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 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 not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to the London Borough of Camden (the Council) seeking information about compensation and legal cost payments made to residents of a particular development. The Council sought to withhold information on the basis of sections 31(1)(a) (law enforcement) and 36(2)(c) (effective conduct of public affairs) of FOIA. During the course of the Commissioner’s investigations the Council provided the complainant with some information. The Commissioner is satisfied that the remaining information held by the Council is exempt from disclosure on the basis of the exemptions cited.
Exemptions cited: FOI 31; FOI 36
View Camden Council
20 Oct 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information from the London Borough of Enfield (“the Council”) about resident responses to a traffic scheme consultation survey. The Council disclosed some of the information requested but refused to provide the postcodes citing the personal information exception under regulation 13(1) of the EIR (personal information). The Council also stated that it did not hold the paper copies of the surveys. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council correctly withheld the postcodes under regulation 13 of EIR and that, on the balance of probabilities, the Council does not hold the paper copies of the surveys. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(a); EIR 13
View Enfield Council
20 Oct 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to the Ministry of Defence (MOD) seeking the estimated annual revenue costs of the joint logistics support base and regional land training hub at Duqm, Oman for the next five years. The MOD confirmed that it held the information sought by the request but considered this to be exempt from disclosure on the basis of sections 27(1)(a) and (d) (international relations) and 43(2) (commercial interests) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the requested information is exempt from disclosure on the basis of sections 27(1)(a) and (d) and that in all the circumstances of the request the public interest favours maintaining the exemptions.
Exemptions cited: FOI 27
View Ministry of Defence
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
19 Oct 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about changes to rail services. The Department for Transport (DfT) has withheld the information under section 35(1)(a) of FOIA as it considers that it concerns the formulation of government policy. The Commissioner’s decision is as follows: DfT is entitled to withhold the requested information under section 35(1)(a) of FOIA and the public interest favours maintaining this exemption. The Commissioner does not require DfT to take any corrective steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 35
View Department for Transport
19 Oct 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested Oxfordshire Clinical Commissioning Group (CCG), now Buckinghamshire, Oxfordshire & Berkshire West Integrated Care Board, to disclose information relating to GP practices and what happens if they are unable to offer appointments. The CCG provided the complainant with some information. The complainant believes the two responses they received are contradictory. The Commissioner’s decision is that the CCG met its obligations under section 1 of FOIA and therefore there is no further action required. It provided a response to the issue in its internal review and this is in accordance with information the complainant obtained from another public authority. The Commissioner cannot compel the CCG to provide further clarification or explanation as this is beyond the requirements of FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View NHS Buckinghamshire, Oxfordshire and Berkshire West ICB
19 Oct 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from Steyning Parish Council (“SPC”) relating to maintenance logs in respect of outdoor gym equipment in a specified SPC public area. SPC refused the request under section 14(1) of FOIA (vexatious requests).The Commissioner’s decision is that the request was not a vexatious request. The Commissioner requires SPC to take the following step to ensure compliance with the legislation.• Issue a fresh response to the complainant, which does not rely on section 14(1) of FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14(1)
19 Oct 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to an application for a research grant for the Spectrum 10k project. The Council of the University of Cambridge provided a redacted version of the information, but relied on section 22A (research) and section 40(2) of FOIA (third party personal data) to withhold some information. The Commissioner’s decision is that section 22A of FOIA is engaged, but that the balance of the public interest favours disclosure. A small amount of the withheld information is exempt under section 40(2) of FOIA. The Commissioner requires the University to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: disclose, to the complainant, copies of all the information it has withheld. The University may react individual contact details.
Exemptions cited: FOI 22A; FOI 40
View The University of Cambridge
19 Oct 2022Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested attachments to a specific email they had received in response to a previous request for information. Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council (the Council) stated that the information was not held. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the Council does not hold the requested information. However, the Commissioner finds that the Council breached section 10(1) of FOIA as it failed to provide its response to the request within the statutory timeframe of 20 working days. The Commissioner does not require any steps to be taken. Information Tribunal UA-2023-000670-GIA appeal allowed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10
View Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council
19 Oct 2022Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted an information to Lisburn and Castlereagh City Council (“the Council”) for the correspondence and invoices for three named procurements. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the Council does not hold any further information within the scope of the request and has therefore complied with section 1 of FOIA. However, the Council has breached section 10(1) of FOIA as it did not confirm this within the time for compliance. The Commissioner does not require any further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1(1)(a); FOI 10(1)
19 Oct 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from Steyning Parish Council (“SPC”) relating to public liability insurance in respect of health and safety issues at specified SPC public areas. SPC refused the request under section 14(1) of FOIA (vexatious requests).The Commissioner’s decision is that the request was not a vexatious request. The Commissioner requires SPC to take the following step to ensure compliance with the legislation.• Issue a fresh response to the complainant, which does not rely on section 14(1) of FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14(1)
19 Oct 2022Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from Swansea Council (“the Council”) regarding personal data breaches since the UK General Data Protection Regulation (UK GDPR) came into force. The Council provided the information that it holds, however, the complainant was not satisfied with some of the information, as they felt it was incorrect. The Council failed to complete an internal review response until the Commissioner explained it needed to be carried out. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the Council has provided the complainant with the information it holds in relation to the request. The Commissioner cannot consider the accuracy of the information provided. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps as a result of this decision notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1(1); FOI 10(1)
View Swansea Council
19 Oct 2022Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested, from Kent Police information about a civilian employee. Kent Police would neither confirm nor deny (‘NCND’) holding the information citing sections 40(5)(Personal information) and 30(3) (Investigations and proceedings) of FOIA. During the Commissioner’s investigation, Kent Police agreed to confirm that the information is held, but refused to provide the employee’s name. The Commissioner’s decision is that, in reliance on section 40(2), it was entitled to do so. No steps are required.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View Kent Police
19 Oct 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about Football Index. The Financial Conduct Authority (“the FCA”) withheld the requested information and relied variously on sections 31 (law enforcement), 42 (Legal Professional Privilege) and 44 (statutory prohibition) of FOIA to withhold the requested information. The Commissioner’s decision is that the FCA is entitled to rely on section 44 to withhold some of the requested information. Of the remaining information, some engages section 42 of FOIA and, where it does, the balance of the public interest favours maintaining the exemption. The information to which neither of those exemptions applies engages section 31 of FOIA and the balance of the public interest favours maintaining that exemption to. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 31; FOI 42; FOI 44
View Financial Conduct Authority
19 Oct 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from Cabinet Office (“CO”) relating to the former Prime Minister’s family pet dog, Dilyn. The CO confirmed they did not hold any relevant information. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, CO does not hold the requested information.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Cabinet Office
19 Oct 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to the Ministry of Defence (MOD) seeking information about a UK Reaper strike in Syria in March 2018 in which one civilian was killed. The MOD confirmed that it held information but considered this to be exempt from disclosure on the basis of sections 24(1) (national security), 26(1)(b) (defence), 27(1)(a) (international relations) and 40(2) (personal data). The Commissioner’s decision is that the requested information is exempt from disclosure on the basis of the exemptions contained at sections 26(1)(b), 27(1)(a) and that the public interest favours maintaining both exemptions. The Commissioner has concluded that the names of junior staff are also exempt from disclosure on the basis of section 40(2).
Exemptions cited: FOI 26; FOI 27; FOI 40
View Ministry of Defence
19 Oct 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested from the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities information relating to the designation of Freeports. The DLUHC withheld the requested information under section 35(1)(a) (formulation or development of government policy) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the DLUHC was entitled to withhold the requested information under section 35(1)(a). The Commissioner does not require the DLUHC to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 35(1)(a)
View Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government
19 Oct 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested from His Majesty’s Revenue & Customs (HMRC) information regarding a witness statement produced by [name redacted] for the case of The Queen (on the application of Derry) v HMRC. HMRC refused the request under section 44(1)(a) (prohibitions on disclosure) of FOIA.The Commissioner’s decision is that HMRC is entitled to rely on section 44(1)(a) of FOIA to withhold the requested information. Therefore, the Commissioner does not require HMRC to take any steps as a result of this decision. Information Tribunal FTT EA/2022/0361 appeal dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 44(1)(a)
19 Oct 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested copies of all communications relating to a particular email that they had sent to Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council (the Council). The Council initially withheld all the information under section 36(2)(c) (prejudice to the effective conduct of public affairs). During the Commissioner’s investigation the Council disclosed the information held relevant to the request, subject to some personal data being redacted under section 40(2) (personal data). The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the Council does not hold any further recorded information other than that which it has disclosed and the information withheld under section 40(2). The Commissioner does not require any steps to be taken. Information Tribunal FTT EA/2022/0364 struck out.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council
19 Oct 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested from the Valuation Office Agency (VOA) information relating to the UPRN (Unique Property Reference Number) and UARN (Unique Address Reference Number) for addresses that are available to view in the public domain. The VOA refused the request under section 44(1)(a) (prohibitions on disclosure) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the VOA is entitled to rely on section 44(1)(a) of FOIA to withhold the requested information. Therefore, the Commissioner does not require the VOA to take any steps as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: FOI 44(1)(a)
View Valuation Office Agency
19 Oct 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested from Newcastle Under Lyme Borough Council “the Council”) information relating to the council’s dealings with his neighbour regarding the erection of a summerhouse/shed. The council disclosed some information, but said that no further information was held (Regulation 12(4)(a)). The complainant argues that further information should be held by it. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council does not hold any further information. It was therefore correct to apply Regulation 12(4)(a). The Commissioner does not require the council to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(a)
View Newcastle under Lyme Borough Council
19 Oct 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information connected to possible munition supplies to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. The Commissioner’s decision is that Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office correctly relied upon section 27(1)(a) to withhold the requested information. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps to ensure compliance with the legislation.
Exemptions cited: FOI 27
View Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office
18 Oct 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to individuals attending Clare House in a specified time period. The Department of Finance initially refused the request as vexatious under section 14 of FOIA. Following the Commissioner’s intervention the Department accepted the request as valid but sought to refuse it under section 12 of FOIA (appropriate limit). The Commissioner’s decision is that the Department was entitled to refuse the request under section 12 of FOIA, since compliance with the request would exceed the appropriate limit. He has also recorded some procedural breaches regarding the handling of the request. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any further action in this case.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12
View Department of Finance
18 Oct 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from the Department of Health & Social Care (“DHSC”) relating to a round table meeting held with PCR test providers. DHSC refused to comply with the request citing section 12 (cost limit) of FOIA. Although the request was initially made to DHSC, the UK Health Security Agency (“UKHSA”) has taken over the handling of this request as the subject matter now falls within its remit. The Commissioner’s decision is that UKHSA was entitled to refuse to comply with the request in accordance with section 12(1) of FOIA. The Commissioner also finds that UKHSA complied with its obligations under section 16 to offer advice and assistance. The Commissioner does not require UKHSA to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12; FOI 16
View UK Health Security Agency
18 Oct 2022Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information from Newcastle City Council regarding a selection process for a preferred partner for the development of the Stephenson Quarter. The Commissioner determined that the request should have been considered under the EIR. Having considered the application of regulation 12(5)(e) – adverse effect on the confidentiality of commercial interests – which has similarities to section 43(2) FOIA, he is satisfied that the information was withheld correctly. The Commissioner also considered the application of regulation 13 (personal data) rather than section 40 FOIA. He has decided the council is entitled to rely on regulation 13 in respect of the personal data of individuals who are not employed by the council. However the names of council officers should be disclosed due to their positions as senior decision makers. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following step to ensure compliance with the legislation. Disclose the withheld infor
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(e); EIR 13
View Newcastle City Council
18 Oct 2022Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from Royal Free Hospital NHS Foundation Trust (the Trust) in relation to naso-gastric feeding. The Trust confirmed that it did not hold information falling within the scope of the request under section 1(1)(a) FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Trust does not hold any information falling within the scope of the request under section 1(1)(a) FOIA. However the Trust breached section 10(1) FOIA in the handling of this request as it failed to respond within the statutory time for compliance. The Commissioner does not require the Trust to take any remedial steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10
View Royal Free London NHS Foundation Trust
18 Oct 2022Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information about badger culling on Forestry Commission England (FC) land. Forestry England (FE), an Agency of the Forestry Commission (FC), initially provided an unclear refusal notice that suggested that regulation 12(5)(a)(public safety) of the EIR applied. At review, FC accepted that its refusal notice had not met EIR requirements and cited regulation 12(4)(a) of the EIR (information not held at the time of the request). The Commissioner’s decision is that FC has now produced sufficient evidence that, on the balance of probabilities, it does not hold the requested information and that it cited regulation 12(4)(a) appropriately. However, FC has breached regulation 5(2) and regulation 14(3) of the EIR. The Commissioner does not require FC to take any further steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(a); EIR 14(3); EIR 5(2)
View Forestry Commission
18 Oct 2022Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
Complainant had requested information about planning consultations that the Council undertook for Lewisham Tall Buildings Study and Addendum. The Council withheld the information at part e) citing regulation 12(4)(d) in order to do so.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(d); EIR 5(2)
View Lewisham Council
18 Oct 2022Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information on 11 March 2022 from the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) regarding interests declared in the Government Study of Buildings Insurance. The FCA confirmed it held information and provided this to the complainant in accordance with its obligations under section 1(1)(a) and (b) FOIA. The Commissioner has considered whether any further information is held by the FCA falling within the scope of part 1 of the request. The complainant also made subsequent, more specific requests, on 4 May 2022 regarding the interests declared in the Government Study of Buildings Insurance which the FCA has failed to respond to. The Commissioner’s decision is that the FCA does not hold any further hold information falling within the scope of part 1 of the request made on 11 March 2022 under section 1(1)(a) FOIA. However the Commissioner considers that the FCA breached section 10(1) FOIA by failing to provide a response to the subsequent requests made on 4 May 2022. Th
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10
View Financial Conduct Authority
18 Oct 2022Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information from Liverpool City Council (‘the council’) regarding a development which ultimately did not go ahead. The council initially disclosed information to the complainant with sections redacted; however, it subsequently disclosed the unredacted information to the complainant in full. The complainant, however, argues that further information may be held by the council. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the council has disclosed all of the relevant information to the complainant. The Commissioner has decided, however, that the council did not comply with the requirements of Regulation 5(2). The Commissioner does not require the council to take any steps. First-tier tribunal (General Regulatory chamber) information rights appeal EA/2022/0327 struck out.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(a); EIR 5(2)
View Liverpool City Council
18 Oct 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The Commissioner’s decision is that the public authority breached section 10(1) of FOIA by failing to provide a response within 20 working days.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10(1)
View Bristol City Council
18 Oct 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about the London Borough of Barnet’s (the Council) submissions to the Environment and Traffic Adjudicator (ETA) in regards to a hearing about a parking charge notice. The Council initially refused the entire request under section 32(2)(a) and section 40, however, during the course of the Commissioner’s investigation the Council revised their position and provided recorded information within scope of parts one and two of the request, and refused part three of the request under section 32(1)(a) by virtue of section 32(4)(a). The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has correctly applied section 32(1)(a) to part three of the request. The Commissioner notes that the Council has now provided the complainant with a fresh response in relation to parts one and two of the request and therefore he does not require any steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 32(1)
View Barnet Council
18 Oct 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from East Riding of Yorkshire Council (the Council) relating to void information and repair costs for a property in the area. The Council refused the request under section 14(1) of FOIA (vexatious request). 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 to be taken as a result of this decision notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14(1)
View East Riding of Yorkshire Council
18 Oct 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information with regards to a mapping portal. Derbyshire County Council (the council) responded that the information requested was not held. The Commissioner’s decision is that the request falls under the EIR and that the information is not held. Therefore the exception at regulation 12(4)(a) applies. The Commissioner does not require any steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(a)
View Derbyshire County Council
18 Oct 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from the University of Southampton (the “University”) in relation to the disposal by Winchester City Council to the University of land at River Park. The University confirmed that that it held some information and provided this but said it does not hold information as to who initiated contact regarding the disposal or whether the University was notified of the pre-application protocol letter under section 1(1)(a) FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the University does not hold information as to who initiated contact regarding the disposal or whether the University was notified of the pre-application protocol letter under section 1(1)(a) FOIA. The Commissioner does not require the University to take any remedial steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View University of Southampton
18 Oct 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
Complainant had requested information relating to the valuation (assessment) of their property for the purpose of Council Tax liability, and a series of questions regarding legal explanations and justification of decisions. The Council refused the requests under section 14(1) in order to do so.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14
View Fylde Borough Council
18 Oct 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information relating to payments made in connection with work on Cressingham Gardens. Lambeth London Borough Council (“LB Lambeth”) refused to provide the information on the basis of regulation 12(5)(e) and regulation 13 of EIR. The Commissioner’s decision is that LB Lambeth have correctly applied regulation 12(5)(e) of EIR. The Commissioner does not require LB Lambeth to take any further steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 13
View London Borough of Lambeth
18 Oct 2022Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from the Home Office about the number migrants crossing the English Channel illegally and the number of Hong Kong Chinese nationals given the right to come to the UK. The Home Office provided information in response to the first part of the request but stated that it did not hold information relating to the second part of the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the Home Office 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; FOI 10
View Home Office
18 Oct 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested Warrington Borough Council (the council) to disclose a letter from Grant Thornton which references various concerns the auditor identified for which it may consider using wider powers. The letter was mentioned during an Audit & Corporate Governance Committee meeting on 22 June 2021. The council refused to disclose the requested information initially citing section 22 of FOIA. At the internal review stage some months later, the council revised its position and refused to disclose the requested information in accordance with section 36(2)(b) and (c) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council is entitled to refuse to disclose the requested information under section 36(2)(b) of FOIA. He therefore does not require any further action to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 36(2)(b)
View Warrington Council
18 Oct 2022Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested copies of agendas and minutes of the Board of Governors Committee and sub-committee meetings. The majority of the information has now been provided to the complainant, the College has redacted some names from the copies provided. The Commissioner agrees that exemption under section 40(2) of FOIA is appropriately engaged with regard to the redacted information. However, the College failed to respond to the initial request within the statutory timeframe and has therefore breached section 10 of FOIA. No steps are required as a result of this notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 40(2)
18 Oct 2022Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested Cambridgeshire County Council (the council) to disclose information relating to the introduction of an Interim Executive Board (IEB) at Spinney Primary School. The council disclosed some information but refused to disclose the remainder citing sections 36(2)(b) and 40 of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council is entitled to refuse to disclose the remaining withheld information in accordance with section 36(2)(b) of FOIA. However, the Commissioner has recorded a procedural breach of section 17(3) of FOIA, as the council failed to complete its deliberations on the balance of the public interest within a reasonable time. The Commissioner does not require any further action to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 17(3); FOI 36(2)(b)
View Cambridgeshire County Council
18 Oct 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The Commissioner’s decision is that Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency is entitled to rely on section 14(1) of FOIA to refuse the complainant’s request as the request is vexatious.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14
View Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency
18 Oct 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information in relation to Post Qualified Professional Practice Programme at the University of East London (UEL).UEL provided information it held in response to the request and explained why some information was not held in accordance with section 1(1)(a) and (b) FOIA. The complainant was dissatisfied with some of the responses provided, providing clarification as to the information required and asking the University to carry out an internal review. The University confirmed that no further information was held within the scope of this request and considered that the clarifications provided were new requests for information and so confirmed that these would be processed as such. The Commissioner’s decision is that UEL does not hold any further information falling within the scope of this request under section 1(1)(a) FOIA. The Commissioner does not require UEL to take any remedial steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View The University of East London
17 Oct 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to the non-compliance and enforcement of 20mph speed zones via Fixed Penalty Notices in Oxford from Thames Valley Police (TVP). Thames Valley Police provided the complainant with a link which it said contained the requested information. From the evidence provided to the Commissioner in this case, it is clear that TVP failed to provide a definitive statement on whether it actually held information within the scope of the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that TVP has failed to comply with its duties under section 1(1)(a) of FOIA. It has also breached section 10(1) of FOIA. The Commissioner requires TVP to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. TVP must confirm or deny that it holds the requested information: and If it does hold the information, disclose it, or provide a refusal notice in accordance with its obligations under section 17 of FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1(1)(a); FOI 10
View Thames Valley Police
17 Oct 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information about the hospitality expenditures for a community event that the then Bedfordshire Police and Crime Commissioner had hosted at a private venue. The Commissioner investigated and found that some of the requested information had been disclosed but that, on the balance of probabilities, Bedfordshire Police did not hold any undisclosed relevant information. The Commissioner did not require Bedfordshire Police to take any steps to ensure compliance with the legislation.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Bedfordshire Police
17 Oct 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested copies of the recordings of Brixton Neighbourhood Construction Forum (“BNCF”) meetings held on behalf of Lambeth Council (“the council”) by its developers Muse Developments in 2020. The council refused the request and advised the complainant that they did not hold this information, citing Regulation 12(4)(a) of the EIR. The Commissioner finds that the council cannot rely on the regulation cited as the information is effectively held on the council’s behalf and should be provided to the council to support the EIR request.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(a)
View London Borough of Lambeth
17 Oct 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested from Shropshire Council the legal documents it considered and the discussions its Head of Legal and Democratic Services had with officers in relation to the sale of and planning permission for land at Greenfields Recreation Ground. Shropshire Council responded under the FOIA by applying Section 21 of the FOIA on the basis that the requested information was reasonably accessible to the complainant elsewhere. The Commissioner’s decision is that the information requested was ‘environmental’ within the meaning of the EIR and therefore Shropshire Council was incorrect to apply the FOIA. The Commissioner also finds that Shropshire Council failed to engage Regulation 6(1)(b) of the EIR in relation to the information it held within the scope of the complainant’s request based on the balance of probabilities. However, as the information held by Shropshire Council has since been obtained by the complainant, the Commissioner does not requires the public authority to take
Exemptions cited: EIR 6(1)(b)
View Shropshire Council
17 Oct 2022Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested details of noise modelling carried out on behalf of Stansted Airport. The above public authority’s final position was that it did not hold the requested information, but that, if it did, the information would be exempt from disclosure under regulation 12(5)(b) – course of justice – regulation 12(5)(e) – commercial confidentiality – and regulation 12(5)(f) of the EIR – interests of the provider. The Commissioner’s decision is that the public authority does hold the requested information, but that regulation 12(5)(b) of the EIR is engaged and the balance of the public interest favours withholding this exception. As the Commissioner considers that the withheld information is information on emissions, neither of the other two cited exceptions can apply. The public authority breached regulation 14 of the EIR as it failed to issue a correct refusal notice within 20 working days. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(a); EIR 12(5)(b); EIR 14
View Civil Aviation Authority