20 Sep 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information about Deliberate Detention Operations in Afghanistan. The Ministry of Defence relied on section 23 (security bodies) or section 24 (national security) of the FOIA in the alternative in order to withhold the information as well as section 26 (defence) and 27 (international relations). The Commissioner’s decision is that the MoD has correctly relied on either section 23 or section 24 of the FOIA to withhold the information. The Commissioner is also satisfied that section 27 of FOIA is engaged and that the balance of the public interest favours maintaining this exemption. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 23; FOI 24; FOI 27
View Ministry of Defence
20 Sep 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested email correspondence between a named individual and Her Majesty’s Treasury (HMT). Referring to its response to an earlier related request, HMT explained that it held three emails within the scope of this request. It argued that this information was exempt under section 35(1)(a) (formulation/development of government policy). It also argued that it was not obliged on the grounds of section 12 (cost exemption) to respond to other elements of the request. The complainant requested an internal review of HMT’s use of section 35 in respect of the three emails referred to. The Commissioner’s decision is that HMT is entitled to rely on section 35(1)(a) as its basis for refusing to provide the three emails described in its response to the complainant. No steps are required.
Exemptions cited: FOI 35
View HM Treasury
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)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested copies of all correspondence sent and received by the office of Priti Patel relating to the decision whether or not to include a public interest defence in the overhaul of the Official Secrets Act. The Home Office refused to provide the information it held in scope of the request citing section 35(1)(a) of FOIA - the exemption for the formulation or development of government policy. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Home Office was entitled to rely on section 35(1)(a) to refuse the request. The Commissioner requires no steps as a result of this notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 35
View Home Office
20 Sep 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information concerning Highways England’s name change to “National Highways”. The Department for Transport (“the DfT”) provided a small amount of information, but relied on section 36 of FOIA (prejudice to the effective conduct of public affairs) to withhold the remainder. The Commissioner’s decision is that the DfT has correctly engaged both section 36(2)(b)(i) and section 36(2)(b)(ii) of FOIA but that the balance of the public interest favours disclosure. The Commissioner requires the DfT to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: disclose, to the complainant, the information it has withheld. The DfT may redact contact details and the names of junior staff.
Exemptions cited: FOI 36
View Department for Transport
20 Sep 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from HM Treasury about breaches of supply chain security during the reclamation and disposal of the old £1 coin by the Royal Mint. HM Treasury relied on the exemption at section 31(3) FOIA (law enforcement) of FOIA as its basis for neither confirming nor denying (‘NCND’) whether it held information within the scope of the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that section 31(3) is not engaged. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: issue a fresh response which must confirm or deny whether it holds information within the scope of the request, and disclose or refuse any information identified. 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 contemp
Exemptions cited: FOI 31(3)
View HM Treasury
20 Sep 2022Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested copies of submissions to a plastics consultation. By the date of the decision notice the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs had disclosed all but one of the submissions, but relied on both Regulation 12(5)(e) – commercially confidential – and Regulation 12(5)(f) – impact on provider – to withhold the remaining submission. The Commissioner’s decision is that DEFRA has correctly engaged both Regulation 12(5)(e) and Regulation 12(5)(f), but only in relation to some of the information it is withholding. Neither exception applies to the remaining information. Where the exception is engaged, the combined public interest of maintaining both exceptions outweighs the public interest in disclosure. DEFRA also breached Regulation 11(4) of the EIR as it failed to complete an internal review (reconsideration) within 40 working days. The Commissioner requires DEFRA to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: disclose the entire
Exemptions cited: EIR 11; EIR 12(5)(e); EIR 12(5)(f)
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
20 Sep 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from Oxfordshire County Council (“OCC”) relating to FOI breaches. By the date of this notice OCC had failed to provide a substantive response to this request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the OCC 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 the OCC to respond to the complainant’s response in accordance with the FOIA. The OCC must take these steps within 35 calendar days of the date of this decision notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Oxfordshire County Council
16 Sep 2022Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from the Financial Ombudsman Service (“FOS”) relating to solar panel installers and associated credit providers. FOS refused to comply with the request citing section 12 (cost limit) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that FOS was entitled to refuse to comply with the request in accordance with section 12(1) of FOIA. The Commissioner also finds that FOS failed to comply with its obligations under section 16 to offer advice and assistance but it has since recognised this. Also, the Commissioner has found that FOS has breached both section 10 and section 17 of FOIA as a result of the delays in its response. The Commissioner requires FOS to provide advice and assistance to the complainant so that they can refine their request so that it falls within the cost limit.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 12; FOI 16; FOI 17
16 Sep 2022Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested from United Lincolnshire Hospitals NHS Trust (the Trust) information relating to a self-assessment submitted to the Quality Surveillance Programme. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the requested information is not held by the Trust. However, the Commissioner finds that the Trust breached section 10(1) of FOIA as it failed to provide its response to the request within the statutory timeframe of 20 working days. The Commissioner does not require any steps to be taken as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10
View United Lincolnshire Hospitals NHS Trust
16 Sep 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information from Transport for Greater Manchester (“TfGM”) about the installation of electric charging points for vehicles. TfGM provided the requested information after some delays. The Commissioner’s decision is that the request fell to be considered under the EIR. He has determined that TfGM failed to comply with regulation 5(2) of the EIR, since it did not provide the requested information within 20 working days and, in addition, failed to comply with regulation 11(4) of the EIR since it did not provide the outcome of its reconsideration within 40 working days. As a response and reconsideration were ultimately provided, the Commissioner does not require TfGM to take any steps. First-tier tribunal (General Regulatory chamber) information rights appeal EA/2022/0286 appeal struck out.
Exemptions cited: EIR 11; EIR 5
View Mayor of Greater Manchester
16 Sep 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested from the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) information relating to what the complainant describes as the relocation of the venue for a speech of the Prime Minister (PM) at the time, Theresa May, during a visit to Derby in 2018. The MPS refused to confirm or deny whether it held the requested information by citing sections 24(2) and 31(3). The Commissioner’s decision is that the MPS has incorrectly applied sections 24(2) and 31(3) FOIA. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: The MPS is required to confirm or deny whether the requested information is held and either disclose it or issue a fresh response compliant with section 17 of the FOIA. First-tier tribunal (General Regulatory chamber) information rights appeal EA/2022/0311 appeal allowed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 24(2); FOI 31(3)
View Metropolitan Police Service
15 Sep 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from Kent County Council (“the Council”) about payments made by the Council regarding its wholly owned trading vehicles. The Council provided some information to the complainant and also referred the request to one of its holding companies, which provided the complainant with some further information, however the Council itself refused to disclose the requested information, citing section 12(1) of FOIA as a basis for non-disclosure. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has correctly applied section 12(1) of FOIA to the complainant’s request. The Commissioner has also decided that the Council has complied with its duty of advice and assistance as set out in section 16 of FOIA. The Commissioner therefore requires the Council to take no further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12
View Kent County Council
15 Sep 2022Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested from South Staffordshire Council the minutes of a meeting relating to its decision not to object to an application received by the District Land Registry for the registration of a strip of land in 2003. South Staffordshire Council stated that it did not hold any recorded information falling within the scope of the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that South Staffordshire Council does not hold the requested information based on the balance of probabilities. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps to ensure compliance with the legislation.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(a); EIR 12(5)(b); EIR 5(1)
View South Staffordshire Council
15 Sep 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from Sheffield City Council (“the Council”) relating to the terms, conditions and policy on the use of CCTV by council tenants. The Council refused the request under section 14(1) of FOIA (vexatious requests). The Commissioner’s decision is that the request was vexatious and therefore the Council was entitled to rely upon section 14(1) of FOIA to refuse it. The Commissioner does not require any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14(1)
View Sheffield City Council
15 Sep 2022Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested from Waverley Borough Council (”the Council”) information relating to the use of a private road by developers, against a Planning Inspector’s instructions. The Council provided some information but denied that the further information was held. The Commissioner’s decision is that on the balance of probabilities, the Council does not hold any further information, and therefore it complied with the requirements of Regulation 5(1). He has, however, decided that the Council did not comply with the requirements of Regulation 5(2) 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: EIR 12(4)(a); EIR 5(2)
View Waverley Borough Council
15 Sep 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant made a request for information relating to complaints about the wildlife presenter Chris Packham. The BBC explained the information was covered by the derogation and excluded from FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that this information would be held by the BBC for the purposes of ‘journalism, art or literature’ and would not therefore fall inside FOIA. He therefore upholds the BBC’s position and requires no remedial steps to be taken in this case.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View BBC
15 Sep 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information from Dorset Council (“the Council”) in relation to communications concerning a named highway. The Council provided them with some information, however it stated that it did not hold information within the scope of the remaining requested information. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has not produced sufficient evidence for the Commissioner to conclude that, on the balance of probabilities, the Council holds no information within the scope of the relevant part of the request, therefore, regulation 12(4)(a) is not engaged. The Commissioner requires the Council to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: Issue a fresh response to the request as per paragraph 27 of this decision notice stating whether it holds any information within the scope of this interpretation of the request and, if it does, it should either disclose that information or issue a refusal notice that complies with regulation 14 of the EIR
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(a)
View Dorset County Council
15 Sep 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information from Central Bedfordshire Council (“the Council”) relating to highway complaint records. 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 regulation 5(2) 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 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: EIR 5(2)
View Central Bedfordshire Council
15 Sep 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested correspondence to and from the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough NHS Foundation Trust (“the CPFT”) relating to the Spectrum 10K research project. The CPFT originally refused the request on the grounds of cost (under section 12), but later clarified that it was instead refusing the request on the grounds that compliance would impose a grossly oppressive burden (under section 14(1) of FOIA). The Commissioner’s decision is that: The request is vexatious and therefore the CPFT was entitled to rely upon section 14(1) to refuse it.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14(1)
View Cambridgeshire and Peterborough NHS Foundation Trust
15 Sep 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information from Manchester City Council (“the Council”) relating to the Brunswick redevelopment. The Council provided the complainant with information within the scope of the request. The complainant considers that the Council has not disclosed all the information it holds within the scope of their request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has provided the complainant with all the information it holds within the scope of the request. The Commissioner does not require the Council to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(a)
View Manchester City Council
15 Sep 2022Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from the London Borough of Hackney (“the Council”), in relation to obtaining a copy of the open electoral register in large print. The Council refused the request, advising that it does not hold the requested information for the purposes of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the requested information is held by the Electoral Registration Officer (ERO) in their statutory role and is therefore not held by, or on behalf of, the Council for the purposes of FOIA. The Commissioner, however, finds that the Council breached section 17(1) of FOIA, as its refusal notice was not adequate. The Commissioner does not require the Council to take any steps as a result of this decision notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1(1); FOI 17
View London Borough of Hackney
15 Sep 2022Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has made a three part request for information relating to babies that were born at the Pilgrim Hospital in Boston with Erb’s Palsy (otherwise known as brachial plexus injury). United Lincolnshire Hospitals NHS Trust (the Trust) withheld the requested information under section 40(2) of FOIA on the basis that it is third party personal data, and its disclosure would breach data protection law. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Trust is not entitled to rely on section 40(2) to withhold the information requested under part one of the request for information, and therefore breached section 1 of FOIA by failing to provide it. However, the Commissioner has decided that the Trust is entitled to rely on section 40(2) of FOIA to withhold the information requested under parts two and three of the request. The Commissioner has also recorded a procedural breach of section 17 of FOIA, as the Trust failed to issue the complainant with a refusal notice in respect of parts two and
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 17; FOI 40(2)
View United Lincolnshire Hospitals NHS Trust
14 Sep 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information about the way in which candidates are selected for appointment. The Judicial Appointments Commission (JAC) provided a substantive response, however it applied exemptions to withhold some of the information within the scope of the request. The Commissioner has investigated and found that the JAC was entitled to withhold the information on the basis of sections 40 (personal information), 44 (prohibitions on disclosure) and 21 (information accessible to applicant by other means) 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/2022/0299 under appeal.
Exemptions cited: FOI 21; FOI 40; FOI 44
View Judicial Appointments Commission
14 Sep 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from the University of Liverpool about the department and job title of staff who had been dismissed in the past five years due to lack of capability. The University of Liverpool relied on section 40(2) (third party personal data) of FOIA to withhold the information. The Commissioner’s decision is that the University of Liverpool was entitled to refuse to comply with the entirety of the request in accordance with section 40(2) FOIA. The Commissioner also proactively applied section 40(1) (personal information of the requester).
Exemptions cited: FOI 40(1); FOI 40(2)
View The University of Liverpool
14 Sep 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from His Majesty’s Revenue & Customs (“HMRC”) in relation to case numbers for proceedings issued against HMRC by self-employed people who have been refused payment of the SEISS grant. HMRC explained it holds the information, however, it was refusing it under section 44(1)(a) of FOIA, as it was prohibited from disclosure by other legislation. The Commissioner’s decision is that HMRC is entitled to rely on section 44(1)(a) of FOIA to withhold the requested information. The Commissioner does not require HMRC to take any steps as a result of this decision notice. First-tier tribunal (General Regulatory chamber) information rights appeal EA/2022/0274 appeal dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 44(1)(a)
14 Sep 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information relating to a surface water scheme. South Derbyshire District Council (the Council) provided some information within the scope of the request. The complainant disputed that it satisfied his request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has conducted reasonable searches for the requested information which would have located further information, if it was held. He has therefore concluded that, on the balance of probabilities, the Council does not hold any further information in the scope of the request. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4); FOI 1
View North East Derbyshire District Council
14 Sep 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to Designated Circuit Judge and deputy High Court Judge appointments. The Commissioner has considered the Judicial Appointments Commission’s refusal to disclose the numerical information within the scope of parts (1) and (2) of the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Judicial Appointments Commission was entitled to withhold the information by virtue of section 40(2) (personal information) 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/2022/0300 under appeal.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View Judicial Appointments Commission
14 Sep 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information relating to three planning applications. South Derbyshire District Council (the Council) provided some information within the scope of the request. The complainant disputed that it satisfied his request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has conducted reasonable searches for the requested information which would have located further information, if it was held. He has therefore concluded that, on the balance of probabilities, the Council does not hold any further information in the scope of the request. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4); FOI 1
View North East Derbyshire District Council
14 Sep 2022Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested a HSE investigation report regarding a particular incident. The Health and Safety Executive withheld the requested information, citing section 30(1)(b) (investigations and proceedings) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the exemption is engaged and the public interest lies in maintaining the exemption. The Commissioner does not require any further steps to be taken. First-tier tribunal (General Regulatory chamber) information rights appeal EA/2022/0287 appeal withdrawn.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 30
View Health and Safety Executive
14 Sep 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) about its staff intranet. The ICO relied on section 14(1) of FOIA to refuse the request as vexatious. The Commissioner’s decision is as follows: The complainant’s request can be categorised as a vexatious request under section 14(1) of FOIA and the ICO is not obliged to comply with it. The Commissioner does not require the ICO to take any corrective steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14
View Information Commissioner
14 Sep 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested the closed record, MEPO 2/10062. The National Archives refused to provide the requested information, citing section 40(2) (personal information) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that TNA is entitled to withhold the whole record under section 40(2). The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40(2)
View The National Archives
14 Sep 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information relating to the London Borough of Lambeth’s (the Council) decision to replace windows in the complainant’s building. The Council handled the request under FOIA and provided some information. The complainant has alleged that the Council holds further information relevant to their request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council failed to identify that the information sought by the request falls under the EIR. Furthermore the Commissioner finds that the Council failed to conduct an adequate internal review as required by regulation 11(3) of the EIR. The Commissioner requires the Council to reconsider the request under the EIR and conduct an internal review that complies with the requirements at regulation 11(3).
Exemptions cited: EIR 11(3)
View London Borough of Lambeth
14 Sep 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested, from Cheshire Constabulary, information about the numbers of plants seized from a cannabis farm. Cheshire Constabulary refused to disclose the amount citing section 30(1)(a) (Investigations and proceedings) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that section 30 is properly engaged and that the balance of the public interest favours maintaining the exemption. No steps are required.
Exemptions cited: FOI 30
View Cheshire Constabulary
14 Sep 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from the University of East London (“the University”), in relation to the placement of Social Work students with Practice Educators. The University provided some information to the complainant but refused further information by virtue of section 40(2) of FOIA – personal information. The Commissioner’s decision is that the University is entitled to rely on section 40(2) of FOIA to withhold the requested information. The Commissioner does not require the University to take any steps as a result of this decision notice. Information Tribunal FTT EA/2022/0267 appeal part allowed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40(2)
View The University of East London
14 Sep 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested scanned copies of handwritten notes produced in a pre-application planning meeting. The London Borough of Croydon (the Council) initially supplied the complainant with an illegible, low resolution photograph however on internal review supplied the complainant with a clear and readable photograph copy of the notes. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has provided the complainant with the information sought by the request. However the Commissioner finds that the Council did not fully complied with its responsibilities at regulation 11(3) as it had not considered the entirety of the complainant’s representations in their request for internal review. There are no steps required. First-tier tribunal (General Regulatory chamber) information rights appeal EA/2022/0285 under appeal.
Exemptions cited: EIR 11(3)
View London Borough of Croydon
13 Sep 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The Commissioner’s decision is that the General Medical Council (GMC) is entitled to rely on section 40(2) of FOIA to withhold the requested information as it is the personal data of a third party and disclosure would be unlawful. The GMC is not required to take any corrective steps. First-tier Tribunal (General Regulatory Chamber) Information Rights appeal EA/2022/0308 appeal dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View GMC
13 Sep 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested all information held by HSE relating to an investigation that the Health and Safety Executive carried out into the death of a particular individual. The Health and Safety Executive withheld the requested information, citing section 30(1)(b) (investigations and proceedings) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the exemption is engaged and the public interest lies in maintaining the exemption. The Commissioner does not require any further steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 30
View Health and Safety Executive
13 Sep 2022Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested copies of various documents. The Financial Conduct Authority refused the request as vexatious. The Commissioner’s decision is that the request was vexatious and therefore the FCA was entitled to rely on section 14(1) of FOIA to refuse it. However it breached section 17(5) of FOIA as it failed to issue its refusal notice within 20 working days. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14; FOI 17
View Financial Conduct Authority
13 Sep 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about a public statement made regarding the degree awarded to current Taiwanese President Tsai Ing-wen. The Council of the London School of Economics and Political Science (“the LSE”) relied on section 17(6) of FOIA to decline to issue a refusal notice as it considered the request to be vexatious. The Commissioner’s decision is that the LSE was entitled to rely on section 17(6) of FOIA to decline to issue a refusal notice. The Commissioner does not require further steps. Information Tribunal UT UA-2023-000363-GIA Appeal Allowed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14; FOI 17(6)
View London School of Economics and Political Science
13 Sep 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (“the BEIS”) about communications between the Secretary of State and a particular organisation since February 2021. By the date of this notice, the BEIS had not issued a substantive response to this request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the BEIS 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 BEIS to take the following step to ensure compliance with the legislation: Having confirmed whether or not information is held within the scope of the request: either disclose the requested information, if held, or, to the extent that information is to be withheld, issue a refusal notice in accordance with the requirements of section 17 of the FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 17
View Department for Business and Trade
13 Sep 2022Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The Commissioner’s decision is that the ICO is entitled to withhold the requested information under section 40(1) and 40(2) of FOIA as it is the personal data of the complainant and other individuals. However, the Commissioner finds that the ICO’s refusal of the request did not comply with the requirements of section 17(1). The Commissioner does not require the ICO to take any corrective steps. First-tier tribunal (General Regulatory chamber) information rights appeal EA/2022/0252 Consent Order.
Exemptions cited: FOI 17; FOI 40
View Information Commissioner
12 Sep 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant submitted a request for information held by Chiltington Parish Council (the parish council) about its Neighbourhood Plan. The Commissioner’s decision is that the parish council does not hold information relevant to part 1 of the request. The Commissioner is also satisfied that the parish council is entitled to rely on regulation 12(4)(b) of the EIR in respect to part 5 of the request. The Commissioner does not require the parish council to take any steps as a result of this decision notice.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(b); EIR 5(1)
12 Sep 2022Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from the Financial Conduct Authority (‘the FCA’) for internal documents and correspondence relating to the short selling of Gamestop stocks between December 2020 and February 2021. The Commissioner’s decision is that the FCA was entitled to aggregate the requests under section 12(4) of FOIA and to refuse to comply with the request in accordance with section 12(1) of FOIA. The Commissioner also finds that the FCA complied with its obligations 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 FCA to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10(1); FOI 12; FOI 16(1)
View Financial Conduct Authority
12 Sep 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from London Borough of Hackney Council (“LBHC”) relating to their Fair-Access Protocol policy. By the date of this notice LBHC had failed to provide a substantive response to this request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the LBHC 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 LBHC to respond to the complainant’s response in accordance with the FOIA. The LBHC must take these steps within 35 calendar days of the date of this decision notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View London Borough of Hackney
12 Sep 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from the Department for International Trade (“the DIT”) about a meeting between named parties to discuss investment into the UK. By the date of this notice, the DIT had not issued a substantive response to this request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the DIT 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 DIT to take the following step to ensure compliance with the legislation: Having confirmed whether or not information is held within the scope of the request: either disclose the requested information, if held, or, to the extent that information is to be withheld, issue a refusal notice in accordance with the requirements of section 17 of the FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 17
View Department for International Trade
12 Sep 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about text accompanying an iPlayer programme listing. 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 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 1
View BBC
12 Sep 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to a named police operation. Sussex Police provided some relevant information, but refused to provide the substantive requested information, citing section 30 (investigations and proceedings) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that Sussex Police was entitled to rely on section 30(1)(a)(i) to withhold the requested information. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: FOI 30
View Sussex Police
12 Sep 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant made a request for information relating to the Review of Post-18 Education and Funding. The Department for Education (DfE) confirmed that it does not hold some of the requested information (part 1 of the request) and refused to comply with part of the request as it does not consider it to be a request for recorded information (part 2 of the request). The Commissioner considers that DfE does not hold the information requested at part 1 of the request under section 1(1)(a) FOIA and as part 2 of the request asks for an assurance rather than recorded information DfE is not obliged to respond under FOIA. This is because FOIA only applies to information that a public authority already holds in recorded form at the time of a request. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken. First-tier tribunal (General Regulatory chamber) information rights appeal EA/2022/0292 struck out.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Department for Education