28 Jun 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested copies of the application forms for successfully appointed applicants to the position of Legally Qualified Chair (LQC) for Police Conduct Panels for the last 10 years. The Commissioner’s decision is that Mayor’s Office for Policing And Crime (MOPAC) has correctly cited section 40(2) in response to the request. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps as a result of this decision notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40(2)
28 Jun 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information about the 12 Programmed Activities upper limit in Consultant Job Planning. By the date of this notice Oxford University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust (“the Trust”) had not issued a substantive response to this request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Trust has breached section 10(1) of FOIA in that it failed to provide a valid response to the request within the statutory time frame of 20 working days. The Commissioner requires the Trust to provide a substantive response to the request in accordance with its obligations under FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Oxford University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust
27 Jun 2022Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested from the Office of the Secretary of State for Scotland (OSSS), copies of Secretary of State for Scotland Alister Jack’s minister diaries from 1 December 2019 to 13 April 2021. The Commissioner’s decision is that the OSSS has correctly refused the request under section 12(1) of FOIA – exceeds appropriate limit. However, the OSSS failed to fulfil its duty under section 16 of FOIA to provide advice and assistance to the complainant. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: Provide advice and assistance to the complainant to assist in them submitting a refined request.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12(1); FOI 16
View Office of the Secretary of State for Scotland
27 Jun 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to an adult safeguarding review. The Commissioner’s decision is that London Borough of Newham (LBN) is entitled to rely on section 41(1) FOIA to refuse to provide the requested information. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to any steps as a result of this decision notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 41
View Newham Council
27 Jun 2022Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information from Watford Borough Council (“the Council”) about planning applications relating to a specific address. The Council disclosed some information in response, but withheld the enforcement file relating to the property. Subsequently, during the course of the Commissioner’s investigation, it disclosed the enforcement file. It redacted some information from one document within the enforcement file - “the uniform report” - 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. Subsequently, it identified a small amount of information which it considered may be relevant to the request but had not been disclosed, specifically three photographs of the property. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council should have considered the request under the EIR rather than FOIA. With regard to the uniform report, he is satisfied that some information was correctly redacted
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(a); EIR 13; EIR 2(1); EIR 5(2)
View Watford Borough Council
27 Jun 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to dog breeders. The Council aggregated the requests and relied on section 12(1) (cost of compliance exceeds appropriate limit) to refuse them. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council was entitled to aggregate the requests in accordance with section 12(4) of FOIA. However, the Council has failed to demonstrate that section 12(1) applies. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: Issue a fresh response to the requests that does not rely upon section 12.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12(1)
View Cheshire East Council
27 Jun 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from Birmingham City Council regarding incidents and claims. Birmingham City Council withheld some information on the basis of section 43(2) (commercial interests), provided some information, and stated that further information was not held. The Commissioner’s decision is that section 43(2) was correctly applied and the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosure. The Commissioner also finds that, on the balance of probabilities, no further information is held by the council.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Birmingham City Council
27 Jun 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested various information passed to Gwent Police from the National Fraud Intelligence Bureau. Gwent Police refused the request referring the complainant to the City of London Police as the owners of the data. The Commissioner’s decision is that Gwent Police holds the requested information for its own purposes, as defined under section 3(2)(b) FOIA, and has failed to comply with its obligations under section 1(1) FOIA. The Commissioner requires Gwent Police to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: Issue a fresh response to the complainant either providing the information or issuing a valid refusal notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1(1); FOI 3
View Gwent Police
27 Jun 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested various information in respect of the Back to School Safely campaign. The Cabinet Office provided some information but the complainant believes it has not disclosed all relevant information it holds. 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. The Commissioner requires the Cabinet Office to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: issue a fresh response to the complainant including the information in respect of the individual referred to by the complainant.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1(1)
View Cabinet Office
27 Jun 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from Medway Council regarding taxation. The council refused to comply with the request, citing section 14(1) (vexatious requests) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the request was vexatious and therefore the council was entitled to rely upon section 14(1) to refuse it. The Commissioner does not require any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14(1)
View Medway Council
27 Jun 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested copies of the legal advice provided to Burnham Overy Parish Council regarding the ownership of some land. Burnham Overy Parish Council disclosed some information during the course of the investigation, however it withheld some information on the basis of regulation 12(5)(b) of the EIR.The Commissioner’s decision is that Burnham Overy Parish Council is entitled to rely on regulation 12(5)(b) to withhold the information, and that the balance of the public interest favours maintaining the exception. The Commissioner does not require any steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(b)
24 Jun 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information on business (non-residential) property rates data held by City of London (“CoL”). The CoL cited section 31(1)(a) (the prevention and detection of crime), and section 41(1) (information provided in confidence) of FOIA to withhold the information. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Col was entitled to refuse to disclose the withheld information in accordance with section 31(1)(a) of FOIA and the public intertest lies in maintaining the exemption. The Commissioner does not require the CoL to take any steps. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2022/0203 appeal dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 31(1)(a)
View City of London Corporation
24 Jun 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information from Oldham Metropolitan Borough Council (“the Council”) about the disposal of a school site. The Council provided information falling within the scope of the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the request fell to be considered under the EIR. He has determined that the Council failed to comply with regulation 5(2) of the EIR, since it did not provide the requested information within 20 working days and, in addition, failed to comply with regulation 11(4) of the EIR since it did not provide the outcome of its reconsideration within 40 working days. Since a response and reconsideration were ultimately provided, the Commissioner does not require the Council to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 11; EIR 5
View Oldham Council
24 Jun 2022Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested the closed extract of a file titled ‘Opening of Parliament: position of Prince Philip and Prince Charles’. The National Archives (TNA) has withheld the information under section 37(1)(a)(communications with the Sovereign), section 40(2)(personal data) and section 41(1)(information provided in confidence). The Commissioner’s decision is as follows: The information that TNA has withheld is exempt from disclosure under section 37(1)(a) of FOIA. TNA did not comply with section 17(1) of FOIA as it did not refuse the request within the required timescale. The Commissioner does not require TNA to take any remedial steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 17; FOI 37
View The National Archives
23 Jun 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested copies of the application forms for successfully appointed applicants to the position of Legally Qualified Chair (LQC) for Police Conduct Panels for the last 10 years. The Commissioner’s decision is that West Midlands Police and Crime Commissioner (WMPCC) has correctly cited section 40(2) in response to the request. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps as a result of this decision notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
23 Jun 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from Nottinghamshire Police about a police operation at Library Garden between 5 November 2021 and 16 December 2021. By the date of this notice, Nottinghamshire Police had not issued a substantive response to this request. The Commissioner’s decision is that Nottinghamshire Police has 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 Nottinghamshire Police 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 the FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 17
View Nottinghamshire Police
23 Jun 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested various emails, minutes, agendas and briefing notes from Avon & Somerset Constabulary (“A&S”). A&S advised that some of the information was not held and that the remainder of the request was exempt by virtue of section 14(1) (Vexatious requests) of FOIA. The complainant asked the Commissioner to consider the citing of section 14(1) to withhold information. During the Commissioner’s investigation, A&S advised that it had changed its position and that it no longer wished to rely on section 14(1). It advised the Commissioner that it now intended to disclose the requested information. To date, that disclosure has not been made. The Commissioner’s decision is that A&S has breached section 1 and section 10 of FOIA by failing to disclose the requested information within the statutory time for compliance. The Commissioner requires A&S to disclose the information at part (1) of the request, making appropriate redactions for any personal info
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10
View Avon and Somerset Police
23 Jun 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information on the procurement of a developer for a housing estate redevelopment. The London Borough of Lambeth (‘the Council’) disclosed some information but withheld tender documents under section 43 (Commercial interests) of FOIA. It also said that it did not hold some of the information described in the request. During the Commissioner’s investigation, the Council recognised that the request should have been dealt with under the EIR and it disclosed more information, with redactions for commercially sensitive information (regulation 12(5)(e)) and personal data (regulation 13). It maintained that it did not hold some of the information described in the request (regulation 12(4)(a)). The complainant did not dispute the application of the non-disclosure exceptions, but he was dissatisfied that the Council had not responded to his request in this way at the outset. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council breached regulation 5(2) of the EIR by faili
Exemptions cited: EIR 14(2)(1); EIR 14(3); EIR 5(2)
View London Borough of Lambeth
23 Jun 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information with regards to a specific address. Allerdale Borough Council (the council) provided some information, however the complainant believed that more information was held. The Commissioner’s decision is that section 40(1) of the FOIA is engaged – as the information is the complainant’s own personal data, and this exemption should have been applied by the council to refuse the request under the FOIA. As the Commissioner has found the exemption at section 40(1) to be engaged, the Commissioner does not require the council to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
23 Jun 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information about Warrington Borough Council’s (“the Council”) investment in Together Energy. 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 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 Warrington Council
23 Jun 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information about an article published by The Herald. By the date of this notice the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (“the Foreign Office”) had not issued a substantive response to this request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Foreign 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 Foreign Office to take the following step to ensure compliance with the legislation. The Foreign Office must provide a substantive response to the request in accordance with its obligations under FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office
22 Jun 2022Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested a dataset of open casework. The Information Commissioner relied on section 21 (reasonably accessible) and section 22 (intended for future publication) of FOIA to withhold the information. The Commissioner’s decision is that the ICO has not demonstrated that section 22 applies and is therefore not entitled to rely on the exemption. The Commissioner also considers that the data prior to Q2 of 2019-20 was reasonably accessible to the complainant at the point the request was responded to and thus exempt from disclosure. The Commissioner requires the ICO to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: disclose, to the complainant, any relevant data from the ICE360 casework system for Q3 2019-20, Q4 2019-20, Q1 2020-21, Q2 2020-21 and Q3 2020-21. The data should be provided in in the same format as the published data for Q4 2020-21 and Q1 2021-22, so as to allow for comparison.
Exemptions cited: FOI 21; FOI 22
View Information Commissioner
22 Jun 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from the DHSC relating to communications to and from the permanent secretary regarding the Valneva Covid-19 vaccine. By the date of this notice the DHSC had not issued a substantive response to this request. The Commissioner requires the DHSC to take the following step to ensure compliance with the legislation. The DHSC must provide a substantive response to the request in accordance with its obligations under FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Department of Health and Social Care
22 Jun 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from the Oxford City Council (“OCC”) relating to staff sickness figures. By the date of this notice OCC had failed to provide a substantive response to this request. The Commissioner’s decision is that OCC has breached section 10(1) of the FOIA in that it failed to provide a valid response to the request within the statutory timeframe of 20 working days. The Commissioner requires OCC to respond to the complainant’s response in accordance with the FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Oxford City Council
22 Jun 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information regarding the decision to suspend eel fishing in Wales. Natural Resources Wales (NRW) disclosed the information held relevant to the request but the complainant considered that additional information was held. During the course of the Commissioner’s investigation NRW located some additional information which it disclosed to the complainant. The Commissioner’s decision is that on the balance of probabilities NRW disclosed all the relevant and non-exempt information that it holds and has complied with regulation 5(1) of the EIR. The Commissioner does not require any steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: EIR 5
View Natural Resources Wales
22 Jun 2022Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from Kirby Muxloe Parish Council (“the Council”). The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council does not hold information within the scope of questions 1 and 2 of the request. However, he finds that the Council incorrectly applied section 21 of the FOIA to question 3 of the request. The Commissioner requires the Council to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: Issue a fresh response to question 3 of 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 1(1); FOI 21
21 Jun 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to Emergency Travel Document applications for Iran between 2019 to 2021. The Home Office refused to provide the requested information, citing sections 27(1)(a) (international relations) and 31(1)(e) (law enforcement) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Home Office is entitled to rely on section 27(1)(a) and that the balance of the public interest favours maintaining the exemption. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken as a result of this decision. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2022/0192 FTT consent order.
Exemptions cited: FOI 27
View Home Office
21 Jun 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. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2022/0187 appeal dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14(1)
View Ilkley Town Council
21 Jun 2022Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about the NHS’s Equality, Diversity and Inclusion Glossary. NHS Improvement (‘NHSI’) refused the request as it considered that compliance with it would exceed the cost limit under section 12 FOIA.The Commissioner’s decision is that NHSI has correctly cited section 12(1) FOIA in response to the request. It has also complied with its duty to provide advice and assistance in line with the requirements of section 16 FOIA. He finds that NHSI breached section 10(1) FOIA by failing to respond to the request within the statutory time for compliance. The Commissioner does not require NHSI to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 12; FOI 16
View NHS England
21 Jun 2022Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested road maintenance information with regards to a specific road. Cheshire East Council (the council) provided some information and refused the remaining information under regulation 6(1)(b) of the EIR. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council has provided the information to part 1 of the request, but found that regulation 6(1)(b) of the EIR is not engaged to part 2 of the request. The Commissioner requires the council to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. Provide a fresh response to Part 2 of the complainant’s request without relying on regulation 6(1)(b) of the EIR to refuse it.
Exemptions cited: EIR 5(1); EIR 6(1)(b)
View Cheshire East Council
21 Jun 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. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2022/0188 appeal dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14(1)
View Ilkley Town Council
21 Jun 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. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2022/0190 appeal dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14(1)
View Ilkley Town Council
21 Jun 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council in relation to its statutory responsibility for the collection and kennelling of stray dogs pursuant to Section 149 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990. Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council disclosed some on the requested information but stated the remainder was not held. During the Commissioner’s investigation the Council disclosed the remainder of the requested information which it held, albeit in breach of the statutory requirements under Sections 1 and 10 of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council has breached Sections 1 and 10 of the FOIA. However, as the complainant is satisfied all of the outstanding information held falling within the scope of his request has been disclosed, the Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps to ensure compliance with the legislation.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10
View Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council
21 Jun 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information with regards to some specific land. City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council (the council) provided some information, stated some information had previously been provided and refused to either confirm or deny whether some of the requested information was held, citing section 40(5B) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the request was for the complainant’s own personal data, hence section 40(5A) provided that the council was not obliged by the FOIA to confirm or deny whether it held this information. The Commissioner does not require the council to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council
21 Jun 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. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2022/0189 appeal dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14(1)
View Ilkley Town Council
21 Jun 2022Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from Liverpool City Council (“the Council”) relating to business rates paid to the Council. The Council refused to provide the requested information citing section 12 of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council was entitled to refuse to comply with the request in accordance with section 12(1) of the FOIA. However, he finds that the Council failed to provide reasonable advice and assistance and therefore failed to meet its obligations under section 16(1) of the FOIA. The Commissioner requires the Council to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: Provide the complainant with advice and assistance to help him submit a request falling within the appropriate limit.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12(1); FOI 16
View Liverpool City Council
21 Jun 2022Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about its vascular services from Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust (‘the Trust’). The Trust released information, but the complainant considers that it holds further information relevant to two parts of their request. The Commissioner’s decision is as follows: On the balance of probabilities, the Trust has disclosed all the information it holds that is within scope of Q1 and Q4 of the complainant’s request and has complied with section 1(1) of FOIA. The Trust breached section 10(1) as it did not comply with section 1(1) within 20 working days. The Commissioner does not require the Trust to take any remedial steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10
View Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust
21 Jun 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from HM Treasury relating to correspondence sent from or received by a smart phone device provided to Amyas Morse by HM Treasury. HM Treasury refused to comply with the request citing section 12 (cost limit) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that HM Treasury has failed to demonstrate that section 12(2) is engaged and therefore, is not entitled to rely on this exemption. The Commissioner requires HM Treasury to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation.HM Treasury must issue a fresh response to the request which does not rely on section 12(2) of the FOIA. HM Treasury 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 12
View HM Treasury
21 Jun 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information about the Department of Health and Social Care’s involvement in the development or implementation of the NICE guidelines concerning Myalgic Encephalomyelitis or Chronic Fatigue Syndrome. By the date of this notice, the Department of Health and Social Care (“DHSC”) had not issued a substantive response to this request. The Commissioner’s decision is that DHSC 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 DHSC to take the following step to ensure compliance with the legislation: The DHSC must provide a substantive response to the request in accordance with its obligations under FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Department of Health and Social Care
21 Jun 2022Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to the investigating of complaints. The Commission for Local Administration in England initially stated that it did not hold some of the information and that the remainder was exempt under section 21 of FOIA because the information was reasonably accessible to the complainant. During the Commissioner’s investigation it instead relied on section 12 of FOIA (costs) to refuse the parts of the request it considered to be valid. The Commissioner’s decision is that only parts [14], [15], [16], [17] and [24] of the request correspondence met the requirements of section 8 of FOIA and thus constituted valid requests for information. The LGSCO was entitled to rely on section 12 of FOIA to refuse these parts. As the LGSCO failed to rely on section 12 of FOIA within 20 working days, it breached section 17(5) of FOIA. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12; FOI 17; FOI 8
View Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman
20 Jun 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant made a request for information relating to contacts with BBC Scotland News relating to BBC Scotland’s News output. 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. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2022/0175 appeal dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View BBC
20 Jun 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to a tribunal hearing relating to a named doctor. The General Medical Council (GMC) withheld the requested information under section 40(2) of FOIA on the basis that the requested information is third party personal data, and its disclosure would breach data protection law. The Commissioner’s decision is that the GMC is entitled to withhold this information in accordance with section 40(2) of FOIA. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps as a result of this decision notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40(2)
View GMC
20 Jun 2022Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
On behalf of their parent, the complainant has requested information about properties to let, through a series of requests. Leeds City Council (‘the Council’) released some relevant information. The complainant is generally dissatisfied with how the Council has managed their requests. The Commissioner’s decision is as follows: On the balance of probabilities, the Council has disclosed all the information it holds that is relevant to Request 3 and Request 4 and has complied with section 1(1) of FOIA. The Council did not comply with section 10(1) as it did not communicate all the relevant information it holds within the required timescale. The Commissioner does not require the Council to take any remedial steps. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2022/0186 struck out.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10
View Leeds City Council
20 Jun 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG), now called Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (DLUHC), about data collected about caravans on unauthorised sites. It disclosed some of the information requested but refused to disclose some, citing the health and safety exemption under section 38(1)(b) of FOIA as its reason for doing so on the basis that disclosure of the information would be likely to endanger the safety of individuals. The Commissioner’s decision is that DLUHC has correctly relied on section 38(1)(b) and that the balance of the public interest favours maintaining this exemption. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 38(1)(b)
View Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government
20 Jun 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information a copy of a cremation form. By the date of this notice Rushmoor 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 Rushmoor Borough Council
20 Jun 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to legal advice on specific elements of the Government’s response to the pandemic. The Attorney General’s Office (AGO) refused to confirm or deny whether it held the requested information on the basis of section 35(3) (formulation of government policy etc) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the AGO was correct to neither confirm nor deny if this information was held and the public interest in this case supports this position. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: FOI 35
View Attorney General's Office
20 Jun 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested from the Council copies of correspondence between a named individual or their agent and the Council about the proposed dualling scheme for the York Outer Ring Road.The Council relied on regulation 13(1) of the EIR (personal information) to withhold the information.The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council correctly applied regulation 13(1) of the EIR.The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 13
View York City Council
20 Jun 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested copies of all circulars issued by any Clinical Commissioning Group in North West London Clinical Commissioning Group (CCG) to primary care and secondary care practitioners in relation to prescribing over the counter medicines and the “exceptions” to the prescription rules (2018). The CCG provided the information but the complainant then specifically highlighted an undated letter that they had seen that had been issued to secondary care practitioners which had not been included. The Commissioner’s decision is that the CCG has provided details of the searches it has carried out and that, on the balance of probability, he accepts that no further information is held other than that which has already been provided. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View NHS South West London Clinical Commissioning Group
20 Jun 2022Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information held by the London Borough of Lewisham (the council) in relation to the ‘observation period’ allowed prior to the issuing of a Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) in a parking enforcement zone. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the council has provided the complainant with all the information that is held that is relevant to the request. However, as it failed to provide this information within the statutory 20 working days, the Commissioner has found that the council has breached section 10(1) of the FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10(1)
View Lewisham Council
20 Jun 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested crime statistics for a number of specified areas covering a two year period. Humberside Police provided the information it holds that falls within the scope of the request. The complainant disputed the amount of information disclosed. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, Humberside Police does not hold further information within the scope of the request. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Humberside Police