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 submitted a request for information about social work recruitment and the diversity and ethnic identification of social work teams and the Council as a whole. The Council provided a substantive response to the request, however applied an exemption under section 40(2) (personal information) of FOIA to some of the information. The Commissioner finds the exemption to be engaged and does not require the Council to take any further steps in relation to this decision notice. First-tier tribunal (General Regulatory chamber) information rights appeal EA/2022/0225 appeal allowed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea
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
4 Aug 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested a copy of body worn video (BWV) footage in connection with a police shooting, from the Metropolitan Police Service (the “MPS”). The MPS refused to provide the footage, citing sections 30(1) (Investigations and proceedings), 31(1) (Law enforcement), 38(1) (Health and safety) and 40(2) (Personal information) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that sections 40(2) and 31(1) are both properly engaged. No steps are required.
Exemptions cited: FOI 31; FOI 40
View Metropolitan Police Service
4 Aug 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information regarding the Equality Impact Assessments (EQIA’s) for Low Traffic Neighbourhood Schemes (LTN’s) implemented by the Council. The Council provided responses to each point in turn of the request, but the complainant argued that this information did not fulfil their request and submitted a further question. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the further information sought by the complainant is not held. The Commissioner does not require the Council to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Waltham Forest Council
4 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.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14(1)
View Ilkley Town Council
4 Aug 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to an alleged breach of the Business Appointment Rules (BARs) and Ministerial Code by the Home Secretary, Priti Patel (Ms Patel not being a serving Minister at the time). The Cabinet Office withheld all the information under section 36 (prejudice to the effective conduct of public affairs) of the FOIA. The Cabinet Office also withheld some of the information under sections 21 (information already reasonably accessible to the applicant) and 40(2)(third party personal data). The Commissioner’s decision is that the Cabinet Office correctly applied section 36 to the withheld information but that the public interest balance favours disclosure of the information. The Commissioner also finds that the Cabinet Office correctly applied section 21 to some of the information held. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: Disclose the withheld information to the complai
Exemptions cited: FOI 36
View Cabinet Office
4 Aug 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has asked Shropshire Council (‘the Council’) to comment on a series of allegations he put to it. The Council refused the request, citing section 14 (Vexatious requests) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that only one part of the request correspondence met the requirements of section 8 (Requests for information) of FOIA and thus constituted a valid request for information. He is satisfied that the Council was entitled to rely on section 14 of FOIA to refuse that part of the request. The Commissioner requires no steps as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14; FOI 8
View Shropshire Council
4 Aug 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from HM Revenue & Customs (“HMRC”) about ascertaining employment and contract status for tax purposes. HMRC refused to disclose the information, citing section 12(1) of FOIA as a basis for non-disclosure.The Commissioner’s decision is that HMRC has correctly applied section 12(1) of FOIA to the requested information. Therefore the Commissioner requires no steps to be taken by HMRC.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12
4 Aug 2022Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information concerning the Cabinet Office inquiry into bullying allegations made against the Home Secretary, Priti Patel. The Cabinet Office withheld the requested information on the basis of the following exemptions under the FOIA, section 31(1)(g)(law enforcement), section 41(information provided by a third party in confidence) and section 40(2)(third party personal data).The Commissioner’s decision is that the Cabinet Office is entitled to withhold all of the withheld information under section 31(1)(g) and that the balance of the public interest favours maintaining the exemption to the information. However, the Commissioner finds that the Cabinet Office breached section 10(1) of FOIA, in that they failed to provide a valid response to the request within the statutory time frame of 20 working days. The Commissioner does not require the Cabinet Office to take any steps in respect of this matter.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10(1); FOI 31(1)(g)
View Cabinet Office
4 Aug 2022Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested the minutes of meetings taking place between the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) and its contractors providing Work Capability assessments for Personal Independence Payment benefit. DWP has disclosed the minutes but redacted some information under the exemptions at sections 31, 36, 38, 40 and 43 of FOIA. The complainant does not dispute the redactions made under sections 36, 38 and 40.The Commissioner’s decision is that DWP is entitled to withhold some of the requested information as section 31(1)(a) is engaged and the public interest favours maintaining the exemption. With regards to the information withheld under section 43, the Commissioner considers that the exemption is not engaged for the majority of the disputed information. However, for the small amount of information that does engage the exemption, the public interest favours maintaining the exemption. The Commissioner requires the public authority to disclose the information currently with
Exemptions cited: FOI 31; FOI 43
View Department for Work and Pensions
4 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.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14(1)
View Ilkley Town Council
3 Aug 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
Summary wording for website: The complainant requested information from the Oxfordshire County Council (“the Council”) relating to communications among council officers with regard to breaches of the Equality Act. By the date of this notice the Council had failed to provide a substantive response to this request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has breached section 10(1) of the FOIA in that it failed to provide a valid response to the request within the statuary timeframe of 20 working days. The Commissioner requires the Council to respond to the complainant’s response in accordance with the FOIA. The Council must take these steps within 35 calendar days of the date of this decision notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Oxfordshire County Council
3 Aug 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested a copy of the planning enforcement file relating to their own property. Swansea Council (the Council) withheld the information requested under regulation 12(5)(b) (course of justice) of the EIR. The Commissioner has investigated and found that the information is exempt from disclosure under regulations 5(3) and 13(1) as it contains the personal data of the complainant and the personal data of third parties. The Commissioner does not require any steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: EIR 13; EIR 5
View Swansea Council
3 Aug 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information regarding responses from groups and organisations about the effects of the implementation of Low Traffic Neighbourhoods (LTN’s) by the Council. The Council provided a link to published information in response to the request, but the complainant argued that this information did not fulfil their request and that the Council should hold further recorded information. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the further information sought by the complainant is not held. The Commissioner does not require the Council to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Waltham Forest Council
3 Aug 2022Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant submitted an information request to Westminster City Council (“the Council”) relating to instructions given to broadband providers. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council does not hold any information falling within the scope of the complainant's request for information. However, the Commissioner has identified that the Council breached regulations 5(2) and 11(4) for failing to handle the request within the statutory timescales. The Commissioner does not require the Council to take any steps as a result of this decision notice.
Exemptions cited: EIR 11(4); EIR 5(1); EIR 5(2)
View Westminster Council
3 Aug 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from the Council regarding email responses from the emergency services about road closures due to a sewer collapse. The Council provided some information in response to the request, but the complainant argued that this information did not fulfil their request and that the Council should hold further recorded information. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the further information sought by the complainant is not held. The Commissioner does not require the Council to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Waltham Forest Council
2 Aug 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information with regards to legal advice. Normady-By-Spital Parish Council (the council) provided the information it held however the complainant considered more was held. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council has provided all the information it holds falling within the scope of the request. The Commissioner does not require the council to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
2 Aug 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from the London Borough of Enfield (“the Council”) about parking complaints relating to a specific postcode. The Council disclosed some of the information requested but refused to provide the majority of the information citing the personal information exemption under section 40(2) (personal information) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has correctly relied on section 40(2). The Commissioner does not require the Council to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40(2)
View Enfield Council
2 Aug 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information concerning the honours nomination and assessment process. The Cabinet provided some information and withheld other information under section 37(1)(b) of the FOIA – (the conferring by the crown of any honour or dignity). The Commissioner’s decision is that the Cabinet Office was not entitled to rely on the exemption at 37(1)(b). The Commissioner also finds that the Cabinet Office breached sections, 10(1) and 17(3) in its handling of the request. The Commissioner requires the Cabinet Office to disclose the information withheld under section 37(1)(b), with the exception of names and contact details of staff.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 17; FOI 37
View Cabinet Office
2 Aug 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information concerning the honours nomination and assessment process. The Cabinet Office provided some information and withheld other information under section 37(1)(b) of the FOIA – (the conferring by the crown of any honour or dignity). The Commissioner’s decision is that the Cabinet Office was not entitled to rely on the exemption at 37(1)(b). The Commissioner also finds that the Cabinet Office breached section 10(1) of the FOIA in its handling of the request. The Commissioner requires the Cabinet Office to Disclose the information withheld under section 37.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 37
View Cabinet Office
2 Aug 2022Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested various information a particular report produced by Cardiff University (the University). The University provided some information, stated other information was not held and withheld other information under section 43 (commercial interests) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the University applied section 43 correctly to some information and that it does not hold any further information relevant to the request. The Commissioner requires the University to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. To disclose a copy of the withheld information with the exception of names, job titles and signatures within the tenderers declaration and the contract.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 43
View Cardiff University
2 Aug 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information on about specified properties. By the date of this notice the London Borough of Barking and Dagenham 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.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10(1)
View Barking and Dagenham Council
2 Aug 2022Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested summary reports relating to a consultation on changes to the Human Medicines Regulations. The DHSC refused to comply with the request, citing section 14(1) (vexatious requests), based on the grossly oppressive burden that complying with the request would impose. The Commissioner’s decision is that the DHSC is entitled to rely upon section 14(1) to refuse to comply with the request. However, in applying section 14(1) outside the time for compliance, the DHSC has breached section 17. The Commissioner does not require the DHSC to take any further steps. First-tier tribunal (General Regulatory chamber) information rights appeal EA/2022/0243 struck out.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14; FOI 17
View Department of Health and Social Care
2 Aug 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (FCDO) seeking assessments or similar information in relation to possibility of the UK establishing an asylum processing centre on Ascension Island or St Helena. The FCDO confirmed that it held information falling within the scope of the request but considered it to be exempt from disclosure on the basis of sections 27(1)(a) (international relations) or 35(1)(a) (formulation or development of government policy). The Commissioner’s decision is that the FCDO is entitled to withhold the information in the scope of the request on the basis of sections 27(1)(a) and 35(1)(a) of FOIA. First-tier tribunal (General Regulatory chamber) information rights appeal EA/2022/0210 appeal dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 27; FOI 35
View Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office
1 Aug 2022Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information relating to a particular planning application. The London Borough of Croydon (the ‘Council’) handled the request under the EIR. It provided some information in response to the request with redactions under Regulation 12(5)(b) – the course of justice and Regulation 13 - personal information. During the course of the Commissioner’s investigation, the Council reissued the previously disclosed emails and removed some Regulation 13 redactions. It located additional information which it disclosed, with redactions under Regulation 13. The complainant disputed the redactions and argued that more information must be held. Having examined the information in detail in order to issue this notice, the Commissioner identified that Regulation 12(5)(b) had only been applied to information which post-dates the request, such that it is out of scope. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council was correct to handle the request under the EIR. He finds that, where
Exemptions cited: EIR 11(4); EIR 12(4)(a); EIR 13
View London Borough of Croydon
1 Aug 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested proof of the information Cllr Clyde Loakes stated about London Fire Brigades (LFB’s) response times, in May 2020 to other Councils. The Council stated that it did not hold any information within scope of the complainants request. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the information sought by the complainant was not held by the Council. The Commissioner does not require the Council to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Waltham Forest Council
1 Aug 2022Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information relating to school sites in West Bridgford. Nottinghamshire County Council (the “council”) disclosed some information and withheld other information under the exception for material in the course of completion – regulation 12(4)(d). The Commissioner’s decision is that the council failed to respond in time and breached regulation 5(2) and that it correctly withheld some of the requested information under regulation 12(4)(d). The Commissioner does not require the council to take any steps. First-tier tribunal (General Regulatory chamber) information rights appeal EA/2022/0248 FTT consent order.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(d); EIR 5(2)
View Nottinghamshire County Council
1 Aug 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information relating to fireworks display at Riverside Park, which took place on 7 November 2021. The Commissioner’s decision is that Stockton-on-Tees Borough Council (“the council”) has correctly applied regulation 12(5)(a) EIR to withhold the information. The Commissioner does not require the council to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(a)
View Stockton-on-Tees Council
1 Aug 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information regarding email responses from the emergency services regarding the implementation of Emergency Traffic Order (ETO) by the Council. The Council provided some information in response to the request, but the complainant argued that this information did not fulfil their request and that the Council should hold further recorded information. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the further information sought by the complainant is not held. The Commissioner does not require the Council to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Waltham Forest Council
1 Aug 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested various information in respect of the Government’s ‘Back to School’ campaign of 2020. The Cabinet Office provided some information, but cited section 21 (information available to the applicant by other means) in respect of items 1 and 3 of the request, and section 43(2) (commercial interests) in respect of item 4. During the course of the Commissioner’s investigation, the Cabinet Office also informed the complainant that information in respect of Dr Philippa Kaye (also requested under item 4) did not fall within the scope of their request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Cabinet Office has failed to demonstrate that it has complied with section 1(1) FOIA in response to this request and that it was not entitled to rely on section 43(2) for information in respect of item 4 of the request. First-tier tribunal (General Regulatory chamber) information rights appeal EA/2022/0307 appeal withdrawn.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1(1); FOI 43(2)
View Cabinet Office
1 Aug 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information with regards to consultants appointed and costs for delivering a flood resilience measure. Cornwall Council (the council) provided information and the complainant is not satisfied that he has been provided with all the information. 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. The Commissioner does not require the council to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(a)
View Cornwall Council
1 Aug 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has made two separate requests for a range of information from financial information, meeting minutes to emails. Weston by Welland Parish Council (the council) initially provided some information, then amended its response to refuse the requests under section 14(1) of the FOIA as it considered them to be vexatious. The Commissioner’s decision is that section 14(1) of the FOIA is engaged to both requests. The Commissioner does not require the council to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14
1 Aug 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (“BEIS”) about supporting evidence and impact assessment for the “Choice on units of measurement: markings and sales” consultation. The Commissioner’s decision is that BEIS 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. As BEIS has requested clarification of the request, no steps are required. However BEIS is reminded that it should now provide a response to the clarified request within 20 working days.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Department for Business and Trade
29 Jul 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from Potto Parish Council (“the Parish Council”) about various topics including records of audit and monitoring activities. The Parish Council refused the request under section 14(1) of the FOIA: vexatious requests. The Commissioner’s decision is that the request was vexatious and therefore the Parish Council was entitled to rely on section 14(1) of FOIA to refuse them. The Commissioner does not require any further steps. Information Tribunal FTT appeal EA/2022/0266 allowed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14(1)
29 Jul 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information regarding decisions and judgements around the implementation and success of Low Traffic Neighbourhoods (LTN’s) by the Council. The Council provided some information in response to the request, but the complainant argued that this information did not fulfil their request and that the Council should hold further recorded information. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the further information sought by the complainant is not held. The Commissioner does not require the Council to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Waltham Forest Council
28 Jul 2022Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested from Kirklees Council (‘the Council’) a copy of an e-form and the internal process for its referral. The Council dealt with the request as part of a Subject Access Request (SAR) under the Data Protection Act 2018 (DPA) as it considered the information requested was the complainant’s own personal data. During the Commissioners investigation, the Council told him that the request had been dealt with under the provisions of the DPA. As it was already dealing with the complainant’s SAR it considered the complainant was requesting a copy of their own referral and how the Council had processed it originally in 2017. Therefore it had not considered the request within scope of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council incorrectly dealt with the request and failed to issue a valid refusal notice under section 17 FOIA. By failing to issue such a refusal notice it has also breached section 10 FOIA. With regard to the information requested the Commissioner con
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10; FOI 17
View Kirklees Council
28 Jul 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant made a request for information relating to pregnancy loss and maternity services at Bedford Hospital. The request was made on 11 May 2022 and the Trust has failed to provide a response. The Commissioner considers that the Trust has 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 Bedfordshire Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust
28 Jul 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information with regards to Children with Disabilities Services. Central Bedfordshire Council (the council) refused the request under section 21 of the FOIA – information reasonably accessible. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council has incorrectly applied section 21 of the FOIA. The Commissioner requires the council to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. Issue a fresh response to the request which does not cite section 21 of the FOIA. 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 21
View Central Bedfordshire Council
28 Jul 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
In a three part request, the complainant asked for information about charges for repairing damage to council property. Initially, Birmingham City Council (‘the Council’) refused the first part of the request, citing section 43 (Commercial interests) of FOIA. It answered the second part and failed to deal with the third part. The Commissioner found that the Council had misinterpreted the first and third parts of the request. The Commissioner clarified those parts of the request with the Council and it acknowledged that it held recorded information from which they could be responded to. However, it failed to respond to those parts of the request, or to cite exemptions under FOIA which would permit the information to be withheld. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council breached section 1 (General right of access) and section 10 (Time for compliance) of FOIA by failing to disclose information falling within scope of the first and third parts of the request, which it has not argued
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10
View Birmingham City Council
28 Jul 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from the Cabinet Office relating to the 2011 England riots. The Cabinet Office refused to comply with the request citing section 12 (cost limit) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Cabinet Office was entitled to refuse to comply with the request in accordance with section 12(2) of FOIA. The Commissioner also finds that the Cabinet Office complied with its obligations under section 16 to offer advice and assistance. The Commissioner does not require the Cabinet Office to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12
View Cabinet Office
28 Jul 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested planning information from Ashfield District Council (“Ashfield DC”). Ashfield DC denied that the requested information was held. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Ashfield DC does not hold the requested information. The Commissioner does not require the Ashfield DC to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(a)
View Ashfield District Council
28 Jul 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from Hughenden Parish Council (“the Council”) relating to the payment of legal fees. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council is not entitled to rely on section 21 (information reasonably accessible by other means) to refuse to provide the requested information. The Commissioner requires the Council to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation.Issue a fresh response to the request which clearly confirms or denies whether the requested information is held. If the requested information is held, that information should either be disclosed, or the Council should provide an adequate refusal notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 21
28 Jul 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information with regards to Education, Health and Care Plans. Central Bedfordshire Council (the council) refused the request under section 21 of the FOIA – Information reasonably accessible. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council has incorrectly applied section 21 of the FOIA. The Commissioner requires the council to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: Issue a fresh response to the request which does not cite section 21 of the FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 21
View Central Bedfordshire Council
28 Jul 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested statistical information relating to ethnic and cultural diversity at Brentwood Borough Council (the Council). The Council refused the information under section 40(2) of FOIA, before amending its position to state that the information was not held. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the Council did not hold the requested information at the time of the request. However, he has recorded a procedural breach of section 1 and section 10 of FOIA, as the Council initially failed to respond to the request and also failed to confirm that it did not hold the requested information within 20 working days of receipt. The Commissioner does not require any further steps to be taken as a result of this decision notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10
View Brentwood Borough Council
28 Jul 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information from Wigan Metropolitan Borough Council (“the Council”) about the Tree Preservation Order (TPO) relating to a specific address. The Council disclosed information in response, after redactions were carried out on the information - on the basis that it was third party personal data. Its position was that no other information was held, falling within the scope of the request and cited Regulation 12(4)(a) and Regulation 13 of the EIR to do so. The Commissioner’s decision is that he is satisfied that on the balance of probabilities, the Council holds no further relevant information, and that the information disclosed was correctly redacted under the exception for third party personal data: regulation 13 of the EIR. The Commissioner does not require the Council to take any steps. First-tier tribunal (General Regulatory chamber) information rights appeal EA/2022/0213 appeal dismissed.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(a); EIR 13
View Wigan Council
28 Jul 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information regarding the use of and disposal of land owned by Cherwell District Council (the “council”). The council disclosed some information and withheld other information under the exemption for commercial interests – section 43(2) of the FOIA. During the Commissioner’s investigation the council reconsidered the request under the EIR and withheld information under the exception for commercial confidentiality – regulation 12(5)(e). The Commissioner’s decision is that the council wrongly handled the request under the FOIA and breached regulation 5(1) and regulation 14 of the EIR and that it failed to demonstrate that the exception in regulation 12(5)(e) is engaged. The Commissioner requires the council to disclose the information withheld under regulation 12(5)(e).
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(e); EIR 14; EIR 5(1)
View Cherwell District Council
28 Jul 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested, from Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire & Rescue Services (HMICFRS), information about a COVID Inspection. The Commissioner’s decision is that HMICFRS has correctly applied section 33 (Audit functions) of FOIA to the request and that the public interest favours maintaining the exemption. He also finds that HMICFRS did not breach section 16 (Advice and assistance) of FOIA. The Commissioner does not require any steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 16; FOI 33
View HM Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire & Rescue Services
27 Jul 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to spending for translation and interpretation services. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Trust failed to respond to the request for information within 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 Trust to take any further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Black Country Healthcare NHS Foundation
27 Jul 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information regarding various liver biopsy and MRI procedures and complications. By the date of this notice the Imperial College Healthcare NHS 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 Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust