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 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 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 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
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 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)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
1 Nov 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested draft copies of the report ‘The Colston Statue: What next?’ The University of Bristol refused to provide the requested information, citing section 36(2)(b)(ii) (prejudice to the effective conduct of public affairs) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that section 36(2)(b)(ii) is engaged but the public interest favours disclosure. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following steps: Disclose the withheld information, with all personal data redacted.
Exemptions cited: FOI 36
View The University of Bristol
1 Nov 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information from Swindon Borough Council (the Council) relating to the record kept of rubbish collections on a particular day. The Council refused the request under section 14(1) of FOIA (vexatious requests). The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council should have dealt with the request under the EIR and has not sufficiently demonstrated that complying with the request would impose a grossly oppressive burden, and therefore is not entitled to rely on regulation 12(4)(b) to withhold the requested information. The Commissioner requires the Council to take the following step to ensure compliance with the legislation. Issue a fresh response to the complainant, which does not rely on regulation 12(4)(b) of the EIR. The Council must take this step within 35 calendar days of the date of this decision notice. Failure to comply may result in the Commissioner making written certification of this fact to the High Court pursuant to section 54 of the Act and may be dea
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(b)
View Swindon Borough Council
1 Nov 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
1. The complainant requested information relating to the Stonewall Workplace Equality Index and funding surrounding Stonewall. By the date of this notice Surrey Police had not issued a substantive response to this request. 2. The Commissioner’s decision is that Surrey Police 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.3. The Commissioner requires Surrey Police to take the following step to ensure compliance with the legislation.• Surrey Police must provide a substantive response to the request in accordance with its obligations under FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Surrey Police
1 Nov 2022Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from Wirral Borough Council (the Council) relating to the settlement of a legal dispute in connection with the Hoylake golf resort project. The complainant wants to know why the Council paid the developer, Nicklaus Joint Venture Group (NJVG), in settlement. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council was correct to rely on section 42(1) of FOIA (the ‘legal professional privilege’ exemption) to withhold the information within scope of the request, but the Council breached sections 10(1) and 17(1) of FOIA because it failed to provide a valid response within 20 working days. The Commissioner does not require the Council to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 17; FOI 42
View Wirral Council
1 Nov 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested relating to wording in public notices relating to proposal notices for parking management orders. The Commissioner’s decision is that London Borough of Hillingdon (LBH) is entitled to cite section 14 (vexatious request) in response to the request. The Commissioner does not require LBH to take any steps as a result of this decision notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12
View Hillingdon Council
1 Nov 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information relating to different aspects of a planning application. 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 regulation 5(2) of EIR 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 EIR.
Exemptions cited: EIR 5(2)
View London Borough of Croydon
1 Nov 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from Stafford Borough Council (“the Council”) regarding planning application decisions and discussions regarding a neighbouring development. The Council provided relevant information and links to further published information, which was accessible online, they cited section 21 (accessible by other means), and section 40(2) (personal information) of FOIA for redactions of the disclosed information and stated it did not hold any further information within scope of the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the Council holds no further recorded information relevant to the complainant’s request and has complied with section 1(1) of FOIA. The Commissioner does not require any steps to be taken as a result of this decision notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Stafford Borough Council
1 Nov 2022Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information from Wealden District Council (“the Council”) about the public objections and comments regarding a particular planning application. The Council refused to provide the requested information citing regulation 12(4)(b) of the EIR (manifestly unreasonable). The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council is entitled to rely on regulation 12(4)(b) of the EIR. The Council breached regulation 14(3) of the EIR as it incorrectly issued its refusal under FOIA and not the EIR. The Commissioner does not require the Council to take any steps as a result of this decision notice.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(b); EIR 14(3); EIR 9
View Wealden District Council
1 Nov 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about the Attorney General’s consent to prosecute in a particular case. The Attorney General’s Office (‘the AGO’) refused the request, citing sections 31 (Law enforcement) and 42 (Legal professional privilege) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the AGO was entitled to rely on section 31(1)(c) of FOIA to refuse the request. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken as a result of this decision. First-tier tribunal (General Regulatory chamber) information rights appeal EA/2022/0389 appeal Withdrawn.
Exemptions cited: FOI 31
View Attorney General's Office
1 Nov 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested the Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC) to disclose the ‘internal ways-of working review’ mentioned by Lord Bethell in Parliament. The DHSC refused to disclose the requested information citing section 35(1)(a) of FOIA. During the Commissioner’s investigation the DHSC confirmed that it was now willing to disclose the requested information to the complainant. But despite various communications the Commissioner was unable to get the DHSC to confirm when this would be done. The Commissioner requires the DHSC to disclose the requested information to the complainant within the statutory timeframe outlined in his notice. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2022/0396 consent order.
Exemptions cited: FOI 35(1)(a)
View Department of Health and Social Care
1 Nov 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested a copy of a “Response to the Notice to Prevent Future Deaths Report”. As of the date of this notice, Tees, Esk and Wear Valleys NHS Foundation Trust (the Trust) had not issued a substantive response to this request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Trust has breached section 10(1) of FOIA as it failing to provide a valid response to the request within the statutory time frame of 20 working days. The Commissioner requires the Trust to take the following step to ensure compliance with the legislation. 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 Tees, Esk and Wear Valleys NHS Foundation Trust
1 Nov 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested a copy of a letter sent by the CEO of Tees, Esk and Wear Valleys NHS Foundation Trust (the Trust) to a Coroner. As of the date of this notice, the Trust has not issued a substantive response to this request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Trust has 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. The Commissioner requires the Trust to take the following step to ensure compliance with the legislation. 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 Tees, Esk and Wear Valleys NHS Foundation Trust
1 Nov 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) to disclose information relating to All-Party Dog Advisory Welfare Group’s contact with the head of animal welfare at Defra or predecessors from 30 April 2020 onwards. Defra refused to disclose the requested information citing sections 35(1)(a) and 40 of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that Defra is entitled to rely on section 35(1)(a) of FOIA. He therefore does not require any further action to be taken. First-tier Tribunal (General Regulatory Chamber) Information Rights appeal EA/2022/0425 appeal dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 35(1)(a)
1 Nov 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested from Buckinghamshire Council (the Council) information relating to Westhorpe Interchange project. The Council provided some information relating to the request, but refused the remaining information under regulation 12(4)(d) (material in the course of completion, unfinished documents and incomplete data) of EIR. The Commissioner’s decision is that regulation 12(4)(d) of EIR is engaged and the public interest in maintaining the exception outweighs the public interest in disclosure. The Commissioner does not require the Council to take any steps as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(d)
View Buckinghamshire Council
1 Nov 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about expenditure on informants from the Metropolitan Police Service (the “MPS”). The MPS provided some information but would neither confirm nor deny (NCND) holding the remainder citing sections 23(5) (Information supplied by, or concerning, certain Security Bodies), 24(2) (National security), 30(3) (Investigations and proceedings), 31(3) (Law enforcement), 38(2) (Health and safety) and 40(5) (Personal information) of FOIA.The Commissioner’s decision is that the MPS was entitled to rely on section 23(5) or, in the alternative, section 24(2) to NCND whether it holds the requested information. No steps are required. First-tier tribunal (General Regulatory chamber) information rights appeal EA/2022/0394 appeal dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 23; FOI 24
View Metropolitan Police Service
1 Nov 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested a copy of a handwritten letter sent to Dover District Council (the Council) about the addition of a conservatory to the complainant’s property. The Commissioner’s decision is that the FOS has correctly relied upon regulation 13(2) of EIR to withhold the information. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 13
View Dover District Council
1 Nov 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested a murder file from the Metropolitan Police Service (the “MPS”). The MPS would “neither confirm nor deny” (NCND) holding the information citing sections 30(3) (Investigations and proceedings), 31(3) (Law enforcement), 38(2) (Health and safety) and 40(5) (Personal information) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the MPS was not entitled to rely on the exemptions cited. The Commissioner requires the MPS to confirm or deny whether the requested information is held. If information is held, it should either be disclosed or the MPS should issue a fresh refusal notice in compliance with section 17 FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 30; FOI 31; FOI 38; FOI 40
View Metropolitan Police Service
1 Nov 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested Liverpool University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust (the trust) to disclose detailed expenditure for the month of March. The trust disclosed some information but withheld the remainder citing sections 40 and 43 of FOIA. With regards to items 1 and 3 of the request, the Commissioner is satisfied that these are not valid requests for information in accordance with section 8 of FOIA. In respect of item 2, he is however satisfied that the trust is entitled to withhold the remaining withheld information under sections 40 and 43 of FOIA. He therefore does not require any further action to be taken. Information Tribunal FTT EA/2022/0340 appeal dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40; FOI 43
View Liverpool University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust
1 Nov 2022Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The Commissioner’s decision is that at the time of the request Tower Hamlets Council was entitled to withhold some of the information the complainant has requested under regulation 12(5)(e) of the EIR, which concerns commercial interests. The Council breached regulation 14(3) of the EIR as it incorrectly issued its refusal under FOIA and not the EIR.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(e); EIR 14
View London Borough of Tower Hamlets
31 Oct 2022Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested from London Borough of Croydon (the Council) information relating to annual council tax band D for the years 2020 and 2021. The Council applied section 21 (information reasonably accessible to applicant by other means) of FOIA to the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council was entitled to rely on section 21 of FOIA. However, the Council breached sections 1(1)(a) and 10(1) of FOIA by failing to respond to the request within the 20 working day time for compliance. The Commissioner does not require the Council to take any steps as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1(1)(a); FOI 10(1); FOI 21
View London Borough of Croydon
31 Oct 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information from Croydon Council (“the Council”) relating to consideration of a light dimming policy. The Council have provided some information they have located but are unable to find any further information that relate to meetings about this policy as outlined in the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has demonstrated that, on the balance of probabilities, it does not hold any further information within the scope of the complainant’s request and Regulation 12 (4)(a) of the EIR is engaged. Therefore, the Commissioner requires no steps to be taken in respect of this Decision Notice.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(a)
View London Borough of Croydon
31 Oct 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from Durham Constabulary about correspondence relating to staff guides for appropriate language, promoting inclusion and diversity and respecting gender pronouns. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, Durham Constabulary 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 Durham Constabulary
31 Oct 2022Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested the Care Quality Commission (CQC) to disclose the information it holds regarding the CQC’s investigation and subsequent outcomes in respect of the protected disclosure information they supplied. The CQC refused to disclose the requested information citing section 31(1)(g) by virtue of 31(2)(c) of FOIA (law enforcement). The Commissioner’s decision is that the CQC is entitled to refuse to disclose the requested information in accordance with regulation 31(1)(g), by virtue of 31(2)(c) of FOIA. The CQC however breached section 10 by failing to respond to the complainant’s request within 20 working days of receipt. The Commissioner does not require any further action to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 31(1)(g)
View CQC
31 Oct 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information in respect of UK exporters fined for unlicenced strategic exports between March and November 2021. HMRC relied on section 44(1) of FOIA (statutory prohibition on disclosure) to withhold the information. The Commissioner’s decision is that HMRC correctly relied upon section 44 of FOIA. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 44
31 Oct 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from London Borough of Barking and Dagenham (“the Council”) relating to free parking permits to councillors. 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 provide a substantive response to the request in accordance with its obligations under FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Barking and Dagenham Council
31 Oct 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to HM Treasury seeking email correspondence between Adrian Masters, a senior civil servant, and representatives of McKinsey regarding the Health and Social Care Taskforce. HMT initially responded by stating that it did not hold any information. During the course of the Commissioner’s investigation its located some information falling within the scope of the request. It provided the complainant with an email from McKinsey to Mr Masters, redacted on the basis of sections 35(1)(a) (formulation or development of government policy) and 40(2) (personal data) of FOIA. It also sought to withhold a slide presentation attached to the email on the basis of section 35(1)(a).The Commissioner’s decision is that HMT is entitled to withhold the information on the basis of sections 35(1)(a) and 40(2).
Exemptions cited: FOI 35; FOI 40
View HM Treasury
31 Oct 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested from Shropshire Council information in relation to certain types of companies into which its staff pension funds were invested. Shropshire Council responded by applying Section 12(1) of the FOIA on the basis that the time and cost of identifying and extracting the requested information would exceed the appropriate limit. The Commissioner’s decision is that Shropshire Council has correctly applied Section 12(1) of the FOIA to refuse the complainant’s request. The Commissioner also finds that Shropshire Council complied with its obligations under Section 16(1) of FOIA to offer advice and assistance. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps to ensure compliance with the legislation.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12(1)
View Shropshire Council
31 Oct 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested the Cost v Benefit Analysis undertaken by the Welsh Government in respect of its Basic Income Pilot Scheme to pay care leavers £1600 per month. The Welsh Government refused to provide the information citing section 35(1)(a) (formulation and development of government policy) FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Welsh Government has correctly relied on section 35(1)(a) FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 35(1)(a)
View Welsh Government
31 Oct 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to the Ministry of Defence seeking information about a meeting a defence Minister had with particular companies in April 2018. The MOD provided information in response to request but in doing so redacted information from documents on the basis of sections 27(1)(a) and (c) (international relations) and 43(2) (commercial interests) of FOIA. The complainant challenged its reliance on these exemptions. The Commissioner decision is that the redacted information is exempt from disclosure on the basis of sections 27(1)(a) and (c) or section 43(2) and that the public interest favours maintaining each of exemptions.
Exemptions cited: FOI 27; FOI 43
View Ministry of Defence
31 Oct 2022Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about charges for repairing damage to council highways and property. Surrey County Council (‘the Council’) said that it did not hold some of the information. It also said that it had already disclosed some of the information specified in the request to the complainant. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the Council does not hold the information requested in parts 4B, 2a, 2B and 2C of the request. However, the Council has not demonstrated to him that it has carried out adequate searches for the information requested in parts 5B and 5C of the request. Therefore, on the balance of probabilities, the Commissioner is not satisfied that the Council has identified all information held within the scope of those parts of the request. The Council also breached sections 1 and 10 of FOIA by failing to respond to the request within 20 working days. The Commissioner requires the Council to issue a fresh response to parts 5B
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10
View Surrey County Council
31 Oct 2022Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information explaining why a particular nurse did not have their registration suspended. The above public authority relied on section 40(2) of FOIA to withhold the information. The Commissioner’s decision is that the public authority should have relied on section 40(5B) of FOIA to refuse to confirm or deny whether any information was held and has applied this exemption himself proactively. The public authority breached section 17 of FOIA as it failed to issue a correct refusal notice within 20 working days. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 17; FOI 40(5)(b)
View NMC
31 Oct 2022Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from Kent County Council (“the Council”) about domiciliary care. The Council withheld some of the information under section 31(1)(g) (prejudice to law enforcement) of FOIA and the commercial interests exemption under section 43(2) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the law enforcement exemption under section 31(1)(g) is not engaged in relation to any of the withheld information. Regarding the exemption under section 43(2), the Commissioner’s decision is that this exemption has been correctly applied only to the name of the care provider(s) investigated by the Council, the Council has failed to demonstrate that this exemption is engaged in relation to the rest of the withheld information. The Commissioner requires the Council to take the following step to ensure compliance with the legislation: Disclose the withheld information, other than the name of the care provider(s) investigated by the Council. The information to be disclosed consist
Exemptions cited: FOI 31(1)(g); FOI 43(2)
View Kent County Council
31 Oct 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested documents used to support a self-assessment of vascular services sent to NHS England by Northampton General Hospital NHS Trust (“the Trust”). The Trust provided information for the first 3 parts of the request but stated no information was held for part 4 of the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Trust has complied with its obligations under section 1(1) of the FOIA and that, on balance, no further information is held.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View NORTHAMPTON GENERAL HOSPITAL NHS TRUST
31 Oct 2022Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from Birmingham City Council (“the Council”) about a contract for the provision of international genealogy services and the associated procurement process. The Council disclosed some information within the scope of the request but withheld some information under section 40(2) of FOIA (the personal information exemption), section 42(1) of FOIA (the legal professional privilege exemption) and section 43(2) of FOIA (the commercial interests exemption).The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has correctly applied section 40(2) to some, but not all, of the information withheld on this basis; the Council has correctly applied section 42(1) to some, but not all, of the information withheld on this basis; the Council has failed to demonstrate that section 43(2) is engaged in respect to the information withheld on this basis. The Commissioner requires the Council to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: disclose the inf
Exemptions cited: FOI 40(2); FOI 42(1); FOI 43(2)
View Birmingham City Council
31 Oct 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant made a request for information relating to which healthcare providers make up the East of England Adult Secure Provider Collaborative. The Commissioner’s decision is as follows: On the balance of probabilities, Essex Partnership University NHS Foundation Trust (“the Trust”) holds no further recorded information relevant to the complainant’s request and has complied with section 1(1) of FOIA than the information they have already provided.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1(1)
View Essex Partnership University NHS Foundation Trust
31 Oct 2022Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to an investigation. The above public authority (the public authority) relied on section 41 of FOIA (actionable breach of confidence) in order to withhold the requested information.The Commissioner’s decision is that the public authority has correctly applied section 41 of FOIA to the withheld information. However, the public authority breached sections 10 and 17 of FOIA in responding to the request. The Commissioner does not require further steps. Information Tribunal EA/2022/0345 appeal dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 17; FOI 41
View NHS England
31 Oct 2022Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested from the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority (IPSA) monthly bank statements during a specific timeframe, corporate accounts, bank names, sort codes and account numbers. At internal review, IPSA disclosed the names of the banks but refused the remainder of the request, citing section 14(1) – vexatious request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the request is vexatious and IPSA was correct in citing section 14(1). The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 14; FOI 17
View Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority
31 Oct 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) to disclose all the information it holds on the Walleys Quarry Landfill Site. Defra refused to disclose the requested information citing regulation 12(4)(b) of the EIR (manifestly unreasonable on the basis of cost). The Commissioner is satisfied that regulation 12(4)(b) applies to the request and that the public interest rests in maintaining this exception. He has also decided that Defra complied with its obligations under regulation 9 and provided appropriate advice and assistance to the complainant. The Commissioner does not require any further action to be taken. First-tier tribunal (General Regulatory chamber) information rights appeal EA/2022/0390 appeal dismissed.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(b); EIR 9
31 Oct 2022Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about the ballistic history of a weapon used in a specific crime. Police Service Northern Ireland (PSNI) refused to confirm or deny whether it holds the requested information.The Commissioner’s decision is that PSNI is entitled to rely on section 30(3) of FOIA to refuse to confirm or deny that it holds the requested information, and that the balance of the public interest favours maintaining the exemption. However, he finds that PSNI breached section 10(1) of FOIA as it failed to provide its response to the request within the statutory timeframe.The Commissioner does not require PSNI to take any remedial steps. First-tier tribunal (General Regulatory chamber) information rights appeal EA/2022/0395 withdrawn.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10(1); FOI 30
View Police Service of Northern Ireland
31 Oct 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to the Cabinet Office seeking the materials delivered by an external contractor in relation to two contracts it was awarded to undertake research into the public’s attitude to the government’s Covid health messaging. The Cabinet Office refused the request on the basis of section 12(1) (cost of compliance) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Cabinet Office was entitled to refuse the request on the basis of section 12(1). The Commissioner is also satisfied that the Cabinet Office provided advice and assistance to the complainant in line with its duty at section 16 of FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12; FOI 16
View Cabinet Office
31 Oct 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information concerned with a specific report that the London Ambulance Service NHS Trust (“London Ambulance Service”) published. By the date of this notice London Ambulance Service had not issued a substantive response to this request. The Commissioner’s decision is that London Ambulance Service 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 London Ambulance Service to take the following step to ensure compliance with the legislation.
• London Ambulance Service must provide a substantive response to the request in accordance with its obligations under FOIA. London Ambulance Service 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 contem
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View London Ambulance Service NHS Trust
31 Oct 2022Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested the Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC) to disclose the evidence behind a statement it made in some guidance it issued relating to the Covid-19 vaccines. The DHSC relied on section 21 of FOIA, as the information was already in the publicly domain. The Commissioner’s decision is that on the balance of probabilities the DHSC has identified all the recorded information it holds and, as this information is accessible to the complainant by other means, it is correct to rely on section 21 of FOIA. He has however recorded a breach of section 10 of FOIA because the DHSC failed to respond to the complainant’s request within 20 working days of receipt. The Commissioner does not require any further action to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10; FOI 21
View Department of Health and Social Care
31 Oct 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested from His Majesty’s Revenue & Customs (HMRC) information relating to the outcome of the VAT case against Framgord Ltd. (a Shetland salmon sales company). HMRC refused to confirm or deny whether it held the requested information and cited section 44(2) (prohibitions on disclosure) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that HMRC was entitled to rely on section 44(2) of FOIA. Therefore, the Commissioner does not require HMRC to take any steps as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: FOI 44