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
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
5 Oct 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested from the Ministry of Defence (“MOD”) the number of military personnel currently deployed to Borders General Hospital and other specific information relating to such personnel. The MOD provided some of the information but stated that it did not hold the rest of the requested information. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the MOD holds no further recorded information relevant to the complainant’s request and has complied with section 1(1) of FOIA. The Commissioner does not require any steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Ministry of Defence
5 Oct 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information with regards to complaints they had made. Craven District Council (the council) responded under the FOIA that the information was not held. The Commissioner’s decision is that the request falls under the EIR, but that regulation 5(3) of the EIR applies as the information is the complainant’s own personal data. This means that the council was not obliged to comply with the request. The Commissioner does not require the council to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 5(3)
View Craven District Council
5 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 Rugby Borough Council
5 Oct 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to the identity of individuals responsible for decision making regarding MHRA’s intention to publish interactive drug analysis profiles (iDAPs) for the COVID-19 vaccines. MHRA provided the complainant with some information in response to the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that on the balance of probabilities MHRA does hold further information under section 1(1)(a) FOIA in relation to part 1 of the request and breached section 10(1) FOIA as it failed to provide a response within the statutory time for compliance and failed to respond to an aspect of part 3 of the request. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation:• MHRA must either disclose the further information it holds in relation to part 1 of the request, or issue a refusal notice that complies with section 17 of the FOIA.• In relation to part 3 of the request, in particular, “whether Ministers were
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10
View Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency
5 Oct 2022Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested copies of the Planning Services contract agreed between Breckland Council (the council) and Capita Symonds Limited (Capita) in 2009, and some associated documents. The council initially withheld the requested information under section 43(2) - commercial interests, and section 12 – cost limits, of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). During the course of the Commissioner’s investigation, the council reconsidered the request under the EIR and, after conducting a series of further reviews, released the majority of the requested information. However, the council has continued to withhold some information under regulation 13 – personal information, which the complainant does not contest, and regulation 12(5)(e) – confidentiality of commercial information, of the EIR. It is the Commissioner’s decision that the council is entitled to withhold some, but not all, of that information which it claims to be subject to the exception at regulation 12(5)(e). The Commission
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(e)
View Breckland Council
5 Oct 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information from Norwich City Council (“the Council”) about its business cases for various commercial property investments. The Council initially refused to provide any of the requested information, citing the commercial interests exemption under section 43(2) of FOIA as its basis for doing so. Subsequently, during the course of the Commissioner’s investigation, the Council reconsidered the request under the EIR. It disclosed the majority of the requested information. However, it continued to withhold some information citing the confidentiality of commercial or industrial information exception under regulation 12(5)(e) of the EIR. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has not demonstrated that regulation 12(5)(e) of the EIR is engaged with respect to all of the information it has withheld on this basis. The Commissioner requires the Council to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation:• revisit the request and issue a fresh r
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(e)
View Norwich City Council
5 Oct 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested to know the number of visa fraud or human trafficking complaints made about a particular set of companies, and, if appropriate, the number of criminal charges brought as a result. Hertfordshire Constabulary would neither confirm nor deny whether it held the requested information, citing sections 31(3) (Law enforcement) and 40(5) (Personal information) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that Hertfordshire Constabulary was entitled to rely on section 31 to issue an NCND response. The Commissioner requires no steps as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: FOI 31
View Hertfordshire Constabulary
5 Oct 2022Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to MHRA’s intention to publish interactive drug analysis profiles (iDAPs) for the COVID-19 vaccines. In particular the complainant asked who the MHRA needs to seek permission from and whether such permission has yet been sought, and, if so, when, or, if not, when it intends to seek it. MHRA explained that the use of the term ‘seek permission’ in the request was incorrect, it explained that decisions of the MHRA are taken by the Secretary of State however it makes relevant bodies such as DHSC aware of when publication will take place. It also explained when publication will take place. The Commissioner’s decision is that MHRA does not hold the information requested under section 1(1)(a) FOIA but breached section 10(1) FOIA as it failed to provide a response within the statutory time for compliance. The Commissioner does not require MHRA to take any remedial steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10
View Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency
5 Oct 2022Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from the West of England Combined Authority (“WECA”) regarding expenses claims and full copies of declarations/registers of interests for WECA Mayor Dan Morris. WECA provided the complainant with some information, however it redacted the remainder, advising that it is the Mayor’s address and therefore is personal data. The Commissioner’s decision is that WECA was correct to withhold the requested information, as it is personal data. However, it should have cited section 40(2) of FOIA. As it did not cite which exemption of FOIA it was relying on, WECA has breached section 17 of FOIA as the refusal notice was not issued correctly. The Commissioner does not requires the public authority to take any steps as a result of this decision notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 17; FOI 40(2)
View West of England Combined Authority
5 Oct 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from Harris Manchester College (“the College”) regarding the recruitment of British Muslims since 20210. The College explained that it is a small organisation and it does not currently have recruitment monitoring data. The Commissioner’s decision is that on the balance of probabilities, the College does not hold the requested information. The Commissioner does not require the College to take any steps as a result of this decision notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1(1)
5 Oct 2022Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted an information request to Greater Manchester Police (“GMP”) relating to the number of complaints received over a specific time period. GMP provided the information for parts one to three of the request and stated that it does not hold the information in relation to parts four and five. The Commissioner’s decision is that on the balance of probabilities GMP does not hold information in relation to parts four and five of the request. However, in not providing the information within 20 working days, GMP did not comply with the requirements of section 10(1).The Commissioner does not require GMP to take any steps as a result of this decision notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1(1); FOI 10(1)
View Greater Manchester Police
5 Oct 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from Cambridgeshire and Peterborough NHS Foundation Trust (“the Trust”), information in relation to a specific disciplinary that took place. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Trust has correctly withheld the requested information under section 40(2) of FOIA – personal information. The Commissioner does not require the Trust to take any steps as a result of this decision notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40(2)
View Cambridgeshire and Peterborough NHS Foundation Trust
5 Oct 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
In two requests, the complainant has requested information about a member of staff, polices and the location of a particular individual. Hazeldene School (‘the School’) considered the requests to be vexatious under 14(1) of FOIA and refused to comply with them. The Commissioner’s decision is as follows: The complainant’s requests of 20 November 2021 are vexatious requests and the School is not obliged to comply with them. The Commissioner does not require the School to take any corrective steps. Information Tribunal FTT EA/2022/0351 struck out.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14
4 Oct 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested a specific case file. At the date of this notice the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) has not provided a response to the request. The Commissioner’s decision is as follows: The HSE has breached section 10(1) of FOIA as it has not responded to the request within the required timescale. The Commissioner requires the HSE to take the following step to ensure compliance with the legislation: Provide a response to the complainant’s request of 17 January 2022 that complies with FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Health and Safety Executive
4 Oct 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information supplied to the Police in respect of criminal allegations against his neighbour. The above public authority (“the public authority”) relied on section 40(5B) of FOIA to refuse to confirm or deny that information was held. The Commissioner’s decision is that the public authority was entitled to rely on section 40(5B) of FOIA to refuse to confirm or deny whether any information was held. The Commissioner does not require further steps. First-tier tribunal (General Regulatory chamber) information rights appeal UT PTA refused.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40(5)(b)
View Birmingham City Council
4 Oct 2022Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request for information under FOIA to the Teaching Regulatory Agency (“TRA”) requesting a list of all qualified teachers in England. The TRA is an executive agency of the Department for Education (“DfE”). The DfE confirmed it held the information but would not release the list as it was withheld under Section 40 (personal information) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the DfE are correct to rely on section 40 in relation to the withheld information. However, the DfE failed to respond to the request within the statutory time frame of 20 working days and has therefore breached section 10(1) of FOIA. Information Tribunal FTT EA/2022/0350 appeal dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 40
View Department for Education
4 Oct 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about the handling of a complaint he made. The above public authority (“the public authority”) relied on section 40 of FOIA (personal data) to neither confirm nor deny that it held any information. The Commissioner’s decision is that the public authority was entitled to rely on section 40(5A) of FOIA to refuse to confirm or deny that it held any relevant information. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40(5)(a)
View Surrey Police
4 Oct 2022Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
Summary wording for website: The complainant has requested a copy of correspondence from the Metropolitan Police (the MPS) to the FBI regarding a historical murder. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities the requested information is not held by MPS. However, the Commissioner finds that the MPS 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 the MPS to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10
View Metropolitan Police Service
4 Oct 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about the Fees paid by Carillion Plc. The above public authority relied on section 44 of FOIA (statutory prohibition on disclosure) to withhold the information. The Commissioner’s decision is that the public authority has correctly applied section 44 of FOIA. However, the public authority breached section 17 of FOIA as it failed to issue its refusal notice within 20 working days. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 44
View Financial Conduct Authority
4 Oct 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from the Home Office regarding minutes from monthly use of force governance meetings from May 2020. The Home Office eventually supplied some information, citing section 40 of FOIA for redactions of personal information, and section 14 of FOIA for information in part two of the request. They advised that the minutes for the November meeting could not be located, therefore they were unable to provide them. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the remaining information, namely the minutes for the November meeting, sought by the complainant is not held. However, the Commissioner finds the Home Office breached section 10 of FOIA, as they failed to respond within 20 working days. However, the Commissioner finds the Home Office breached section 10 of FOIA, as they failed to respond within 20 working days. The Commissioner does not require any steps to be taken as a result of this decision notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Home Office
4 Oct 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information contained within his own tax file. The above public authority relied on section 44(1) of FOIA (statutory prohibition on disclosure) to withhold the information. The Commissioner’s decision is that the public authority has correctly relied upon section 44 of FOIA. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 44
4 Oct 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from NHS Digital relating to a patient’s NHS details and previous addresses. NHS Digital refused the request under section 14(1) of FOIA (vexatious requests).The Commissioner’s decision is that the request was vexatious and therefore NHS Digital 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
View NHS England
4 Oct 2022Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information relating to planning applications. The above public authority provided some partially redacted information and stated that it did not hold some information. The Commissioner’s decision is that the public authority has provided all the information that it holds and was entitled to rely on Regulation 13(1) of the EIR to withhold the remainder. However the public authority failed to provide the information in question within 20 working days and therefore breached Regulation 5(2) of the EIR. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 13(1); EIR 5(1); EIR 5(2)
View Huntingdonshire District Council
4 Oct 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant made a request for information relating to the Connaught Income Fund Series 1. FCA refused to comply with the request under section 12 FOIA. The Commissioner considers that the FCA was correct to apply section 12(1) FOIA in this case and complied with its obligations under section 16 of FOIA. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12(1); FOI 16
View Financial Conduct Authority
4 Oct 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested draft minutes of a Planning Committee meeting, and associated information. East Cambridgeshire District Council (the council) refused the request under regulation 12(4)(a) – information not held. The Commissioner’s decision is that the information is not held and regulation 12(4)(a) of the EIR applies. The Commissioner does not require the council to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(a)
View East Cambridgeshire District Council
4 Oct 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested from West Yorkshire Police (“WYP”) information relating to financial expenditure, staff and codenames allocated to a specific murder investigation. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, WYP has released all the information that they hold. The Commissioner does not require WYP to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View West Yorkshire Police
3 Oct 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information on an application to the Ministry of Housing Building Safety Fund. The Commissioner’s decision is that the information is environmental and the appropriate legislation is the Environmental Information Regulations 2004 (EIR). The Commissioner’s decision is that the Greater London Authority (“GLA”) is not entitled to rely on regulation 12(6) to neither confirm or deny holding information in the scope of the request with respect to regulation 12(5)(a) - international relations, defence, national security or public safety. The Commissioner requires the public authority to confirm or deny whether information falling within the scope of the request is held, and either disclose that information or issue a refusal notice compliant with regulation 14 EIR.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12
View Greater London Authority
3 Oct 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested annual reports on activities of Bank of England Nominees Ltd (“BOEN”). The Bank of England (“BoE”) argued that it did not hold this information for the purposes of FOIA. It upheld this at internal review. The Commissioner’s decision is that the requested information, where held, is not held by BoE for the purposes of FOIA. No steps are required.
Exemptions cited: FOI 3
View Bank of England
3 Oct 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant submitted an information request to Portsmouth City Council (“the Council”) requesting all material relating to a specific planning application. 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.
Exemptions cited: EIR 5(2)
View Portsmouth City Council
3 Oct 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant made a request for information concerning medical tribunal decisions in relation to two named doctors heard in 2018. The GMC refused to confirm or deny whether the requested information was held under section 40(5B)(a)(i) FOIA. The Commissioner considers that the GMC was correct to apply section 40(5B)(a)(i) FOIA in this case. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken. First-tier Tribunal (General Regulatory Chamber) Information Rights appeal EA/2022/0347 appeal dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40(5)(b)(a)(i)
View GMC
3 Oct 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from West Midlands Ambulance Service University NHS Foundation Trust (WMAS) regarding staff dismissals. WMAS provided some information within the scope of the request, but refused to provide the remaining information by virtue of section 40(2) of FOIA – third party personal information. The Commissioner’s decision is that WMAS has correctly relied on section 40(2) of FOIA to refuse to disclose the remaining information. The Commissioner does not require WMAS to take any remedial steps. Information Tribunal FTT EA/2022/0302 struck out.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40(2)
View West Midlands Ambulance Service University NHS Foundation Trust
3 Oct 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from the Home Office about correspondence relating to the publication of the report into the murder of Daniel Morgan. 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
View Home Office
3 Oct 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted an information request to Suffolk County Council (“the Council”) relating to the classification of information in reference to a catalogue listing for a set of local records. The Council refused to fully comply with the request citing section 12 (cost limit). The Commissioner’s decision is that that the Council has failed to demonstrate that section 12(2) is engaged. The Commissioner requires the Council to take the following step to ensure compliance with the legislation: Issue a fresh response to the request that does not rely upon section 12(2) of FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12
View Suffolk County Council
3 Oct 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested communications between Stratford-on-Avon District Council (the ‘Council’) and a specified company in relation to a Memorandum of Understanding (‘MoU’) for an airfield. The Council handled the request under the EIR. It provided some of the requested information with redactions for personal information (Regulations 12(3) and 13 of the EIR) and withheld the remainder in its entirety under Regulation 12(5)(b), the exception for the course of justice. During the course of the Commissioner’s investigation, the Council revised its position several times and also made some further disclosures. Ultimately, the Council relied on Regulation 12(5)(b), Regulation 12(4)(d) – material in the course of completion, 12(5)(d) – confidentiality of proceedings, 12(5)(e) - confidentiality of commercial or industrial information and 12(5)(f) - interests of the person who provided that information. Further into the investigation, the Council again revised its stance. The complainant
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(d); EIR 12(5)(d); EIR 12(5)(e); EIR 12(5)(f)
View Stratford-on-Avon District Council
3 Oct 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The Commissioner decided that the Stanton St Quintin Parish Council holds no as yet undisclosed information within the scope of the request and so had complied with FOIA. He did not require the Council to take any steps. Information Tribunal FTT appeal EA/2022/0314 struck out.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
3 Oct 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from the Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office (“the FCDO”) relating to details of Black firsts that have been recognised by the department. The FCDO refused to comply with the request citing section 12 (cost limit) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the FCDO was entitled to refuse to comply with the request in accordance with section 12(1) of FOIA. The Commissioner also finds that FCDO complied with its obligations under section 16 to offer advice and assistance. The Commissioner does not require the FCDO to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12; FOI 16
View Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office
30 Sep 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from the Northern Ireland Policing Board (NIPB) regarding the procedure for making a claim for an injury award under various statutory provisions. NIPB provided the complainant with some information, however it refused to disclose the remainder, citing section 40(2) of FOIA as a basis for non-disclosure. It also stated that it did not hold some of the requested information. The Commissioner’s decision is that NIPB has correctly applied section 40(2) of FOIA to the information it has withheld (“the withheld information”) and that, on the balance of probabilities, it holds no further information within the scope of the complainant’s request other than that which it has already provided to them. The Commissioner therefore requires no steps to be taken by NIPB.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View Northern Ireland Policing Board
30 Sep 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from Leeds City Council (“the Council”) about records of nine named persons’ time as residents at Shadwell Children’s Centre. The Council refused to confirm or deny whether it held the requested information, citing the personal information exemption under section 40(5B)(a)(i) of FOIA as its basis for doing so. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council is entitled to rely on the personal information exemption under section 40(5B)(a)(i) of FOIA as a basis for refusing to confirm or deny whether the information is held. The Commissioner does not require the Council to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40(5)(b)(a)(i)
View Leeds City Council
30 Sep 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested from Essex County Council (“ECC”) information relating to the due diligence checks in relation to its role with the South England Local Enterprise Partnership (‘SELEP’). The information relates to SELEP awards made to Seachange Sussex (SCS). ECC denied that the requested information was held. The complainant argues that it must hold it. The Commissioner’s decision is that ECC does not hold the requested information. The Commissioner does not require ECC to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1(1)
View Essex County Council
30 Sep 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to a list of individuals responsible for council tax at a property. By the date of this notice, Gwynedd 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.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10(1)
View Gwynedd Council
30 Sep 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from Leeds City Council (“the Council”) about records of a named person’s time as a resident at Shadwell Children’s Centre. The Council refused to confirm or deny whether it held the requested information, citing the personal information exemption under section 40(5B)(a)(i) of FOIA as its basis for doing so. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council is entitled to rely on the personal information exemption under section 40(5B)(a)(i) of FOIA as a basis for refusing to confirm or deny whether the information is held. The Commissioner does not require the Council to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40(5)(b)(a)(i)
View Leeds City Council
30 Sep 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to Equality Impact Assessments as well as further documentation in regard to four police operations. By the date of this notice Metropolitan Police Service (“MPS”) had not issued a substantive response to this request. The Commissioner’s decision is that MPS 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.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10(1)
View Metropolitan Police Service
30 Sep 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested correspondence between Lord Barker and the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) relating to EN+ Group within a specified time period. The FCA refused to confirm or deny if any correspondence existed on the basis of the exemptions at section 44(2) and 40(5) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the FCA was not entitled to rely on either section 44(2) or section 40(5) of the FOIA to neither confirm nor deny holding relevant information. The Commissioner requires the public authority to either confirm or deny holding information within the scope of the request. If the FCA holds information it must either disclose it, or issue a refusal notice that complies with section 17 of the FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40; FOI 44
View Financial Conduct Authority
30 Sep 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The public authority has failed to respond to this request within 20 working days, as specified under FOIA. The Commissioner requires it to provide the complainant with a response to this request within 35 calendar days in accordance with its obligations under FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Lancashire County Council
29 Sep 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested 12 pencil sketches drawn by convicted killer Christopher Halliwell. Wiltshire Police refused to provide the requested information, citing sections 30(1) (investigations and proceedings) and 38(1) (health and safety) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that Wiltshire Police was entitled to rely on section 30(1)(a) to withhold the sketches. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: FOI 30
View Wiltshire Police
29 Sep 2022Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested from Wirral Council (‘the council’), a document pack provided to councillors relating to a development agreement. The council refused the request on the basis that the information is subject to legal professional privilege, (section 42 of FOIA). The Commissioner’s decision is that the council was correct to apply section 42(1) to withhold the information from disclosure. He has, however, decided that the council did not comply with the requirements of Section 10(1) in that it did not respond to the request within 20 working days. The Commissioner does not require the council to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10(1); FOI 42(1)
View Wirral Council
29 Sep 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested the outcome of an independent review regarding a planning application. Gravesham Borough Council (‘the Council’) originally refused the request on the basis that it was vexatious, citing section 14(1) FOIA. However, following the Commissioner’s investigation, it confirmed that the information is not held. 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
29 Sep 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The public authority has failed to respond to this request within 20 working days, as specified under FOIA. The Commissioner requires it to provide the complainant with a response to this request within 35 calendar days in accordance with its obligations under FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Cabinet Office