 5(2) of the EIR. The Commissioner further finds that LBHF has breached regulation 11(4) as it did not provide its internal review decision within the statutory timeframe. The Commissioner does not require LBHF to take any remedial steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 11(4); EIR 5(1); EIR 5(2)
View Hammersmith and Fulham Council
2 Nov 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested criminal information about a named Councillor from the Metropolitan Police Service (the “MPS”). The MPS would neither confirm nor deny (“NCND") holding the requested information. It cited sections 30(3) (Investigations and proceedings), 31(3) (Law enforcement) and 40(5) (Personal information) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the MPS was entitled to rely on section 40(5). No steps are required.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View Metropolitan Police Service
2 Nov 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information relating to an application to build on a nearby flood plain. The Commissioner’s decision is that Gwynedd Council (the Council) has correctly cited regulation 12(5)(b) in response to the request. The Commissioner does not requires the public authority to take any steps as a result of this decision notice. Information Tribunal FTT EA/2022/0393 appeal allowed
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(b)
View Gwynedd Council
2 Nov 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information on email and instant messenger correspondence sent or received by ministers and their private offices concerning the Advanced Research and Invention Agency (“ARIA”) and its exclusion from the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that BEIS is entitled to rely on FOIA section 35(1)(a) – formulation or development of government policy, to withhold the requested information. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps to ensure compliance with the legislation.
Exemptions cited: FOI 35
View Department for Business and Trade
2 Nov 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust (“the Trust”) relating to job applications and ethnicity background data of applicants. By the date of this notice the Trust had not issued a substantive response to this request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Trust has breached section 10(1) of FOIA in that it failed to provide a valid response to the request within the statutory time frame of 20 working days. The Trust must provide a substantive response to the request in accordance with its obligations under FOIA. The Trust must take this step within 35 calendar days of the date of this decision notice. Failure to comply may result in the Commissioner making written certification of this fact to the High Court pursuant to section 54 of FOIA and may be dealt with as a contempt of court.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust
2 Nov 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information relating to an Environmental Health complaint. London Borough of Islington (the “council”) refused the request under the exception for the confidentiality of proceedings – regulation 12(5)(d). The Commissioner’s decision is that the council has correctly relied on regulation 12(5)(d) to withhold the requested information. The Commissioner does not require the council to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(d)
View Islington Council
2 Nov 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from the Charity Commission about a registered charity’s aims. The Charity Commission refused to provide the requested information under section 41 of FOIA but subsequently disclosed the information during the Commissioner’s investigation. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Charity Commission breached section 10(1) of FOIA by failing to provide the information within the statutory time for compliance. The Commissioner does not require any further steps to be taken by the Charity Commission.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View The Charity Commission
2 Nov 2022Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
In a five part request, the complainant has requested information about the appointment of Rachel Houchen to the Board of the Office for Students. The Department for Education (DfE) addressed three parts of the request. It has withheld information within scope of parts a) and b) of the request under sections 36(2) and 40(2) of FOIA. These exemptions concern prejudice to the effective conduct of public affairs and personal data respectively. The Commissioner’s decision is as follows: DfE has correctly applied sections 36(2)(b)(i) and 36(2)(b)(ii) of FOIA to parts a) and b) of the request and, in the case of part a), correctly applied section 36(2)(c). In each case the public interest favours maintaining the exemption in respect of part b) but not in respect of part a).DfE can also rely on section 40(2) of FOIA to withhold the information requested in part b) of the request but not part a). The Commissioner requires DfE to take the following step to ensure compliance with the legislation
Exemptions cited: FOI 36; FOI 40
View Department for Education
2 Nov 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to a charter flight. The Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office (‘FCDO’) provided the majority of the requested information but refused to disclose the cost of the charter flight, citing section 43(2) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the withheld information engages section 43(2) and the public interest favours maintaining the exemption. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 43(2)
View Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office
2 Nov 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from NHS Lincolnshire Integrated Care Board (“the Board”) relating to the care of an individual. By the date of this notice the Board had not issued a substantive response to this request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Board has breached section 10(1) of FOIA in that it failed to provide a valid response to the request within the statutory time frame of 20 working days. The Commissioner requires the Board to provide a substantive response to the request in accordance with its obligations under FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View NHS Lincolnshire ICB
2 Nov 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The public authority has failed to respond to this request within 20 working days, as specified in the EIR. The Commissioner requires it to provide the complainant with a response to this request within 35 calendar days in accordance with its obligations under the EIR.
Exemptions cited: EIR 5(2)
View Health and Safety Executive