29 Sep 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) relating to the Quantitative Risk Assessment (QRA) data and report. The MHRA refused the request under section 14(1) of FOIA (vexatious request). The Commissioner’s decision is that the request was vexatious and therefore the MHRA was entitled to rely upon section 14(1) of FOIA to refuse it. The Commissioner does not require any steps to be taken as a result of this decision notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14(1)
View Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency
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 upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information from the Environment Agency (EA) regarding the reasons for its views about a planning situation. The EA disclosed some information to the complainant, however it stated that it held no further information within the scope of the complainant’s request and directed him to the local planning authority. The Commissioner’s decision is that the EA has demonstrated that, on the balance of probabilities, it does not hold any further information within the scope of the complainant’s request. Therefore the Commissioner requires no steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(a)
View Environment Agency
29 Sep 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from the Council relating to an Air Quality Modelling Study. The Council refused to disclose the requested information, citing section 22 of FOIA as a basis for non-disclosure. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has incorrectly applied section 22 of FOIA as the requested information is environmental and therefore the Council should have responded to the request under the appropriate legislation, i.e. the Environmental Information Regulations 2004 (EIR). As the information has now been published, the Commissioner does not order any steps to be taken by the Council.
Exemptions cited: FOI 22
View Wirral Council
29 Sep 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to Batchelor’s and Master’s degrees in computing. The Council of Imperial College of Science, Technology and Medicine relied on section 43 of FOIA (commercial interests) to withhold the requested information. The Commissioner’s decision is that the College has failed to demonstrate that section 43 of FOIA is engaged and is therefore not entitled to rely on this exemption. The Commissioner requires the College to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: disclose, to the complainant, the information it has relied on section 43 of FOIA to withhold.
Exemptions cited: FOI 43
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 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
29 Sep 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from West Yorkshire Police in relation to one of its police vehicles. West Yorkshire Police applied section 40(5) of FOIA to the requested information as it refused to either confirm or deny whether it held that information. The Commissioner’s decision is that West Yorkshire Police has incorrectly applied section 40(5) of FOIA to the requested information. The Commissioner therefore requires West Yorkshire Police to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: To issue a fresh response to the complainant’s request without relying upon the NCND provisions of section 40(5) of FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View West Yorkshire Police
29 Sep 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from the BBC about programs that were advertised by way of a trailer. The BBC explained the information was covered by the derogation and excluded from FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that this information was held by the BBC genuinely for the purposes of ‘journalism, art or literature’ and did not fall inside FOIA. He therefore upholds the BBC’s position and requires no remedial steps to be taken in this case.
Exemptions cited: FOI 3
View BBC
29 Sep 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about the content of particular lessons. Haberdashers’ Aske’s Federation Trust provided some information, denied holding some of the requested information and withheld the remainder, relying on section 41 (breach of confidence), section 43 (commercial interests) and section 40(2) of FOIA (third party personal data). The Commissioner’s decision is that the Trust was entitled to rely on section 41 of FOIA to withhold the information within the scope of element [1]. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Trust was entitled to rely on section 43 of FOIA to withhold the information within the scope of element [1] and the balance of the public interest favours maintaining this exemption. The Commissioner considers that the Trust was also entitled to rely on section 40(2) of FOIA to withhold the information within the scope of elements [5], [6] and [7]. Finally, the Commissioner is satisfied that the Trust does not hold any further information within
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 40; FOI 41; FOI 43
View HABERDASHERS' ASKE'S FEDERATION TRUST
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
29 Sep 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant submitted a request to the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (FCDO) for copies of correspondence between the FCDO in the US and BP staff in relation to COP26 and associated initiatives. The FCDO refused to provide any of the requested information, citing the commercial interest’s exemption under section 43(2) of FOIA as its basis for doing so. The Commissioner determined that the request fell to be considered under the EIR. Having considered the application of regulation 12(5)(e) – adverse effect on the confidentiality of commercial interests – which has similarities to section 43(2) FOIA, he is satisfied that the information was withheld correctly. However, the FCDO breached regulation 5(2) since it responded outside the statutory period of 20 working days. The Commissioner does not require any steps to be taken as a result of this decision notice.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(e)
View Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office
28 Sep 2022Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information on the governance of the Universal Credit Programme. DWP relied on sections 22, 31, 35 and 36 to withhold the information. The Commissioner’s decision is that DWP is not entitled to rely on sections 22, 35 and 36 to withhold the majority of the information but is entitled to rely on section 31 and 36 to withhold a small proportion of the requested information. DWP also breached sections 10 and 17 by not providing its response within the statutory timeframe. The Commissioner requires the public authority disclose the information withheld under section 22, 35 and 36 with the exception of the information specified in Part B of the confidential annex. 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. First-tier t
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 22; FOI 31; FOI 35; FOI 36
View Department for Work and Pensions
28 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 York City Council
28 Sep 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from Clavering Parish Council (“the Council”) relating to legal advice sought by the Council and provided by a Barrister in relation to a dispute with a specific property. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council is entitled to rely on section 42(1) (legal professional privilege) of the FOIA to withhold the requested information. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2022/0326 struck out.
Exemptions cited: FOI 42(1)
28 Sep 2022Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested a copy of comments made on Parentview over a three-month period in relation to an Ofsted inspection at a named school. Ofsted relied on section 40(2) of FOIA (third party personal data) to withhold the information. The Commissioner’s decision is that Ofsted is only entitled to rely on section 40(2) of FOIA to withhold some of the information falling within the scope of the request. Furthermore, that the information relating directly to the requester is exempt from disclosure under section 40(1) of FOIA. The Commissioner requires Ofsted to take the following steps: Disclose to the complainant the information in blue in the Confidential Annex. First-tier tribunal (General Regulatory chamber) information rights appeal EA/2022/0329 consent order.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40(1); FOI 40(2)
View Office for Standards in Education, Children's Services and Skills
28 Sep 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) relating to the Quantitative Risk Assessment (QRA) data and report. The MHRA refused the request under section 14(1) of FOIA (vexatious request). The Commissioner’s decision is that the request was vexatious and therefore the MHRA 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. First-tier tribunal (General Regulatory chamber) information rights appeal EA/2022/0306 struck out.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14(1)
View Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency
28 Sep 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information that was withheld in response to a previous request. The Gambling Commission refused to provide the requested information, citing section 40(2) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Gambling Commission is entitled to rely upon section 40(2) in order to refuse to provide the requested information. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40(2)
View Gambling Commission
28 Sep 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested a copy of a letter to Warrington Borough Council (the “Council”) from its auditors dated May 2020. The Council refused the request citing section 22 of FOIA (information intended for future publication) and section 36 of FOIA (prejudice to the effective conduct of public affairs). The Commissioner’s decision is that the council correctly withheld the requested information under section 22 of FOIA. As section 22 had been correctly applied the Commissioner did not consider section 36 of FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 22
View Warrington Council
27 Sep 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request for information about whether anyone else was monitoring their property via the Property Alert service. His Majesty’s Land Registry (“HMLR”) refused to disclose the information as the Property Alert service was initiated to prevent fraud. They cited exemption under section 31(1)(a) of FOIA as disclosure of the information would be likely to effect the detection of crime.
Exemptions cited: FOI 31(1)(a)
View HM Land Registry
27 Sep 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to a named individual. The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) neither confirmed nor denied holding some of the requested information and refused to provide the remainder, citing section 40(2) (personal information) of FOIA. The Commissioner investigated its application of section 40(2) to the information withheld by virtue of that exemption. The Commissioner’s decision is that the information was correctly withheld. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken as a result of this decision. First-tier tribunal (General Regulatory chamber) information rights appeal EA/2022/0277 appeal dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View Ministry of Justice
27 Sep 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) relating to the Quantitative Risk Assessment (QRA) data and report. The MHRA refused the request under section 14(1) of FOIA (vexatious request). The Commissioner’s decision is that the request was vexatious and therefore the MHRA 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. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2022/0316 struck out.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14(1)
View Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency
27 Sep 2022Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested a report considered when the requirement for facemasks to be worn in English schools was lifted. The Department for Education relied on section 35 (development of government policy) to withhold the information. The Commissioner’s decision is that the withheld information engages section 35(1)(a) of FOIA and that the balance of the public interest favours maintaining the exemption. The DfE breached section 10 and section 17 of FOIA as it failed to issue its response within 20 working days. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 17; FOI 35
View Department for Education
27 Sep 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman (PHSO) relating to the legal status of non-CCT reviews and the re-opening of final decisions. The PHSO refused the request under section 14(1) of FOIA (vexatious request). The Commissioner’s decision is that the request was vexatious and therefore the PHSO 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. First-tier tribunal (General Regulatory chamber) information rights appeal EA/2022/0324 appeal allowed. Information Tribunal UT UA-2023-001646-GIA PTA refused.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14(1)
View The Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman
26 Sep 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested from Elmbridge Borough Council various information relating to local sports facilities. The Council issued a response that the Commissioner does not consider to be a valid response under the terms of the FOIA. 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 steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: The Council must provide a substantive response to the request in accordance with its obligations under the FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Elmbridge Borough Council
26 Sep 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information about Brighton and Hove school streets and Westdene school streets taster day. Brighton & Hove City Council (the Council) provided some information in its initial response and subsequently made a number of further disclosures following correspondence from the complainant. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council breached section 10 of the FOIA in failing to provide the information within the statutory time for compliance and failing to confirm that some of the information requested was not held. The Commissioner does not require any steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Brighton and Hove City Council
26 Sep 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information about annual reports on the activities of Bank of England Nominees Ltd. By the date of this notice BEIS had not issued a substantive response to this request. 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 Department for Business and Trade
23 Sep 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested copies of information contained in reports regarding a patrol conducted by HMS Vigilant. The Ministry of Defence (MoD) stated It would neither confirm nor deny (NCND) holding the requested information, citing the exemptions at sections 24(2) (national security), and 26(3) (defence). The Commissioner’s decision is that the MoD was entitled to rely on section 24(2) of FOIA to neither confirm nor deny (NCND) holding the requested information. The Commissioner does not require any steps to be taken as a result of this decision notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 24(2)
View Ministry of Defence
23 Sep 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested mark schemes and answers to entrance examinations for the Institute of Professional Legal Studies, part of Queen’s University, Belfast. The University initially refused the request under section 43(2) of FOIA (prejudice to commercial interests). It later sought to rely on section 36(2)(c) of FOIA (prejudice to the effective conduct of public affairs). The Commissioner’s decision is that the University was entitled to refuse to disclose the requested information under section 36(2)(c). The Commissioner does not require any steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 36
View Queen's University Belfast
22 Sep 2022Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to specific meetings of the Animal Welfare Committee. By the date of this notice, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs had disclosed all the information it held apart from a small quantity that it wished to rely on section 27 of FOIA (international relations) to withhold. The Commissioner’s decision is that DEFRA has correctly relied upon section 27(1)(a) of FOIA and that the balance of the public interest favours maintaining the exemption. DEFRA breached section 10 of FOIA as it failed to identify all the information that it held within the scope of the request within 20 working days. The Commissioner does not require further steps. First-tier tribunal (General Regulatory chamber) information rights appeal EA/2022/0317 appeal dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 27
22 Sep 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from the London Borough of Croydon Council [“the Council”] relating to educational provisions. By the date of this notice the Council had failed to provide a substantive response to this request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has breached section 10(1) of the FOIA in that it failed to provide a valid response to the request within the statuary timeframe of 20 working days. The Commissioner requires t the Council to respond to the complainant’s response in accordance with the FOIA. The Council must take these steps within 35 calendar days of the date of this decision notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View London Borough of Croydon
22 Sep 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested from Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) information relating to offences on Westminster Bridge within the last 8 years. MPS refused to comply with the request and cited section 12(1) (cost of compliance exceeds that appropriate limit) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that MPS was entitled to refuse to comply with the request in accordance with section 12(1) of FOIA. The Commissioner also finds that MPS complied with its obligations under section 16(1) of FOIA to offer advice and assistance. Therefore, the Commissioner does not require MPS to take any steps as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12(1); FOI 16(1)
View Metropolitan Police Service
22 Sep 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant made a request for a summary of the Charity Commission for Northern Ireland (the Charity Commission) report of the charity Growth for Adolescents and Providing Support Norther Ireland (GAPS NI) and its findings. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Charity Commission is entitled withhold the requested information under section 40(2) of FOIA. Information Tribunal FTT EA/2022/0318 appeal dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40(2)
View Equality Commission for Northern Ireland
22 Sep 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from the Department of Health Northern Ireland (the ‘DoH’) about the algorithm used to determine the Reproduction or R Number for coronavirus (‘COVID-19’) in Northern Ireland. The DoH stated that it did not hold the requested information. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the DoH does not hold the requested information. The Commissioner is also satisfied that the requested information was not held on behalf of the DoH by the Northern Ireland COVID-19 Modelling Group (‘Modelling Group’) under section 3(2) of FOIA. However, the DoH failed to inform the complainant, within 20 working days, that it did not hold the requested information and therefore failed to comply with section 10(1) of FOIA. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 3
View Department of Health NI
22 Sep 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
On 11 May 2022 the complainant requested information about specific complaints made against [name redacted]. By the date of this notice the Office of the Police and Crime Commissioner for Dorset had not issued a substantive response to this request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Office of the Police and Crime Commissioner for Dorset 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 Office of the Police and Crime Commissioner for Dorset to take the following step to ensure compliance with the legislation. The Office of the Police and Crime Commissioner for Dorset must provide a substantive response to the request in accordance with its obligations under FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10(1)
22 Sep 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information relating to a meeting in 1999 between Prime Minister Tony Blair and The Prince of Wales. The Cabinet Office originally neither confirmed nor denied that they held the requested information under regulation 13(5)(a) of the Environmental Information Regulations (EIR). During the Commissioner’s investigation the Cabinet Office revised their response and confirmed that they did not hold any environmental information within scope of the request, under regulation 12(4)(a). Insofar as the Cabinet Office held any non-environmental information within scope of the request, the Cabinet Office would neither confirm nor deny whether or not they held the requested information on the basis of section 37(2) of FOIA, by virtue of section 37(1)(aa)(communications with the heir to the Throne). The Commissioner is satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that the Cabinet Office do not hold any environmental information requested by the complainant. The Commissi
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(a); FOI 37(2)
View Cabinet Office
22 Sep 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested a copy of a review of the operation of the Coroners and Justice Act. The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) confirmed it held information within the scope of the request but refused to provide it, citing section 35(1)(a) (formulation of government policy) of FOIA. During the course of the Commissioner’s investigation, it revised its position, citing instead section 36 (prejudice to effective conduct of public affairs) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that section 36(2)(c) is engaged but that the public interest balance favours disclosure of the information. The Commissioner requires the MoJ to take the following step to ensure compliance with the legislation: disclose the requested draft report, a copy of which was provided to the Commissioner during the course of his investigation. First-tier tribunal (General Regulatory chamber) information rights appeal EA/2022/0320 withdrawn.
Exemptions cited: FOI 36
View Ministry of Justice
22 Sep 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to the number of individuals charged in relation to fraud offences. West Midlands Police confirmed it held information but refused to provided it, citing sections 40(2) (personal information) and 31(1) (law enforcement) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that West Midlands Police is entitled to withhold this information in accordance with section 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/2022/0284 appeal dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View West Midlands Police
22 Sep 2022Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested a copy of a workplace parking levy (“WPL”) feasibility report to assess the readiness of Bristol City Council (“the council”) to develop a workplace parking levy scheme. The council applied regulation 12(4)(d) (material in the course of completion) of the EIR on the basis that the WPL feasibility report relates to, and feeds into, a decision pathway report which is not yet complete. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council correctly withheld the requested information under regulation 12(4)(d) of the EIR but that it failed to respond in time and breached regulation 5(2) of the EIR. First-tier tribunal (General Regulatory chamber) information rights appeal EA/2022/0325 appeal allowed.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(d); EIR 5
View Bristol City Council
22 Sep 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from Cabinet Office (“CO”) relating to the former Prime Minister’s family pet dog, Dilyn. The CO confirmed they did not hold any relevant information. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, CO does not hold the requested information.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Cabinet Office
22 Sep 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested a report into the National Genomics Informatics System. NHS England relied on section 36 of FOIA to withhold the requested information. The Commissioner’s decision is that NHS England has correctly engaged section 36(2)(c) of FOIA, but that the public interest favours disclosure. The Commissioner requires NHS England to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: disclose an unredacted copy of the report to the complainant. NHS England may redact contact details and names of junior staff members.
Exemptions cited: FOI 36
View NHS England
21 Sep 2022Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted an information request to the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham (“the Council”) for demographic information relating to children taken into care, and the record and transcript of a specific call and meeting. The Council refused to fully comply with part one of the request citing section 12 (cost limit) and in reference to parts two and three, it stated that it does not hold the information. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has correctly relied upon section 12(1) of FOIA for part one of the request and that, on the balance of probabilities, it does not hold information in relation to parts two and three. He also finds that the Council met its obligation under section 16(1) of FOIA to offer advice and assistance. However, in not providing the information within 20 working days, the Council did not comply with the requirements of section 10(1). The Commissioner does not require the Council to take any steps as a result of this decision notic
Exemptions cited: FOI 1(1); FOI 10(1); FOI 12(1); FOI 16(1)
View Hammersmith and Fulham Council
21 Sep 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information from Natural England in relation to badger culling. Natural England provided a response to the complainant’s request, however, the complainant is not satisfied with the response, as they consider that Natural England did not provide the correct figures. The Commissioner’s decision is that on the balance of probabilities, Natural England has provided all information in relation to the request. The Commissioner does not require Natural England to take any steps as a result of this decision notice.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(a)
View Natural England
21 Sep 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to Community Trigger meetings about them held by Sheffield City Council (“the Council”). The Council refused to provide the requested information citing section 40(2) (personal information) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council was entitled to rely on section 40(2) of FOIA for the withheld information. The Commissioner does not require any steps to be taken as a result of this decision notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40(2)
View Sheffield City Council
21 Sep 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to the 1971 McGurk’s bar bombing. The National Archives disclosed the majority of information that was requested but relied upon section 38 (health and safety) and section 40(2) (personal information) to withhold certain information. The Commissioner’s decision is that TNA is entitled to rely upon section 38 to withhold the information in question. The Commissioner does not require TNA to take any steps. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2022/0334 withdrawn.
Exemptions cited: FOI 38(1)(b)
View The National Archives
21 Sep 2022Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) relating to a certain named file. MPS applied section 14(1) of FOIA to the complainant’s request due to difficulty in retrieving the file during the Covid pandemic. The Commissioner’s decision is that MPS correctly applied section 14(1) of FOIA at the time of the request, however as it has failed to communicate with the complainant and keep them updated as to the review of the file, it has failed to comply with its duty under section 16 of FOIA to provide advice and assistance to the complainant. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. Communicate with the complainant to let them know the position regarding the review of the file and whether section 23(1) of FOIA applies to the entire file or whether the review shows that some information contained in the file can now be disclosed to the complainant.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14; FOI 16
View Metropolitan Police Service
21 Sep 2022Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information from Bristol City Council (“the Council”) relating to complaints about low frequency noise. The Council refused to provide the requested information citing regulation 12(4)(c) (requests formulated in too general a manner) and regulation 12(4)(b) (manifestly unreasonable) of the EIR. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council is not entitled to rely on regulation 12(4)(c) of the EIR to refuse to provide the requested information. However, the Council is entitled to rely on regulation 12(4)(b) of the EIR to refuse to provide the requested information. The Commissioner does not require the Council to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(b); EIR 12(4)(c)
View Bristol City Council
21 Sep 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to the Ministry of Defence (MOD) asking to know what options were being considered to repay the debt the International Military Services, a defunct arms sales arm of the UK MOD, owed to the Ministry of Defence of Iran in relation to an order of tanks which was cancelled in the 1970s. The MOD confirmed that it held information falling within the scope of the request but it considered this to be exempt from disclosure on the basis of sections 27(1)(a) and (c) (international relations) and 35(1)(a) (formulation or development government policy) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the withheld information is exempt from disclosure on the basis of sections 27(1)(a) and (c) of FOIA and that in all the circumstances of the case the public interest favours maintaining the exemptions.
Exemptions cited: FOI 27
View Ministry of Defence
20 Sep 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested from the Gambling Commission (“GC”) information relating to football index/BetIndex and correspondence between the forensic accountant and other staff members of the GC. The GC refused the request under section 14(1) (vexatious requests) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the request was not vexatious. The Commissioner requires the GC to take the following step to ensure compliance with the legislation: Issue a fresh response to the complainant, which does not rely on section 14(1) of FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14(1)
View Gambling Commission
20 Sep 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant submitted a request to the Department for International Trade (DIT) seeking correspondence between DIT officials and officials at the British Embassy in Lima which mention ‘Tullow Oil’ or ‘Natural Protected Areas’. DIT provided the complainant with some information falling within the scope of his request but redacted parts of it on the basis of sections 40(2) (personal data), 27(1)(a) (international relations), 35(1)(a) (formulation or development of government policy) and 43(2) (commercial interests) of FOIA. It subsequently sought to withhold the redacted information on the basis of regulations 12(4)(e) (internal communications), 12(5)(a) (international relations), 12(5)(e) (confidentiality of commercial or industrial information) and 13(1) (personal data). The Commissioner’s decision is that the redacted information is exempt from disclosure on basis of EIR regulations cited by DIT and that in respect of the qualified exceptions the public interest favours withholdin
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(a); EIR 12(5)(a); EIR 12(5)(e); EIR 13(1)
View Department for International Trade