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
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 about a property that he owns, but does not occupy. The Care Quality Commission refused to confirm or deny holding information within the scope of the request and relied on section 40(5B) of FOIA (third party personal data) in order to do so. The Commissioner’s decision is that the CQC is entitled to rely on section 40(5B) of FOIA to neither confirm nor deny that it holds any information relevant to the request. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40(5)(b)
View CQC
15 Aug 2022Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information about an alleged incidence of hunting hares with dogs. Natural England disclosed relevant information it holds with personal data redacted in line with regulation 13 of the EIR. The complainant considers that Natural England holds further information relevant to their request. The Commissioner’s decision is as follows:
Natural England has complied with regulation 5(1) of the EIR because, on the balance of probabilities, it has disclosed all the information it holds that is relevant to the request. Natural England did not comply with regulation 5(2) or regulation 11(4) as it did not provide a response to the request or an internal review response within the required timescales. The Commissioner does not require Natural England to take any corrective steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 11; EIR 5
View Natural England
15 Aug 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from Potto Parish Council (“the Council”). 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. First-tier tribunal (General Regulatory chamber) information rights appeal EA/2022/0223 struck out.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
15 Aug 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to Aylsham Learning Federation’s (the Federation) governors’ meetings. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Federation was entitled to refuse to comply with the request in accordance with section 12(1) of FOIA. The Commissioner also finds that the Federation complied with its obligations under section 16 to offer advice and assistance.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12
View CABOT LEARNING FEDERATION
15 Aug 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information from Warwick District Council (the Council) relating to Gigafactory planning consent, Coventry Airport, Coventry Aeroplane Club and Sport England. 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 Warwick District Council
15 Aug 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
In a four part request, the complainant has requested information about apprentices at Whitley Abbey Primary School (‘the School’). The School disclosed information relevant to two parts of the request and withheld information relevant to the remaining two parts under section 40(2) of FOIA as it considered it to be other people’s personal data. The Commissioner’s decision is as follows: The information requested in parts 2 and 4 of the requested information can be categorised as other people’s personal data but disclosing it would not contravene the data protection legislation. Section 40(2) of FOIA is therefore not engaged. The Commissioner requires the School to take the following step to ensure compliance with the legislation. Disclose the specific information requested in parts 2 and 4 of the request.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
15 Aug 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested, from the Attorney General’s Office (the “AGO”), emails generated between itself and the “Clearing House” business area at the Cabinet Office. The AGO disclosed most of the requested information (in an anonymised format, in agreement with the complainant), but withheld two email chains citing sections 36(2)(b)(i), 36(2)(b)(ii) and 36(2)(c) (Prejudice to the effective conduct of public affairs) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that some withheld information (the requests within the email chains) does not fall within any of the section 36 exemptions cited, but does fall within the scope of the request so should have been disclosed; in failing to do so the AGO breached section 1(1)(b)(General right of access) of FOIA. He also finds that, where section 36 is engaged, the public interest favours disclosure. The Commissioner requires the AGO to disclose the remaining two emails in the format they were presented to the Qualified Person (ie anonymised).
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 36
View Attorney General's Office
15 Aug 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
Thanet District Council refused the complainant’s 13 January 2021 information request as having been vexatious. Thanet District Council did not demonstrate that the request was vexatious and was therefore not entitled to rely on the section 14(1) FOIA (Vexatious requests) exemption. Accordingly the Commissioner required Thanet District Council to provide a fresh response to the request that does not rely on section 14(1) FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14
View Thanet District Council
15 Aug 2022Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
On behalf of a union, the applicant requested information about pay progression. Greasby Junior School (‘the School’) withheld the information under section 40(2) of FOIA as it considered it to be other people’s personal data which it would be unlawful to disclose. The Commissioner’s decision is as follows: The information requested in the first part of the request can be categorised as other people’s personal data and disclosing it would contravene the data protection legislation. Section 40(2) of FOIA is therefore engaged. The School has not provided a response to the second part of the request and has breached section 10(1) of FOIA in that regard. The Commissioner requires the School to take the following step to ensure compliance with the legislation: Provide a response to the second element of the applicant’s request that complies with FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 40
View EAGLEY JUNIOR SCHOOL
15 Aug 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to a statement issued to the House of Commons by the Secretary of State for the Department of Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (the DLUHC) about proposals to finance the removal of unsafe Aluminium Composite Material (ACM) cladding on residential buildings. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the DLUHC does not hold information relevant to part 1 of the complainant’s request. He is also satisfied that the DLUHC is entitled to rely on section 42(1) (legal professional privilege) of the FOIA when withholding information relevant to part 2 of the request. The Commissioner does not require the DLUHC to take any steps as a result of this decision notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 42
View Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government
15 Aug 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested the names of licenced importers of co-proxamol over a 10 year period. The Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) withheld the information under section 43(2) of FOIA, which concerns commercial interests. MHRA subsequently confirmed that it is also relying in section 41(1) of FOIA to withhold the information, as it considers it to be information provided to MHRA in confidence. The Commissioner’s decision is as follows: The withheld information does not engage the exemptions under section 41(1) or 43(2) of FOIA. The Commissioner requires MHRA to take the following step to ensure compliance with the legislation: Disclose to the complainant the information it is withholding under the above two exemptions.
Exemptions cited: FOI 41; FOI 43
View Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency
15 Aug 2022Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested from Derbyshire Fire & Rescue Service (DFRS) fire safety notices and other warnings, cautions or alerts regarding properties used by the University of Derby for educational, administration or student accommodation purposes. They also asked for records of any related internal decisions, advice or comment from the university or third parties. DFRS initially stated that the requested information was not held and provided advice and assistance. Over a period of time DFRS provided the complainant with some information but withheld other information, citing regulations 12(5)(b), 12(5)(e) and the exception for third party personal information. The Commissioner’s decision is that regulations 12(5)(b) and 12(5)(e) are not engaged. Regulation 12(3)/13(1) has been cited appropriately to some, but not all, of the withheld personal information as detailed in paragraph three of this decision notice. The Commissioner has proactively applied regulation 5(3) to part of
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(b); EIR 12(5)(e); EIR 13; EIR 5(1); EIR 5(2); EIR 5(3)
View Derbyshire Fire and Rescue Service
15 Aug 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant made a request for information relating to the results of an internal investigation at Anthony Gell School (the School), its complaints policies and procedures and for any/all complaint outcomes against a specified individual. The School provided some information, it withheld some information under section 40(2) FOIA and refused to confirm or deny whether some of the requested information was held under section 40(5B)(a)(i) FOIA. The Commissioner considers that section 40(2) and 40(5B)(a)(i) FOIA were applied correctly. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
15 Aug 2022Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information on the identity of an individual who they say placed a telephone call to Durham Constabulary. Durham Constabulary has relied on section 40(2) (personal data) to withhold information within scope of the first part of the request. It has neither confirmed nor denied it holds information requested in the second part under section 31(3) of FOIA, which concerns law enforcement. The Commissioner’s decision is as follows: The information requested in the first part of the request is exempt information under section 40(2) of FOIA as it is the personal data of a third person and releasing this information would not be lawful. Durham Constabulary is entitled to rely on section 31(3) of FOIA to neither confirm nor deny it holds the information requested in the second part of the request as to do so would be likely to prejudice the apprehension or prosecution of offenders, and the exercise of Durham Constabulary’s functions for the purpose of ascertaining
Exemptions cited: FOI 17; FOI 31; FOI 40
15 Aug 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about staffing costs. Biggleswade Town Council (‘the Council’) disclosed the majority of the requested information. It withheld information about settlement agreements under section 40(2) of FOIA as it considered this to be other people’s personal data which it would be unlawful to disclose. The Commissioner’s decision is as follows: The Council is entitled to withhold some of the information the complainant has requested under section 40(2) of FOIA as disclosing it would contravene the data protection legislation. The Commissioner therefore does not require the Council to take any corrective steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
15 Aug 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested from Cheshire West and Chester Council copies of the documents submitted to the planning enforcement team by the landowners in relation to the alleged lawful use of the site. Cheshire West and Chester Council withheld the entirety of the requested information under Regulation 12(5)(b) of the EIR on the basis that it related to a live and ongoing planning enforcement case and disclosure would adversely affect its investigation and therefore the course of justice. The Commissioner’s decision is that Cheshire West and Chester Council has successfully engaged Regulation 12(5)(b) of the EIR and therefore does not require it to take any steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. However, the Commissioner does find that Cheshire West and Chester Council breached Regulations 14(2) and 11(4) of the EIR by failing to respond to the complainant’s initial request within 20 working days and her internal review request within 40 working days respectively.
Exemptions cited: EIR 11(4); EIR 14(2)(1)
View Cheshire West and Chester Council
15 Aug 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
In a nine part request, the complainant has requested information about a Facilities and Recreation Committee meeting. Spennymoor Town Council (‘the Council’) disclosed information relevant to one part and has advised it does not hold recorded information within scope of the remaining eight parts. The Commissioner’s decision is as follows: On the balance of probabilities, the Council holds no further recorded information relevant to the complainant’s request and 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
12 Aug 2022Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
In an 11 part request, the complainant has requested information about St Mary’s College, Blackburn. The Department for Education (DfE) advised it does not hold the information requested in seven parts of the request. It disclosed information relevant to three parts, withholding some under section 36(2) and 40(2) of FOIA, which concern prejudice to the effective conduct of public affairs and personal data respectively. Finally, DfE withheld information relevant to the remaining part under section 21(1) of FOIA as it considered this information was already reasonably accessible to the complainant. The Commissioner’s decision is as follows: DfE is entitled to withhold some of the information the complainant has requested under sections 36(2)(b)(i), 36(2)(b)(ii) and 36(2)(c) of FOIA. In each case the public interest favours maintaining the exemption. DfE breached section 10(1) and section 17(1) with regard to the refined request of 9 April 2021 as its response and refusal were provided ou
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 17; FOI 36
View Department for Education
11 Aug 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from Swindon Borough Council (the Council), including a copy of a Trading Standards investigation report he believed it held. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the Council does not hold the requested report. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Swindon Borough Council
11 Aug 2022Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested from Cullompton Town Council information relating to the ‘topple testing’ of grave headstones. The Council disclosed information in response. The complainant maintained that the Council had failed to fulfil his requests for information. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has disclosed all held information but has breached the requirement of section 10 by disclosing information outside the time for compliance. The Commissioner does not require the Council to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10
11 Aug 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant made a request for information relating to speeding offences recorded down Colliery Way (A6211) from March 22nd 2022 to the date of the request. The request was made on 23 May 2022 and Nottinghamshire Police have failed to provide a response. The Commissioner considers that the Nottinghamshire Police have breached section 10 FOIA in the handling of this Request. The Commissioner requires the public authority to provide a response to the request in compliance with FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Nottinghamshire Police
11 Aug 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested the minutes of a meeting held in relation to speed limit exemptions. The Department for Transport disclosed information that fell within the scope of the request and withheld the rest, citing section 35(1)(a) (government policy) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the withheld information engages section 35(1)(a) and the public interest lies in maintaining the exemption. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 35(1)(a)
View Department for Transport
10 Aug 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information concerning homeless children in the borough. By the date of this notice the London Borough of Hackney (“the Council”) had not issued a substantive response to the 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 London Borough of Hackney
10 Aug 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested an audio recording of a meeting from Hampton Lucy Parish Council, Warwickshire (“the Parish Council”). The Parish Council previously refused the request under section 14(1) FOIA: vexatious requests, but it was found by the Commissioner that the request was not vexatious, and the Parish Council was ordered to make a fresh response. After reconsidering the request, the Parish Council refused it under section 36(2) of FOIA: prejudice to the effective conduct of public affairs; specifically, under section 36(2)(b)(ii) which can be cited where disclosure would, or would be likely to, inhibit the free and frank exchange of views for the purposes of deliberation. The Commissioner’s decision is that the exemption is engaged. However, he considers that on the balance of the public interests, the audio recording should be disclosed. The Commissioner requires the Parish Council to take the following step to ensure compliance with the legislation: Disclose the recording t
Exemptions cited: FOI 36
10 Aug 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information, namely a specific digital map of their property, from Wrexham Borough Council (“the Council”). The Council has provided the complainant with a digital map of their property, however the complainant is dissatisfied with this and considers that the Council holds the specific digital map they have requested.
The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has disclosed all relevant recorded information within the scope of the complainant’s request and he has concluded that, on the balance of probabilities, the Council does not hold any further information within the scope of that request. Therefore the Commissioner requires no steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(a)
View Wrexham County Borough Council
10 Aug 2022Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested from the Office of the Police and Crime Commissioner for Cheshire (‘the OPCC’), information about the number of frontline police officers in Cheshire Constabulary. The OPCC said that it did not hold the requested information. It also argued that the request was not a valid request for information under FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the request met the requirements of section 8 (Requests for information) of FOIA and thus it constituted a valid request for information. He is also satisfied that, on the civil standard of the balance of probabilities, the OPCC does not hold the information described in the request. However, by failing to confirm that it did not hold the requested information within the statutory time for compliance, the OPCC breached section 1(1)(a) (General right of access) and section 10 (Time for compliance) of FOIA. The Commissioner requires no steps as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10
10 Aug 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested, from West Yorkshire Police (WYP), information about himself. The Commissioner’s decision is that WYP was correct to rely on section 40(5) of FOIA to neither confirm nor deny (NCND) holding any information. No steps are required.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View West Yorkshire Police
10 Aug 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from the Home Office relating to the number of deportations from the UK listed by nationality and visas held. The Home Office relied on sections 12 (cost limit) and section 21 (information reasonably accessible to applicant by other means) of FOIA to withhold the information. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Home Office was entitled to refuse to comply with the entirety of the request in accordance with section 12(1). The Commissioner also finds that the Home Office complied with its obligations under section 16 of FOIA to offer advice and assistance.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12
View Home Office
10 Aug 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested a specific case file. At the date of this notice Northumbria Police has not provided a response to the request. The Commissioner’s decision is as follows: Northumbria Police has breached section 10(1) of FOIA as it has not responded to the request within the required timescale. The Commissioner requires Northumbria Police to take the following step to ensure compliance with the legislation: Provide a response to the complainant’s request of 12 April 2022 that complies with FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
10 Aug 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about mobile fingerprint technology. At the date of this notice Surrey Police has not provided a response to the request. The Commissioner’s decision is as follows: Surrey Police has breached section 10(1) of FOIA as it has not responded to the request within the required timescale. The Commissioner requires Surrey Police to take the following step to ensure compliance with the legislation: Provide a response to the complainant’s request of 18 March 2022 that complies with FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Surrey Police
9 Aug 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information about Covid outbreaks at the hospital during a specified period of time. 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
9 Aug 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested a copy of an investigation report produced following concerns raised in relation to physiotherapy practices at Glangwili General Hospital in the initial stages of the COVID-19 pandemic. Hywel Dda University Health Board (‘the Health Board’) refused the request on the basis of section 41(1)(b) (information provided in confidence), section 40(1) (personal data of the applicant), section 40(2) (third party personal data), and section 38(1)(a) (endangerment to health). The Commissioner exercised his discretion and considered whether section 31 (prejudice to law enforcement) applied. His decision is that the Health Board was entitled to refuse to disclose the withheld information in reliance on section 31 FOIA, and in particular section 31(1)(g) together with section 31(2)(j) FOIA to refuse the information which was not the personal data of the applicant. First-tier tribunal (General Regulatory chamber) information rights appeal EA/2023/0207 appeal allowed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 31
View Hywel Dda University Health Board
9 Aug 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about the costs of providing personal security and protection to former Prime Ministers, from the Metropolitan Police Service (the “MPS”). The MPS said that some information was not held. It would neither confirm nor deny (NCND) holding the remaining information, citing the exemptions at sections 24(2) (National security), 31(3) (Law enforcement), 38(2) (Health and safety) and 40(5) (Personal information). The Commissioner’s decision is that the MPS was entitled to rely on section 24(2) FOIA. No steps are required.
Exemptions cited: FOI 24
View Metropolitan Police Service
9 Aug 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested, from Wiltshire Police, information about a particular hearing regarding officer misconduct. Wiltshire Police provided some information but withheld the remainder citing sections 31(1)(g)(2)(b) (Law enforcement), 32(1) (Court records) 38(1) (Health and safety) and 40(2) (Personal information) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that section 40 is properly engaged. No steps are required. Information Tribunal UT PTA Refused.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View Wiltshire Police
9 Aug 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested minutes produced from Arts Council England’s (“ACE”) Race and Disability Advisory Group meetings. ACE refused to disclose this information, citing section 36 of the FOIA - prejudice to the effective conduct of public affairs. The Commissioner’s decision is that ACE correctly cited section 36(2) of the FOIA to the requested information and was entitled to withhold it. The Commissioner does not require ACE to take any further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 36
View Arts Council England
8 Aug 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested grid connections for seven wind farms. National Grid Electricity System Operator (NGESO) withheld the requested information under regulations 12(4)(d) and 12(5)(e) of the EIR, which concern material still in the course of information and commercial information respectively. NGESO has subsequently confirmed that it does not hold information potentially within scope of the request and is relying on regulation 12(4)(a) in that regard (information not held). It has also now applied regulation 6(1)(b) to some relevant information as that information is already in the public domain. The Commissioner’s decision is as follows: The information that NGESO holds that falls within scope of the complainant’s request is excepted from disclosure under regulation 12(5)(e) and regulation 12(4)(d) of the EIR and the public interest favours maintaining these exceptions. The Commissioner does not require NGESO to take any corrective steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(d); EIR 12(5)(e)
8 Aug 2022Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The applicant has requested the address(es) at which two EuroMillions lottery tickets were purchased. The Gambling Commission has withheld the information under section 40(2), section 41(1) and section 43(2) of FOIA, which concern personal data, information provided in confidence and prejudice to commercial interests respectively. The Commissioner’s decision is as follows: The Gambling Commission is entitled to withhold the requested information under section 43(2) of FOIA and the public interest favours maintaining this exemption. It is also entitled to withhold the information under section 41(1). The Gambling Commission breached section 17(1) of FOIA as it did not refuse the request under section 41(1) within the required timescale. The Commissioner does not require the Gambling Commission to take any corrective steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 17; FOI 41; FOI 43
View Gambling Commission
8 Aug 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to a review of prison designed accredited programmes. The Ministry of Justice (the ‘MOJ’) provided some of the requested information and an explanatory sentence about the forthcoming review. In response to the complainant’s request for an internal review, the MOJ clarified its position and stated that no information was held for that part of the request (part 3). The complainant’s complaint focusses only on part 3 of his request. The Commissioner’s decision is, on the balance of probabilities, that the MOJ does not hold the information requested at part 3 of the request. No steps are required as a result of this notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Ministry of Justice
8 Aug 2022Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested copies of emails regarding alleged wrongdoing. Marldon Parish Council denied holding some information, and withheld some information on the basis of section 40(2) (personal information). The Commissioner’s decision is that the council has correctly applied section 40(2) to the withheld information, and that on the balance of probabilities, no further information is held. However the council breached section 17 by failing to issue an adequate refusal notice. The Commissioner does not require any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 17; FOI 40(2)
5 Aug 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested raw and standardised test scores, plus dates of birth and pupil funding entitlements for the 11+ test sat in schools in the Lincolnshire Consortium of Grammar Schools in 2019. The Consortium refused to provide the information on the basis of section 43(2) of the FOIA, and sought to rely on section 40(2) as an alternative to withhold the date of birth and entitlement to pupil premium funding. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Consortium has correctly applied the section 43(2) exemption to the requested information and the public interest favours withholding the information. He has therefore not gone on to consider the section 40(2) exemption in this case. First-tier tribunal (General Regulatory chamber) information rights appeal EA/2022/0245 under appeal.
Exemptions cited: FOI 43
5 Aug 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information concerning the Stonebridge Park Complex, a property subject to redevelopment by Brent Council. The Council originally refused the complainant’s main general request under section 12(1) of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), and withheld a Conditional Land Sale Agreement (CLSA) in its entirety under section 43(2) of the FOIA. In respect of other specific information requested, the Council advised that they did not hold such information. In the subsequent internal review the Council instead withheld the CLSA under regulation 12(5)(e)(commercial confidentiality) of the Environmental Information Regulations 2004 (EIR). During the Commissioner’s investigation, the Council provided the complainant with a revised response to her requests under the Environmental Information Regulations 2004 (EIR). The revised response refused the complainant’s main general request as manifestly unreasonable under regulation 12(4)(b) of the EIR and provided the compl
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(b); EIR 12(5)(e)
View London Borough of Brent
5 Aug 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to the decision to place South Africa on the red list during the pandemic. The DfT refused to provide the withheld information, citing section 35(1)(a) and section 35(1)(b) (government policy) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Department for Transport (DfT) was entitled to withhold the requested information, citing section 35 (government policy) of FOIA as its basis for doing so. The Commissioner does not require the DfT to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 35
View Department for Transport
5 Aug 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information on the report sought by the National Security Strategic Investment Fund (‘NSSIF’) relating to the government’s investment in OneWeb which is a Low Earth Orbit (LEO) broadband satellite communications company building a capability to deliver broadband satellite internet services worldwide. Also they requested information on any reports on the health impacts of electromagnetic radiation or radiofrequency radiation from satellites considered with regard to the investment. The Commissioner’s decision is that BEIS has appropriately applied the exemption at FOIA section 43(2)- Commercial information to the information held. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. First-tier tribunal (General Regulatory chamber) information rights appeal EA/2022/0246 under appeal.
Exemptions cited: FOI 43
View Department for Business and Trade
5 Aug 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from the Crown Prosecution Service (“the CPS”) as a follow up to a previous request relating to the outcome of CPS review and reasons, as well as the name of the Court which dealt with a specific case. The CPS provided some information in the form of a table in response to part one of the request but withheld the information for part two under section 40(2) (personal information) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the information in part two of the request is the personal data of third parties and is exempt under section 40(2) (personal information) of FOIA. The Commissioner does not require the CPS to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40(2)
View Crown Prosecution Service
5 Aug 2022Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information on a tendering exercise conducted by the General Dental Council in 2014 for in-guise investigations. The GDC provided some information, stated some information was not held, cited section 12 in relation to parts of the request that would require further examination to determine if information was held, and withheld the names of bidders under section 43(2) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the GDC has correctly cited section 12(1) of the FOIA in relation to parts 3, 4 and 5 of the request. In relation to section 43(2) of the FOIA the Commissioner finds the exemption is not engaged. The Commissioner requires the public authority to disclose the information in the weighting model that has been withheld under section 43(2) i.e. the names of the bidders.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12; FOI 43
View General Dental Council
5 Aug 2022Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information on specific planning applications around the subject of contaminated land. Rossendale Borough Council ("the Council”) answered parts of the request, providing links to the public file, and withheld some communications under regulation 12(4)(e) of the EIR. The Commissioner’s decision is that in respect of communications with the agent the Council has complied with regulation 5(1) and provided all the information it holds. However, the Commissioner finds the Council has incorrectly applied regulation 12(4)(e) to the communications between itself and Salford City Council officers. The Commissioner requires the public authority to disclose the information described at part 1(a) of the request with appropriate redactions for any personal data.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(e); EIR 5
View Rossendale Borough Council
5 Aug 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has submitted multiple requests for information to Lydd Town Council (“the Council”). 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. First-tier tribunal (General Regulatory chamber) information rights appeal EA/2022/0219 under appeal.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14(1)
View Ilkley Town Council