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 partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
In a five part request, of which four are requests under FOIA, the complainant has requested information from Lambeth London Borough Council (‘the Council’) associated with a long running dispute with the Council. The Council has disclosed information within scope of three parts and is withholding the information within scope of the remaining part under section 42(1) of FOIA, which concerns legal professional privilege. The Commissioner’s decision is as follows: On the balance of probabilities, the Council has disclosed all the information it holds that falls within scope of Q3 and Q4 of the request and has complied with section 1(1) of FOIA. The Council has incorrectly applied section 42(1) to Q1 of the request. The Commissioner requires the Council to take the following step to ensure compliance with the legislation. Disclose to the complainant the information they requested in Q1 of the request.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 42
View London Borough of Lambeth
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 not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested, from the Home Office, information about the criteria used to assess which marriage referrals should be investigated. The Home Office provided a copy of two annexes, withholding some content under sections 31(1)(a) (prejudice to prevention or detection of crime) and (and 40(2) (third party personal information) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Home Office was entitled to rely on sections 31(1)(a) and 40(3) of FOIA to withhold the requested information. The Commissioner does not require the Home Office to take any steps. First-tier tribunal (General Regulatory chamber) information rights appeal EA/2022/0228 dismissed. Information Tribunal UT UA-2023-001028-GIA PTA refused.
Exemptions cited: FOI 31; FOI 40
View Home Office
20 Jul 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information from Oldham Metropolitan Borough Council (“the Council”) about any action it had taken over obstructions to public rights of way (“PROWS”). The Council did not issue a substantive response within 20 working days, as required by the EIR. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council breached regulation 5(2) of the EIR. Since a response has now been provided, he does not require the Council to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 5(2)
View Oldham Council
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
19 Jul 2022Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested various information in relation to changes to Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council’s (the Council) Constitution regarding citizens questions and petitions. The Council provided responses to each item of the request, however the complainant believes the Council holds additional information relevant to items two, three and four of their request. The complainant subsequently requested additional information not within the scope of their original request which the Council has not responded too. The Commissioner’s decision is that Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council has complied with its obligations under section 1(1) FOIA in respect of items two and three of the original request. However, in failing to confirm to the complainant that it did not hold the requested information in respect of item four by the completion of its internal review, the Commissioner finds that the Council breached section 1(1) FOIA. In addition, in failing to advise the complainant tha
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10
View Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council
19 Jul 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from Penkridge Parish Council (“the Council”) relating to the number of individuals employed by the Council. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council is not entitled to rely on section 14(1) (vexatious request) of the FOIA to refuse to comply with the request. The Commissioner requires the Council to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. The Council must issue a fresh response to the request which does not rely on section 14(1) of the FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14
19 Jul 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information from Buckinghamshire Council (“the Council”) relating to companies, consultancies, advisors and individuals used by the Council to provide services when compiling the Chiltern and South Bucks draft local plan. The Council refused to provide some of the requested information citing regulation 12(4)(b) (manifestly unreasonable request) of the EIR. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council was entitled to rely on regulation 12(4)(b) to refuse to provide the withheld information. The Commissioner does not require the Council to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(b); EIR 9
View Buckinghamshire Council
19 Jul 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from Dyfed Powys Police (“DPP”) relating to reports and enforcement action for vehicles exceeding the length restriction on a particular road in Fishguard. DPP refused to comply with the request citing section 12 (cost limit) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that DPP was entitled to refuse to comply with the request in accordance with section 12(1) of FOIA. The Commissioner also finds that DPP complied with its obligations under section 16 to offer advice and assistance. The Commissioner does not require DPP to take any steps. First-tier tribunal (General Regulatory chamber) information rights appeal EA/2022/0211 struck out.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12; FOI 16
View Dyfed-Powys Police
19 Jul 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from Northumbria Police about classification of crimes and numbers of crimes associated with an incident number. Northumbria Police refused to comply with the request citing section 12(1) (cost limit) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that Northumbria Police was entitled to refuse to comply with the request in accordance with section 12(1) of FOIA. He also finds that Northumbria Police met its obligation under section 16(1) of FOIA to offer advice and assistance. The Commissioner does not require Northumbria Police to take any steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. Information Tribunal UA-2023-001249-GIA appeal allowed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12; FOI 16
View Northumbria Police
19 Jul 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information regarding all records of communication regarding a video made by the NHS, which has since been deleted. 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
18 Jul 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant made a five-part request for information on applications made by, and licences granted to, a specified company for exports related to Hornet Bomb Rack/Hornet Missile Launcher, between 2014-present to certain named countries. The Department for International Trade (‘DIT’) provided the information related to Turkey in tabular form in response to parts 1-4 of the request and said some of the information was not held (part 1). DIT refused to provide some of the requested information (for the remaining countries for parts 1-4), citing section 22 of FOIA (information intended for future publication). For the remaining requested information (part 5), DIT cited sections 40 (personal information), 41 (information provided in confidence) and 43 (commercial interests). At the internal review stage, the complainant stated that he did not wish to challenge DIT’s reliance on section 40 of FOIA, so this aspect has not been considered further. Given that the complainant has neither com
Exemptions cited: FOI 41; FOI 44
View Department for International Trade
18 Jul 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about NHS 111 and the NHS Pathways Clinical Governance Group. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, NHS Digital has disclosed the information which it holds within the scope of part 4 of the request. The Commissioner does not require NHS Digital to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View NHS England
18 Jul 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information associated with ‘Sea Change Sussex’, a ‘not-for-profit’ economic development company. The University of Brighton (‘the University’) has said it does not hold the requested information. The Commissioner’s decision is as follows: On the balance of probabilities the University does not hold the information the complainant has requested and has complied with section 1(1)(a) of FOIA. The Commissioner does not require the University to take any corrective steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View The University of Brighton
18 Jul 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from South Staffordshire District Council (“the Council”) about committee minutes regrading High Court action and the outcome of a High Court decision. By the date of this notice the Council has not issued 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 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 South Staffordshire Council
18 Jul 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information from Kingsley Parish Council (the Council) about correspondence concerning several planning applications.
The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has failed to carry out a reconsideration (internal review) of a response it provided under the EIR within 40 working days. It has therefore breached regulation 11 of the EIR. The Commissioner requires the Council to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. Reconsider how it responded to the original request and inform the complainant of the outcome of that reconsideration in accordance with regulation 11 of the EIR.
Exemptions cited: EIR 11
18 Jul 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from Tees Esk and Wear Valleys NHS Foundation Trust (“the Trust”) relating to reports following the death of [redacted]. 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 Trust to respond to the complainant’s response in accordance with the FOIA. The Trust must take these steps within 35 calendar days of the date of this decision notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Tees, Esk and Wear Valleys NHS Foundation Trust
15 Jul 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested minutes of several minutes of the University of Liverpool Council meetings. The University refused the request citing section 22 of the FOIA (information intended for future publication). The Commissioner’s decision is that that University was entitled to rely on section 22 of the FOIA to refuse the request. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2022/0195 struck out.
Exemptions cited: FOI 22
View The University of Liverpool
15 Jul 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information from the London Borough of Wandsworth about changes to Battersea High Street. The Council provided him with some information and explanations but said that no further recorded information was held. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the Council does not hold any further recorded information, and does not require the Council to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(a)
View London Borough of Wandsworth
15 Jul 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested copies of communications between Wealden District Council (‘the council’) and a legal representative relating to a planning decision. The council applied Regulation 12(4)(a) (information not held) to some information, and Regulation 12(5)(b) to other information on the basis that the information is subject to legal professional privilege. A previous decision notice issued by the Commissioner has decided that the exception was correctly applied to the same information, but the Commissioner has taken into account changes in circumstances between the first and second request for information. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council was correct to apply Regulation 12(5)(b) to withhold the information. He has also decided that it was correct to apply Regulation 12(4)(a) to the information which the council said that it did not hold. The Commissioner does not require the council to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(a); EIR 12(5)(b)
View Wealden District Council
15 Jul 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested from Westminster City Council information relating to the funding arrangements for a building repair project. 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. The Commissioner does not require the Council to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Westminster Council
15 Jul 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information regarding meetings the Cabinet Office has held with the Coalition for the Memorandum of Understanding on conversion therapy since 2015. By the date of this notice the Cabinet Office had not issued a substantive response to this request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Cabinet Office has breached section 10(1) of FOIA in that it failed to provide a valid response to the request within the statutory time frame of 20 working days. The Commissioner requires the Cabinet Office to take the following step to ensure compliance with the legislation. The Cabinet Office must provide a substantive response to the request in accordance with its obligations under FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Cabinet Office
14 Jul 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information about a sewer connection application associated with a housing development. United Utilities has withheld the information under regulation 12(5)(d) and regulation 13 of the EIR which concern confidentiality of proceedings and personal data respectively. The Commissioner’s decision is as follows: United Utilities is entitled to withhold the requested information under regulation 12(5)(d) of the EIR and the public interest favours maintaining this exception. The Commissioner does not require United Utilities to take any corrective steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(d)
View United Utilities
14 Jul 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information from Burcot & Clifton Hampden Parish Council in Oxfordshire (“the Parish Council”) about the local Neighbourhood Development Order. After reconsidering the outstanding three requests under the EIR, the Parish Council withheld some information under, respectively, regulation 12(5)(b) the course of justice, etc; regulation 12(4)(d) material in the course of completion, etc; and regulation 13(1) personal data. The Commissioner’s decision is that all three items of withheld information were withheld correctly under the three respective exceptions of the EIR, including, where required, on the balance of the public interests. The Commissioner does not require the Parish Council to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(d); EIR 12(5)(b); EIR 13(1)
14 Jul 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested a copy of a report from the Metropolitan Police Service (the “MPS”). The MPS refused to disclose the report citing sections 23(1) (Information supplied by, or relating to, bodies dealing with security matters), 27(1) (International relations), 24(1) (National security), 30(1) (Investigations and proceedings) and 40(2) (Personal information) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the MPS was entitled to rely on section 23 of FOIA to refuse the request. The Commissioner requires no steps as a result of this decision. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2022/0191 appeal dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 23
View Metropolitan Police Service
13 Jul 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant made a request for information relating to the accessing of the mobile phones of individuals who are arrested without a warrant and the use of CCTV and body camera equipment. The request was made 18 October 2021 and Greater Manchester Police (GMP) have failed to provide a response. The Commissioner considers that GMP 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 Greater Manchester Police
13 Jul 2022Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested from the University of Huddersfield (the university) any applications it submitted to Stonewall to become a Stonewall Diversity Champion, feedback received from Stonewall relating to the application, and the programme and communications from Stonewall over a specified timeframe. The university provided some information in response to the request, citing sections 43(2), 41(1) and 40(2) as its reasons to withhold the remaining information (“the withheld information”).The Commissioner’s decision is that the university is not entitled to rely on section 41 FOIA to withhold some of the requested information. He has also decided that section 43(2) is engaged in relation to the specific withheld information it was applied to. However the balance of the public interest lies in the disclosure of some of that withheld information whilst the public interest favours maintaining the section 43(2) exemption for the remaining information withheld under it. The Commission
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 40(2); FOI 41(1); FOI 43(2)
View The University of Huddersfield
13 Jul 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about the conduct and disciplinary record of a deceased police officer. South Yorkshire Police (‘SYP’) said that the requested information was exempt from disclosure under sections 31(1)(g) (Law enforcement) and 38(1)(a) (Health and safety) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that SYP was entitled to rely on section 31(1)(g) to refuse the request.
Exemptions cited: FOI 31
View South Yorkshire Police
13 Jul 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about the methodology used for evaluating alleged breaches of international humanitarian law. This was with respect to incidents allegedly caused by fixed wing aircraft that had been sold to or transferred to Saudi Arabia. The Department for International Trade (“DIT”) provided some information but refused to provide other information it held within the scope of the requests citing sections 24 (national security), 26 (defence), 27 (international relations) and 40 (personal data) as its basis for doing so. It also refused to confirm or deny whether it held other information and cited section 23 (security bodies) as its basis for doing so. It withdrew reliance on section 40 at internal review but otherwise upheld this position. The Commissioner’s decision is that DIT is entitled to rely on the exemption at section 27 as its basis for withholding the requested information. No steps are required.
Exemptions cited: FOI 27
View Department for International Trade
13 Jul 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information in relation to the Equality and Human Rights Commission’s (“EHRC”) report into allegation of antisemitism in the Labour Party. The EHRC stated some information was not held and withheld the remaining information under section 44 of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the EHRC was correct in stating the information at parts 1 and 2 of the request was not held and it has complied with its obligations under section 1 of the FOIA. For parts 3, 4, 5, 7 and 8 the Commissioner upholds the application of section 44 of the FOIA and finds that this provides the EHRC with a basis for withholding the requested information. Information Tribunal FTT appeal UA-2023-000497-GIA allowed. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2022/0214 appeal struck out.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 44
View Equality and Human Rights Commission
12 Jul 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested statistics relating to the identification of images received by the Metropolitan Police Service(the “MPS”) from 1 September 2020 to 31 August 2021.
The Commissioner’s decision is that MPS was entitled to rely on section12(1) of the FOIA. There was no breach of section 16(1) (Advice and assistance).
The MPS has failed to comply with its duty under section 1(1) of FOIA to issue a refusal notice “promptly and in any event not later than the twentieth working day following the date of receipt.” In failing to issue a response to the request within 20 working days, the Commissioner’s decision is that, the MPS has breached section 10 of the FOIA.
The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: FOI 16
View Metropolitan Police Service
12 Jul 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested correspondence between the Health and Safety Executive and NHS England concerning the use of graded masks by NHS staff. By the date of this notice the Health and Safety Executive (“HSE”) had not issued a substantive response to this request. The Commissioner’s decision is that HSE 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 HSE to take the following step to ensure compliance with the legislation. HSE must provide a substantive response to the request in accordance with its obligations under FOIA
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Health and Safety Executive
12 Jul 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information regarding specific requirements or qualifications for voluntary psychotherapist to work with the West London Mental Health Trust (“the Trust”). By the date of this notice 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 West London NHS Trust
12 Jul 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from the Legal Aid Agency (LAA) relating to the qualifications of a specific individual. The Legal Aid Agency is an executive agency of the Ministry of Justice (MOJ). The Commissioner’s decision is that MOJ correctly applied section 40(5B) FOIA in its initial response to neither confirm nor deny (NCND) that it held information within the scope of the request. He also finds MOJ was entitled to rely on section 21. However, the Commissioner finds MOJ breached section 17(1) FOIA as it took longer than 20 working days to inform the complainant that it was relying on an exemption. As a substantive response has now been provided the Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps as a result of this decision notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 21; FOI 40(5)(b)
View Ministry of Justice
12 Jul 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to virus incidents involving Kent Police IT systems ‘DropBox’ and ‘pcloudtransfer’. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Kent Police was entitled to apply section 24(2) of the FOIA to neither confirm or deny whether the requested information is held. The Commissioner requires no steps as a result of this decision. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2022/0200 FTT consent order.
Exemptions cited: FOI 24
View Kent Police
12 Jul 2022Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information held in a prosecution case file relating to a specified manslaughter case in 1977. The Crown Prosecution Service (the ‘CPS’) refused to provide any information citing both section 38 of FOIA (the exemption for health and safety) for some of the information, and section 40 (the exemption for personal information) which it applied to all the information contained within the requested file. Both the defendant and the victim are deceased. The Commissioner’s decision is that: The CPS was correct to withhold some of the requested information under section 40. However, he also finds that section 40 is not engaged for information that relates to the defendant or the victim. He also finds that the remaining information withheld only under section 40 is not personal data and so section 40 is not engaged. The CPS must disclose the information as set out in the Confidential Annex issued only to the public authority. Finally, the Commissioner finds that the CPS
Exemptions cited: FOI 38; FOI 40
View Crown Prosecution Service
11 Jul 2022Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested decision records on the appointment of the Local Authority Appointing Officer and the written statement of the decision made by this officer to appoint a Third Surveyor in respect of a party wall notice. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the information requested is not held. The Commissioner also finds that the London Borough of Wandsworth have breached section 10(1) of the FOIA by failing to provide a response to the request within 20 working days. No steps are required.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10
View London Borough of Wandsworth
11 Jul 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information concerning a redevelopment project. At the date of this notice, Brighton & Hove City Council had failed to carry out a reconsideration (internal review) of its original response. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has breached Regulation 11 of the EIR. The Commissioner requires the Council to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: reconsider how it responded to the original request and inform the complainant of the outcome of that reconsideration in accordance with Regulation 11 of the EIR.
Exemptions cited: EIR 11
View Brighton and Hove City Council
11 Jul 2022Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information about cycle underpasses. The council provided some information in response to the request, however it withheld some information on the basis of regulation 12(5)(a) (health and safety) of the EIR. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council was entitled to rely on regulation 12(5)(a) to refuse the request. However it failed to inform the complainant, within 20 working days, that it was relying on non-disclosure exceptions under the EIR to refuse parts of the request, and therefore the council breached regulations 14(2) and 14(3) of the EIR. The Commissioner does not require any steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(a); EIR 14
View Bracknell Forest Council
11 Jul 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information regarding a Parking enforcement contract. By the date of this notice the Elmbridge Borough Council (“the Council”) had not issued a substantive response to this request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has breached section 10(1) of FOIA in that it failed to provide a valid response to the request within the statutory time frame of 20 working days. The Commissioner requires the Council to take the following step to ensure compliance with the legislation: The Council must provide a substantive response to the request in accordance with its obligations under FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Elmbridge Borough Council
8 Jul 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information regarding the Prince’s consent and the passing of The Energy Act .The Commissioner’s decision is that Department for Business, Energy & Industrial Strategy correctly relied upon regulation 12(1)(b) not to provide the complainant with the information he had requested. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps to ensure compliance with the legislation.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(b)
View Department for Business and Trade
7 Jul 2022Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to the award of a grant to the Institute of Detectorists (IoD). Historic England (HE) provided information within the scope of the request but refused to provide the remainder, citing sections 40 (personal information), 43 (commercial interests), 41 information provided in confidence) and 38 (health and safety) of FOIA. It also confirmed it did not hold any further information within the scope of the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on a balance of probabilities, HE does not hold any further information falling within the scope of the complainant's request for information. Having investigated its application of sections 40(2), 43(2) and 38(1)(b) to the small amount of withheld information, the Commissioner finds that section 40(2) was correctly applied. However, he finds that HE has not demonstrated that either section 43(2) or section 38(1)(b) are engaged in respect of the information withheld only by virtue of those exemptio
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 38; FOI 40; FOI 43
View Historic England
7 Jul 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested from the Home Office information on communications between Border Force, Dover Harbour Board and the police, and bilateral agreements with the French authorities, regarding migrant crossings. The Home Office refused the request on the grounds that compliance would exceed the appropriate cost limit, under section 12 of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Home Office was entitled to rely on section 12 to refuse the request. It also complied with its duty to provide advice and assistance in line with the requirements of section 16 of FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12; FOI 16
View Home Office
7 Jul 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from Ryhill Parish Council in West Yorkshire (“the Parish Council”) about its accounts. The Parish Council initially provided some information, but, when asked to carry out an internal review, revised its position and stated that the request was vexatious. The Commissioner’s decision is that the request was vexatious, and the Parish Council was therefore entitled to refuse it under section 14(1) FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14
7 Jul 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from Anston Parish Council (“the Council”) relating to advice sought by the Council from Yorkshire Local Councils Association (YLCA). The Commissioner’s decision is that Council has disclosed all the information it holds within the scope of the request.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1(1)
7 Jul 2022Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from the Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames (“the Council”) about its relationship with a property guardianship company, Global Guardians. The Council initially refused to provide any of the requested information, citing the commercial interests exemption under section 43(2) of FOIA as its basis for doing so. Subsequently, during the course of the Commissioner’s investigation, the Council disclosed some of the requested information. However, it continued to withhold some information citing the commercial interests exemption under section 43(2) of FOIA and the personal information exemption under section 40(2) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has correctly relied on section 43(2) and that the balance of the public interest favours maintaining this exemption. In addition his decision is that the Council has correctly relied on section 40(2) to withhold a copy of the signature of the Head of Housing but that the Council cann
Exemptions cited: FOI 40(2); FOI 43(2)
View Kingston upon Thames Council
7 Jul 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to translation and interpretation services. The Commissioner’s decision is that Norfolk and Norwich University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust (‘the Trust’) 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 is satisfied that the Trust has now provided a response to the request. Therefore the Commissioner does not require the Trust to take any further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Norfolk and Norwich University Hospitals
7 Jul 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from HM Revenue and Customs (‘HMRC’) relating to the Eat Out to Help Out scheme. HMRC refused to disclose the requested information, citing section 44(1)(a) of FOIA as a basis for non-disclosure. The Commissioner’s decision is that HMRC has correctly applied section 44(1)(a) of FOIA to the withheld information. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 44
7 Jul 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from Bicester Town Council (“the Council”) relating to an appeal to the First-Tier Tribunal. The Commissioner’s decision is that on the balance of probabilities, the Council has not identified all information held within the scope of the request. The Commissioner requires the Council to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. The Council must issue a fresh response to the request following searches aimed at identifying all the information held within the scope of the request.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1(1); FOI 10(1)