24 Aug 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested from Rotherham Council (“the council”) unredacted copies of attachments to emails related to a previous case he took to the First-tier Tribunal. The documents were disclosed, however the council made redactions to exclude the identities and contact details of some individuals under Section 40(2) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council was correct to apply section 40(2) to withhold the information from disclosure. The Commissioner does not require the council to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40(2)
View Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council
24 Aug 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from Nottinghamshire Police about the cost of badger culling in 2020 and 2021. By the date of this notice Nottinghamshire Police had not issued a substantive response to this request. The Commissioner’s decision is that Nottinghamshire 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 Nottinghamshire Police to issue a substantive response to the request in accordance with its obligations under FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Nottinghamshire Police
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
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 not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from Georgeham Parish Council (“the Council”) relating to the Council’s handling of prior notice applications which were submitted to the Council by the complainant. The Commissioner’s decision is that the requested information is the complainant’s own personal data and therefore the Council is entitled to rely on section 40(1) of the FOIA to withhold the requested information.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40(1)
23 Aug 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council (“the Council”) about legal expenses relating to the inquest into the death of Andrew Hall. The Council stated that because the information was held only on behalf of the coroner, it was not held for the purposes of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council does hold the requested information for the purposes of FOIA and so it was not entitled to rely on section 3(2) of FOIA to refuse the request. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: Issue a fresh response to the request, on the basis that any information falling within the scope of the request is held by the Council for the purposes of the FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 3
View City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council
23 Aug 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant made a request for information relating to the Home Office’s response to Lord Faulk’s independent review into the Judicial Review Process. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Home Office was entitled to rely on section 35(1)(a) to refuse the request. The Commissioner does not require the Home Office to take any steps as a result of this notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 35(1)(a)
View Home Office
23 Aug 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information between specific councillors and officers relating to the sale of Kings Mill, Melin y Brenin. Wrexham County Borough Council (the Council) withheld the information requested under section 36 (effective conduct of public affairs). The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has correctly applied sections 36(2)(b)(i) and 36(2)(b)(ii) to the withheld information. The Commissioner does not require any steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 36
View Wrexham County Borough Council
23 Aug 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested correspondence between the London Borough of Croydon (“LB Croydon”) and a firm of solicitors. Initially, LB Croydon gave an unclear response which appeared to rely on section 42 (legal professional privilege exemption) which it did not clarify at internal review. It clarified its position in subsequent correspondence and confirmed that it sought to rely on section 42 as its basis for not disclosing information it held within the scope of the request that was not otherwise the complainant’s personal data. The Commissioner’s decision is that LB Croydon is entitled to rely on section 42 as its basis for withholding information it holds within the scope of the request that was not otherwise the requester’s personal data. It should have refused to confirm or deny whether it held any of the requester’s personal data under section 40(5) of the FOIA. No steps are required. First-tier tribunal (General Regulatory chamber) information rights appeal EA/2022/0273 appe
Exemptions cited: FOI 42
View London Borough of Croydon
23 Aug 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from the Office of the Durham Police & Crime Commissioner (the OPPC) about data held about themselves and any such data sent to third parties. The Commissioner’s decision is that the OPPC breached section 10(1) of FOIA by failing to provide a valid response to the request within the statutory time frame of 20 working days. No steps are required.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
23 Aug 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested from Staffordshire Police information relating to Operation Eustace, an independent investigation following allegations of an alleged incident involving senior officers in 2007. In a revised response, Staffordshire Police stated that it does not hold information to questions 1 and 3 of this request. The Commissioner’s decision is that on the balance of probabilities Staffordshire Police does not hold information to questions 1 and 3 of the request. Therefore, the Commissioner does not require Staffordshire Police to take any steps as a result of this decision. First-tier tribunal (General Regulatory chamber) information rights appeal EA/2022/0269 appeal allowed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Staffordshire Police
23 Aug 2022Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to the Advisory Committee on Business Appointments (ACOBA) regarding a job taken up by former Department for International Trade (DIT) Secretary of State, Rt Hon Dr Liam Fox MP. DIT refused to provide it, citing section 40 (personal information), section 43 (commercial interests) and section 36 (prejudice to the conduct of public affairs) as its basis for doing so. It upheld this at internal review. It introduced an additional provision of section 36 as its basis for withholding the information in correspondence with the Commissioner. The Commissioner’s decision is that DIT is entitled to rely on section 36(2)(b)(i) & (ii) and section 36(2)(c) as its basis for withholding the requested information. However, the Commissioner also found that DIT contravened its obligations under section 10 in failing to respond within 20 working days. No steps are required. First-tier tribunal (General Regulatory chamber) information rights appeal EA
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 36
View Department for International Trade
23 Aug 2022Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information from Norwich City Council (the Council) about a planning application relating to local tennis courts. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the Council has now disclosed all of the information which it holds within the scope of the request. However, the Commissioner finds that the Council has breached regulation 11(4) of the EIR as it did not provide its internal review decision within the statutory timeframe. The Commissioner does not require the Council to take any remedial steps. Information Tribunal FTT EA/2022/0238 appeal allowed.
Exemptions cited: EIR 11(4); EIR 5(1)
View Norwich City Council
23 Aug 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from HM Revenue & Customs (“HMRC”) in relation to their previous requests for information regarding the Pharmacy Early Payment Scheme. HMRC refused to disclose the requested information, citing section 44(1) of FOIA as a basis for non-disclosure. The Commissioner’s decision is that HMRC has correctly applied section 44(1)(a) of FOIA to the requested information. The Commissioner therefore requires no steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 44
22 Aug 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to the appointment of court officers at a specific Crown Court in Exeter, and in particular relating to a named individual. The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) provided some information but refused to provide the requested information for questions 1 and 2 citing section 40(2) (personal information) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the MoJ was entitled to rely on section 40(2) of FOIA for the withheld information. The Commissioner does not require any steps to be taken as a result of this decision notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40(2)
View Ministry of Justice
22 Aug 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from Balderton Parish Council (“the Council”) relating to an agreement made between the Council and the YMCA which allows kayaking on Balderton Lake. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has failed to carry out adequate searches for the information requested in parts 5 and 6 of the request and therefore, on the balance of probabilities, has not identified all information held within the scope of parts 5 and 6 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 parts 5 and 6 of the request.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1(1)
22 Aug 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested a ‘call for evidence’ paper on assisted dying. The Ministry of Justice (the ‘MOJ’) refused to provide the requested information, ultimately citing various subsections of the section 36 exemption (prejudice to effective conduct of public affairs) of FOIA, namely sections 36(2)(a)(i) (the maintenance of the convention of the collective responsibility of Ministers of the Crown), 36(2)(b)(i) (the free and frank provision of advice), 36(2)(b)(ii) (the free and frank exchange of views for the purposes of deliberation) and 36(2)(c) would otherwise prejudice, or would be likely otherwise to prejudice, the effective conduct of public affairs. The Commissioner’s decision is that the MOJ was not entitled to rely on any of the cited subsections of the exemption at section 36 for the reasons set out in this notice. The Commissioner requires the MOJ to disclose the requested paper in full electronically to the complainant within 35 calendar days of this notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 36
View Ministry of Justice
22 Aug 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant made a request for a copy of the South Yorkshire Police document ‘Enquiry into Incidents at Stainforth and Armthorpe on 21 August 1984’. The Commissioner’s decision is that South Yorkshire Police was entitled to rely on section 22(1) to refuse the request. The Commissioner does not require to take any steps as a result of this notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 22
View South Yorkshire Police
22 Aug 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested correspondence and other notes taken on meetings or calls between officers at the council and any officers or governors of Cotham School. The council refused the request on the basis of Regulation 12(4)(b) (manifestly unreasonable request). The Commissioner’s decision is that the council was not correct to apply Regulation 12(4)(b) to refuse to respond to the request further. The Commissioner has also decided that the council did not comply with the requirements of Regulation 5(2). The Commissioner requires the council to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. To respond to the request again, without relying upon Regulation 12(4)(b).
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(b); EIR 5(2)
View Bristol City Council
22 Aug 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested from the Office of the Advocate General for Scotland (‘OAGS’) copies of all diary entries for the Advocate General for the period 1 January 2021 to 30 June 2021. OAGS refused the request under section 14 of FOIA, on the grounds that it was vexatious, due to burden. The Commissioner’s decision is that OAGS was entitled to rely on section 14 of FOIA to refuse to comply with the request. He also finds that it complied with section 16 (Duty to provide advice and assistance) of FOIA. The Commissioner requires no steps as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14; FOI 16
View Office of the Advocate General for Scotland
22 Aug 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to the number of complaints that the Financial Ombudsman Services (FOS) received in 2021. The Commissioner’s decision is that FOS has failed to respond to the request for information within 20 working days and has therefore breached section 10 (time for compliance with the request) of FOIA. The Commissioner requires FOS to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: Issue a response, in accordance with its obligations under FOIA, to the request.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
22 Aug 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information regarding teachers and furlough. Lancashire County Council (“the council”) provided some information but stated that other information was not held. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the council has provided all of the information it holds which is in scope of the request. The Commissioner does not require any steps. First-tier tribunal (General Regulatory chamber) information rights appeal EA/2022/0262 appeal struck out.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Lancashire County Council
22 Aug 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested, from the Attorney General’s Office (the “AGO”), information about advice it has given concerning the UK’s nuclear deterrent and nuclear warheads. The AGO confirmed holding the requested information but refused to disclose it citing section 35(1)(c) (Formulation or development of government policy) of FOIA.
The Commissioner’s decision is that section 35(1)(c) is properly engaged and that the public interest favours maintaining the exemption. The Commissioner does not require the AGO to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 35
View Attorney General's Office
22 Aug 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request for information to the Home Office for an electronic copy of the report that informed the costings in their ‘Tackling Child Sexual Abuse Strategy’ (“TCSA”) report published in January 2021. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Home Office has incorrectly cited section 21 (information readily available) under FOIA as the requested information was not readily available to the complainant at the time of the request. The Home Office also breached sections 1(1)(a) and 10(1) of the FOIA by failing to respond to the request within the 20 working day time for compliance. The Commissioner does not require the Home Office to take any additional steps in relation to this decision notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 21
View Home Office
19 Aug 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information about investigations and reports concerning Covid-19 testing at the Royal Berkshire Hospital. By the date of this notice, Royal Berkshire NHS Foundation Trust (“the Trust”) had not issued a substantive response to this request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Trust 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 Trust to take the following step to ensure compliance with the legislation: The Trust must provide a substantive response to the request in accordance with its obligations under FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Royal Berkshire NHS Foundation Trust
19 Aug 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information about system errors causing change of circumstances emails to be sent to those registered for online services with the Three Rivers District Council (“the Council”). 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 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.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Three Rivers District Council
19 Aug 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested from the Metropolitan Police Service (“the MPS”) information regarding a misconduct outcome. The MPS provided some information to the complainant but refused further information to the request by virtue of section 40(2) (personal information) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the MPS is entitled to rely on section 40(2) of FOIA to withhold the requested information. Therefore, the Commissioner does not require the MPS to take any steps as a result of this decision. First-tier tribunal (General Regulatory chamber) information rights appeal EA/2022/0258 appeal allowed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40(2)
View Metropolitan Police Service
19 Aug 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant made a request for information relating to ingredients of all Covid-19 vaccines. MHRA has provided a link to the patient information leaflets held which list the ingredients for the various Covid-19 vaccines. The complainant considers that there are other ingredients in the vaccines not listed in the information to which he was provided links to. At internal review MHRA upheld its original response. The Commissioner considers that MHRA has confirmed and provided the recorded information it holds falling within the scope of the request under section 1(1)(a) and (b) FOIA. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2022/0235 struck out.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency
19 Aug 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant made a request for information relating to how many LNP (lipid nanoparticles) were contained (on average) within a single shot of BNT162b2 and their respective sizes in order to meet with Health and Safety of patients receiving the shots. MHRA has confirmed that it does not hold the information requested under section 1(1)(a) FOIA. The Commissioner considers that MHRA were correct to confirm that it does not hold the requested information. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency
19 Aug 2022Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested correspondence between various bodies regarding the processing of vehicle keeper data. The Department for Transport relied variously on section 42 (Legal Professional Privilege) and section 35 (formulation or development of government policy). The Commissioner’s decision is that the DfT has correctly engaged section 42 of FOIA and that the public interest favours maintaining that exemption. However, he does not consider that section 35 is engaged. The Commissioner requires the DfT to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: disclose all of the information it has withheld apart from that which engages section 42 of FOIA; disclose, to the complainant, the information it originally identified to the Commissioner as being disclosable. First-tier tribunal (General Regulatory chamber) information rights appeal EA/2022/0261 consent order.
Exemptions cited: FOI 35; FOI 42
View Department for Transport
19 Aug 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information from HS2 relating to the HS2 project and in particular meetings with Greensill Capital. HS2 initially considered the exemption at section 12 of FOIA and requested the search term be narrowed to ‘Greensill’ in order to enable them to proceed with the request. The requester reluctantly agreed to the term of reference for searches. After some delay HS2 responded citing Section 43 of FOIA (commercial interests) and section 40 (personal information) of FOIA to withhold the requested information. At internal review, HS2 considered the information was classed as environmental information, and therefore responded under the EIR citing regulations 12(4)(d), 12(5)(e) and 13 of the EIR to refuse the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that HS2 was entitled to rely on both Regulations 12(4)(d) and 12(5)(e) of the EIR and that the public interest favours maintaining these exceptions both individually and in aggregate. Therefore, he has not gone on to con
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(d); EIR 12(5)(e)
View High Speed Two (HS2) Limited
19 Aug 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information from Monkton Combe Parish Council (“the Council”) relating to Oldfield Old Boys RFC. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council is not entitled to rely on regulation 12(4)(b) (manifestly unreasonable) of the EIR to refuse to comply with 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 regulation 12(4)(b) of the EIR. First-tier tribunal (General Regulatory chamber) information rights appeal EA/2022/0254 appeal dismissed.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(b)
19 Aug 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested correspondence between Matt Hancock and David Cameron. The DHSC explained that it could not confirm whether or not the requested information was held, citing section 12(2) of FOIA (cost of compliance exceeds appropriate limit). The Commissioner’s decision is that the DHSC has failed to demonstrate that section 12(2) is engaged. The Commissioner requires the DHSC to take the following steps: issue a fresh response to the requests, that do not rely upon section 12(2) of FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12
View Department of Health and Social Care
18 Aug 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant made a request for a copy of NHS England’s Quality Metrics to optimise their services for mesothelioma patients. NHS England provided information in response to the request. Following internal review, as the complainant did not consider he had been provided with the information had had requested, NHS England confirmed that it did not hold the information requested under section 1(1)(a) FOIA. The Commissioner considers that NHS England were correct to confirm that it does not hold the requested information. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View NHS England
18 Aug 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The applicant has requested a complaint case file. The Health and Care Professions Council (HCPC) provided a response under the data protection legislation. It also provided a response under FOIA, relying on section 30, section 31 and section 40 of FOIA which concern investigations, law enforcement and personal data respectively. HCPC has subsequently confirmed that it is relying on section 40(5B) of FOIA to neither confirm nor deny it holds the requested information. The Commissioner’s decision is as follows: HCPC is entitled under section 40(5B)(a)(i) of FOIA to neither confirm nor deny it holds the requested information as to do so would disclose the personal data of a third person. The Commissioner does not require HCPC to take any corrective steps. Information Tribunal FTT EA/2022/0435 appeal dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View Health and Care Professions Council
18 Aug 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information, for a specified period of time, about the number of patients admitted to the ITU, how many of those had died and how many referrals there had been to the coroner. By the date of this notice, University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust (“the Trust”) had not issued a substantive response to part 2 of this request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Trust has breached section 10(1) of FOIA in that it failed to provide a valid response to both part 1 and part 2 of the request within the statutory time frame of 20 working days. The Commissioner requires the Trust to take the following step to ensure compliance with the legislation: The Trust must provide a substantive response to part 2 of the request in accordance with its obligations under FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust
18 Aug 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information about a particular court case. Doncaster Council (the Council) withheld the information requested under section 32 (court records) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council was entitled to rely on section 32(1)(a) to withhold the requested information. The Commissioner does not require any steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 32
View Doncaster Council
17 Aug 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information from the London Borough of Croydon (the Council) relating to evidence which supported comments made at a planning committee meeting. 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 London Borough of Croydon
17 Aug 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from Upton Bishop Parish Council (“the Council”) relating to the employment of the Parish Clerk. 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.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1(1)
17 Aug 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from Dunchurch Parish Council (“the Council”) relating to job descriptions. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council is entitled to rely on section 14(1) (vexatious request) of the FOIA to refuse to provide the requested information.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14(1)
17 Aug 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information from Rochford District Council (“the Council”) relating to complaints made about a planning application. The Council disclosed some information within the scope of the request but refused to provide the remainder citing section 40(2) (personal information) of the FOIA. The Council later accepted the Commissioner’s view that the information is environmental and therefore, relied on regulation 13(1) (personal information) of the EIR to withhold the information. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council is entitled to rely on regulation 13(1) to withhold the requested information. The Commissioner does not require the Council to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 13(1)
View Rochford District Council
17 Aug 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant made a request for correspondence received from Audit Wales in the last 6 months, relating to Ammanford Town Council's audit for the financial years 2020-21, 2019-21, 2018-19. Ammanford Town Council has failed to provide a response to the request in accordance with section 1 and 10 FOIA. The Commissioner requires the public authority to issue a valid response in accordance with the FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10
17 Aug 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested files relating to the Habershon Report (1975). The Home Office refused to disclose any information within the scope of the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Home Office is entitled to rely on sections 31(1) and 40(2) of FOIA to withhold the requested information. The Commissioner does not require the Home Office to take any remedial steps. Information Tribunal FTT EA/2023/0380 under appeal.
Exemptions cited: FOI 31(1); FOI 40(2)
View Home Office
17 Aug 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from St Helens Metropolitan Borough Council (“the Council”) about health and safety assessments for two libraries within the borough. The Council provided a partial response stating the information for the second part of the request would be provided by their estates department, which they failed to do within 20 working days. 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 does not require the Council to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10(1)
View St Helens Council
16 Aug 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to sickness absence at Rastrick High School (the School). The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the School does not hold the requested information.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
16 Aug 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant made a request for information relating to all written or electronic correspondence, notes and memos created, sent or received by Southrepps Parish Council (the Council) regarding a named company. The Council initially refused to disclose the requested information under regulation 12(5)(b) EIR but subsequently disclosed information in response to the request. The Commissioner considers that the information requested is the complainant’s own personal data and therefore due to regulation 5(3) EIR, the Council was not obliged to comply with this request under regulation 5(1) EIR. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: EIR 5
16 Aug 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information regarding number of concerns that have been raised with the council by whistle-blowers. The Commissioner’s decision is that Stevenage Borough Council (the Council) failed to provide a valid response to the request within the statutory time frame of 20 working days and therefore breached section 10 (time for compliance with the request) of FOIA. The Commissioner is satisfied that the request has now been responded to. The Commissioner does not require the Council to take any further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Stevenage Borough Council
16 Aug 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from Chrishall Parish Council (“the Council”) relating to the transfer of land. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council is entitled to rely on section 14(1) (vexatious request) to refuse to provide the requested information.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14(1)
16 Aug 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from Coventry City Council regarding rooftop and greenfield mobile mast site agreements. Coventry City Council withheld some information on the basis of section 43(2) (commercial interests), provided some information, and stated that further information was not held. The Commissioner’s decision is that section 43(2) was correctly applied and the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosure. No steps are required.
Exemptions cited: FOI 43(2)
View Coventry City Council
16 Aug 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information relating to the salvage of the cargo of the SS Astoria. Government Legal Department (GLD) provided some information within the scope of the request but denied holding the remainder. The Commissioner’s decision is that GLD 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, GLD 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)(a); FOI 1
View Government Legal Department