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
9 Sep 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has asked Ofsted for information about two schools. The Commissioner’s decision is that Ofsted is entitled to withhold some of the information it holds under section 40(2) of FOIA as it is the personal data of another individual and disclosure would be unlawful.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View Office for Standards in Education, Children's Services and Skills
9 Sep 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to Council Tax rebate for digitally disenfranchised citizens. By the date of this notice, Oxford City Council (“the Council”) had not issued a substantive response to this request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has breached section 10(1) of FOIA in that it failed to provide a valid response to the request within the statutory time frame of 20 working days. The Council must now respond to the request within 35 calendar days.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10(1)
View Oxford City Council
9 Sep 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information about test lab safety incident information that had previously been disclosed to The Guardian. By the date of this notice, the Health and Safety Executive (“the HSE”) had not issued a substantive response to this request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the HSE 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 HSE to take the following step to ensure compliance with the legislation: The HSE must provide a substantive response to the request in accordance with its obligations under FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Health and Safety Executive
9 Sep 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant made a request for information relating to hospital inspectors in the hospital directorate in the North East Region. The Care Quality Commission (CQC) refused to comply with the request under section 12 FOIA as it said that it would exceed the cost limit to do so. The Commissioner considers that the CQC was correct to refuse to comply with the request under section 12 FOIA. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12
View CQC
8 Sep 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant made a request for information relating to payments or gifts provided by the BBC to the Hollywood Foreign Press Association (HFPA) and any correspondence between the BBC and HFPA. The BBC has confirmed that it does not hold any information falling within the scope of the request under section 1(1)(a) FOIA. The Commissioner considers that on the balance of probabilities the BBC does not hold any information falling within the scope of the request under section 1(1)(a) FOIA. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View BBC
8 Sep 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested recorded information held by Lincoln College relating to its Saudi education business sent to or received from Interserve or any of its subsidiaries in the UK or Saudi Arabia. Lincoln College advised that the information was not held for the purposes of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that Lincoln College does not hold the information within the scope of the request. The Commissioner does not require Lincoln College to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 3
8 Sep 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested, from South Yorkshire Police (SYP), information about an alleged crime by a named party. SYP would neither confirm nor deny (NCND) holding any information, citing section 40(5) (Personal information) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that it was correct to do so. No steps are required.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View South Yorkshire Police
8 Sep 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information relating to defects in a specific road. Leicestershire County Council (the “council”) disclosed some information but withheld other information under the exceptions for the course of justice (regulation 12(5)(b)), internal communications (regulation 12(4)(e)) and personal data (regulation 13). The Commissioner’s decision is that the council correctly withheld the information under regulation 12(5)(b). The Commissioner does not require the council to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(b)
View Leicestershire County Council
8 Sep 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council (“the Council”) relating to the Council’s response to a previous request that they made in 2015. The Council withheld the identity of an external expert, citing the personal information exemption under section 40(2) of FOIA. In relation to the other information requested, the Council stated it did not hold any further information beyond that which it had disclosed in response to previous requests. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council is entitled to withhold the name of the external expert contacted by the Council under section 40(2) of FOIA. He is also satisfied that the Council does not hold any further information within scope of the request beyond what it disclosed in response to previous requests. The Commissioner does not require the Council to take any steps. First-tier tribunal (General Regulatory chamber) information rights appeal EA/2022/0076 appeal struck out. First-tier tribunal (Gen
Exemptions cited: FOI 1(1); FOI 40(2)
View Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council
8 Sep 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to the Valuation Office Agency (VOA) requesting information relating to the valuation of certain properties in determining their Council tax band. The Commissioner’s decision is that VOA correctly applied section 44(1)(a) of FOIA to the request. The Commissioner does not require any further steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 44
View Valuation Office Agency
8 Sep 2022Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to F10 notifications. The HSE refused to comply with the request, citing section 14(1) (vexatious requests) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that: The request is vexatious and therefore the HSE was entitled to rely upon section 14(1) to refuse it. However, in failing to provide adequate advice and assistance to the complainant the HSE breached section 16 (advice and assistance) of FOIA. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps. First-tier tribunal (General Regulatory chamber) information rights appeal EA/2022/0260 dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14(1); FOI 16
View Health and Safety Executive
8 Sep 2022Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested a wide range of information relating to stray dogs. Canterbury City Council (the “council”) disclosed some information. It withheld other information under the exemptions for health and safety (section 38), information provided in confidence (section 41) and commercial interests (section 43(2)). During the Commissioner’s investigation the council dropped its reliance on exemptions and disclosed the outstanding information. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council disclosed all the relevant information that it holds and complied with section 1(1) but that it disclosed the information outside the time for compliance and breached section 10(1). The Commissioner does not require the council to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1(1); FOI 10(1)
View Canterbury City Council
8 Sep 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested emails sent by Lincoln College in the UK relating to its Saudi education business and visas. Lincoln College advised that the information was not held. The Commissioner’s decision is that Lincoln College does not hold the information within the scope of the request. The Commissioner does not require Lincoln College to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 3
8 Sep 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from the London Borough of Tower Hamlets (“LBTH”) relating to the Wapping bus gate. By the date of this notice LBTH had failed to provide a substantive response to this request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the LBTH 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 LBTH to respond to the complainant’s response in accordance with the FOIA. The LBTH must take these steps within 35 calendar days of the date of this decision notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View London Borough of Tower Hamlets
8 Sep 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant made a request for information relating to comedy commissions. 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
8 Sep 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant made a request for information relating Transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) referrals. EPUT confirmed that some information was not held (part 1 of the request) and refused to comply with part of the request under section 12 FOIA as it said that it would exceed the cost limit to do so (part 2 of the request). The Commissioner considers that EPUT does not hold any of the requested information under section 1(1)(a) FOIA as part 2 of the request asks for the same information as part 1 just in a slightly different way. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Essex Partnership University NHS Foundation Trust
8 Sep 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested from Police Service Northern Ireland (PSNI) information regarding PSNI’s settled disputes/actions brought by staff. PSNI provided the complainant with information to question 1 of the request and confirmed that it does not hold information to question 2. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, PSNI does not hold recorded information to question 2 of the request. Therefore, the Commissioner does not require PSNI to take any steps as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Police Service of Northern Ireland
7 Sep 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested copies of any correspondence that NHS England had inherited from a predecessor body and a particular NHS Trust about approval of ‘Campus and Collaborative’ agreements. By the date of this notice, NHS England had not issued a substantive response to this request. The Commissioner’s decision is that NHS England 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 NHS England to take the following step to ensure compliance with the legislation: NHS England must provide a substantive response to the request in accordance with its obligations under FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View NHS England
7 Sep 2022Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information from Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead (“the Council”) information in relation to a planning application. The Council disclosed some information but withheld the remainder under regulation 12(4)(e) – internal communications. It also advised that it does not hold any further information relevant to the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the withheld information is exempt from disclosure on the basis of regulation 12(4)(e) and that on the balance of probabilities, the Council has provided all the information it holds in relation to the request. The Commissioner does not require the Council to take any steps as a result of this decision notice.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(a); EIR 12(4)(e); EIR 13; EIR 5(2); EIR 5(3)
View Windsor and Maidenhead Council
7 Sep 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested from Norfolk County Council information relating to the ‘Norwich Western Link Road’ project. The Council withheld the requested information under regulation 12(4)(b) (manifestly unreasonable requests) of the EIR. During the course of the Commissioner’s investigation, the Council advised the Commissioner that it considered that regulation 12(4)(b) to have been incorrectly applied. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council was not entitled to rely upon regulation 12(4)(b). The Commissioner requires the Council to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: Issue a fresh response to the complainant that does not rely upon regulation 12(4)(b).
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(b)
View Norfolk County Council
7 Sep 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested, from the Ministry of Justice (‘MOJ’), information about himself. The MOJ would neither confirm nor deny (‘NCND’) holding any information citing sections 32(3) (Court records) and 40(5) (Personal information) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the MOJ was correct to rely on section 40(5) of FOIA to neither confirm nor deny (NCND) holding any information. No steps are required. First-tier Tribunal (General Regulatory Chamber) Information Rights appeal EA/2022/0282 appeal withdrawn.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View Ministry of Justice
7 Sep 2022Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested all documents held by Channel Four Television Corporation (Channel 4) relating to any decisions regarding the implementation of Channel 4's Supplier Code of Conduct, its policy on Viewer Trust, bullying; or the 'Speak Up' process in relation to a particular organisation within a specified timeframe. Channel 4 cited section 41(1) and section 40(2) as its reasons for withholding some of the requested information. It also cited section 40(5A) to neither confirm nor deny whether some of the requested information is held. The Commissioner’s decision is that Channel 4 has correctly cited section 41(1) and section 40(2) to the withheld information. He has also decided that Channel 4 appropriately cited section 40(5A) to neither confirm nor deny whether it held certain information. However, Channel 4 breached section 10(1) FOIA by providing a small amount of information outside the legislative time frame and section 17(7)(b) by not providing details of the complai
Exemptions cited: FOI 10(1); FOI 17(7); FOI 40(2); FOI 40(5)(a); FOI 41(1)
View Channel 4
6 Sep 2022Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested the amount paid in out-of-court settlements broken down by year. High Speed Two Ltd refused to provide the requested information and relied on section 43 (commercial interests) and 40(2) of FOIA (third party personal data) in order to do so. The Commissioner’s decision is that HS2 Ltd has not demonstrated why section 43 of FOIA applies and consequently is not entitled to rely on this exemption. Section 40(2) is engaged, but only for some of the data. Finally, HS2 Ltd breached section 10 and section 17 of FOIA in respect of this request. The Commissioner requires HS2 Ltd to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: disclose, to the complainant, the data for the years specified in the confidential annex to this Notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 17; FOI 40; FOI 43
View High Speed Two (HS2) Limited
6 Sep 2022Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information from Milton Keynes Council (“the Council”) relating to emails sent between two Council staff members during a specific time period. The Council provided the complainant with information within the scope of the scope of the request. The complainant considers that the Council has not disclosed all the information it holds within the scope of the 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. However, as the Council did not provide the complainant with the requested information within 20 working days, the Council has breached regulation 5(2) (time for compliance) of the EIR. The Commissioner does not require the Council to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(a); EIR 5(2)
View Milton Keynes Council
6 Sep 2022Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information from Bristol City Council (“the Council”) about the performance of its housing stock. The Council withheld some information under section 43(2) FOIA: Prejudice to commercial interests. 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 Council breached regulation 5(2) since it responded outside the statutory period of 20 working days. The Commissioner does not require the Council to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(e); EIR 5(2)
View Bristol City Council
6 Sep 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from Ballymagee Primary School (“the School”), regarding children with special educational needs, complaints made against the school and allegations of misconduct during three specific timeframes. The School explained that some information was not held, however, it was withholding the remainder under section 40(2) – personal information, due to the small numbers involved. The Commissioner’s decision is that the School has correctly withheld the requested information under section 40(2) of FOIA. The Commissioner does not require the School to take any steps as a result of this decision notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40(2)
View JUBILEE PRIMARY SCHOOL
6 Sep 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted an information request to the Financial Ombudsman Service (“FOS”) for information relating to correspondence supplied by FOS to the Independent Assessor in relation to a service complaint. FOS withheld the information under section 40(1) and offered to treat the complainant’s correspondence as a subject access request (SAR). The Commissioner’s decision is that FOS is entitled to withhold the information under section 40(1). The Commissioner does not require FOS to take any steps as a result of this decision notice. First-tier tribunal (General Regulatory chamber) information rights appeal EA/2022/0280 consent order.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40(1)
6 Sep 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to the MBBS Covid mitigation policy. The University disclosed the majority of the information that fell within the scope of the request. It relied upon section 36(2)(b)(i) and (ii) (prejudice to the effective conduct of public affairs) to withhold some information. The Commissioner’s decision is that the withheld information engages section 36(2)(b) and the public interest lies in maintaining the exemption. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 36(2)(b)
6 Sep 2022Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information from North Northants Council (“the Council”) in relation to a specific planning application. The Council has refused to provide the requested information, citing regulation 6(1)(b) of the EIR, as the information is available publicly online. It has also cited regulation 12(4)(e) - internal communications and regulation 13 – personal data. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has correctly cited regulation 6(1)(b). However, upon consideration of the case, the Commissioner considers that the Council should not have relied upon regulation 12(4)(e) or regulation 13. This is because this information does not fall within the scope of the complainant’s request. The Commissioner will also look at the timeliness of the Council’s response, under regulation 5(2) – time for compliance. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps as a result of this decision notice.
Exemptions cited: EIR 5(2); EIR 6(1)(b)
View North Northamptonshire Council
6 Sep 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to a specific address and reports received by Operation Crackdown. By the date of this notice Sussex Police had not issued a substantive response to this request. The Commissioner’s decision is that Sussex Police 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 Sussex Police to take the following step to ensure compliance with the legislation. Sussex Police must provide a substantive response to the request in accordance with its obligations under FOIA. Sussex Police must take this step within 35 calendar days of the date of this decision notice. Failure to comply may result in the Commissioner making written certification of this fact to the High Court pursuant to section 54 of FOIA and may be dealt with as a contempt of court.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Sussex Police
6 Sep 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested from British Transport Police (BTP) information relating to body worn video footage by officers showing PC [name redacted] turning off body worn video of a fellow officer. BTP refused the request under section 40(2) (personal information) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that BTP was entitled to rely on section 40(2) of FOIA to withhold the requested information. Therefore, the Commissioner does not require BTP to take any steps as a result of this decision. First-tier tribunal (General Regulatory chamber) information rights appeal EA/2022/0291 appeal dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40(2)
View British Transport Police
5 Sep 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to the internal review into Healthcare Safety Investigation Branch’s (“HSIB”) maternity services investigations carried out by a named doctor. NHS England (“NHSE”) disclosed some of the information, but withheld other information, under section 40(2) and section 41(1) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that NHSE has correctly applied section 41(1) of FOIA. The Commissioner does not require NHSE to take any further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 41
View NHS England
5 Sep 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information from Rhondda Cynon Taf County Borough Council (“the Council”) relating to spray records for the treatment of Japanese Knotweed. By the date of this notice, the Council had not issued a substantive response to this request. 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 Rhondda Cynon Taf County Borough Council
5 Sep 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to complaints about the previous Police and Crime Commissioner for Dorset, Martyn Underhill. By the date of this notice the Dorset Police and Crime Commissioner had not issued a substantive response to this request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Dorset Police and Crime Commissioner 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 Dorset Police and Crime Commissioner to take the following step to ensure compliance with the legislation. The Dorset Police and Crime Commissioner must provide a substantive response to the request in accordance with its obligations under FOIA. First-tier tribunal (General Regulatory chamber) information rights appeal EA/2022/0256 under appeal.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
5 Sep 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information concerning meetings between Cabinet Office officials and senior representatives of Greensill Capital. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Cabinet Office were entitled to refuse to comply with the request under section 12(1) of the FOIA, and that it has complied with its obligations under section 16(1) of the FOIA to provide adequate advice and assistance to the complainant. However, in responding to the request the Cabinet Office breached sections 10(1), 17(5) and 17(3)(b) of the FOIA. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12
View Cabinet Office
5 Sep 2022Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant submitted an information request to Sodbury Town Council (“the Council”) for correspondence relating to a stopping up order along [address redacted]. The Council relied upon section 40(2) to withhold the information, however, the Council should have considered the request under the EIR. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council is entitled to withhold the information under Regulation 13(1) of the EIR. However, in failing to specify the EIR exceptions it was relying on, when refusing the request, within 20 working days, the Council has breached regulations 14(2) and 14(3) of the EIR.The Commissioner does not require the Council to take any steps as a result of this decision notice. First-tier tribunal (General Regulatory chamber) information rights appeal EA/2022/0283 under appeal.
Exemptions cited: EIR 13(1); EIR 14(2)(1); EIR 14(3)
5 Sep 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested copies of correspondence held by Cornwall Council (the council) relating to a Local Development Order for Nansledan, which is an area situated on Duchy of Cornwall land. The complainant has raised concerns that the council refused part of their request under regulation 12(4)(b) of the EIR - manifestly unreasonable. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council is entitled to rely on regulation 12(4)(b) of the EIR. The Commissioner does not require the council to take any steps as a result of this decision notice.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(b)
View Cornwall Council
5 Sep 2022Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information held by Brighton and Hove City Council (the council) relating to the ‘Racial Literacy’ training sessions delivered to council staff by an external provider. Whilst the council released some information in response to part 1 of the request, it advised that certain other information was exempt from disclosure under section 43 – commercial interests, of the FOIA. The council also confirmed that it did not hold information relevant to parts 2 and 3 of the request. At the internal review stage the council revised its position, releasing information that had previously been withheld under section 43 of the FOIA; however, it advised that it was now withholding some information under section 40 - personal data, of the FOIA. The Commissioner is satisfied that, with the exception of a small amount of personal data that has been withheld under section 40 which the complainant did not contest, the council has, on the balance of probabilities, disclosed all
Exemptions cited: FOI 1(1); FOI 10; FOI 17
View Brighton and Hove City Council
5 Sep 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information from Shropshire Council (the Council) relating to usage of, accidents reported on, and upkeep of part of the A4117. By the date of this notice Shropshire Council had not disclosed information in relation to this request for which it had issued a fees notice, and for which the complainant made advanced payment. 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. Disclose the information for which the Council issued a fees notice to the complaint.
Exemptions cited: EIR 5(2)
View Shropshire Council
2 Sep 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information from Nuneaton and Bedworth Borough Council (“the Council”) relating to Oaston Road Cemetery. 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 Nuneaton And Bedworth Borough Council
2 Sep 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from Heybridge Basin Parish Council (“the Council”) relating to individuals who received parking permits for a specific car park. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council is entitled to rely on section 40(2) (personal information) of the FOIA to refuse to provide the requested information.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40(2)
2 Sep 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested, from Hinckley and Bosworth Borough Council (‘the council’), legal advice and correspondence relating to a Noise Abatement Notice. The council refused the request on the basis that Regulation 12(5)(b) applied (course of justice). The Commissioner’s decision is that the council was correct to apply Regulation 12(5)(b) to withhold the information in this case. The Commissioner does not require the council to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(b)
View Hinckley and Bosworth Borough Council
2 Sep 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information from Bristol City Council (“the Council”) relating to parking on a green space and damage to tree roots. 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 Bristol City Council
2 Sep 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from Cottesmore Parish Council (“the Council”) relating to a letter discussed during a Parish Council meeting. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has not correctly applied section 14(1) (vexatious request) of the FOIA to the request. The Commissioner requires the Council to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. The Council must issue a fresh response to the request which does not rely on section 14(1) of the FOIA
Exemptions cited: FOI 14(1)
2 Sep 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to an article that was published by BBC East Yorkshire and Lincolnshire on [redacted]. By the date of this notice the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) had not issued a substantive response to this request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the BBC 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 BBC to provide a substantive response to the request in accordance with its obligations under FOIA within 35 calendar days of the date of this decision notice. Failure to comply may result in the Commissioner making written certification of this fact to the High Court pursuant to section 54 of FOIA and may be dealt with as a contempt of court.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10(1)
View BBC
2 Sep 2022Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about its vascular services self-assessment from University Hospitals Coventry and Warwickshire NHS Trust (‘the Trust’). The Trust released relevant information but the complainant considers that it holds further information relevant to two parts of their request. The Commissioner’s decision is as follows: On the balance of probabilities, the Trust has disclosed all the information it holds that falls within scope of Q2 and Q4 of the complainant’s request and has complied with section 1(1) of FOIA. The Trust breached section 10(1) as it did not comply with section 1(1) within 20 working days. The Commissioner does not require the Trust to take any corrective steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10
View University Hospitals Coventry and Warwickshire NHS Trust
2 Sep 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from the Office of the Public Guardian relating to complaints made about panel deputies. The Office of the Public Guardian (“OPG”) is an executive agency of the Ministry of Justice (“the MoJ”). The MoJ refused to comply with the request citing section 12 (cost limit) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the MoJ was entitled to refuse to comply with the request in accordance with section 12(1) of FOIA. The Commissioner also finds that MoJ complied with its obligations under section 16 to offer advice and assistance. The Commissioner does not require the MoJ to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12(1); FOI 16
View Ministry of Justice
2 Sep 2022Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from the London Borough of Lambeth (“the Council”) relating to the number of children taken into care in the borough. The Council refused to comply with the request citing section 12 (cost limit) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council was entitled to refuse to comply with the request in accordance with section 12(1) of FOIA. However, it has breached section 16 of the Act by not providing assistance on how the complainant could reduce the scope of their request so that it may fall within the appropriate limit. The Commissioner requires the Council to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: Provide the complainant with reasonable assistance on how to limit the scope of their request so that it can be complied with within the appropriate limit.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12; FOI 16
View London Borough of Lambeth