25 Oct 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant asked a series of questions relating to complaints handling by the Judicial Appointments and Conduct Ombudsman (“the JACO”). The Commissioner’s decision is that, on a balance of probabilities, the Judicial Appointments and Conduct Ombudsman does not hold the further information requested by the complainant.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1(1)
View Judicial Appointments and Conduct Ombudsman
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 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 not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant asked a series of questions about Automatic Traffic Counters and a report concerning road closures to the Royal Borough of Greenwich (“the Council”). The Commissioner’s decision is that, on a balance of probabilities, the Council does not hold the further information requested by the complainant.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1(1)
View Royal Borough of Greenwich
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 not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from the Metropolitan Police Service (“MPS”) about the murder of Sandra Rivett and the disappearance of the seventh Lord Lucan. MPS cited the section 30(3) (Investigations and proceedings) and section 40(5) (Personal information) FOIA exemptions to neither confirm nor deny holding the requested information. The Commissioner decided that MPS had correctly engaged the section 30(3) FOIA exemption and that the public interest favoured maintaining the exemption. No steps are required.
Exemptions cited: FOI 30
View Metropolitan Police Service
25 Oct 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about the costs of publications of notices relating to parking management schemes. The Commissioner’s decision is that London Borough of Hillingdon (LBH) is entitled to rely on section 12 FOIA to refuse the request. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps as a result of this decision notice. Information Tribunal [EA/2022/0343] appeal Struck Out.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12
View Hillingdon Council
25 Oct 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to the Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office (FCDO) seeking a copy of the Secretary of State’s ministerial diary for the period December 2019 to March 2021. The FCDO 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 FCDO is entitled to rely on section 14(1) of FOIA to refuse to comply with the request.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14
View Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office
24 Oct 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about stolen Range Rovers including the vehicle registration number of each stolen vehicle. The above public authority (“the public authority”) provided most of the information but relied on section 40(2) of FOIA to withhold the specific vehicle registration numbers. The Commissioner’s decision is that the public authority is entitled to rely on section 40(2) of FOIA to withhold the requested information. The Commissioner does not require further steps.Keywords/themes: VRM, victims of crime
Exemptions cited: FOI 40(2)
View West Midlands Police
24 Oct 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant asked HMRC a question about [name redacted]. The Commissioner’s decision is that HMRC was correct to rely on section 44(2) of FOIA and thereby neither confirm nor deny (NCND) whether HMRC holds information of the description specified in the request. The Commissioner does not require HMRC to take any steps as a result of this decision notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 44
24 Oct 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has made a meta-request (a request for information relating to a previous request for information). The DHSC refused the request, citing section 14(1) (vexatious requests) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the request is vexatious and therefore the DHSC was entitled to rely upon section 14(1) to refuse to comply with it. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14(1)
View Department of Health and Social Care
24 Oct 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information about revenue data for the Nunhead Estate. By the date of this notice, London Borough of Southwark Council (“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. 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 FOIA and may be dealt with as a contempt of court.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Southwark Council
24 Oct 2022Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested correspondence with the Secretary of State for Transport and with the Northern Transport Acceleration Council. The above public authority stated that it did not hold some of the information and relied on regulation 12(5)(e) of the EIR (commercial confidentiality) to withhold that which it did hold. The Commissioner’s decision is that the information the public authority has identified as being exempt does not fall within the scope of the request. He is also satisfied that, on the balance of probabilities, the public authority holds no information within the scope of elements 2 and 3 of the request. In respect of element 1, the Commissioner is not satisfied that the public authority has complied with its obligations under regulation 5(1) of the EIR. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: issue a fresh response to element [1], using the interpretation set out in paragraph 21 of th
Exemptions cited: EIR 5(1)
24 Oct 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information from Leicestershire County Council (“the Council”) about road inspection reports for a particular road for the years 2014 to 2020. During the course of the Commissioner’s investigation the Council disclosed the road inspection reports, however, within the reports from the past six years, it redacted specific dates that defects in the road condition were logged and then repaired. It withheld this information under regulation 12(5)(b) of the EIR on the basis that to disclose this information would adversely affect the course of justice. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has correctly applied regulation 12(5)(b). The Commissioner does not require further steps. First-tier tribunal (General Regulatory chamber) information rights appeal EA/2022/0346 appeal dismissed.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(b)
View Leicestershire County Council
24 Oct 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about adverse reactions to the coronavirus vaccination. The Medicines & Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (‘MHRA’) refused to comply with the request, citing section 14(1) (vexatious requests) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the request was vexatious and therefore the MHRA was entitled to rely upon section 14(1) to refuse it. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14(1)
View Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency
24 Oct 2022Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested from Exeter City Council (‘the council’), a copy of legal advice relating to a report to council about its parking enforcement provisions. The council refused the request on the basis that section 42(1) of FOIA applied (legal professional privilege). The Commissioner’s decision is that the council was correct to apply section 42(1) to withhold the information. He has, however, decided that the council did not comply with the requirements of section 10(1) of FOIA in that the council did not initially respond to the complainant’s request for information within 20 working days. The Commissioner does not require the council to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 42(1)
View Exeter City Council
24 Oct 2022Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information about the HS2 Wendover tunnel proposal. The above public authority’s (“the public authority’s”) final position was that is wished to rely on regulation 12(4)(e) – internal communications – and regulation 12(5)(d) – confidentiality of proceedings – to withhold one report. The Commissioner’s decision is that the public authority has correctly applied 12(5)(d) to the withheld information and that the balance of the public interest favours maintaining the exception. He is not satisfied that regulation 12(4)(e) is engaged. As the public authority failed to deal with the request under the EIR within 20 working days, it breached regulation 14 of the EIR. As it disclosed environmental information late, it also breached regulation 5(2) of the EIR. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(e); EIR 12(5)(d); EIR 14; EIR 5(2)
View Department for Transport
24 Oct 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from Fareham Borough Council (“the Council”) relating to information about a complaint they submitted regarding a specific Councillor. The Council provided the complainant with some information within the scope of their request, however it refused to disclose the remainder, citing section 40(2) as a basis for non-disclosure. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has correctly applied section 40(2) to the withheld information, therefore the Commissioner requires no steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View Fareham Borough Council
24 Oct 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested a copy of a document that was destroyed by the Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office (FCDO) prior to transferring the parent file to The National Archives (TNA). The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the FCDO does not hold the requested information.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1(1)
View Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office
24 Oct 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from the Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office (FCDO) about the International Conference: Freedom of Religion or Belief held at the QEII centre in July 2022. By the date of this notice the FCDO has not issued a substantive response to this request.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10(1)
View Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office
24 Oct 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested for information from the Public Services Ombudsman for Wales (“PSOW”) relating to PSOW case reference 201900276. The PSOW refused the request under section 44 of FOIA.The Commissioner’s decision is that PSOW has correctly applied section 44 of FOIA. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 44
View Public Services Ombudsman for Wales
21 Oct 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested from London Borough of Enfield (the Council) information relating to the Council’s PSI Asbestos Management System. The Council stated it does not hold the information requested. The Commissioner’s decision is that on the balance of probabilities, the Council does not hold the requested information. Therefore, the Commissioner does not require the Council to take any steps as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1(1)(a)
View Enfield Council
21 Oct 2022Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has made three requests to Bodmin Town Council (the town council). These all relate to the departure of certain employees from the town council, and the costs relating to this. The town council provided the complainant with some information in response to all three of the requests; it has also recently provided some additional information within a revised and final response sent to the Commissioner, which it confirmed was also to be issued to the complainant. The Commissioner has decided that the town council has incorrectly cited section 21 - information accessible by other means, of the FOIA to part of Request 1. However, he has proactively applied section 40(2) – third party personal data of the FOIA, to this information, as he is satisfied that its disclosure would breach data protection law. The Commissioner is satisfied that, on the balance of probabilities, the town council has released all the remaining information that it holds that is relevant to Request 1. Wi
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 21; FOI 40(2)
21 Oct 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The Commissioner’s decision is that the Department for Transport should have considered the request in this case under the EIR rather than FOIA. The Commissioner requires the Department for Transport to take the following step to ensure compliance with the legislation: Issue the complainant with a fresh response to their request that complies with the EIR.
Exemptions cited: EIR 2
View Department for Transport
21 Oct 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested a report relating to geo-environmental conditions at Rufford Close, Chesterfield. Chesterfield Borough Council (the “council”) withheld the information under the exception for the course of justice - regulation 12(5)(b). The Commissioner’s decision is that the council has correctly applied the provisions of regulation 12(5)(b) to withhold the requested information. The Commissioner does not require the council to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(b)
View Chesterfield Borough Council
21 Oct 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information associated with its granting of a betting licence to BetIndex Limited. The Gambling Commission (GC) directed the complainant to relevant published information and withheld an internal guidance document under section 31(1)(g) of FOIA, which concerns law enforcement. The Commissioner’s decision is as follows: The GC has correctly applied section 31(1)(g) of FOIA to the information it is withholding, by virtue of section 31(2)(d). The public interest favours withholding the information. The Commissioner does not require the GC to take any corrective steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 31
View Gambling Commission
21 Oct 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 Bromley Council
21 Oct 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted two separate requests to Bodmin Town Council (the town council) for information held about its dispute with Bodmin Jail. Whilst the town council provided the complainant with some information in response to both requests, it advised it was withholding part of the information relevant to the second request. The complainant has not contested the council’s decision to withhold this information; however, they do not accept that the town council has provided all of the remaining information that is held that is relevant to the two requests. It is the Commissioner’s decision that, on the balance of probabilities, the town council has now correctly identified and provided the complainant with all the information that it holds that is relevant to those parts of the two requests that are in dispute.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
21 Oct 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant made a request for the overall cost to the BBC of a Deprivation Study. The BBC refused to disclose the requested information under section 43(2) FOIA. The Commissioner considers that the BBC was incorrect to apply section 43(2) FOIA to the withheld information. The Commissioner requires the public authority to disclose the information withheld under section 43(2) FOIA. First-tier tribunal (General Regulatory chamber) information rights appeal EA/2022/0376 appeal allowed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 43
View BBC
21 Oct 2022Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested administerial information from various courts, regarding several proceedings in the family courts. The Ministry of Justice (the MOJ) refused to comply with request citing section 14(1) (vexatious request) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that: The request is vexatious and therefore the MOJ has correctly applied section 14(1). The Council failed to comply with section 17 of FOIA by not issuing its refusal notice within 20 working days. The Commissioner does not require the MOJ to take any further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14(1); FOI 17
View Ministry of Justice
21 Oct 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(d)
View Oxford City Council
21 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 Department for Business and Trade
21 Oct 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information regarding Education, Health and Care Plans (EHCP) and Special Educational Needs and Disability (SEND) information. This request also included tribunal information, costs and meeting reports. The Commissioner’s decision is that Suffolk County Council (the Council) was entitled to aggregate the request under section 12(4) of FOIA and to refuse to comply with the request in accordance of section 12(1) of FOIA. The Commissioner does not require the Council to take any further action.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12
View Suffolk County Council
21 Oct 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested the Internal Process Reviews (IPRs) carried out by the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP). DWP disclosed some of the information but withheld the remainder on the basis of section 35(1)(a) (formulation or development of government policy). During the Commissioner’s investigation, DWP disclosed further information. At this stage, DWP confirmed that it was redacting the IPRs on the basis of section 40(2) (third party personal data) and section 44 (statutory prohibition). The complainant confirmed that they did not dispute the redactions made under sections 40(2) and 44(1) but did dispute that DWP was entitled to rely on section 35(1)(a) to withhold the non-personal information. The Commissioner’s decision is that section 35(1)(a) is not engaged for some of the disputed information and for the information that does engage section 35(1)(a), the balance of the public interest favours disclosure. The Commissioner also considers that DWP did not comply with s
Exemptions cited: FOI 17; FOI 35
View Department for Work and Pensions
21 Oct 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about Internal Process Reviews (IPRs) carried out by the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP). DWP disclosed some of the information but withheld the majority of the requested information citing 35(1)(a) (formulation or development of government policy), section 40(2) (third party personal data), section 41(1) (information provided in confidence) and section 44(1)(a) (prohibition on disclosure). The complainant disputes DWP’s reliance on section 35(1)(a) to withhold the disputed information. The Commissioner’s decision is that section 35(1)(a) is not engaged for some of the disputed information and for the information that does engage section 35(1)(a), the Commissioner finds that the balance of the public interest favours disclosure. The Commissioner also finds that DWP has breached section 10(1) of FOIA as it failed to respond within the statutory timeframe. The Commissioner requires DWP to disclose the withheld IPRs with redaction of the in
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 35
View Department for Work and Pensions
21 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 London Borough of Hackney
20 Oct 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested the analysis conducted by the Child Safeguarding Practice Review Panel and referred to within its 2020 annual report. The Department for Education (‘DfE’) refused to provide the information, citing section 36(2)(c) (prejudice to the effective conduct of public affairs). The Commissioner’s decision is that the withheld information engages section 36(2)(c) and that the public interest favours maintaining the exemption. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any further steps. First-tier tribunal (General Regulatory chamber) information rights appeal EA/2022/0367 appeal allowed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 36(2)(c)
View Department for Education
20 Oct 2022Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has made a series of requests for a variety of information. Liverpool University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust’s final position was that it wished to rely on section 14 to refuse one request and to rely on regulation 12(5)(b) – course of justice – and regulation 12(5)(e) – commercial confidentiality – of the EIR in order to withhold the remaining information. The Commissioner’s decision is that requests 1, 2 and 4 should have been dealt with under the EIR. However, having done so, the Trust was entitled to rely on regulation 12(5)(b) of the EIR in the manner that it has done and the balance of the public interest favours withholding the information. The Trust was also entitled to rely on regulation 12(5)(e) of the EIR to withhold some, but not all of the information it initially withheld. The Commissioner finds that request 3 was vexatious and therefore the Trust was entitled to rely on section 14(1) of FOIA and Regulation 12(4)(b) of the EIR to refuse it. Finally, for
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(b); EIR 12(5)(b); EIR 12(5)(e); EIR 14; EIR 5(2); FOI 14; FOI 17
View Liverpool University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust
20 Oct 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
Summary wording for website: The complainant requested correspondence between North Norfolk District Council (the “council”) and specific town councillors. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council has correctly applied the provisions of section 40(2) to withhold the requested information. The Commissioner does not require the council to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40(2)
View North Norfolk District Council
20 Oct 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from Fareham Borough Council (“the Council”) relating to information omitted from its Register of Members’ Interests. The Council provided the complainant with some information within the scope of his request, however it refused to disclose the remainder, citing section 40(2) as a basis for non-disclosure. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has correctly applied section 40(2) to the withheld information, therefore the Commissioner requires no steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View Fareham Borough Council
20 Oct 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant made multiple information requests to the North East Combined Authority (“the NECA”) relating to the Tyne Tunnels. The NECA refused the request under section 14(1) of FOIA (vexatious requests).The Commissioner’s decision is that the requests are vexatious and therefore the NECA was entitled to rely upon section 14(1) of FOIA to refuse them.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14(1)
View North East Mayoral Combined Authority
20 Oct 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from Fareham Borough Council (“the Council”) relating to information omitted from its Register of Members’ Interests. The Council provided the complainant with some information within the scope of his request, however it refused to disclose the remainder, citing section 40(2) as a basis for non-disclosure. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has correctly applied section 40(2) to the withheld information, therefore the Commissioner requires no steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View Fareham Borough Council
20 Oct 2022Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from the Cabinet Office as to whether the Cabinet Secretary had requested any advice or guidance before making a determination regarding the legal and constitutional issues relating to the United Kingdom Internal Market Bill. The Cabinet Office confirmed that it held information falling within the scope of the request but that it considered this to be exempt from disclosure on the basis of section 35(1)(a) FOIA (formulation and development of government policy), 35(1)(c) FOIA (Law Officers’ advice) and section 42(1) FOIA (legal professional privilege). Section 21 FOIA (information accessible to the applicant by other means) was also cited which the complainant accepted. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Cabinet Office was entitled to rely on the exemptions at section 35(1)(a), section 35(1)(c) and section 42(1) in respect of the withheld information. However, the Cabinet Office breached section 10(1) FOIA by responding to the complainant beyo
Exemptions cited: FOI 10(1); FOI 35; FOI 35(1)(a); FOI 42(1)
View Cabinet Office
20 Oct 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested various information in respect of a Building Safety application for Kingsland Wharves from the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (‘DLUHC’). DLUHC confirmed that it holds relevant information in respect of some aspects of the request, but refused to disclose it, citing sections 40(2) (personal information), 41 (information provided in confidence) and 43 (commercial interests) FOIA. It also informed the complainant that it did not hold information in respect of one item of their request. During the course of the Commissioner’s investigation, DLUHC re-considered the request under the Environmental Information Regulations 2004, (‘the EIR’) and disclosed redacted copies of the information to the complainant citing regulation 13 (personal information) for the remaining withheld information. It also disclosed information relevant to the request it had not held at the time of its internal review. The complainant queried the absence of certain docume
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(a)
View Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government
20 Oct 2022Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested structural surveys of a building. Liverpool University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust relied on section 42 of FOIA (Legal Professional Privilege) to withhold the requested information. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Trust should have dealt with the request under the EIR, however he also finds that regulation 12(5)(b) is engaged in respect of the withheld information and that the balance of the public interest favours maintaining the exception. As the Trust failed to rely on an EIR exception within 20 working days, it breached Regulation 14 of the EIR. The Commissioner does not require further steps. Information Tribunal FTT EA/2022/0331 appeal dismissed.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(b); EIR 14
View Liverpool University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust
20 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(1)
View Sandwell and West Birmingham Hospitals NHS Trust
20 Oct 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
In two requests the complainant has requested correspondence about an investigation. The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) considered them to be repeated requests and refused to comply with them under section 14(2) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is as follows: HSE wrongly applied section 14(2) of FOIA to the requests as they are not repeated requests. The Commissioner requires HSE to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: Provide the complainant with a fresh response to their requests of 22 January 2021 that complies with the relevant legislation and does not rely on section 14(2) of FOIA. If HSE considers that the refined requests of 22 January 2021 remain too broad, in line with its obligation under section 16(1) of FOIA to offer advice and assistance, HSE should indicate how the requests might be further refined to bring complying with them within the appropriate cost limit. If the requests cannot be so refined, HSE should explain to the complainan
Exemptions cited: FOI 14
View Health and Safety Executive
20 Oct 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
In two requests the complainant has requested correspondence about an investigation. The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) considered them to be repeated requests and refused to comply with them under section 14(2) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is as follows: HSE wrongly applied section 14(2) of FOIA to the requests as they are not repeated requests. The Commissioner requires HSE to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: Provide the complainant with a fresh response to their requests of 22 January 2021 that complies with the relevant legislation and does not rely on section 14(2) of FOIA. If HSE considers that the refined requests of 22 January 2021 remain too broad, in line with its obligation under section 16(1) of FOIA to offer advice and assistance, HSE should indicate how the requests might be further refined to bring complying with them within the appropriate cost limit. If the requests cannot be so refined, HSE should explain to the complainan
Exemptions cited: FOI 14
View Health and Safety Executive
20 Oct 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information from London Borough of Tower Hamlets (“the Council”) relating to the road closure scheme on Antill Road. 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 failed to respond to the request within 20 working days and has therefore breached regulation 5(2) of the EIR. The Commissioner requires the Council to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation.• Issue a substantive response to the request in accordance with its obligations under 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 the Freedom of Information Act and may be dealt with as a contempt of court.
Exemptions cited: EIR 5(2)
View London Borough of Tower Hamlets
20 Oct 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested the pay grade of a named employee at the London Borough of Ealing (the ‘Council’). The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council is entitled to withhold the pay grade under section 40(2) of FOIA as it is the personal data of another individual and disclosure would be unlawful. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40(2)
View Ealing Council