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
1 Sep 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from Stanley and Stanley Parish Council (“the Council”) regarding the Council’s website and its domain provider. The Council disclosed information relevant to the request but advised no further information is held. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the Council holds no further recorded information relevant to the complainant’s request and has therefore complied with section 1(1) of FOIA. The Commissioner therefore does not require the Council to take any corrective steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1(1)
1 Sep 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested additional correspondence and material submitted by a public authority in response to a complaint they made. The Information Commissioner (“the ICO”) withheld the requested information citing section 44 of FOIA as its basis for doing so. The Commissioner’s decision is that the ICO is entitled to rely on section 44 of FOIA to withhold the requested information. The Commissioner does not require the ICO to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 44
View Information Commissioner
1 Sep 2022Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information about an event which took place in July 2021. Pencoed Town Council (the Council) provided the information held but the complainant considered more was held. During the course of the Commissioner’s investigation the Council located additional information which it disclosed to the complainant. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the Council does not hold any further information falling within the scope of the request. However, in failing to comply fully with section 1 within the statutory timescale the Commissioner finds that the Council breached section 10 of the FOIA. The Commissioner does not require any steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10
1 Sep 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information about road works carried out in the 1970s, and a pedestrian crossing. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, National Highways does not hold the requested information and there has been no breach of regulation 12(4)(a) of the EIR.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(a)
View National Highways
1 Sep 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant submitted three requests for information relating to a specific development. Bristol City Council (the “council”) refused the requests as manifestly unreasonable under regulation 12(4)(b) of the EIR. The Commissioner’s decision is that, in relation to all three requests, the exception at regulation 12(4)(b) is engaged and that the balance of the public interests favours the exception being maintained. The Commissioner does not require the council to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(b)
View Bristol City Council
1 Sep 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from Spennymoor Town Council (“the Council”), regarding the decision to use a specific flag during the Remembrance Sunday parade and how the decision was made on which organisation’s names should be read out for the wreath laying. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the Council does not hold any further information in relation to the request and therefore, the Council has complied with section 1(1) of FOIA. The Commissioner therefore does not require the Council to take any corrective steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1(1)
1 Sep 2022Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information held by St Helens Borough Council (“the Council”) relating to the funding and plans for the proposed Haydock Heritage Trail. The Commissioner’s decision is that the requested information is environmental information and so is a request under the EIR and that the Council has provided all the information it holds falling within the scope of the request. However, the Council breached regulation 5(2) and regulation 11(4) of the EIR in that it failed to provide a response within 20 working days and failed to complete their internal review within 40 working days. The Commissioner does not require the Council to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 11(4); EIR 12(4)(a); EIR 5(2)
View St Helens Council
1 Sep 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information associated with services provided by a specific care home company. At the date of this notice, London Borough of Hackney Council (‘the Council’) has not responded to the request. The Commissioner’s decision is as follows: The Council has breached section 10(1) of FOIA as it has not provided a response to the complainant’s request within 20 working days. The Commissioner requires the Council to take the following step to ensure compliance with the legislation. Provide a response to the request of 8 April 2022 that complies with FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View London Borough of Hackney
31 Aug 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information about line managers at Oxford City Council and Oxford Direct Services, and Oxford City Council’s HR system. 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 Commissioner requires the council to take the following step to ensure compliance with the legislation. The council must provide a substantive response to the request in accordance with its obligations under FOIA. The council 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 Oxford City Council
31 Aug 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant submitted a request to the Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames (the Council) seeking all information it held relating to particular planning applications. The Council disclosed some information in response to the request but redacted or withheld additional information the basis of the following exceptions within the EIR: 12(4)(e) (internal communications), 12(5)(b) (course of justice), 12(5)(d) (confidentiality of proceedings), 12(5)(f) (interests of the person who provided the information), 12(5)(e) (confidentiality of commercial or industrial information) and 13 (personal data). The complainant challenged the Council’s decision to withhold information falling within the scope of her request. She also argued that the Council was likely to hold further information falling within the scope of her request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council is entitled to withhold information on the basis of regulations 12(4)(e), 12(5)(b) and 13. However, the Commissioner h
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(a); EIR 12(4)(e); EIR 12(5)(b); EIR 12(5)(e); EIR 12(5)(f); EIR 13(1)
View Kingston upon Thames Council
31 Aug 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has asked London Borough of Bexley whether the former owners of their property complained about the neighbouring property. The Commissioner’s decision is that London Borough of Bexley is entitled to neither confirm nor deny it holds the requested information under section 40(5B) of FOIA as to do so would disclose other people’s personal data. Information Tribunal FTT EA/2022/0250 & EA/2022/0251 appeal dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View Bexley Council
31 Aug 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested to re-use documents released which he initially received from Conwy County Borough Council (‘the Council’) in response to an earlier FOI request, and asked for them in the format in which they were originally held. The Council does not accept that the request is a valid re-use request despite the Commissioner’s decision notice reference IC-40131-P2Y2 issued on 18 May 2021 which ruled that their request was valid under regulation 6 of RPSI, and has refused to provide them in their original format citing section 31(1)(a) FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council was not correct to refuse the re-use request.
Exemptions cited: RPSI 11(1)
View Conwy County Borough Council
31 Aug 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to a helicopter crash in 1994 in which 29 people lost their lives. The Police Service of Northern Ireland (PSNI) relied on sections 23(5), 24(2) 30(3) and 31(3) of FOIA to refuse to confirm or deny whether it held any relevant information. The Commissioner’s decision is that PSNI was entitled to rely on sections 23(5) and 24(2) to refuse confirm nor deny whether it held the requested information. No steps are required.
Exemptions cited: FOI 23; FOI 24
View Police Service of Northern Ireland
31 Aug 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested from Bath and North East Somerset Council (“the Council”) information relating to a specific planning application. The Council provided some information within the scope of the request but withheld the remainder citing section 40(1), section 40(2) of the FOIA and regulation 12(3) of the EIR. Whilst the Council has handled the request under both the FOIA and the EIR, the Commissioner considers the requested information to be environmental and therefore, the Council should have handled the request solely under the EIR. Furthermore, the Commissioner considers the requested information to be the personal data of the complainant. He has therefore, used his discretion to consider whether the Council is entitled to rely on regulation 5(3) of the EIR to refuse to provide the requested information. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council is entitled to rely on regulation 5(3) to refuse to provide the requested information. He does not require the Council to tak
Exemptions cited: EIR 5(3)
View Bath and North East Somerset Council
31 Aug 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information about equality impact assessments. By the date of this notice the Home Office had not issued a substantive response to this request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Home Office has breached section 10(1) of the 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 Home Office to issue a substantive response to the request in accordance with its obligations under the FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10(1)
View Home Office
31 Aug 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to the Independent Loan Charge Review. HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) provided most of the requested information but stated that it did not hold a draft version of the Review report. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, HMRC does not hold the draft version of the Review report. Accordingly no further steps are required. Information Tribunal FTT EA/2022/0237 struck out.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
31 Aug 2022Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to the Ministry of Defence (MOD) seeking a copy of a Watchkeeper’s Log for C Company, 2nd Battalion Royal Regiment Fusiliers covering the period of the McGurk’s bombing in Belfast in December 1971. The MOD provided the complainant with a copy of the log but redacted information on the basis of the following sections of FOIA: 24(1) (national security), 26(1)(b) (defence), 38(1)(a) and (b) (health and safety) and 40(2) (personal data). The complainant accepted that personal details would be redacted but sought to challenge the MOD’s reliance on the exemptions cited to withhold all other information. He also argued that the MOD was likely to withhold more information falling within the scope of his request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the MOD is entitled to withhold the redacted information on the basis of sections 38(1)(a) and (b) and 26(1)(b) of FOIA. The Commissioner is also satisfied that on the balance of probabilities the MOD does not hold
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 17; FOI 26; FOI 38
View Ministry of Defence
30 Aug 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information about action taken as a result of contempt proceedings. Norfolk and Waveney Integrated Care Board (“the Board”) provided some information, but refused the remainder of the request as vexatious. The Commissioner’s decision is that the request was not vexatious and that the Board was not entitled to rely on section 14(1) of FOIA to refuse it. However, he only considers that elements 2, 3 and 4 of the requested constituted valid requests in accordance with section 8 of FOIA. The Commissioner requires the Board to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: issue a fresh response to element 3 of the request that does not rely on section 14(1) of FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14
View NHS Norfolk and Waveney ICB
30 Aug 2022Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested the Metropolitan Police Commissioner’s Conferences notes and minutes 1937 -1939 and report for 1939. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the requested information is not held by the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS). However, the Commissioner finds that the MPS breached section 10(1) of FOIA as it failed to provide its response to the request within the statutory timeframe of 20 working days. The Commissioner does not require the MPS to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10(1)
View Metropolitan Police Service
30 Aug 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information from Cotham School (“the School”) relating to communications between the School and Bristol City Council regarding a planning application. The Commissioner’s decision is that the School has failed to carry out adequate searches for the requested information and therefore, on the balance of probabilities, has not identified all information held within the scope of the request. The Commissioner requires the School to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. The School must issue a fresh response to the request following searches aimed at identifying all the information held within the scope of the request. The School 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 Tribunal (General Regulatory Cha
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(a); EIR 5(1)
View COTHAM SCHOOL
30 Aug 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested copies of correspondence regarding individuals in relation to Sexual Harm Prevention Orders. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Greater Manchester Combined Authority was entitled to withhold the information on the basis of section 36(2). The Commissioner does not require any steps. First-tier Tribunal (General Regulatory Chamber) Information Rights appeal EA/2022/0236 appeal allowed in part.
Exemptions cited: FOI 36(2)
View Greater Manchester Combined Authority
30 Aug 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC) ‘Performance Update’ documents. The Commissioner’s decision is that UK Health Security Agency (UKHSA) has not demonstrated that complying with the request would impose a grossly oppressive burden, and therefore is not entitled to rely on section 14(1) to withhold the requested information. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. Disclose the requested information subject to any relevant redactions. 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 the Act and may be dealt with as a contempt of court.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14(1)
View UK Health Security Agency
30 Aug 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from Steyning Parish Council (“the Council”) relating to claims made against the Council since the May 2019 election. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has failed to carry out adequate searches for the requested information and therefore, on the balance of probabilities, has not identified all information held within the scope of 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 following searches aimed at identifying all the information held within the scope of the request. The Council must take these steps within 35 calendar days of the date of this decision notice. Failure to comply may result in the Commissioner making written certification of this fact to the High Court pursuant to section 54 of FOIA and may be dealt with as a contempt of court.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
30 Aug 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested statistics on the number of employees identifying as gay. The Financial Ombudsman Service provided some information, but withheld the remainder and relied upon section 40(2) of FOIA (third party personal data) in order to do so. The Commissioner’s decision is that the FOS has correctly relied upon section 40(2) of FOIA to withhold the information. The Commissioner does not require further steps. First-tier tribunal (General Regulatory chamber) information rights appeal EA/2022/0264 appeal dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
30 Aug 2022Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to the Ministry of Defence (MOD) seeking copies of operational directives concerning UK armed forces personnel embedded with other forces. After some delay, the MOD provided the complainant with copies of two versions of the directives which it held but redacted information on the basis of sections 23(1) (security bodies), 24(1) (national security), 26(1)(b) (defence), 27(1)(a) and (c) (international relations) and 40(2) (personal data). The MOD subsequently released some additional parts of the documents to the complainant.The Commissioner’s decision is that the MOD is entitled to withhold the remaining redacted information on the basis of the exemptions contained at sections 23(1), 26(1)(b) and 27(1)(a) and (c). However, the Commissioner has concluded that the MOD breached sections 10(1) and 17(1) in its handling of this request.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 17; FOI 23; FOI 26; FOI 27
View Ministry of Defence
30 Aug 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to the closed extract listed as “MEPO 2/9533/1” held by The National Archives (TNA). The withheld information consists of two sentences. TNA withheld the requested information under section 40(2) of FOIA on the basis that the requested information is third party personal data and its disclosure would breach data protection law. The Commissioner’s decision is that TNA is entitled to withhold this information in accordance with section 40(2) of FOIA. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps as a result of this decision notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40(2)
View The National Archives
30 Aug 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information regarding the decision made to give a guarantee to Together Energy LTD for the debts acquired. By the date of this notice Warrington Borough Council (the Council) had not issued a substantive response to this request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has breached section 10(1) of FOIA in that it failed to provide a valid response to the request within the statutory time frame of 20 working days. The Commissioner requires the Council to take the following step to ensure compliance with the legislation. The Council must provide a substantive response to the request in accordance with its obligations under FOIA. The Council 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 Warrington Council
30 Aug 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to the sending of some greetings cards. Norfolk and Waveney Integrated Care Board (“the Board”) refused the request as vexatious. The Commissioner’s decision is that the request was vexatious and that the Board was entitled to rely on section 14(1) of FOIA to refuse it. The Commissioner does not require further steps. First-tier tribunal (General Regulatory chamber) information rights appeal EA/2022/0250 & EA/2022/0251 appeal dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14
View NHS Norfolk and Waveney ICB
30 Aug 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested copies of internal correspondence relating to a previous appeal he’d made to the Information Rights Tribunal along with any review or assessment of the appeal outcome. The UK Health Security Agency stated that it did not hold some of the information and refused the remainder of the request as vexatious. The Commissioner’s decision is that UKHSA has failed to demonstrate that the request was vexatious and consequently was not entitled to rely on section 14(1) of FOIA to refuse it. The Commissioner requires UKHSA to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: issue a fresh response, to parts 1 and 2 of the request that does not rely on section 14(1) of FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14
View UK Health Security Agency
30 Aug 2022Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested parts of a parking contract and details of the tendering exercise. The Board of the University of Suffolk provided some information but relied on section 43(2) of FOIA (commercial interests) in order to withhold the remainder. The Commissioner’s decision is that the University has failed to demonstrate that section 43(2) of FOIA is engaged and is therefore not entitled to rely on this exemption to withhold information from the contract. He also considers that the University holds no information about the tendering exercise. The University breached section 10 and section 17 of FOIA in responding to the request. The Commissioner requires the University to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: disclose an unredacted copy of section 7 of the contract to the complainant.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10; FOI 17; FOI 43
View University of Suffolk
30 Aug 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from Rossendale Borough Council regarding public health funerals. The council providing some information, but withheld the remainder on the basis of section 31(1)(a)(prejudice to prevention or detection of crime), and section 40(2) (personal information) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that Rossendale Borough Council was entitled to rely on section 31(1)(a) of the FOIA to withhold the requested information. The Commissioner does not require any steps. First-tier tribunal (General Regulatory chamber) information rights appeal EA/2022/0278 appeal Withdrawn.
Exemptions cited: FOI 31(1)(a)
View Rossendale Borough Council
26 Aug 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information about regulations relating to birth certificates. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Home Office does not hold further information within the scope of the request. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Home Office
26 Aug 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information from Bristol City Council (“the Council”) relating to a new loading bay on a road in the city. 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. The Council 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 the Freedom of Information Act and may be dealt with as a contempt of court.
Exemptions cited: EIR 5(2)
View Bristol City Council
26 Aug 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information relating to the gas meter at his property. National Grid Metering Limited (NGM) responded and refused to comply with the request, stating that it was not a public authority for the purposes of the EIR. The Commissioner’s decision is that NGM is not a public authority for the purposes of the EIR and therefore is not obligated to respond to the request. Since NGM is not a public authority for the purposes of the EIR, the Commissioner cannot order any steps to be taken in response to the request.
Exemptions cited: EIR 2(2)(c); EIR 2(2)(d)
26 Aug 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested a copy of the minutes produced during a meeting between Susan Gray and Boris Johnson. By the date of this notice the Cabinet Office had not issued a substantive response to this request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Cabinet Office 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 Cabinet Office to take the following step to ensure compliance with the legislation. The Cabinet Office must provide a substantive response to the request in accordance with its obligations under FOIA. The Cabinet Office 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 Cabinet Office
26 Aug 2022Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested a copy of a review of the Proceeds of Crime Centre. The Home Office refused to disclose the information, citing section 23(1) (Information supplied by, or relating to, bodies dealing with security matters). The Commissioner’s decision is that the Home Office was entitled to rely on section 23(1) of FOIA to refuse the request. However, he finds that the Home Office breached section 10(1) as it did not provide its response to the request within the statutory timeframe. The Commissioner does not require the Home Office to take any remedial steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10(1); FOI 23
View Home Office
25 Aug 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information about sickness absence at the Oxford City Council. 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 Commissioner requires the Council to take the following step to ensure compliance with the legislation. The Council must provide a substantive response to the request in accordance with its obligations under FOIA. The Council 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 Oxford City Council
25 Aug 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to its Police and Crime Commissioner (‘PCC’) from the Office of the Police and Crime Commissioner for Hampshire (‘OPCC’). The OPCC provided some information, said some was exempt under section 22 of FOIA as it was intended for future publication (which it later removed reliance on) and said the remainder was not held as it related to the PCC in person rather than the OPCC. The complainant disputed that the OPCC was the rightful public authority for the purpose of FOIA and required that the PCC responded in person. The Commissioner’s decision is that the OPCC dealt with the request appropriately. No steps are required.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
25 Aug 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from Nottinghamshire Police relating to problem profile assessments produced or commissioned by the public authority. By the date of this notice Nottinghamshire Police had failed to provide a substantive response to this request. The Commissioner’s decision is that Nottinghamshire Police 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 Nottinghamshire Police to respond to the complainant’s response in accordance with the FOIA. Nottinghamshire Police must take these steps within 35 calendar days of the date of this decision notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Nottinghamshire Police
25 Aug 2022Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested from North Norfolk District Council information relating to an ‘exemption certificate’ for a procurement exercise. The Council responded that request b) was not a valid request for information, and that information was held for request c) but that it was exempt from disclosure under section 40(2) (Personal information) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council does not hold the information sought by request b), but that for request c) the Council has failed to comply with section 1 of the FOIA. The Commissioner requires the Council to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: Undertake fresh searches for that information that would fall within the parameters of request c) and issue a fresh response to the complainant.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View North Norfolk District Council
25 Aug 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from the Medicines & Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (“MHRA”) held by staff working on the licensing of and/or pharmacovigilance for COVID-19 vaccines about suspected adverse cardiac reactions. MHRA refused the request as it considered that compliance with it would exceed the cost limit under section 12(1) FOIA.The Commissioner’s decision is that MHRA has correctly cited section 12(1) FOIA, in response to the request. He also finds that it has complied with its obligations under section 16(1) FOIA to provide adequate advice and assistance to the complainant. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any further steps to ensure compliance with the legislation.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12(1); FOI 16
View Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency
25 Aug 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested from the Crown Prosecution Service (‘the CPS’), information it holds regarding the prosecution of a 2017 tax avoidance case. The CPS cited sections 30(1)(c) (Investigations and proceedings), 32(1)(a) (Court records) and 40(2) (Personal information) of FOIA to refuse to disclose the information. The Commissioner’s decision is that the CPS was entitled to rely on section 30(1)(c) of FOIA to withhold the information in its entirety. No steps are required as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: FOI 30
View Crown Prosecution Service
25 Aug 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested contract information associated with particular administration costs. Newcastle upon Tyne Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust (‘the Trust’) has disclosed information within scope of three parts of the request and withheld the information requested in the fourth part under section 43(2) of FOIA, which concerns prejudice to commercial interests. The Commissioner’s decision is as follows: The Trust is entitled to withhold the information under section 43(2) of FOIA and the public interest favours maintaining this exemption. The Commissioner does not require the Trust to take any corrective steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 43
View THE NEWCASTLE UPON TYNE HOSPITALS NHS FOUNDATION TRUST
25 Aug 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant made a request for emails and agreements between BBC staff and staff at organisations in the Trusted News Initiative (TNI) partnership. 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 under 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
25 Aug 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested a copy of an ecology report produced in relation to a site in Buck Barn, Horsham. Horsham District Council (the council) applied Regulation 12(4)(d) (material in the course of completion) on the basis that the report relates to, and feeds into the development of its Local Plan, which is not yet complete. It also relied upon Regulation 12(5)(f) (the interests of the person who provided the information). The Commissioner’s decision is that the council was not correct to withhold the ecological appraisal under Regulation 12(4)(d). He has also decided that it was not correct to apply Regulation 12(5)(f).The Commissioner requires the council to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation - to disclose the requested information to the complainant.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(d)
View Horsham District Council
25 Aug 2022Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested, from Merseyside Police, Body Worn Video (BWV) footage taken by police attending an incident. Merseyside Police refused to provide the requested footage citing the exemptions at sections 40(2) (Personal information) and 30 (1)(a) & (2)(a)(i)(iii) (Investigations and proceedings) of FOIA. Merseyside Police advised the Commissioner that some footage was officially available online. However, it had not advised the complainant regarding this so the Commissioner considered its obligations under section 21 of FOIA and found a breach. The Commissioner’s decision is that section 40 is properly engaged in respect of all of the remaining information. The Commissioner requires Merseyside Police to direct the complainant to any officially disclosed BWV footage. First-tier tribunal (General Regulatory chamber) information rights appeal EA/2022/0279 appeal dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 21; FOI 40
View Merseyside Police
24 Aug 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The Commissioner’s decision is that London Borough of Hillingdon (LBH) does not hold the information requested relating to parking management notices. First-tier tribunal (General Regulatory chamber) information rights appeal EA/2022/0272 appeal struck out.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Hillingdon Council
24 Aug 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information from Telford and Wrekin Council (“the Council”) in relation to planning applications between specific time periods and including specific information. The Commissioner’s decision is that the exception at regulation 12(4)(b) is engaged and that the balance of the public interests favours the exception being maintained. He has also decided that the Council provided adequate advice and assistance under regulation 9 of the EIR. The Commissioner does not require the Council to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(b); EIR 9(1)
View Telford and Wrekin Council
24 Aug 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from the London Borough of Bromley (“the Council”) about their directorship policies for employees. 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 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 issue a substantive response to the request in accordance with its obligations under FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Bromley Council