11 Oct 2022Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information regarding a public health investigation. The Commissioner’s decision is that Allerdale Borough Council was correct to withhold some information on the basis of regulation 13 (personal information) of the EIR; and that, on the balance of probabilities, it does not hold any further information in scope of the request. However it breached regulation 5(2) (time for compliance), because it provided some information later than the statutory 20 working day time period. The Commissioner does not require any steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(a); EIR 13; EIR 5(2)
11 Oct 2022Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested video recordings and/or written transcripts of any interviews Surrey Police conducted with Jimmy Savile. Surrey Police said it had transcribed the interview it held with Savile and it referred him to redacted copies that are in the public domain. It refused the remainder of the request under section 14(1) of FOIA, on the grounds it was vexatious due to burden. It also argued that, in the event section 14 did not apply, the information was also exempt under section 38 (Health and safety) of FOIA. During the Commissioner’s investigation, Surrey Police confirmed that it did not hold any video recording of the interview it had conducted with Savile in 2009 (it only held an audio tape). The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, Surrey Police does not hold the remaining information specified in the request. The Commissioner requires no steps as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 45
View Surrey Police
11 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 London Borough of Croydon
11 Oct 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested, from Wiltshire Police, information about an officer misconduct hearing. Wiltshire Police confirmed holding the information but withheld it, citing sections 21(1) (Information accessible to the applicant by other means), 38(1) (Health and safety) and 40(2) (Personal information) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that section 40 is properly engaged. No steps are required.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View Wiltshire Police
11 Oct 2022Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to the procedure for inserting a nasogastric feeding tube in a patient. The trust confirmed that it does not hold the requested information. The Commissioner is satisfied that on the balance of probabilities the trust does not hold the requested information. He has however recorded a breach of section 10 of FOIA as the trust failed to respond to the complainant’s request within 20 working days of receipt.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10
View Royal Free London NHS Foundation Trust
11 Oct 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information held by Cornwall Council (the council) that relates to proposed sites considered for development as part of the 2016 Cornwall Local Plan (the Local Plan). The Commissioner’s decision is that the council has, on the balance of probabilities, provided the complainant with all the information held that is relevant to the request. The Commissioner does not require the council to take any steps as a result of this decision notice.
Exemptions cited: EIR 5
View Cornwall Council
11 Oct 2022Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about the settlement agreed between the Home Office and former Permanent Secretary, Sir Philip Rutnam. Although the Home Office provided some general information, it refused to comply with the request as a whole, citing section 12 (Cost of compliance exceeds appropriate limit) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Home Office was entitled to rely on section 12 to refuse the request. It also complied with its duty to provide advice and assistance in line with the requirements of section 16 of FOIA. However, by failing to respond to the request within 20 working days, the Home Office breached section 1 and section 10 of FOIA. The Commissioner requires no steps as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10; FOI 12
View Home Office
11 Oct 2022Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to the Independent Review of Children’s Social Care – Call for Ideas. The Department for Education (DfE)provided some information, withheld some information under section 21 FOIA as it considers it was already accessible to the applicant and confirmed that some of the requested information would not be published until Spring 2022. At internal review DfE confirmed that the information which it planned to publish in Spring 2022 was being withheld under section 22 FOIA. The Commissioner considers that DfE were correct to apply 22 FOIA in this case at the time of the request. However the Commissioner also notes that the information which was withheld under section 22 FOIA was published in May 2022. The Commissioner does however consider that DfE breached section 17(1) FOIA in the handling of this request. The Commissioner does not require MHRA to take any remedial steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 17; FOI 22
View Department for Education
11 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 Harrogate and District NHS Foundation Trust
11 Oct 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant made a request for information for all legal bills received by Kings College London (KCL) in respect of the complainant’s case against it. KCL refused to confirm or deny whether the requested information was held under section 40(5A) FOIA as to do so would disclose whether or not the complainant was involved in legal action with KCL which would constitute their own personal data. The Commissioner considers that KCL was correct to apply section 40(5A) FOIA in this case. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View King's College London
11 Oct 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant made a request to NHS England regarding how South, Central and West Commissioning Support Unit (the CSU) had dealt with an FOIA request on behalf of Brighton and Hove Clinical Commissioning Group (the CCG). NHS England confirmed that it did not hold the requested information under section 1(1)(a) FOIA and that the complainant should direct his request to the CCG. The Commissioner considers that on the balance of probabilities NHS England does not hold the requested information under section 1(1)(a) FOIA. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View NHS England
11 Oct 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information relating to properties acquired by HS2. HS2 disclosed a list of partial addresses but withheld the full addresses, citing regulation 12(5)(a) (International relations, defence, national security or public safety), regulation 12(5)(b) (The course of justice and inquiries) and regulation 13 (personal data). The Commissioner’s decision is that regulation 12(5)(a) is engaged and that the public interest favours maintaining the exception. The Commissioner does not HS2 to take any further steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(a)
View High Speed Two (HS2) Limited
11 Oct 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information about the solicitors it instructs and creditor’s bankruptcy petition. Tunbridge Wells Borough Council (‘the Council’) disclosed information relevant to parts 1 and 2 of the request and has advised it does not hold recorded information within scope of the parts 3 and 4 of the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that on the balance of probabilities, the Council holds no further recorded information relevant to the complainant’s request and has complied with section 1(1) of FOIA. The Commissioner therefore does not require the Council to take any corrective steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1(1)
View Tunbridge Wells Borough Council
11 Oct 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to the Valuation Office Agency (VOA) seeking the council tax valuation bands for each property in the area of Castle Point Borough Council. The VOA withheld the information on the basis of section 44(1)(a) (prohibition on disclosure) of FOIA. The complainant disputed the VOA’s reliance on this exemption and argued that it failed to comply with its duties under section 16 (advice and assistance) in handling his request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the requested information is exempt from disclosure on the basis of section 44(1)(a) and that the VOA were not under any duty provide the complainant with any advice and assistance in response to his request.
Exemptions cited: FOI 16; FOI 44
View Valuation Office Agency
11 Oct 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to the Pensions Ombudsman’s ‘cost’ criterion for investigative decisions, the number of cases delayed, Parliamentary Ombudsman interventions regarding delays (by year), NAVIGO case activity with dates for mitigation of delays, why enquiries may not be responded to under FOIA or GDPR legislation, ‘NAVIGO’ GDPR logic adopted to process ‘data’ and information relating to ‘automated’ decision making. The Pensions Ombudsman provided information in response to the request or explained why it would not hold information relevant to the request under section 1(1) FOIA. The complainant submitted a complaint to the Commissioner as he was dissatisfied with the Pensions Ombudsman’s response regarding the ‘cost’ element of the request. The Commissioner therefore focussed his investigation to determine whether the Pensions Ombudsman had complied with the ‘cost’ element of the request under section 1(1)(a) FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is the Pens
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View The Pensions Ombudsman
11 Oct 2022Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from Hampshire Constabulary (“the Constabulary”) regarding an incident being initially treated as a ‘Hate Crime’, before being changed to a ‘Hate incident’. The Constabulary explained that the incident was recorded as a ‘Hate Incident’, providing the information that it held. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the Constabulary does not hold further recorded information in relation to the request. However, the Commissioner finds that the Constabulary did breach section 10(1) of FOIA as it did not comply with section 1(1) of FOIA, to provide a response within 20 working days. The Commissioner does not require the Constabulary to take any steps as a result of this decision notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1(1); FOI 10(1)
11 Oct 2022Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to an arrest for drone use at Aintree racecourse, specifically the offence details and the amount of money seized. Merseyside Police initially refused the request citing various subsections of section 30 of FOIA, (the exemption for investigations and proceedings conducted by public authorities). Following an internal review, Merseyside Police maintained that section 30 applied, but also cited section 21 (information accessible to applicant by other means) and section 40 (personal information). Both sections 21 and 40 of FOIA were cited for part of the requested information, namely the specific offence the individuals were arrested for. For the reasons set out in this notice, the Commissioner’s decision is that neither section 21 nor section 40 is engaged. Of the subsections in section that were cited, only 30(1)(a)(i) was engaged. In that respect, the Commissioner considers, for the sum of money seized, that the balance of the public inter
Exemptions cited: FOI 21; FOI 30; FOI 40
View Merseyside Police
11 Oct 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information from North Lincolnshire Council (“the Council”) relating to grass verge cutting and public footpath maintenance. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council failed to disclose the requested information within 20 working days and has therefore breached regulation 5(2) of the EIR. No steps are required.
Exemptions cited: EIR 5(2)
View North Lincolnshire Council
11 Oct 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information about solicitors instructed by the Maidstone Borough Council (“the Council”) in relation to statutory demand and bankruptcy petitions. The Council disclosed information relevant to the request and has indicated that it does not hold any further recorded information within scope of the request.The Commissioner’s decision is as follows: On the balance of probabilities, the Council holds no further recorded information relevant to the complainant’s request and has complied with section 1(1) of FOIA. The Commissioner therefore does not require the Council to take any corrective steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1(1)
View Maidstone Borough Council
11 Oct 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant made a request for a list and data of all reportable MOR's involving unidentified flying objects in UK airspace since 2013 and reported by air traffic services. The Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) refused to confirm or deny whether it holds the requested information under section 44(2) by virtue of section 44(1)(a) FOIA. The Commissioner considers that the CAA was incorrect to refuse to confirm or deny whether the requested information is held under section 44(2) by virtue of section 44(1)(a) FOIA. The Commissioner requires the public authority to confirm or deny whether it holds information within the scope of the request. If the CAA holds information it must either disclose it, or issue a refusal notice that complies with section 17 of the FOIA. Information Tribunal FTT EA/2022/0356 Consent Order.
Exemptions cited: FOI 44
View Civil Aviation Authority
11 Oct 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from Chesterfield Royal Hospital NHS Trust (“the Trust”) about the reporting of serious incident level 2 deaths and serious incident de-escalation report requests between 2015 and 2019. The Trust explained that as there were no such incidents or report requests during the requested timeframe, it did not hold the requested information. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the Trust does not hold the requested information. The Commissioner does not require the Trust to take any steps as a result of this decision notice. Information Tribunal FTT appeal UA-2024-000578-GIA refused.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Chesterfield Royal Hospital NHS Foundation Trust
11 Oct 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information held by Cornwall Council (the council) that relates to proposed sites considered for development as part of the 2016 Cornwall Local Plan (the Local Plan). The Commissioner’s decision is that the council has, on the balance of probabilities, provided the complainant with all the information held that is relevant to the request. The Commissioner does not require the council to take any steps as a result of this decision notice.
Exemptions cited: EIR 5
View Cornwall Council
11 Oct 2022Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
In a two part request, the complainant has requested information about staffing associated with COVID-19 vaccines and the use of consultancy staff. The Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) provided some relevant information and advised it does not hold the specific information requested. The Commissioner’s decision is as follows: On the balance of probabilities, MHRA has disclosed all the information it holds that is within scope of the request and has complied with section 1(1) of FOIA. MHRA’s response did not fully comply with section 10(1) as it did not confirm it does not hold some of the requested information within 20 working days. The Commissioner does not require MHRA to take any corrective steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10
View Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency
11 Oct 2022Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
Request for information regarding 11+ tests. Council made a partial disclosure and cited s43, s41 and s40 of FOIA to withhold the remainder. The Council breached sections 10 and 17 of FOIA by failing to respond and to provide a refusal notice within 20 working days.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 17; FOI 40; FOI 43
View Bexley Council
11 Oct 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (FCDO) relating to the processing of previous information requests made. By the date of this notice the FCDO had not issued a substantive response to this request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the FCDO 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 FCDO must provide a substantive response to the request in accordance with its obligations under FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office
10 Oct 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested a copy of the ministerial diary of the Rt Hon Matt Hancock MP during a 17 month period when Mr Hancock was Secretary of State for Health. The Department of Health and Social Care relied on section 14(1) of FOIA (vexatious) to refuse the request on the grounds that complying would impose a grossly oppressive burden. The Commissioner’s decision is that the DHSC is entitled to rely on section 14(1) of FOIA to refuse the request. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14
View Department of Health and Social Care
10 Oct 2022Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to the Autumn 2021 exam policy. The DfE refused to provide the requested information, citing section 21 (information reasonably accessible to applicant via other means), section 35(1)(a) (formulation of government policy etc) and section 35(1)(b) (ministerial communications) of FOIA. The DfE also applied section 36(2)(b)(ii) (the free and frank exchange of views for the purposes of deliberation) and section 36(2)(c) (prejudice to the conduct of public affairs) ‘in the alternative’. The Commissioner’s decision is that:• Section 35(1)(a) is not engaged.• Section 35(1)(b) is engaged and the public interest favours maintaining the exemption. • Since section 35(1)(b) is engaged, and section 35 and section 36 are mutually exclusive, it follows that section 36 cannot apply. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps. Information Tribunal FTT EA/2022/0354 Consent Order.
Exemptions cited: FOI 35(1)(a); FOI 35(1)(b)
View Department for Education
10 Oct 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to judicial appointments and candidate scoring. The Judicial Appointments Commission (JAC) provided some information within the scope of the request but refused to provide the remainder, citing section 22 (information intended for future publication), section 36(2)(c) (prejudice to effective conduct of public affairs) and section 40 (personal information) of FOIA. The Commissioner has investigated its application of sections 36(2)(c) and 40(2) of FOIA to the information withheld by virtue of those exemptions. The Commissioner’s decision is that the JAC was entitled to withhold the information on the basis of sections 36(2)(c) and 40(2) of FOIA. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken as a result of this decision. First-tier tribunal (General Regulatory chamber) information rights appeal EA/2022/0310 under appeal.
Exemptions cited: FOI 36; FOI 40
View Judicial Appointments Commission
10 Oct 2022Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information about rateable values. Southern Water Services Ltd (trading as “Southern Water”) declined to deal with the request under the EIR as it did not consider the requested information to be environmental. The Commissioner’s decision is that some of the requested information is not environmental information and therefore Southern Water was not required to deal with this part of the request under the EIR. The remaining information is environmental information, but it is also the personal data of third parties and thus exempt from disclosure under Regulation 13 of the EIR. The Commissioner does not require any remedial steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 13(1); EIR 2(1)
View Southern Water
10 Oct 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information about a meeting that they believe took place to discuss their stage three complaint about flooding on their land from Gravesham Borough Council (‘the Council’). The Council refused the request on the basis that it was vexatious and cited section 14(1) Freedom of Information Act, 200 (‘FOIA’). Following the Commissioner’s investigation, the Council undertook a search for the information. It concluded that it did not hold relevant information as a meeting on the specified date did not take place. It amended its response to the complainant accordingly. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council should have considered the request under the Environmental Information Regulations 2004 (‘the EIR’). The Commissioner has also concluded that, on the balance of probabilities, the Council does not hold the requested information.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(a)
View Gravesham Borough Council
10 Oct 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information from Warwickshire County Council regarding parking enforcement decisions. The Commissioner’s decision is that Warwickshire County Council was correct to withhold some information on the basis of regulation 13 (personal information) of the EIR; and that, on the balance of probabilities, it does not hold any further information in scope of the request. The Commissioner does not require any steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(e); EIR 13
View Warwickshire County Council
10 Oct 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about the 2021 flu vaccination. The final position of Sussex Community NHS Foundation Trust (‘the Trust’) is that it has released the relevant information it holds and does not hold any further relevant information. The Commissioner’s decision is as follows: On the balance of probabilities, the Trust does not hold any further information within scope of the complainant’s requests and has complied with section 1(1) of FOIA. The Commissioner does not require the Trust to take any remedial steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Sussex Community NHS Foundation Trust
10 Oct 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from Stanion Parish Council about annual financial accounts. By the date of this notice, Stanion Parish 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.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
10 Oct 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about an alleged decision not to investigate reports of child sex exploitation (CSE). South Yorkshire Police (SYP) refused the request citing section 14(1) FOIA (vexatious request). The Commissioner’s decision is that SYP is entitled to rely on section 14(1) to refuse the request. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps as a result of this decision notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14
View South Yorkshire Police
10 Oct 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant made a request for the current Local Policing Delivery Plan and burglary details that were previously published by Bedfordshire Police (but were no longer publicly available). Bedfordshire Police provided the current Local Policing Delivery Plan but refused to disclose the burglary details under section 40 FOIA. The Commissioner considers that Bedfordshire Police incorrectly applied section 40(2) FOIA in this case. The Commissioner requires the public authority to disclose the burglary details withheld under section 40(2) FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View Bedfordshire Police
10 Oct 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested TfL to disclose how many drivers were available to each of the ten Private Hire Operators who had the largest numbers of drivers available to them. TfL refused the request, citing sections 43 and 41 of FOIA. The Commissioner is satisfied that section 41 of FOIA applies in this case. He therefore does not require any further action to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 41
View Transport for London
10 Oct 2022Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested copies of correspondence between Carmarthenshire Council (“the council”), various police forces and the Criminal Prosecution Service that related to the police investigation of the Llanelli Wellness Village. The council withheld the requested information, citing section 40(2)(personal information) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the exemption is engaged and the public interest lies in maintaining the exemption. 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 statuary timeframe of 20 working days.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 40(2)
View Carmarthenshire County Council
10 Oct 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from the Home Office about muster point staff briefings ahead of the cancelled Rwanda charter flight on 14 June 2022. By the date of this notice the Home Office had not issued a substantive response to this request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Home Office has failed to complete its deliberations on the balance of the public interest within a reasonable time and has therefore breached section 17(3) of FOIA.The Commissioner requires the Home Office to take the following step to ensure compliance with the legislation: Having confirmed that information is held within the scope of the request: either disclose the requested information or issue a refusal notice in accordance with the requirements of section 17 of FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 17
View Home Office
10 Oct 2022Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about the referral of complaints to PHSO by MPs. PHSO disclosed information it considered to be within scope of the request. The complainant is dissatisfied with the length of time it took PHSO to respond to their request and considers that the information provided to them was misleading. The Commissioner’s decision is as follows: PHSO breached section 10(1) of FOIA as it did not provide a response to the complainant’s request within the required timescale. PHSO’s interpretation of the request was reasonable and it complied with its obligations according to section 16(1) of FOIA, which concerns advice and assistance. The Commissioner does not require PHSO to take any corrective steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 16
View The Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman
10 Oct 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information about education provision in the borough, elective home education and mental health support. By the date of this notice, London Borough of Barking and Dagenham (“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.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Barking and Dagenham Council
10 Oct 2022Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested the GMC to disclose any legal opinions, reasoning’s or internal investigations in relation to the Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service’s (MPTS) practice of publishing information about forthcoming tribunal hearings prior to allegations being tested. The GMC confirmed that it does not hold this information but holds other legal advice concerning its practice to publish information after a hearing has taken place. The complainant proceeded to request a copy of this legal advice, to which the GMC responded and cited section 42 of FOIA.The Commissioner’s decision is that the GMC is entitled to rely on section 42 of FOIA. He has however recorded a breach of section 10 of FOIA, as the GMC failed to respond to the complainant’s first request within 20 working days of receipt.The Commissioner does not require any further action to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 42
View Environment Agency
8 Oct 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant made a request for the total cost to date of ‘Operation Sheridan’ showing separately the amount expended on legal advice. Lancashire Constabulary refused to provide this, citing sections 30(1)(a) and section 30(1)(b) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the information falls within the exemption at section 30(1)(b) of FOIA, and the balance of the public interests favours withholding it. The Commissioner does not require Lancashire Constabulary to take any steps to ensure compliance with the legislation.
Exemptions cited: FOI 30(1)
View Lancashire Constabulary
7 Oct 2022Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information about the demolition work at a property, involving the removal of asbestos. The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) advised it does not hold some of the information the complainant has requested and has withheld other information under regulation 12(5)(b) of the EIR, which concerns the course of justice. The Commissioner’s decision is as follows: On the balance of probabilities, the HSE does not hold recorded information within scope of questions 2, 3 and 6 of the request and regulation 12(4)(a) of the EIR is engaged in respect of those questions. Regulation 12(5)(b) is not engaged in respect to the information requested in question 5 of the request. The HSE breached regulation 11(4) of the EIR as it did not provide an internal review within 40 working days of the request for one. The Commissioner requires the HSE to take the following step to ensure compliance with the legislation. Disclose the information the complainant has requested in questi
Exemptions cited: EIR 11; EIR 12(4)(a); EIR 12(5)(b)
View Health and Safety Executive
6 Oct 2022Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to a “lessons-learned exercise” conducted by the Financial Conduct Authority’s (FCA) Risk and Compliance Oversight Division. The FCA provided the complainant with a redacted copy of the requested information. The FCA relied on sections 31(1)(g), 40(2), 42 and 44(1)(a) of FOIA to withhold the redacted information. The complainant has not challenged the FCA’s reliance on section 40 of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the FCA was entitled to rely on sections 31(1)(g), 42 and 44(1)(a) to withhold the redacted information. However, the Commissioner has recorded a procedural breach of section 17(3) of FOIA, as the FCA failed to complete its deliberations on the balance of the public interest within a reasonable time. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps as a result of this decision notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 17(3); FOI 31(1); FOI 42; FOI 44
View Financial Conduct Authority
6 Oct 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested the ICO to disclose information relating to the laws, rules and powers applicable to the ICO as regulator and how they are implemented. To the extent the complainant’s information requests constituted valid information requests under section 8 of FOIA, the ICO directed the complainant to all the recorded information it holds and stated that, as all the information it holds is available to them via other means, it is technically exempt under section 21 of FOIA. To the extent that the information requests are valid, the Commissioner is satisfied that the ICO has identified all the recorded information it holds falling within scope. As all the information it holds is available to the complainant via other means, the ICO was entitled to direct the complainant to where that can be found and refuse to disclose it under section 21 of FOIA. The Commissioner does not therefore require any further action to be taken. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2022/0349 struck o
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Information Commissioner
6 Oct 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to a concession granted regarding adult sex dolls. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) has correctly cited section 36(2)(b)(ii) - prejudice to effective conduct of public affairs and section 40(2) - third party data. The Commissioner does not require the CPS to take any steps as a result of this decision notice. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2022/0332 withdrawn.
Exemptions cited: FOI 36
View Crown Prosecution Service
6 Oct 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from Bristol City Council (“the Council”) relating to the number of properties on specific roads that do not pay Council tax and have parking permits. The Council refused to provide the requested information citing section 40(2) (personal information) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that that the withheld information is not personal data and therefore, the Council is not entitled to rely on section 40(2) of the FOIA to refuse to provide the requested information. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. Disclose the withheld information to the complainant. The public authority must take these steps within 35 calendar days of the date of this decision notice. Failure to comply may result in the Commissioner making written certification of this fact to the High Court pursuant to section 54 of FOIA and may be dealt with as a contempt of court.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40(2)
View Bristol City Council
6 Oct 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to the Government’s consideration of the case for reform to bereavement damages. The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) provided some information within the scope of the request but refused to disclose the remainder, citing section 35(1)(a) (formulation of government policy etc) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the withheld information is exempt from disclosure on the basis of section 35(1)(a) and that, in all the circumstances of the case, the public interest favours maintaining the exemption. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: FOI 35
View Ministry of Justice
6 Oct 2022Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from the Home Office information about Afghan evacuees. The Home Office refused to confirm or deny whether it held information within the scope of the request, citing section 12(2) (cost of compliance exceeds appropriate limit) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Home Office was entitled to apply section 12(2) of FOIA and is satisfied that the Home Office met its obligation under section 16 to offer advice and assistance. He finds that the FCA breached section 10(1) FOIA by failing to respond to the request within the statutory time for compliance. The Commissioner does not require the Home Office to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 12; FOI 16
View Home Office
6 Oct 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from Hampshire County Council (“the Council”) relating to Hampshire Police and Crime Panel. The Council refused to provide the requested information citing section 14(1) (vexatious request) of the FOIA as its basis for doing so. 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 the Council to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14(1)
View Hampshire County Council