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 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 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 partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information regarding sports or community facility provision in Evingar Ward. Basingstoke and Dean Borough Council provided some information, but denied that further information was held. The Commissioner’s decision is that on the balance of probabilities, the council does not hold any further information, and therefore it complied with the requirements of Regulation 5(1) of the EIR. He has, however, decided that the council did not comply with the requirements of Regulation 5(2) of the EIR because it did not respond to the request within 20 working days. The Commissioner does not require the council to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 5(1); EIR 5(2)
View Basingstoke and Deane Borough Council
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 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
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
28 Oct 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested copies of all e-mails to/from HMRC's press office on specific dates which contain specific strings of text, and copies of all e-mails in the thread(s) of those e-mail(s). The Commissioner’s decision is that His Majesty’s Revenue & Customs (HMRC) is entitled to rely on section 14(1) to refuse to provide the requested information. The Commissioner does not require HMRC to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14
28 Oct 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about Homes in Multiple Occupancy (HMOs). The above public authority denied holding the information. The Commissioner’s decision is that the public authority does hold the information and has therefore failed to comply with its duty under section 1 of FOIA. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. Either provide the information to the complainant or issue a refusal notice that complies with section 17 of FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Gwynedd Council
28 Oct 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information relating to correspondence about a specific property. The Commissioner’s decision is that the London Borough of Lambeth (the Council) is not entitled to rely on regulation 12(5)(b) – the course of justice, to withhold the requested information. The Commissioner also finds the Council has breached regulation 5(2) by exceeding the timescale to respond. The Commissioner requires the Council to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: Provide the complainant with a list of communications with the relevant parties, to include date, time and type of communication, for example, telephone call.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(b)
View London Borough of Lambeth
27 Oct 2022Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested an unredacted version of a published report on the cancellation of external speakers associated with a Centre for Criminology seminar and a Holocaust Memorial Week – the ‘Reindorf Review’. The University of Essex (‘the University’) disclosed some of the previously redacted information but has continued to withhold the remaining redacted information under sections 36(2), 40(2) and 41(1) of FOIA. These concern prejudice to effective conduct of public affairs, personal data and information provided in confidence respectively. The Commissioner’s decision is as follows: The University correctly applied section 36(2)(c) and/or section 40(2) and/or section 41(1) of FOIA to the information it is withholding and, where relevant, the public interest favoured withholding this information. The University’s handling of the request did not comply with section 10(1) of FOIA, and its refusal did not comply with section 17(1). The Commissioner does not require the Universi
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 17; FOI 36; FOI 40; FOI 41
View The University of Essex
27 Oct 2022Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested training guides, or their equivalent, for its officers, from the Metropolitan Police Service (the “MPS”). Having originally disclosed some information and cited exemptions in respect of the remainder, at internal review the MPS advised that to comply with the request would exceed the appropriate limit as section 12 (Cost of compliance) FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the MPS was entitled to rely on section 12 FOIA and that it did not breach section 16 (Advice and assistance). However, he finds that it breached section 10(1) by failing to comply with section 1(1)(a) within the statutory time period. No steps are required.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 12; FOI 16
View Metropolitan Police Service
27 Oct 2022Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested risk assessments related to India carried out by the Joint Biosecurity Centre. The above public authority relied on section 35 of FOIA (development of government policy) to withhold the requested information. The Commissioner’s decision is that section 35 is engaged and that the balance of the public interest favours maintaining the exemption. The public authority breached sections 10 and 17 of FOIA as it failed to confirm that it held information or issue its refusal notice within 20 working days. The Commissioner does not require further steps.Keywords/themes: Covid-19, pandemic messaging, travel restrictions
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 17; FOI 35
View Department of Health and Social Care
27 Oct 2022Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested from Doncaster Council, (‘the council’), information relating to a proposed sale of land and a development. The council said that it did not hold some information, and applied Regulation 12(5)(e) to withhold other information. It subsequently disclosed the information withheld under Regulation 12(5)(e) to the complainant. The complainant argues that the council will hold more information. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council was correct to state that it does not hold any further information as regards the request of 2 August 2021. However, as regards the request of 2 September 2021, the Commissioner has decided that the council did not fully respond to the request. The Commissioner therefore requires the council to take the following steps: to respond to the complainant's request for information as required by Regulation 5 of the EIR.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(a); EIR 5(1)
View Doncaster Council
27 Oct 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant is acting on behalf of a client, who has requested some “detailed” information about two groups of law firms/files from the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA). The Commissioner’s decision is that FCA was correct to rely on section 44(1)(a) of FOIA (the ‘prohibitions on disclosure’ exemption). The Commissioner does not require FCA to take any steps as a result of this decision notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 44
View Financial Conduct Authority
27 Oct 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information associated with a pre-planning planning application. Northumberland County Council (the “council”) withheld the information under the exception for interests of the information provider – regulation 12(5)(f). The Commissioner’s decision is that the council has correctly relied on regulation 12(5)(f) to withhold the requested information. The Commissioner does not require the council to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(f)
View Northumberland County Council
27 Oct 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant asked a series of questions about yellow markings. The Royal Borough of Greenwich (“the Council”) provided some information. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the Council disclosed all the relevant information it held within the scope of the request. First-tier tribunal (General Regulatory chamber) information rights appeal EA/2022/0381 appeal withdrawn.
Exemptions cited: EIR 5(1)
View Royal Borough of Greenwich
27 Oct 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information relating to Lydney sewage treatment works. The Commissioner’s decision is that Severn Trent plc is entitled to rely on regulation 12(5)(b) – the course of justice, to withhold the requested information. He also finds that Severn Trent plc has breached regulation 5(2) EIR by exceeding the time allowed to respond. The Commissioner does not require Severn Trent plc to take any steps as a result of this decision notice.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(b)
View Severn Trent Water
27 Oct 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from the Health and Care Professions Council (“the HCPC”) relating to information about a complaint they submitted regarding a request for information about specific files held by the HCPC in relation to fitness to practise. The HCPC treated part of the request as a Subject Access Request (SAR) and refused to disclose the information they assessed under FOIA, citing sections 30(2)(a)(iii) and 40(2) as a basis for non-disclosure. The Commissioner’s decision is that the HCPC has correctly applied section 30(2)(a)(iii) to the requested information, therefore the Commissioner has not considered section 40(2) and requires no steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 30
View Health and Care Professions Council
27 Oct 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from the Council relating to the interview process and breakdown of applications for an appointee position at HAF. 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 Council must provide a substantive response to the request in accordance with its obligations under FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View London Borough of Croydon
27 Oct 2022Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to the Home Office for information provided to the Home Secretary to support statements in press articles asserting that child rapists, those who posed a threat to national security, serious criminals and failed asylum seekers were abusing the Modern-Day Slavery System. The Home Office provided a response to the request however, withheld some information under Section 40 (personal information) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Home Office was entitled to rely on section 40 (2) of FOIA to withhold the information. The Commissioner has found the Home Office breached section 10 of FOIA as the initial response was outside required timescales. The Commissioner does not require the Home Office to take any further steps in relation to this decision notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 40(2)
View Home Office
26 Oct 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from Powys Teaching Health Board (“the Board”) about number of patients removed from waiting lists and number of Covid deaths in the area it covers. The Board disclosed information within scope of the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that on the balance of probabilities, the Board 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.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1(1)
View Powys Teaching Health Board
26 Oct 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information from High Speed Two Ltd (HS2) to identify by address and postcode properties HS2 had acquired and subsequently resold, the dates of purchase, resale, whether any improvements had been carried out and their cost. HS2 asked for clarification and subsequently provided some information. It withheld some of the requested information under regulations 12(5)(a), 12(5)(b) and 13 of the EIR. The Commissioner’s decision is that HS2 has correctly cited regulation 13 of the EIR to withhold the requested information. The Commissioner does not require any steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 13(1)
View High Speed Two (HS2) Limited
26 Oct 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to Cardiff Council (“the Council”) for information relating to houses in multiple occupation (HMOs). The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the Council does not hold any information within the scope of the request and has therefore complied with section 1 of FOIA. The Commissioner does not require the Council to take any further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1(1)
View Cardiff Council
26 Oct 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about communication systems. The above public authority provided some information, denied holding most of the information and relied on section 43 of FOIA (commercial interests) to withhold the remainder. The Commissioner’s decision is that the public authority has failed to demonstrate that section 43 of FOIA is engaged and consequently is not entitled to rely on that exemption. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. Disclose, to the complainant, the information held within the scope of element [2] of the original request.
Exemptions cited: FOI 43
View Dorset County Hospital NHS Foundation Trust
26 Oct 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council (“the Council”) relating to faculties for a specific church.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.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council
26 Oct 2022Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about a potential sanitary and phytosanitary agreement with the European Union. The above public authority relied on various limbs of section 27 (international relations) and, latterly, section 21 of FOIA (reasonably accessible) to withhold information. The Commissioner’s decision is that the public authority has correctly relied upon section 27 of FOIA and that the balance of the public interest favours maintaining the exemption. It has not correctly applied section 21 of FOIA. The public authority breached section 17 of FOIA as it failed to provide a refusal notice, citing all the exemptions upon which it wished to rely, within 20 working days. Finally, the public authority breached section 10(3) of FOIA as it failed to complete its public interest considerations within a reasonable timeframe. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: indicate, to the complainant, whe
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 17; FOI 21; FOI 27
26 Oct 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from City of Wolverhampton Council (“the Council”) relating to the age of individuals employed by the Council and contracts awarded by the Council for the provision of medico-legal witness expert reports. The Council provided the complainant with some information within the scope of questions 1 and 2 of the request but denied holding information within the scope of question 3 of the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council does hold information within the scope of question 3 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 question 3 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
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Wolverhampton City Council
26 Oct 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested from Herefordshire Council the pre-application advice for a proposed housing development. The Council withheld the requested information under regulation 12(5)(f) (Interests of the person who provided the information) of the EIR. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council was entitled to withhold the requested information under regulation 12(5)(f). The Commissioner does not require the Council to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(f)
View Herefordshire Council
26 Oct 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested copies of correspondence relating to decisions taken about passenger assistance during Storm Eunice from South East Trains Ltd (“SETL”). South East Trains Ltd. operating as “Southeastern” is owned by the Department of Transport. South East Trains Ltd provided copies of email correspondence with names and employment roles redacted citing section 40 (2) (personal information) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that SETL is correct to rely upon exemption under section 40(2) of FOIA for the information redacted. The Commissioner requires no steps as a result of this decision notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40(2)
View Department for Transport
26 Oct 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from the Department of Health Northern Ireland (the ‘DoH’) about the Vaccination Status of Deaths and Hospitalisations on its website. The DoH stated that it did not hold the requested information. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the DoH does hold the requested information and has therefore failed to comply with its duty under section 1(1) of FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1(1)
View Department of Health NI
26 Oct 2022Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested correspondence between South Lakeland District Council (“the Council”) about Planning, Land Charges and Building Control for a specified address (the complainant’s field) and third parties. The Council stated that it did not hold any information in scope of the request. The Commissioner determined that the Council wrongly handled the request under the FOIA and that the request fell to be considered under the EIR. Having considered the application of regulation 12(4)(a) – information not held – which has similarities to section 1(1) of FOIA, he is satisfied that, on the balance of probabilities, the Council did not hold the information requested by the complainant. However, the Council failed to issue a refusal notice relying on Regulation 12(4)(a) of the EIR - information not held - within 20 working days, it therefore breached Regulation 14 of the EIR.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(a); EIR 14
View South Holland District Council
26 Oct 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information with regards to a dispute relating to the ownership of a piece of land. Groby Parish Council (the council) refused the request under section 14(2) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the FOIA). The Commissioner’s decision is that the request falls under the EIR and the council should have dealt with it as such. He also finds that the council has breached Regulation 11(3) of the EIR as it has not carried out an internal review as requested. The Commissioner requires the council to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. Carry out an internal review relating to the complainant’s request in accordance with Regulation 11 of the EIR. The council must take these steps within 35 calendar days of the date of this decision notice. Failure to comply may result in the 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 11(3)
26 Oct 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The public authority has failed to respond to this request within 20 working days, as specified under FOIA. The Commissioner requires it to provide the complainant with a response to this request within 35 calendar days in accordance with its obligations under FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Bromley Council
26 Oct 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to diversity and inclusion. West Midlands Police denied holding the requested information. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, West Midlands Police does not hold the requested information. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View West Midlands Police
26 Oct 2022Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from Sussex Police (“the Police”) about the legality around the use of drones. The Police provided some guidance and links and stated that it did not hold any further information in scope of the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that only two parts of the request were valid and that on the balance of probabilities, the Police did not hold any further information within the scope of these two parts. However, the Police breached section 10 and section 17 of FOIA as they failed to issue their response within 20 working days.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1(1); FOI 10; FOI 17
View Sussex Police
26 Oct 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information on spending. The above public authority relied on section 43 of FOIA (commercial interests) to withhold some information. The Commissioner’s decision is that the public authority has not demonstrated why section 43 was engaged and consequently is not entitled to rely on this exemption. The Commissioner also finds that the public authority breached section 10 and section 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 it relied on section 43 of FOIA to withhold.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 17; FOI 43
View CLITHEROE ROYAL GRAMMAR SCHOOL
26 Oct 2022Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to the Home Office for information relating to the housing of migrants at a named hotel. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Home Office correctly applied section 38(2) of FOIA to the request. However in failing to respond to the request within the statutory timescale, the Commissioner has determined that the Home Office breached section 10(1) of FOIA. The Commissioner does not require any further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10(1); FOI 38
View Home Office
26 Oct 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information from Warwickshire County Council (“the Council”) relating to parking on two specific roads. The Council refused to provide the requested information citing regulation 12(4)(b) (manifestly unreasonable) of the EIR. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council is entitled to rely on regulation 12(4)(b) to refuse to provide the requested information. The Commissioner does not require the Council to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(b)
View Warwickshire County Council
26 Oct 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to complaints made about named Councillors. The Commissioner’s decision is that: London Borough of Lewisham (“the Council”) should have relied on section 40(5B)(a)(i) of FOIA to neither confirm nor deny it held any of the requested information. The Council breached section 17(1) of FOIA as it did not refuse the request within the required timescale of 20 working days. The Commissioner does not require the Council to take any corrective steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View Lewisham Council
26 Oct 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from Dudley Metropolitan Borough Council (the “Council”) relating to a tenant case against a landlord, the action taken by the Council and other information. The Council refused the request under section 14(1) of FOIA (vexatious requests). The Commissioner’s decision is that the request was vexatious and therefore the Council 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 Dudley Council
26 Oct 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested from Torbay Council information in relation an independent review concerning a Tree Preservation Order. Torbay Council disclosed some of the information but withheld the remainder under Regulation 12(5)(b) of the EIR. The Commissioner’s decision is that Torbay Council has correctly applied Regulation 12(5)(b) of the EIR to the remainder of the requested information and the public interest is balanced in favour of withholding it. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps to ensure compliance with the legislation.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(b)
View Torbay Council
26 Oct 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to meetings that he believed to have taken place. The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) provided some information but withheld the remainder, citing section 40(2) (personal information) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the MoJ was entitled to withhold the information by virtue of section 40(2). The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken as a result of this decision. Information Tribunal FTT EA/2022/0379 appeal dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View Ministry of Justice
25 Oct 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to trigger warnings. Leeds Arts University (‘the University’) confirmed that it did not hold any information that fell within the scope of the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the University does not hold any information that falls within the scope of this request. The Commissioner does not require the University to any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Leeds Arts University
25 Oct 2022Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant made a three-part request to Tibberton Parish Council (the ‘Parish Council’) for financial information and specified terms and conditions. For part 1, the Parish Council invited the complainant to inspect five lever arch files (which he has not done) and later provided some hard copy information. Ultimately, for part 2 it maintained that the requested information was available on its website and formally cited section 21 of FOIA (information accessible to the applicant by other means) during the Commissioner’s investigation. The complainant maintains that the requested information was not available on the Parish Council’s website at the time of the request and, thereby, was not “reasonably accessible” to him. Although section 21 of FOIA was originally cited for part 3 of the request, the Parish Council appears to have revised its position and has provided the complainant with a hard copy of the requested terms and conditions. The complainant accepts that he has received
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10; FOI 21
25 Oct 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested various information in respect of Houses in Multiple Occupancy (HMO’s) for the Bridgend, Vale of Glamorgan and Cardiff Council areas, and in particular electronic versions of their respective registers as an excel workbook. The Vale of Glamorgan Council (‘the Council’) informed the complainant that it does not send out the full information requested, citing section 31(1)(a) (law enforcement) FOIA to withhold the registers on the basis that it would be likely to prejudice the prevention or detection of crime. During the course of the correspondence with the complainant, the Council also cited section 12 FOIA (cost of compliance exceeds the appropriate limit) in respect of information relevant to the request, but not captured on the registers. Following the Commissioner’s investigation, the Council added section 21 (information accessible to the applicant by other means) and section 40(2) (personal information) in respect of the registers. The Commissioner’s dec
Exemptions cited: FOI 12; FOI 21
View Vale of Glamorgan Council
25 Oct 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested the legal costs relating to Shamima Begum. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Home Office has correctly applied section 23(1) - Information supplied by or relating to security bodies, to the withheld information. The Commissioner does not require the Home Office to take any steps as a result of this decision notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 23
View Home Office
25 Oct 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to the Attorney General’s Office (AGO) seeking a copy of the Attorney General’s ministerial diary for the period February 2020 to March 2021. The AGO refused the request on the basis of section 14(1) (vexatious) of FOIA given the burden in complying with it. The Commissioner’s decision is that the AGO is entitled to rely on section 14(1) of FOIA to refuse to comply with the request.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14
View Attorney General's Office
25 Oct 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information relating to a certificate of lawfulness application. St Albans City and District Council (the Council) refused to provide some of the requested information on the basis that regulation 12(5)(b) (course of justice) of the EIR applied. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council was entitled to apply regulation 12(5)(b) to withhold that information. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(b)
View St Albans City and District Council
25 Oct 2022Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested details of all contracts and payments between Rapid Secure and Hertfordshire Constabulary. Ultimately, Hertfordshire Constabulary provided expenditure details for the last five years and cited section 21 of FOIA (information accessible to applicant by other means) in relation to the publicly available contract summary information. It explained that this is a “seven force procurement contract” with the lead force being the Metropolitan Police Service (the ‘MPS’). The complainant complained that the section 21 web link was not provided within the statutory 20 working days. He did not dispute the expenditure information provided so the Commissioner has disregarded this aspect. The Commissioner’s decision is that the contract summary information is reasonably accessible to the complainant such that Hertfordshire Constabulary was entitled to cite section 21 of FOIA for this information. As Hertfordshire Constabulary failed to respond to the request in its entirety
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 21
View Hertfordshire Constabulary