27 Jul 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested demographic information about those who have had adverse reactions to the Covid-19 vaccine. The Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency stated that some of the information was already available elsewhere, but relied upon section 22 (intended for publication) of FOIA in order to withhold the remaining information. During the course of the investigation it subsequently disclosed most of the information. The Commissioner’s decision is that the MHRA has failed to obtain the correct objective reading of element [1] of the request and has therefore breached section 16 of FOIA. The MHRA also failed to disclose information within 20 working days and therefore breached section 10 of FOIA. The Commissioner requires the MHRA to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: issue a fresh response to element [1] of the request based on the interpretation set out in paragraph 20 of this notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 16
View Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency
27 Jul 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested from Northumberland County Council (the ‘council’) a copy of a case officer report submitted to the Planning Inspector. The council denied that the requested information was held. During the course of the Commissioner's investigation the council located a copy of the statement, and disclosed this to the complainant on 24 June 2022. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council did not comply with requirements of Regulation 5(2) in that it did not provide a copy of the statement to the complainant within 20 working days of receiving the request for information. The Commissioner does not require the council to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 5(2)
View Northumberland County Council
27 Jul 2022Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a follow-up request for information from East West Rail (“EWR”) relating to meetings it held with Bedford Borough Council (“BBC”) from 2018 to date about proposed rail and station infrastructure potentially affecting the area. EWR provided a partial response to the request, but cited section 1(1) (information not held) of FOIA to eight specific ad hoc meetings and section 12(1) (cost of compliance) of FOIA for all other information held relating to the aggregated requests within a 60-day period. The Commissioner’s decision is as follows: On the balance of probabilities, EWR does not hold the information the complainant has requested regarding the specific ad hoc meetings, and its response complied with section 1(1) of the FOIA. And, that EWR were entitled to refuse to comply with the aggregated request under section 12(1) of FOIA (cost of compliance) for information held, and that it has complied with its obligations under section 16(1) of FOIA to provide adeq
Exemptions cited: FOI 1(1); FOI 10; FOI 12(1)
View East West Railway Company Limited
27 Jul 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested from Northumberland County Council (“the council”) information on the documents which were sent to a planning inspector by the council as part of an appeal. The council denied that the requested information was held. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council does not hold the requested information. The Commissioner does not require the council to take any steps. First-tier tribunal (General Regulatory chamber) information rights appeal EA/2022/0212 struck out. First-tier tribunal (General Regulatory chamber) information rights appeal UA-2023-000916-GIA UT PTA refused.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(a)
View Northumberland County Council
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
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 has requested information relating to support provided to young people. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council 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 the Council 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
View London Borough of Hackney
27 Jul 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested from the Metropolitan Police Service (the “MPS”) information about why a case was not pursued. The MPS relied on sections 30(1) (Investigations and proceedings), 31(1) (Law enforcement), 40(2) (Personal information) and 42(1) (Legal professional privilege) of FOIA to forego disclosure. The Commissioner’s decision is that section 42 was properly engaged with respect to all of the withheld information. No steps are required. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2022/0205 appeal dismissed. First-tier tribunal (General Regulatory chamber) information rights appeal UA-2023-000438-GIA UT PTA refused.
Exemptions cited: FOI 42
View Metropolitan Police Service
27 Jul 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information from London Borough of Hackney (“the Council”) relating to the legal enforceability of a Traffic Order. By the date of this notice the Council had not issued a substantive response to this request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has failed to respond to the request within 20 working days and has therefore breached regulation 5(2) of the EIR. The Commissioner requires the Council to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. Issue a substantive response to the request in accordance with its obligations under the EIR.
Exemptions cited: EIR 5(2)
View London Borough of Hackney
26 Jul 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested, from Kent Police, information about an allegation of indecent exposure he believed had been made against a former police officer. Kent Police would neither confirm nor deny whether it held the requested information, citing section 30(3) (Investigations and proceedings) and section 40(5B)(a)(i) (Personal information) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that section 40(5B)(a)(i) of FOIA was properly engaged.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View Kent Police
26 Jul 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information about the empirical evidence to support the museum’s endorsement of the origins of the human species and the evolution of life. By the date of this notice the National Museums Northern Ireland (NMNI) had not issued a substantive response to this request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the public authority 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 public authority to provide a substantive response to the request in accordance with its obligations under FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View National Museums & Galleries on Merseyside
26 Jul 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information from Leicestershire County Council (“LCC”) about an email which LCC had sent to a local newspaper. The Commissioner’s decision is that the requests fell to be considered under the EIR. He is not persuaded that LCC’s handling of request 1, as set out in this notice, complies with its obligations under that legislation. The Commissioner requires LCC to take the following step to ensure compliance with the legislation: In line with regulation 9(2) of the EIR, return to the complainant for further particulars to clarify request 1, in order to be able to carry out an objective reading of that request.
Exemptions cited: EIR 9(2)
View Leicestershire County Council
26 Jul 2022Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
In two requests the complainant has requested information about a particular dispute. Honiton Town Council (‘the Council’) withheld the majority of the information as it considered it attracted legal professional privilege. The Council advised it does not hold some of the requested information, advised other relevant information was already in the public domain and advised that elements of one of the requests were vexatious because of the disproportionate burden of complying with them. The Commissioner’s decision is as follows: At the time of the requests, the Council had correctly applied section 42(1) of FOIA to information it withheld within scope of parts 1, 2 and 3 of Request 1 and part 2 of Request 2. This information attracted legal professional privilege and the public interest favoured maintaining this exemption. On the balance of probabilities, the Council does not hold the discrete risk assessment that the complainant requested and its response to part 1 of Request 2 compli
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10; FOI 14; FOI 17; FOI 42
26 Jul 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information about moderation of hateful content posted by users on the BBC's social media channels. The BBC responded that the requested information was covered by the derogation and hence excluded from the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that part 1 of the information request is information that was held by the BBC for the purposes of journalism, art or literature and so was not covered by the FOIA. Following the Commissioner’s intervention, the BBC advised that it does not hold information within the scope of part 2 and part of the information request. He therefore upholds the BBC’s position on part 1 of the request and requires no remedial steps to be taken in this case.
Exemptions cited: FOI 3
View BBC
25 Jul 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Department for Transport
25 Jul 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about the Covid-19 pandemic funding that Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council (‘the Council’) received from central government. The Council cited section 14 (Vexatious request) of FOIA to refuse to comply with the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council was not entitled to rely on section 14 of FOIA to refuse the request. The Commissioner requires the Council to issue a fresh response to the request, which does not rely on section 14 of FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14
View Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council
25 Jul 2022Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested from Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council (‘the Council’) copies of communications between a named councillor and other councillors and council staff. The Council refused the request, citing regulation 12(4)(b) (Manifestly unreasonable request) of the EIR. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council was entitled to apply regulation 12(4)(b) of the EIR to refuse the request. However, by failing to conduct an internal review of its decision within the required timescale, the Council breached regulation 11(4) of the EIR.
Exemptions cited: EIR 11(4); EIR 12(4)(b)
View Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council
25 Jul 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to any contracts NHS England (NHSE) awarded to Topwood Limited. NHSE confirmed that it does not hold any information that falls within the scope of the request. The Commissioner is satisfied that, on the balance of probabilities, NHSE does not hold any information that falls within the scope of the request. The Commissioner does not require NHSE to take any further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View NHS England
25 Jul 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to the commissioning of specialised metabolic services. By the date of this notice the NHS Commissioning Board (“the NHS”) had not issued a substantive response to this request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the NHS 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.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View NHS England
25 Jul 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information from the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (“BEIS”) for information relating to assessments and correspondence related to South Tees Development Corporation, South Tees Site Company Ltd, Tees Valley Combined Authority. By the date of this notice BEIS had not issued a substantive response to this request. The Commissioner’s decision is that BEIS 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 BEIS to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. Issue a substantive response to the request in accordance with its obligations under the EIR.
Exemptions cited: EIR 5(2)
View Department for Business and Trade
25 Jul 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from Ministry of Defence (MOD) about the evacuation of Nowzad staff, cats and/or dogs from Afghanistan. The Commissioner’s decision is that MOD 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
View Ministry of Defence
25 Jul 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to contacts with Chinese Consulate representatives. The Executive Office initially refused the request, citing section 27 (prejudice to international relations) and section 40 (third party personal data) of FOIA. Following the Commissioner’s intervention the Executive Office disclosed the requested information to the complainant. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Executive Office breached section 10(1) of FOIA in disclosing information outside the statutory time for compliance. No steps are required.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
25 Jul 2022Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information broadly relating to a previous contract. South Central Ambulance Service NHS Foundation Trust (“the Trust”) responded to say that it held no information beyond what had already been provided. The Commissioner’s decision is that two of the six elements of the request were not valid for the purposes of FOIA. In respect of elements [4], [5] and [6], the Commissioner is satisfied that the information is reasonably accessible to the complainant. In respect of element [1], the Commissioner does not consider that the Trust has demonstrated that it has previously provided this information and therefore has, on the balance of probabilities, failed to comply with section 1(1) of FOIA. The Commissioner also finds that the Trust breached section 17 of FOIA in responding to the request. The Commissioner requires the Trust to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. Either provide the complainant with the information in scope of el
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 17; FOI 21
View South Central Ambulance Service NHS Foundation Trust
25 Jul 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to the ICO for the name of the member of staff who purchased chocolate gifts from a chocolate shop. The chocolate was subsequently gifted to staff at the ICO. The Information Commissioner has confirmed the information is held but is exempt under section 40 (third party personal data). He does not consider that any public interest for the name to be released outweighs the individual’s right to confidentiality.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View Information Commissioner
25 Jul 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information from North Lincolnshire Council (“the Council”) relating to documents and internal Council correspondence concerning the sale of a property. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council breached Regulation 5(2) of the EIR by failing to provide a valid response to the request within the statutory time frame of 20 working days. As a response has been issued, the Commissioner does not require the Council to take any further steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 5(2)
View North Lincolnshire Council
25 Jul 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) about individuals who had made a particular decision. The Commissioner’s decision is as follows: The CPS breached section 10(1) of FOIA as it did not provide a response to the request within the statutory timeframe of 20 working days. The CPS has responded to the request and no steps are required.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Crown Prosecution Service
25 Jul 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information from Lydney Town Council (“the Council”) relating to a proposed “Greenway” path. 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 the Council to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. Issue a substantive response to the request in accordance with its obligations under the EIR.
Exemptions cited: EIR 5
View Ilkley Town Council
25 Jul 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from London Borough of Southwark (“the Council”) regarding switching heating at a specific property to prepay from May 2018 onwards. The Council withheld some of the information citing section 40(2) of FOIA – personal data and section 42 of FOIA – Legal Professional Privilege. Upon review of the complaint, the Commissioner advised the Council that the second part of the complainant’s request (which was submitted during the request for an internal review) should have been handled as a new request for information, as it was not part of the original request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council was entitled to rely on section 40(2) of FOIA to withhold the requested information in relation to the complainant’s original request. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View Southwark Council
25 Jul 2022Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to a deceased individual. The Council withheld the requested information, citing section 21 (information reasonably accessible to the applicant by other means), section 31 (law enforcement), section 41 (information provided in confidence) and section 40(2) (personal information.) The Commissioner’s decision is as follows: The Council has correctly applied, and correctly withheld, the withheld information under the exemptions listed above. However, in failing to disclose all relevant information within twenty working days of the request the Council has breached section 10 (for compliance). The Commissioner does not require the Council to take any further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 21; FOI 31; FOI 40; FOI 41
View Kingston upon Thames Council
22 Jul 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from the UK Visas and Immigration Service (Home Office) about a review report concerning accommodation for asylum seekers at Penally Camp in Tenby and Napier Barracks in Kent. By the date of this notice, the Home Office had not issued a substantive response to this request.
The Commissioner’s decision is that the Home Office has failed to complete its deliberations on the balance of the public interest within a reasonable time and has therefore breached section 17(3) of FOIA.
The Commissioner requires the Home Office to take the following step to ensure compliance with the legislation: Having confirmed whether or not information is held within the scope of the request: either disclose the requested information, if held, or, to the extent that information is to be withheld, issue a refusal notice in accordance with the requirements of section 17 of FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 17
View Home Office
22 Jul 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from West London NHS Trust (“the Trust”) relating to expenses and accommodation costs. By the date of this notice the Trust had failed to provide a substantive response to this request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Trust 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 the Trust to respond to the complainant’s response in accordance with the FOIA. The the Trust must take these steps within 35 calendar days of the date of this decision notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View West London NHS Trust
22 Jul 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant made a request for correspondence between a named individual and the MHRA from 1st March 2022 referencing COVID-19 vaccines or Yellow Card data. The request was made on 6 April 2022 and MHRA have failed to provide a response. The Commissioner considers that the MHRA has breached section 10 FOIA in the handling of this request. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. Provide a response to the request in compliance with FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency
22 Jul 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from Humberside Fire and Rescue Service regarding staff exit packages in the accounting year 2020/2021. The Commissioner’s decision is that Humberside Fire and Rescue Service is entitled to withhold the requested information in accordance with section 40(2) of FOIA – personal information. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps as a result of this decision notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View Humberside Fire and Rescue Service
22 Jul 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to a three year pay deal for employees of HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC). HMRC stated that it did not hold any recorded information meeting the description set out in the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that HMRC does not hold the requested information. No steps are required.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
22 Jul 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested environmental information on 11 March 2022 relating to the farming rules for water. The Environment Agency (EA) has failed to respond to this request. The Commissioner considers that the EA has breached regulation 5(2) EIR as it has failed to respond within 20 working days. The Commissioner requires the public authority to provide a response to the information request originally made on 11 March 2022 in accordance with the EIRs.
Exemptions cited: EIR 5
View Environment Agency
21 Jul 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant made a request for information relating to the decision not to broadcast the situation comedy “Then Churchill said to me”. The BBC explained the information was covered by the derogation and excluded from FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that this information would be held by the BBC for the purposes of ‘journalism, art or literature’ and would not therefore fall inside FOIA. He therefore upholds the BBC’s position and requires no remedial steps to be taken in this case.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View BBC
21 Jul 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant made a six part request for information collated in the investigation into an explosion and the subsequent charge and conviction of Contract Natural Gas Limited. The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) refused to provide this, citing section 30(1)(c), section 32, and section 40(2) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the CPS was entitled to rely on section 30(1)(c) of FOIA to withhold the information in its entirety. He has not therefore considered the application of section 32 and section 40(2). No steps are required.
Exemptions cited: FOI 30
View Crown Prosecution Service
21 Jul 2022Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about instances of hearing loss following COVID-19 vaccination. Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) provided some relevant information and indicated it was withholding other information to protect people’s privacy and because it was exempt information under section 35 of FOIA (formulation of government policy, etc). The Commissioner’s decision is as follows: On the balance of probabilities, at the time of the request MHRA did not hold the specific report the complainant requested. However, MHRA breached section 10(1) as it did not comply with section 1(1)(a) – ie confirm to the complainant that it did not hold the requested information - within the required timescale. The Commissioner does not require MHRA to take any corrective steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10
View Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency
21 Jul 2022Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested animal movement records held under a specific County Parish Holding (CPH) number. Rural Payments Agency (RPA) confirmed that it does hold the requested information, but that it is exempt from disclosure under regulation 13(1) of the EIR – personal data of which the applicant is not the data subject. The Commissioner’s decision is that RPA is entitled to withhold the requested information by virtue of regulation 13(1) of the EIR, as it is personal data and disclosure would not be lawful. However, the Commissioner finds that RPA has breached regulation 5(1) as it did not provide its response within the statutory timeframe. He also finds that RPA has breached regulation 11(4) as it did not provide its internal review decision within the statutory timeframe. The Commissioner does not require RPA to take any remedial steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 11(4); EIR 13(1); EIR 5(1)
View Rural Payments Agency
21 Jul 2022Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information from HS2 relating to the HS2 project. HS2 initially provided some information, stated that some information was not held and withheld other information under regulations 12(5)(e) and 12(4)(d) relating to single track kilometrage, track layout schematics and the Euston High Speed Two terminus. After the Commissioner began his investigation, HS2 revised its response, citing regulation 12(4)(b) (manifestly unreasonable). The Commissioner’s decision is that HS2 has correctly cited regulation 12(4)(b) of the EIR, that the request can be categorised as manifestly unreasonable by virtue of cost, and that the public interest favours maintaining this exception. He has also decided that HS2 provided adequate advice and assistance under regulation 9 of the EIR. However, HS2 failed to comply with the request within 20 working days which is a breach of regulation 5(2) of the EIR. The Commissioner does not require HS2 to take any further steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(b); EIR 5(2); EIR 9
View High Speed Two (HS2) Limited
21 Jul 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to Potto Parish Council’s asset register. Potto Parish Council provided the complainant with a copy of the asset register but advised that no other financial information is held. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, Potto Parish Council does not hold any further information falling within the scope of the request. The Commissioner does not require any further steps to be taken as a result of this decision notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10
21 Jul 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted an information request to The Royal Mint relating to current policy in regards to the bulk repatriation of UK coinage from outside the UK. The Commissioner’s decision is that The Royal Mint does not hold any information falling within the scope of the complainant's request for information. The Commissioner does not require The Royal Mint to take any steps as a result of this decision notice. First-tier tribunal (General Regulatory chamber) information rights appeal EA/2022/0216 appeal allowed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
21 Jul 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted an information request to The National Archives (“TNA”) relating to the name on p35 of closed file DEFE-24-1940-1_2. The Commissioner’s decision is that the information requested falls within the definition of personal data. TNA was therefore entitled to withhold this information under section 40(2). The Commissioner does not require TNA to take any steps as a result of this decision notice. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2022/0239 dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View The National Archives
21 Jul 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested details of a complaint he submitted. Northern Trains Ltd (“Northern Trains”) initially responded under SAR before later withholding some information under section 40(2) of FOIA (third party personal data). The Commissioner’s decision is that Northern Trains was entitled to rely on section 40(2) of FOIA to withhold the information that it has done. Apart from that information and the information which has already been disclosed, any further information Northern Trains may or may not have held would have been the complainant’s own personal data and exempt from disclosure under FOIA. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View Northern Rail
21 Jul 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant made 11 requests over the course of six months. West London NHS Foundation Trust (“the Trust”) eventually refused all 11 requests as vexatious. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Trust has failed to provide any evidence to support its use of section 14(1) of FOIA. The Commissioner requires the Trust to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: issue fresh responses, to all 11 requests identified in the annex to this notice, that do not rely on section 14(1) of FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14
View West London NHS Trust
20 Jul 2022Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information connected to meetings held with Sir Nick Clegg, then Facebook’s President of Global Affairs. The Office of Communications relied on section 44 (statutory prohibition) and section 36 (prejudice to the effective conduct of public affairs) of FOIA to withhold the requested information. The Commissioner’s decision is that Ofcom is only entitled to rely on section 44 of FOIA to withhold some of the information falling within the scope of the request. Of the information to which section 44 does not apply, all of the information engages section 36(2)(b)(i) and 36(2)(b)(ii) of FOIA, but the balance of the public interest favours disclosure of some (though not all) of this information. Ofcom has not demonstrated that section 36(2)(c) applies to any of the withheld information. The Commissioner also finds that Ofcom failed to identify correctly the information that did and did not fall within the scope of the request Finally, the Commissioner finds that
Exemptions cited: FOI 17; FOI 36; FOI 44
View Ofcom
20 Jul 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from Hughenden Parish Council (“the Council”) relating to legal advice sought by the Council.
The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council is entitled to rely on section 42 (legal professional privilege) of the FOIA to withhold the requested information. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2022/0202 appeal dismissed..
Exemptions cited: FOI 42
20 Jul 2022Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information pertaining to the purchase of chocolates. The Information Commissioner originally relied upon section 36(2)(c) of FOIA (prejudice to the effective conduct of public affairs) to withhold all the information, but subsequently disclosed some of it. The Commissioner’s decision is that the ICO was entitled to rely on section 36(2)(c) of FOIA to withhold the information it held in relation to four of the eight parts of the request. As the complainant already possesses the information that was incorrectly withheld, no steps are required.
Exemptions cited: FOI 36
View Information Commissioner
20 Jul 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from Croydon London Borough Council (‘the Council’) about enforcement action. At the date of this notice, the Council has not provided a response to the request. The Commissioner’s decision is as follows: The Council has breached section 10(1) of FOIA as it has not provided a valid response to the request within the statutory timeframe of 20 working days. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following step to ensure compliance with the legislation: Provide a response to the complainant’s request of 10 May 2022 that complies with FOIA or the EIR as appropriate.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View London Borough of Croydon
20 Jul 2022Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has submitted three requests for information either directly or through third parties. East West Railway Company Ltd refused the requests as either vexatious for the purposes of FOIA or manifestly unreasonable for the purposes of the EIR. The Commissioner’s decision is that the requests should all have been dealt with under the EIR. EWRC has only demonstrated that the second and third requests engage Regulation 12(4)(b) of the EIR although the balance of the public interest favours maintaining this exception. EWRC has not demonstrated that the first request was manifestly unreasonable and is therefore not entitled to rely on this exception. The Commissioner requires EWRC to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. Issue a fresh response, to the first request, that does not rely on Regulation 12(4)(b) of the EIR. First-tier tribunal (General Regulatory chamber) information rights appeal EA/2022/0221 under appeal.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(b)
View East West Railway Company Limited