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
17 Jun 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information from Kirklees Council (“the Council”) relating to correspondences exchanged about a warehouse development plan. 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. As a response has been issued, the Commissioner does not require the Council to take any further steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 5(2)
View Kirklees Metropolitan Council
17 Jun 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information relating to the fuel safety checks at Bagby Airfield from North Yorkshire County Council (the council). The council provided some information; however, it withheld the majority under Regulation 12(5)(a) of the EIR (Public safety). The Commissioner’s decision is that the council was correct to apply Regulation 12(5)(a) to withhold the information from disclosure. The Commissioner does not require the council to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(a)
View North Yorkshire County Council
17 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 past ten years. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Office of the Sussex Police & Crime Commissioner (OSPCC) is entitled to rely on section 40(2) to withhold the requested information. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps as a result of this decision notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
17 Jun 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from Breckland District Council (“the Council”). The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council 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. As a response to the request has been provided no steps are required.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10(1)
View Breckland Council
16 Jun 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information concerning flood mappings, flood risk assessments and correspondence between the environment agencies and planning companies.The Commissioner’s decision is that the Environment Agency has failed to carry out a reconsideration (internal review) of a response it provided, under the Environmental Information Regulations (“the EIR”), within 40 working days and has therefore breached Regulation 11 of the EIR.The Commissioner requires the Environment Agency 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.The Environment Agency must take these steps within 35 calendar days of the date of this decision notice. Failure to comply may result in the Commissioner making written certification of this fact to the High Court pursuant to section 54 of the Freedom of Information Ac
Exemptions cited: EIR 11
View Environment Agency
16 Jun 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to non-compliance with the Supply of Machinery (Safety) Regulations 2008. The Health and Safety Executive for Northern Ireland (HSENI) refused to disclose the information, citing section 31(1)(g) (law enforcement) and section 40(2) (personal information) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the withheld information engages section 31(1)(g) and the public interest lies in maintaining the exemption. The Commissioner has also decided that HSENI is entitled to withhold the personal information requested under section 40(2). The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 31; FOI 40(2)
16 Jun 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from Ibstock Parish Council (“the Council”) relating to the Council’s most recent audit. The Commissioner’s decision is the Council failed to provide an adequate response to the request. Consequently the Commissioner finds that the Council breached section 1(1) and section 10(1) of the FOIA. 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. This response must confirm or deny whether the requested information is held. If the requested information is held, the Council must either disclose it or provide an adequate refusal notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1(1); FOI 10(1)
16 Jun 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from NHS England relating to the pharmacogenomics working group set up by NHS England and Genomics England. By the date of this notice NHS England had failed to provide a substantive response to this request. The Commissioner’s decision is that NHS England 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 NHS England to respond to the complainant’s response in accordance with the FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View NHS England
16 Jun 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested from Brantham Parish Council (BPC) information about Brantham Leisure Centre. BPC initially refused the request on the grounds that the information was exempt under section 43 (Commercial interests) of FOIA. During the Commissioner’s investigation it changed its response and argued that the request was vexatious within the meaning at section 14 of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that BPC was entitled to rely on section 14 of FOIA to refuse the request.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14
15 Jun 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from the Charity Commission about a specific charity. The Charity Commission withheld the information under section 31(1)(g), 40(1) and 40(2) of FOIA which concern law enforcement and personal data respectively. The Charity Commission subsequently disclosed some of the withheld information but continues to withhold the remainder and has also applied section 41 (information provided in confidence) to one element of the withheld information. The Commissioner’s decision is as follows: The Charity Commission has correctly applied section 31(1)(g) of FOIA to information it is withholding as disclosure would be likely to prejudice the exercise of its functions under sections 31(2)(a), (b), (c), (f) and (g). The public interest favours maintaining this exemption. The Commissioner does not require the Charity Commission to take any steps. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2022/0174 appeal dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 31
View The Charity Commission
15 Jun 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from Swansea Council (“the Council”) about subject access request compliance times since 25 May 2018. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council 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 Swansea Council
15 Jun 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from the Information Commissioner (“the ICO”) about the International Data Transfer Agreement laid before Parliament by the Secretary of State. The Commissioner’s decision is that the ICO 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 Information Commissioner
15 Jun 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested, from the Children and Family Court Advisory Support Service (“CAFCASS”), information about staff complaints. CAFCASS disclosed some of the requested information, found that some was not held and refused to disclose the remainder, on the basis of section 40(2) (Personal information) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that, where cited, the requested information was not held. However, although not cited by CAFCASS, it should have neither confirmed nor denied holding some of the requested information in reliance on section 40(5)(Personal information) of FOIA. The Commissioner does not requires any steps as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 40
View Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service
15 Jun 2022Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant made several requests for a variety of information, largely relating to the construction of a new hospital. Liverpool University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust provided some information but relied on section 42 of FOIA (Legal Professional Privilege) to withhold the remainder. The Commissioner’s decision is that most of the request sought environmental information and therefore should have been dealt with under the EIR. However, he considers that the Trust is entitled to rely on Regulation 12(5)(b) of the EIR (course of justice) and that the balance of the public interest favours maintaining the exception. He is also satisfied that the Trust has now either provided or withheld all the information it holds within the scope of the requests. However, as the Trust did disclose some information outside of the 20 working day timeframe, it breached Regulation 5(2) of the EIR. The Commissioner does not require further steps. First-tier tribunal (General Regulatory chamber) infor
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(b); EIR 5(1); EIR 5(2)
View Liverpool University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust
15 Jun 2022Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about an investigation. Birmingham City Council (‘the Council’) has released some of the requested information and has withheld other information under section 40(2) and section 41(1) of FOIA which concern personal data and information provided in confidence respectively. The Commissioner’s decision is as follows: The Council is entitled to withhold information from the requested terms of reference document under section 40(1) and section 40(2) of FOIA. This information is the complainant’s and other people’s personal data and disclosing it would not be lawful. The Council is also entitled to withhold the interview statements under section 41(1) of FOIA as this information was provided to the Council in confidence. The Council breached section 10(1) and section 17(1) of FOIA as it did not comply with section 1(1) or issue an adequate refusal notice within the required timescale. The Commissioner does not require the Council to take any remedial
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 17; FOI 40; FOI 41
View Birmingham City Council
15 Jun 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from Suffolk County Council (“the Council”) in relation to parents on limited contact orders, whose children have Education, Health and Care Plans (EHCPs). The Council has withheld the information, citing section 36(2)(b)(i), 36(2)(b)(ii), along with 36(2)(c) of FOIA – prejudice to the effective conduct of public affairs - and section 40(2) of FOIA – personal information. The information is statistical information and the Council has not demonstrated that any of the limbs of the section 36 exemption are engaged. The Council is therefore not entitled to rely on any limb of the exemption to withhold the statistical information. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council is not entitled to rely on section 40(2) of FOIA to withhold the information requested. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: Disclose the withheld information.
Exemptions cited: FOI 36; FOI 40(2)
View Suffolk County Council
15 Jun 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested a copy of the latest version of the business case on pay and grading reform and pay offer. Homes England withheld the information requested under sections 36(2)(b)(i), 36(2)(b)(ii) and 36(2)(c) (effective conduct of public affairs). The Commissioner’s decision is that Homes England has correctly applied 36(2)(b)(i) and 36(2)(b)(ii) to the withheld information. The Commissioner does not require any steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 36
View Homes England
14 Jun 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested from the College of Policing (CoP) a copy of the barred list for the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS). CoP refused the request on the grounds that the requested information was exempt by virtue of section 40(2) (Personal information) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the CoP was entitled to rely on section 40(2) to withhold the requested information.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View College of Policing
14 Jun 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information with regards to a specific letter. Colney Heath Parish Council (the council) refused the request under section 40(2) of the FOIA – third party personal data. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council was entitled to withhold the information under section 40(2), by way of section 40(3A)(a). The Commissioner does not require the council to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40(2)
14 Jun 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from Hertford Heath Parish Council (“the Council”) relating to a Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA). The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has failed to carry out adequate searches for the requested information and therefore, on the balance of probabilities, has not identified all information held within the scope of the request. The Commissioner requires the Council to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. The Council must issue a fresh response to the request following searches aimed at identifying all the information held within the scope of the request.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1(1)
14 Jun 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to the cost of lateral flow devices (LFD). The DHSC is withholding the requested information under section 43(2) (commercial interests) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that section 43(2) is not engaged and therefore the DHSC is not entitled to withhold the information. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: Disclose the requested information.
Exemptions cited: FOI 43(2)
View Department of Health and Social Care
14 Jun 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested from Bristol City Council information relating to specific building works. The Council stated that no information was held. The complainant believed that 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.
Exemptions cited: EIR 5(1)
View Bristol City Council
14 Jun 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information with regards to Blue Parking Badges. Bolton Council (the council) responded that the information was not held. The Commissioner’s decision is that on the balance of probabilities, no information is held falling within the scope of the request. As the Commissioner has found that the information is not held, he does not require the council to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 5(1)
View Bolton Council
14 Jun 2022Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested from Sussex Police witness statements regarding drone sightings at Gatwick Airport in December 2018. Sussex Police refused the request, on the grounds that the information was exempt from disclosure under section 30(1) (Investigations and proceedings) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that Sussex Police was entitled to rely on section 30(1)(a)(i) of FOIA to withhold the information. However, he found that it breached sections 1(1) and 10(1) of FOIA by exceeding the statutory time for compliance when responding to the request.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10; FOI 30
View Sussex Police
14 Jun 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested a direct email address for the Special Crime Department in York. The Crown Prosecution Service (the ‘CPS’) refused to provide this information, ultimately citing section 31 of FOIA (the exemption for law enforcement). The complainant disagreed with the CPS’ reliance on section 31(1)(c) (administration of justice) and argued on disability and equality grounds that the requested email address should be publicly available. Additionally, he submitted that he had been in receipt of the withheld email address privately via a CPS automated email response, evidence of which he provided. Having considered both parties arguments, the Commissioner’s decision is that the CPS has correctly applied section 31 of FOIA to the withheld information for the reasons set out in this notice. The Commissioner does not require the CPS to take any steps as a result of this notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 31
View Crown Prosecution Service
14 Jun 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information with regards to reviews into the deaths of claimants. The Department for Work and Pensions (the DWP) provided the information it held but the complainant considers more is held. The Commissioner’s decision is that the DWP has provided the information it holds.The Commissioner does not require the council to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Department for Work and Pensions
13 Jun 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information from the London Borough of Croydon (“LBC”) relating to planning applications. The Commissioner’s decision is that LBC 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 LBC to respond to the complainant’s response in accordance with the FOIA. LBC must take these steps within 35 calendar days of the date of this decision notice.
Exemptions cited: EIR 11
View London Borough of Croydon
13 Jun 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information about correspondence between BEIS and Parliament pertaining the Climate and Ecological Emergency Bill. By the date of this notice BEIS had not issued a substantive response to this request. The Commissioner’s decision is that BEIS 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 BEIS to take the following step to ensure compliance with the legislation: BEIS must provide a substantive response to the request in accordance with its obligations under FOIA.
Exemptions cited: EIR 5(2)
View Department for Business and Trade
13 Jun 2022Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to the Ministry of Defence (MOD) seeking information about meetings that a Cabinet Office adviser, Andrew Sabisky, had with defence officials. The MOD confirmed that it held some information about one such meeting and confirmed the date and location of this. However, it explained that it considered a presentation and letter relating to the discussions at the meeting to be exempt from disclosure on the basis of the following sections of FOIA: 35(1)(a) (formulation or development of government policy), 35(1)(b) (Ministerial communications), 24(1) (national security), 26(1)(b), 27(1)(a) (international relations) and 43(2) (commercial interests). The Commissioner’s decision is that the information in question is exempt from disclosure on the basis of sections 35(1)(a) and 35(1)(b) and that in all the circumstances of the request the public interest favours maintaining exemptions. However, the Commissioner has also concluded that the MOD breached section
Exemptions cited: FOI 17; FOI 35
View Ministry of Defence
13 Jun 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information from Winster Parish Council (“the Council”) relating to the cutting and collection of arisings from Winster Common.The Commissioner’s decision is that the request should have been handled under the Environmental Information Regulations 2004 (EIR) rather than the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA).The Commissioner requires the Council to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. • Issue a fresh response to the request under the EIR.The Council must take these steps within 35 calendar days of the date of this decision notice. Failure to comply may result in the Commissioner making written certification of this fact to the High Court pursuant to section 54 of the Act and may be dealt with as a contempt of court.
Exemptions cited: EIR 5
13 Jun 2022Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information about an application for the emergency use of a neonicotinoid seed treatment. The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) disclosed relevant information having redacted personal data from it and advised it does not hold some of the requested information. Defra directed the complainant to where other information is published. Defra withheld some of the requested information under EIR regulations 12(4)(e) (internal communications) and 12(5)(e) (commercial interests). Defra subsequently withdrew its application of 12(5)(e) to some of the withheld information but applied regulation 12(5)(a) (public safety) and regulation 12(5)(b) (course of justice) to a small amount of the information. The Commissioner’s decision is as follows: Defra was entitled to apply regulation 12(4)(e) of the EIR to the information in documents F1, F2, F3 and F5. However, the public interest favoured disclosing this information. The F4 document does not en
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(e); EIR 12(5)(a); EIR 12(5)(b); EIR 12(5)(e); EIR 7
13 Jun 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information regarding the leasing of a car park. Middlesbrough Council disclosed some information and withheld other information under the exemption for commercial interests – section 43(2) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council has failed to demonstrate that section 43(2) is engaged in relation to information in part 1 of the request. The Commissioner requires the council disclose the withheld information, ensuring that any third party personal data is redacted.
Exemptions cited: FOI 43(2)
View Middlesbrough Council
13 Jun 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information about a Small Waste Incinerator Plant. The Environment Agency (EA) has disclosed some information, some of which it had originally withheld under regulation 12(5)(e) of the EIR. The EA has advised it does not hold information within scope of two parts of the request. The Commissioner’s decision is as follows: On the balance of probabilities, the EA does not hold the information requested in parts 1 and 4 of the request and regulation 12(4)(a) of the EIR is engaged in respect of those parts. The Commissioner does not require the EA to take any remedial steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(a)
View Environment Agency
13 Jun 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from Hertfordshire County Council (“the Council”) relating to the departure of a specific Council staff member from the Council. The Council refused to provide the requested information citing section 40(2) (personal information) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council is entitled to rely on section 40(2) to withhold the requested information. The Commissioner does not require the Council to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40(2)
View Hertfordshire County Council
13 Jun 2022Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a 4 part request regarding South Somerset councillors non-payment of council tax. South Somerset District Council (the Council) refused part 1 of the request as it considered it would exceed the cost limit under section 12(1) of FOIA. It also considered section 40(2) would provide a basis for withholding some of the information at the remaining parts of the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has correctly applied section 12 of FOIA to refuse to comply with part one of the request. Because of this, section 12 of FOIA also applies to the rest of the request by default, as if the cost to comply with part one alone exceeds the appropriate limit, then the cost to comply with the request in its entirety will further exceed the appropriate limit. He has therefore not gone on to consider the application of section 40(2). However, the Council has breached section 16 as it failed to provide advice and assistance to the complainant in relation to pa
Exemptions cited: FOI 10(1); FOI 12; FOI 16
View South Kesteven District Council
10 Jun 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from Hampton-in-Arden Parish Council (“the Council”) relating to a meeting that took place between the Council and Solihull Metropolitan Borough Council, and the attendees of that meeting. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council does not hold the CV requested in question 1 of the request. The Commissioner does not require the Council to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
10 Jun 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information about the numbers of households with particular Council Tax statuses. By the date of this notice Liverpool City 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 Liverpool City Council
10 Jun 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested details of meetings with representatives of the Premier League regarding a proposed takeover of Newcastle United FC. The Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office relied on section 27 (international relations), section 41 (breach of confidence) and section 40 (personal data) of FOIA to withhold information. The Commissioner’s decision is that the FCDO has correctly relied on section 27(1)(a) of FOIA and the public interest favours maintaining the exemption. The FCDO was also entitled to rely on sections 40(2) and 41 in the manner that it has done. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 27; FOI 40; FOI 41
View Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office
9 Jun 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested invoices about payments made to the Ministry of Defence (MoD) from Netflix. The MoD withheld the requested information citing section 43(2) (commercial interests) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that section 43(2) is engaged in relation to the withheld information and the public interest lies in maintaining the exemption.The Commissioner does not require the MoD to take any further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 43(2)
View Ministry of Defence
9 Jun 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested from the Cabinet Office (“CO”) information relating to Ministerial misconduct complaints. The CO refused to confirm or deny whether it held the requested information to part 1 of the request and relied on section 40(5B) (neither confirm nor deny) of FOIA. It also relied on section 21(1) (information reasonably accessible by other means) to the remaining parts of the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that section 40(5B) is not engaged and therefore the CO is not entitled to rely on this exemption. With regard to section 21(1) of FOIA the Commissioner’s decision is that he is not persuaded that the requested information is readily available to the applicant, and that the CO is not entitled to rely on this exemption to parts 2 and 3 of the request. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. Issue a fresh response which must confirm or deny whether the information is held, and either
Exemptions cited: FOI 21; FOI 40(5)(b)
View Cabinet Office
9 Jun 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested from High Speed Two Ltd (HS2) information about where woodchips produced by “de-vegetation” are sent to and later asked which companies were involved in this process. Although HS2 initially provided the requested information in response to the complainant’s first request and information regarding part of the second request, it withheld under regulation 12(5)(a)(public safety) the names of the companies the woodchips go to in order to generate electricity. The Commissioner’s decision is that HS2 has correctly cited regulation 12(5)(a). He does not require HS2 to take any further steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(a)
View High Speed Two (HS2) Limited
9 Jun 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested a copy of legal advice regarding political leafleting. While Dorset Police responded, it did not state whether or not it held a copy of the requested information. The Commissioner’s decision is that Dorset Police breached section 1(1)(a) and section 10(1) of FOIA. The Commissioner requires Dorset Police to take the following step to ensure compliance with the legislation: issue a fresh response in accordance with FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10
View Dorset Police
9 Jun 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant made a request for information relating to total number of deaths at Norfolk & Norwich University Hospital. The Trust has failed to respond to the request. The Commissioner considers that the Trust has breached section 10 FOIA in the handling of this request. The Commissioner requires the public authority to provide a response to the request in compliance with FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Norfolk and Norwich University Hospitals
9 Jun 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from Westminster City Council (“the Council”) regarding ratepayers and Expanded Retail Relief. The Council refused to disclose the requested information, citing sections 31(1)(a) and 41 of FOIA as a basis for non-disclosure.The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has correctly applied section 31(1)(a) to the requested information. As the Commissioner considers that section 31(1)(a) applies to the entirety of the requested information, he has not considered the Council’s application of section 41.The Commissioner therefore requires no steps to be taken by the Council.
Exemptions cited: FOI 31
View Westminster Council
9 Jun 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from Greater Manchester Police (‘GMP’) relating to complaints made regarding Ashton Police Station. GMP provided the complainant with some of the requested information, however this was provided outside of the statutory time limit as set out in section 10(1) of FOIA.The Commissioner’s decision is that GMP has failed to comply with section 10(1) of FOIA by responding outside of 20 working days.As a response has now been provided to the complainant, the Commissioner requires no steps to be taken by the public authority.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Greater Manchester Police
9 Jun 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from London Borough of Hackney (“the Council”) in relation to its cyber security arrangements. The Council refused to disclose the requested information, citing sections 31(1)(a) and 31(1)(g) by virtue of 31(2)(i) as a basis for non-disclosure.The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has correctly applied section 31(1)(a). As the Commissioner considers that this applies to all of the requested information, he has not gone on to consider the Council’s application of section 31(1)(g) by virtue of section 31(2)(i). The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 31
View London Borough of Hackney
9 Jun 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from HM Revenue and Customs (‘HMRC’) relating to contractors who were subject to the 2019 Loan Charge. HMRC disclosed some information to the complainant but refused to disclose the remainder (‘the withheld 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
9 Jun 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested from Thanet District Council (the Council) information in relation to a named individual. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council were entitled to rely on Section 40(5B) of the FOIA to neither confirm nor deny holding the requested information. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps as a result of this decision. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2022/0184 dismissed. Information Tribunal UT UA-2023-000937-GIA PTA refused.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40(5)(b)
View Thanet District Council
9 Jun 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
Summary wording for website: The complainant requested information from Uttlesford District Council (“UDC”) relating to planning data and communications. By the date of this notice UDC had failed to provide a substantive response to this request. The Commissioner’s decision is that UDC has breached regulation 5(2) of the EIR in that it failed to provide a valid response to the request within the statuary timeframe of 20 working days. The Commissioner requires UDC to respond to the complainant’s response in accordance with the EIR. UDC must take these steps within 35 calendar days of the date of this decision notice.
Exemptions cited: EIR 5(2)
View Uttlesford District Council