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 not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information about 20 cases listed on the Court Funds Office’s Unclaimed Balances index. The Ministry of Justice (the ‘MOJ’) provided the requested court locations but refused to provide the court claim/case numbers, citing both section 32 of FOIA (the exemption for court records) and 40 (the exemption for personal information). During the course of the Commissioner’s investigation, the MOJ additionally relied on section 31(1)(a) of FOIA (the exemption for the prevention or detection of crime). The Commissioner’s decision is that the MOJ has correctly relied on section 32(1)(c) of FOIA to withhold the remaining requested information for the reasons set out in this notice. As he has found section 32 to be engaged, the Commissioner does not deem it necessary to consider the MOJ’s reliance on sections 31 and 40 of FOIA. No steps are required as a result of this notice. Information Tribunal UT UA-2023-001862-GIA PTA refused.
Exemptions cited: FOI 32
View Ministry of Justice
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 not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from Maidstone Borough Council (“the Council”) relating to a letter they had received from the Council. The Council denied holding the requested information. The Commissioner’s decision is that on the balance of probabilities, the Council does not hold the requested information. The Commissioner does not require the Council to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Maidstone Borough Council
17 Oct 2022Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information regarding a fatal accident at Drayton Manor. The above public authority originally withheld all the information, before eventually disclosing some during the Commissioner’s investigation. The Commissioner’s decision is that the public authority breached section 10 of FOIA as it failed to communicate non-exempt information to the complainant within 20 working days. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 30; FOI 41
View Health and Safety Executive
17 Oct 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested a copy of the data sharing agreement with a waste contractor. The Council disclosed the recorded information held relevant to the request but the complainant disputed that it satisfied their request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has conducted reasonable searches for the requested information which would have located further information, if it was held. He has therefore concluded that, on the balance of probabilities, the Council does not hold any further information in the scope of the request. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Gloucester City Council
17 Oct 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant made a request for information taken as evidence and recorded on the National Ballistic Intelligence Service’s role (NABIS) database. The NPCC relied on section 14(1) of FOIA to refuse to the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the NPCC was correct to refuse the request under section 14(1) of FOIA. There are no steps to take.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14(1)
View National Police Chiefs Council
17 Oct 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information about out of hours calls to deal with safeguarding matters. Middlesbrough Council (the Council) initially stated that it did not hold the information requested. At the time of its internal review the Council disclosed some of the information requested and stated that other information was not held. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council breached section 10 in its handling of the request. The Commissioner does not require any steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Middlesbrough Council
17 Oct 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from City, University of London in relation to award transcripts. The university relied on Section 14 to refuse the request as vexatious. The Commissioner’s decision is that the request was vexatious and therefore the university was entitled to rely on section 14(1) of FOIA to refuse it.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14
View City of London
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 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
17 Oct 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested the entirety of a casework database – including all the date held therein. The above public authority (“the public authority”) refused the request as vexatious on the grounds that complying would impose a grossly oppressive burden. The Commissioner’s decision is that the public authority is entitled to rely on section 14 of FOIA to refuse the request. The Commissioner does not require further steps. Information Tribunal FTT EA/2022/0337 consent order.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14
View Information Commissioner
14 Oct 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information on the Department for Education’s (DfE) policy on face coverings in classrooms. The DfE refused the request under section 35(1)(a) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the DfE has correctly applied the exemption and the public interest lies in withholding the information.
Exemptions cited: FOI 35
View Department for Education
14 Oct 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about the COVD-19 vaccines. The Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) directed the complainant to relevant information published on its website and also provided other more general information. MHRA’s position is that it does not hold any further relevant information. The Commissioner’s decision is as follows: On the balance of probabilities, MHRA does not hold any further information within scope of the complainant’s request and has complied with section 1(1) of FOIA. The Commissioner does not require MHRA to take any corrective steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency
14 Oct 2022Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information about a planning assessment of a local playground upgrade. The Commissioner finds that on the balance of probabilities, the Council holds no further information. However the Council breached regulation 5(2) failing to respond within 20 working days of the request.
Exemptions cited: EIR 5(2); FOI 1
View Bromley Council
14 Oct 2022Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about a particular module called “Expect Respect.” The above public authority’s (“the public authority’s”) final position was that the request could not be responded to without exceeding the appropriate limit. The Commissioner’s decision is that the request would exceed the appropriate limit and the public authority is therefore entitled to rely on section 12 of FOIA to refuse it. As the public authority failed to rely on section 12 to refuse the entire request within 20 working days, it breached section 17(5) of FOIA. The Commissioner also considers that the public authority failed to comply with its section 16 duty to provide advice and assistance. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12; FOI 16; FOI 17
14 Oct 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to Lady Lumley’s School. North Yorkshire County Council (the “council”) withheld the information under the exemptions for legal professional privilege (section 42) and prejudice to effective conduct of public affairs (section 36). The Commissioner’s decision is that the council has correctly relied on section 36 of the FOIA. The Commissioner does not require the council to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 36(2)
View North Yorkshire County Council
14 Oct 2022Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested copies of emails relating to a specific email account of a senior officer containing the words “drone”, “Gatwick”, and “witness” between certain dates. Sussex Police refused the request citing that the information would be withheld citing section 30 (1) (a) (investigations and proceedings) and section 40(2) (personal information) of FOIA. The Commissioner has upheld the exemption of the information under section 30 of FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 30(1)
View Sussex Police
14 Oct 2022Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information relating to a development of a former police station, primarily relating to heating and energy assessments. The request was initially refused by London Borough of Hillingdon (“the Council”) as manifestly unreasonable due to the volume of information included. The Council later provided links to all the publicly available information and upon further searches provided documents relating to building control. The Commissioner’s decision is that on balance, the Council has complied with its obligations under Regulation 5(1) by providing the information it holds in scope of the request. However, the Council failed to comply with its obligations to provide this in the required timeframe and so has breached Regulation 5(2) of the EIR. No steps are required.
Exemptions cited: EIR 5(1); EIR 5(2)
View Hillingdon Council
14 Oct 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information from Cotswold District Council (“the Council”) relating to the Council’s Self-Build and Custom Housebuilding register. The Council disclosed some information within the scope of the request but refused to provide the remainder citing section 40(2) (personal information) of the FOIA. The Council later accepted the Commissioner’s view that the requested information is environmental and therefore, relied on regulation 13(1) (personal data) of the EIR to withhold the information. The Commissioner’s decision is that the withheld information is not personal data and therefore, the Council is not entitled to rely on regulation 13(1) to withhold the information. The Commissioner requires the Council to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation.• Disclose the withheld information.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 writ
Exemptions cited: EIR 13
View Cotswold District Council
14 Oct 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
Complainant had requested information about the Outline Business Case (OBC) for the Lower Thames Crossing. The Commissioner finds the exception at r12(4)(d) is engaged but the public interest favours disclosure.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(d)
View National Highways
14 Oct 2022Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
In a seven part request, the complainant has requested information about St Mary’s College, Blackburn. The Education and Skills Funding Agency (ESFA) addressed part 4 of the request and advised it does not hold the information requested in part 5. ESFA has now disclosed some information it previously withheld but it is maintaining its reliance on section 36(2) of FOIA (prejudice to effective conduct of public affairs) with regard to information within scope of the remaining five parts of the request. It has also applied section 43(2) (commercial interests) to part 3. The Commissioner’s decision is as follows: On the balance of probabilities, ESFA does not hold the information requested in part 5 of the request and complied with section 1(1) in respect of that part. ESFA correctly applied sections 36(2)(b)(i), 36(2)(b)(ii) and 36(2)(c) of FOIA to information it is withholding within scope of parts 1,2, 3, 6 and 7 of the request. The public interest favoured maintaining those exemptions.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10; FOI 17; FOI 36
View Education and Skills Funding Agency
14 Oct 2022Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information from the London Borough of Hillingdon (“the Council”) in relation to the Council’s implementation of policy 5.9 of the London Plan 2011 and 2016. The Council provided explanations and information for the first two parts of the request and refused the final part under Regulation 12(4)(b). Following refinement of the request, the Council maintained its position. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has complied with Regulation 5(1) in providing information in response to the first two parts of the request but the Commissioner finds a breach of Regulation 5(2) as the response was outside the time for compliance. The Commissioner also finds that the Council has failed to demonstrate that Regulation 12(4)(b) is engaged in relation to the refined request. The Commissioner requires the public authority to issue a fresh response to the refined request which does not rely on Regulation 12(4)(b).
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(b); EIR 5(1); EIR 5(2)
View Hillingdon Council
14 Oct 2022Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested an Event Management Plan. Leeds City Council (the “council”) confirmed that it did not hold the information. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the council does not hold the requested information and that it correctly applied regulation 12(4)(a). He also finds that the council failed to complete its internal review within the statutory time period and breached regulation 11(4).
Exemptions cited: EIR 11(4); EIR 12(4)(a)
View Leeds City Council
13 Oct 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested copies of all messages sent between Dominic Cummings and Lee Cain between 22 May 2020 and 28 May 2020. The Cabinet Office refused the request under section 12(1)(cost of compliance with the request).The Commissioner has concluded that the Cabinet Office was not entitled to rely on section 12 as its basis for refusing to respond to the request, as the estimate of time required was not reasonable. The Commissioner requires the Cabinet Office to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation:• Carry out checks and searches of information held in official records for any information held within the short time period of the complainant’s request (22 May 2020 to 28 May 2020) and provide the complainant with a revised response to his request.The Cabinet Office 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
Exemptions cited: FOI 12
View Cabinet Office
13 Oct 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to the Coronavirus Mitigation Group (‘CMG’). University College London (‘UCL’) disclosed the majority of the information requested but refused to provide the minutes of the CMG meetings and the matters discussed, citing section 36(2)(b)(i) and 36(2)(b)(ii) and 36(2)(c) (prejudice to the effective conduct of public affairs) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the withheld information engages section 36(2)(b)(i) and 36(2)(b)(ii) and the public interest favours maintaining the exemption. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 36(2)(b)(i); FOI 36(2)(b)(ii)
View University College London
13 Oct 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
On 9 December 2021, the complainant requested information regarding a letter sent by Whitley Abbey Primary School (the “School”) regarding the ‘Friday Early Finish’. The School responded to the complainant but not in relation to the request made on 9 December 2021. The Commissioner’s decision is that the School has breached section 10(1) FOIA as it failed to respond to the request made by the complainant on 9 December 2021. The Commissioner requires the School to provide a response to the request made on 9 December 2021 in accordance with its obligations under FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
13 Oct 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information transferred to the Public Records Office of Northern Ireland (PRONI), part of the Department for Communities for Northern Ireland. At the time of issuing this decision notice PRONI had not provided the complainant with a substantive response to the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the public authority has failed to respond to the complainant’s request within the statutory timescale. The Commissioner requires the public authority to provide the complainant with a substantive response to the request.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
13 Oct 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
Complainant had requested information about roof repairs at their own and third party properties undertaken by the Council.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Southwark Council
13 Oct 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
Summary wording for website: The complainant requested minutes from board of governor meetings held at the school in question. Colchester Royal Grammar School relied on Section 40(1) of FOIA to withhold some of the information. The Commissioner’s decision is that this information was correctly withheld, and does not require any steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View CLITHEROE ROYAL GRAMMAR SCHOOL
13 Oct 2022Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from the Ministry of Defence (“the MOD”) about any communications exchanged between the MOD and named parties within a specified time period and relating to issues listed in the request. The MOD confirmed no information in scope of the request was held.The Commissioner’s decision is that the MOD breached section 10(1) of FOIA by failing to provide a valid response to the request within the statutory time frame of 20 working days. The Commissioner has also decided that, on the balance of probabilities, the MOD does not hold the requested information. The Commissioner does not require the MOD to take any steps as a result of this decision notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10
View Ministry of Defence
13 Oct 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The Commissioner’s decision is that Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council (RMBC) does not hold any further information over and above that already provided.
Exemptions cited: EIR 5
View Canal and River Trust
13 Oct 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from HM Treasury about whether there had been any exchange of correspondence between named individuals and HM Treasury during a stated period of time. HM Treasury confirmed that it did not hold any information within scope of the request.The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, HM Treasury does not hold the requested information. The Commissioner does not require HM Treasury to take any steps as a result of this decision notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View HM Treasury
13 Oct 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested the Department for Education (DfE) to disclose correspondence with the Home Office over the last six months relating to its plans to create a register of children not in school. The DfE disclosed some information but refused to disclose the remainder, citing sections 35(1)(a), 35(1)(b) and 42 of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the DfE is entitled to rely on section 35(1)(a) of the FOIA in this case. He therefore does not require any further action to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 35(1)(a)
View Department for Education
13 Oct 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested a copy of the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman (PHSO) staff survey carried out in 2021. PHSO withheld the requested information under section 22(1) FOIA as it was intended for future publication. The Commissioner considers that PHSO were correct to apply 22(1) FOIA in this case at the time of the request. However the Commissioner also notes that the information which was withheld under section 22(1) FOIA has now been published. The Commissioner does not require PHSO to take any remedial steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 22
View The Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman
13 Oct 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested the Department for Education (DfE) to disclose copies of any documents related to the three newly escalated risks presented at the February 2022 Education & Skills Funding Agency (ESFA) board meeting. The DfE refused to disclose the requested information citing sections 35(1)(a), 36(2)(b) and (c) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the DfE is correct to refuse to disclose the withheld information under section 36(2)(b)(ii) of FOIA. He therefore does not require any further action being taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 36(2)(b)(ii)
View Department for Education
13 Oct 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information concerning the costs of paying Covert Human Intelligence Sources (‘CHIS’) from the Metropolitan Police Service (the ‘MPS’). The MPS would neither confirm nor deny (‘NCND’) whether it held any information citing the exemptions at sections 23(5) (Security matters), 24(2) (National security), 30(3) (Investigations and proceedings) and 38(2) (Health and safety) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the MPS was entitled to rely on section 23(5) or, in the alternative, section 24(2) to refuse confirm nor deny whether it held the requested information. No steps are required.
Exemptions cited: FOI 23; FOI 24
View Metropolitan Police Service
13 Oct 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested intelligence information about child criminal exploitation (‘CCE’). Leicestershire Police said that it did not hold the information specified in the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, Leicestershire Police does not hold the information specified in the request. He also found that Leicestershire Police complied with section 16 (duty to provide advice and assistance) of FOIA. The Commissioner requires no steps as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 16
View Leicestershire Police
13 Oct 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to whether a named individual worked for Northamptonshire Police.The Commissioner’s decision is that Northamptonshire Police correctly relied on section 40(5B)(a)(i) of FOIA to refuse to confirm or deny whether it held information falling within the scope of the request.The Commissioner does not require any further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40(5)(b)(a)(i)
View Northamptonshire Police
13 Oct 2022Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information regarding any meetings that Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council (‘SMBC’) has held with various external bodies about avian influenza. SMBC refused the request, citing sections 36(2)(b)(i) and (ii), and 36(2)(c) (Prejudice to effective conduct of public affairs) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that SMBC was entitled to rely on sections 36(2)(b)(i) and (ii) to refuse the request. However, by failing to respond to the request within 20 working days, SMBC breached sections 1, 10 and 17 of FOIA. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10; FOI 17; FOI 36
View Sandwell Council
12 Oct 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The Commissioner’s decision is that Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council (RMBC) does not hold any further information over and above that already provided.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council
12 Oct 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information from North Somerset Council (“the Council”) about traffic data. The Council initially withheld the information under regulation 12(4)(d) of the EIR – material in the course of completion, etc – but subsequently withdrew its reliance on the exception and disclosed the information. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council breached regulation 5(2) of the EIR, since it failed to disclose the information within 20 working days of receiving the request. Since the information has now been disclosed, the Commissioner does not require the Council to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 5(2)
View North Somerset Council
12 Oct 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information about Thorne Moorends Town Council’s (the Council) neighbourhood plan. The Council disclosed some information within the scope of the request, but stated that it holds no further relevant information.The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the Council is correct when it says that it holds no further information within the scope of the request. Therefore, it has complied with regulation 5(1) of the EIR.The Commissioner does not require the Council to take any remedial steps on this matter.
Exemptions cited: EIR 5(1)
12 Oct 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant submitted a request to Oxford City Council (“the Council”) for information in relation to the inspection regime for the River Cherwell.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 Oxford City Council
12 Oct 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about an inspection of a specialist hospital. The Care Quality Commission (CQC) applied section 31, section 40, section 41 and section 44 of FOIA to two parts of the request, which concern law enforcement, personal data, information provided in confidence and prohibitions on disclosure respectively. The CGQ refused to comply with the final part of the request under section 12 of FOIA as it considered the cost of doing so would exceed the appropriate limit. The Commissioner’s decision is as follows: The complainant’s entire request engages the exemption under section 31(1)(g) of FOIA and the public interest favours maintaining the exemption. The Commissioner does not require the CQC to take any corrective steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 31
View CQC
12 Oct 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to the history or records of a legal file. The Commissioner’s decision is that Swansea Council (“the Council”) has correctly applied section 42 of FOIA and does not require the public authority to take any steps. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2022/0319 struck out. Information Tribunal EA/2022/0400 no right of appeal.
Exemptions cited: FOI 42
View Swansea Council
12 Oct 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested correspondence between the Charity Commission and a specific charity. The Charity Commission refused to provide the requested information, citing section 31(1)(g) (law enforcement), section 40(1) and section 40(2) (personal information) and section 41(1) (information provided in confidence) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the withheld information engages section 31(1)(g) and the public interest lies in maintaining the exemption. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 31(1)(g)
View The Charity Commission
12 Oct 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested metadata relating to a previous request they made (see decision notice IC-149219-S0V3). Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council (“RMBC”) provided some information, but withheld the remainder citing section 40(1) and 40(2) of FOIA (third party personal data) in order to do so. The Commissioner’s decision is that RMBC has correctly relied upon section 40 of FOIA to withhold the information. The Commissioner does not require any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council
12 Oct 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information about a roofing contractor from the London Borough of Lambeth (the Council). The Council initially refused the request stating that the information was not held, however, during the course of the investigation the Council revised their position and refused the request under regulation 12(4)(b) of the EIR. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has correctly applied regulation 12(4)(b). The Council has now provided the complainant with a fresh response reflecting its change in position and offering advice and assistance to the complainant on how they may refine their request, thereby meeting its duties at regulation 9(1). The Commissioner does not require any steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: EIR 9(1)
View London Borough of Lambeth
12 Oct 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from Central Bedfordshire Council (the Council) relating to the clearing of a contractor’s compound. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council breached section 10(1) of FOIA in that it failed to provide a valid response to the request within the statutory time frame of 20 working days. Because a response has now been provided, the Commissioner does not require the Council to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Central Bedfordshire Council