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 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
8 Jun 2022Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about COVID-19 vaccines and their safety. The Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) directed the complainant to where relevant information is published. It withheld some information under section 40(2) and 41(1) of FOIA, which concern personal data and information provided in confidence respectively. MHRA has subsequently relied on section 12(1) to refuse to comply with the request for information not covered by section 40(2) and 41(1). The Commissioner’s decision is as follows: Relevant information that MHRA received from other regulators is exempt from disclosure under section 41(1) of FOIA and the individual Yellow Cards are exempt under both section 41(1) and section 40(2). MHRA is not obliged to comply with the request for any other relevant information as the cost of doing so would exceed the appropriate limit under section 12(1) of FOIA. MHRA has not complied with its duty under section 16(1) to offer the complainant
Exemptions cited: FOI 12; FOI 16; FOI 17; FOI 40; FOI 41
View Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency
8 Jun 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested from NHS England records of meetings and correspondence between NHS England and the Independent Health Provider Network (“IHPN”) between 1 February 2020 and 15 May 2020. NHS England refused the request citing section 12 (cost of compliance exceeds appropriate limit) of FOIA.The Commissioner’s decision is that NHS England correctly applied section 12(1) of FOIA and also met its obligation under section 16 of FOIA to offer advice and assistance. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2022/0178 dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12(1); FOI 16
View NHS England
8 Jun 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to the valuation history of a specified address for the period of 1985 to 1995. The Valuation Office Agency (“VOA”) confirmed that it held some of the information within the scope of the request. However it refused to disclose it relying on section 44(1)(a) of FOIA. It is the Commissioner’s decision that VOA is entitled to rely on section 44(1)(a) of FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 44(1)(a)
View Valuation Office Agency
8 Jun 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from West Chiltington Parish Council (“the Council”) relating to the inspection of a skate park. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council failed to confirm or deny whether it holds the requested information. Consequently the Commissioner finds that the Council breached section 1(1) and section 10(1) of FOIA.The Commissioner requires the Council to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation.Issue a fresh response to the request which 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.The Council must take these steps within 35 calendar days of the date of this decision notice. Failure to comply may result in the Commissioner making written certification of this fact to the High Court pursuant to section 54 of FOIA and may be dealt with as a contempt of court.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1(1); FOI 10(1)
8 Jun 2022Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested various information from Peterlee Town Council (‘the council’). The council provided some information, however the complainant remained unhappy that some minutes of meetings had not been disclosed or published on the council’s website. During the course of the Commissioner's investigation the council located further information and disclosed this to the complainant. It confirmed that no other information falling within the scope of the request is held. The Commissioner’s decision is that on a balance of probabilities, the council does not hold any further information falling within the scope of the complainant's request for information. The Commissioner has, however, decided that the council did not comply with the requirements of section 10(1) of FOIA in that it did not provide the information within 20 working days. The Commissioner does not require the council to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1(1); FOI 10(1)
8 Jun 2022Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information about a particular planning application. Ceredigion County Council provided some information and stated other requests were not requests for recorded information but responded as business as usual questions and also stated that all information relating to the planning application was on the planning portal. At the time of its internal review the Council confirmed that additional documentation had been uploaded onto the planning portal and stated that no further information was held. The complainant alleged that further information was held which the Council had not provided nor was available on the planning portal. During the Commissioner’s investigation, the Council identified further recorded information falling within the scope of the request and stated that it considered this additional information to be exempt under regulations 12(4)(e) (internal communications) and regulation 12(5)(b) (course of justice). The Commissioner’s decision is other
Exemptions cited: EIR 11(4); EIR 12(4)(e); EIR 12(5)(b); EIR 14(2)(1); EIR 5(1); EIR 5(2)
View Ceredigion County Council
8 Jun 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested from the Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC) information regarding the Coronavirus pandemic.The Commissioner’s decision is that the DHSC was entitled to refuse to comply with the request in accordance with section 12(1) (cost limit) of the FOIA. He also finds that the DHSC met its obligations under section 16(1) of the FOIA to offer advice and assistance.The Commissioner does not require the DHSC to take any steps. First-tier tribunal (General Regulatory chamber) information rights appeal EA/2022/0147 under appeal.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12(1); FOI 16
View Department of Health and Social Care
8 Jun 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from Nocton Parish Council (“the Council”) relating to an alleged criminal offence and the salary of the Parish Clerk.The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council is entitled to rely on section 40(2) (personal information) of the FOIA to withhold the requested information. First-tier tribunal (General Regulatory chamber) information rights appeal EA/2022/0140 appeal dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40(2)
8 Jun 2022Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information regarding the decision not to proceed with a particular piece of commissioned research. The Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) initially withheld all of the information under section 35(1)(a) but disclosed some of the information during the course of the investigation. DWP also withheld the personal data contained within the document under section 40(2). The complainant did not dispute DWP’s reliance on section 40(2). The Commissioner’s decision is that section 35(1)(a) is engaged with regards to the redacted information and that the balance of the public interest lies in disclosure for some of the withheld information with the public interest favouring maintaining the exemption for the remaining withheld information. The Commissioner requires the public authority to disclose the first paragraph of the redacted section. The public authority must take these steps within 35 calendar days of the date of this decision notice. Failure to comply
Exemptions cited: FOI 35
View Department for Work and Pensions
8 Jun 2022Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information from the London Borough of Enfield (“the Council”) relating to the redevelopment of Palace Gardens Shopping Centre. The Council refused to provide the requested information citing section 12(1) (cost limit) of the FOIA. The Council later accepted the Commissioner’s view that the information is environmental and therefore relied on regulation 12(4)(b) (manifestly unreasonable) of the EIR. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council was entitled to refuse to comply with the request in accordance with regulation 12(4)(b) of the EIR. However, he finds that the Council failed to provide reasonable advice and assistance and therefore failed to meet its obligations under regulation 9 of the EIR. 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.The Council must take these steps w
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(b); EIR 9
View Enfield Council
8 Jun 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (FCDO) relating to the awarding of the Queen’s honours. By the date of this notice the FCDO had not issued a substantive response to this request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the FCDO has failed to complete its deliberations on the balance of the public interest within a reasonable time and has therefore breached section 17(3) of FOIA.The Commissioner requires the FCDO 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.The FCDO must take this step 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
Exemptions cited: FOI 17(3)
View Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office
7 Jun 2022Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested the names of companies and the amounts each had borrowed following the Government’s implementation of loan schemes to support businesses facing financial disruption due to the COVID-19 pandemic. The Commissioner’s decision is that the British Business Bank (‘BBB’) has appropriately relied on section 43(2) - Commercial interests to withhold the requested information and the public interest favours maintaining the exemption. In regard to the BBB’s reliance on section 21 – Information accessible by other means, the Commissioner finds the exemption is not engaged. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps to ensure compliance with the legislation.
Exemptions cited: FOI 21; FOI 43
View British Business Bank
7 Jun 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (“DCMS”) about the budget and staffing levels of the DCMS Counter Disinformation Cell. By the date of this notice DCMS had not issued a substantive response to this request. The Commissioner’s decision is that DCMS 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 DCMS to take the following step to ensure compliance with the legislation: Having confirmed whether or not information is held within the scope of the request: either disclose the requested information, if held, or, to the extent that information is to be withheld, issue a refusal notice in accordance with the requirements of section 17 of FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 17
View Department for Culture, Media and Sport
7 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 Westminster City Council (“the Council”). The Council 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 Council was entitled to rely on the exemptions within section 31(1)(a) of FOIA to withhold the requested information, and the public intertest lies in maintaining the exemption. The Commissioner does not require the Council to take any steps. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2022/0180 appeal dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 31(1)(a)
View Westminster Council
7 Jun 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from the Independent Office for Police Conduct (“IOPC”) relating to email correspondence sent or received by a number of named IOPC staff members, and a list concerning a matter about issues raised under the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998 (“PIDA”). The IOPC stated it can neither confirm nor deny that information is held by virtue of section 40(5B)(a)(i) of FOIA. It subsequently decided to also apply section 40(5A) (personal data of the requester) of FOIA to the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the IOPC is entitled to rely on sections 40(5B)(a)(i) and 40(5A) of FOIA to refuse to confirm or deny that it holds the information requested. Therefore, the Commissioner does not require the IOPC to take any steps as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40(5)(a); FOI 40(5)(b)(a)(i)
View Independent Office for Police Conduct
7 Jun 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested from the Government Internal Audit Agency (GIAA) three audit reports regarding an audit of the Committee on Climate Change. The GIAA responded to the request refusing to disclose the requested information under section 33 of FOIA, the audit functions exemption. The Commissioner’s decision is that the GIAA has correctly applied section 33 of FOIA to the request and the public interest in favour of disclosure is outweighed by the public interest in maintaining the exemption. The Commissioner does not require any steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 33
View Government Internal Audit Agency
7 Jun 2022Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to St Bede’s Free School Project. The Department for Education (DfE) withheld the requested information, citing section 36(2) (prejudice to the effective conduct of public affairs), section 42 (legal professional privilege) and section 40(2) (personal information). The Commissioner’s decision is as follows: • Section 36(2)(b)(i), (ii) and section 36(2)(c) are engaged but the public interest favours disclosure. • Section 42 (legal professional privilege) is engaged but the public interest favours disclosure.• The DfE is entitled to withhold the personal information of officials below the grade of deputy director in line with section 40(2).• In failing to respond to the request within twenty working days, the DfE breached section 10 (time for compliance with request).The Commissioner requires the DfE to take the following steps:• Disclose the information that engages section 36(2)(b)(i) and (ii), and section 42, that is a copy of all of
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 36(2)(b); FOI 40(2); FOI 41
View Department for Education
7 Jun 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information regarding a tunnel collapse. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Health and Safety Executive has failed to comply with its duties under section 1(1) of FOIA and, to the extent that the information may be environmental, Regulation 5(1) of the EIR. The Commissioner requires the HSE to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: confirm or deny whether it holds any information falling within the scope of the request; If and to the extent that information is held, either: disclose that information or; issue a refusal notice that complies with section 17 of FOIA or; to the extent that the information is environmental, issue a refusal notice that complies with Regulation 14 of the EIR.
Exemptions cited: EIR 5(1); FOI 1
View Health and Safety Executive
7 Jun 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from the Ministry of Defence (“the MoD”) about the membership and meeting minutes of the Ships’ Names and Badges Committee. By the date of this notice the MoD had not issued a substantive response to this request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the MoD has failed to complete its deliberations on the balance of the public interest within a reasonable time and has therefore breached section 17(3) of FOIA.The Commissioner requires the MoD to take the following step to ensure compliance with the legislation: Having confirmed whether or not information is held within the scope of the request: either disclose the requested information, if held, or, to the extent that information is to be withheld, issue a refusal notice in accordance with the requirements of section 17 of FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 17
View Ministry of Defence
7 Jun 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from Liverpool City Council (“LCC”) relating to Kingsley Road Experimental Traffic Regulation Order. By the date of this notice LCC had failed to provide a substantive response to this request. The Commissioner’s decision is that LCC 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 LCC to respond to the complainant’s response in accordance with the FOIA. LCC must take these steps within 35 calendar days of the date of this decision notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Liverpool City Council
7 Jun 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to The British Library (“the Library”) requesting information relating to ten named authors and their loan totals over three separate time periods. The Library refused to comply with the request citing section 12(1) (cost limit) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Library was entitled to refuse to comply with this request in accordance with section 12(1) of FOIA. He also finds that the Library met its obligation under section 16(1) of FOIA to offer advice and assistance. The Commissioner does not require the Library to take any steps as a result of this decision notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12(1); FOI 16
View British Library
7 Jun 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested from Datchworth Parish Council (the council) a copy of an email and attachments sent between the Responsible Finance Officer and the chair of the council on a specific date. The council refused the request on the basis that section 14 of FOIA applied (vexatious requests). Subsequently, it agreed to disclose the majority of the information to the complainant, making a small number of redactions under section 40(2) (personal information). The Commissioner’s decision is that the council was correct to withhold the personal data which it redacted under section 40(2) of the FOIA. The Commissioner requires the council to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. To disclose the withheld information to the complainant, subject to the redactions which the council informed the Commissioner that it intended to make under section 40(2) of FOIA. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2022/0177 appeal dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40(2)
6 Jun 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) relating to employment tribunal claims. The FCA refused to comply with the request citing section 12(1) (cost limit) of the FOIA.The Commissioner’s decision is that the FCA was entitled to refuse to comply with the request in accordance with section 12(1) of the FOIA. He also finds that the FCA met its obligations under section 16(1) of the FOIA to offer advice and assistance.The Commissioner does not require the FCA to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12(1); FOI 16
View Financial Conduct Authority
6 Jun 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to a complaint he had made in connection with a specified planning application. Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames Council (the ‘Council’) initially handled this request under the EIR and said that the requested information was excepted under Regulation 12(4)(e) - (the request involves the disclosure of internal communications). At the internal review stage, the Council revised its position and said that no information was held in scope of the request. During the course of the Commissioner’s investigation, the Council again reconsidered its handling of the complainant’s request and determined that it should have been handled under FOIA. It said that section 40(1) applied (personal information of the applicant) because the complainant was seeking his own personal information. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council was entitled to apply section 40(1) of FOIA to refuse the request. The Commissioner does not require the Council to
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View Kingston upon Thames Council
6 Jun 2022Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information held by the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (the DLUHC) about a particular meeting attended by the Secretary of State. The DLUHC confirmed that it held some information relevant to the request; however, it advised that this was to be withheld under section 35(1)(a) - formulation and development of government policy, section 40(2) – personal information, section 41(1) – duty of confidence, and section 43(2) – commercial interests, of the FOIA. During the course of the Commissioner’s investigation the DLUHC confirmed that it did not hold any information relevant to parts 1, 2 and 4 of the request. The DLUHC also stated that it was now only relying on section 41(1), and section 43(2), of the FOIA as its basis for withholding the information relevant to part 3 of the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the DLUHC is entitled to rely on section 41(1) of the FOIA when withholding the information relevant to part 3 of the requ
Exemptions cited: FOI 1(1)(a); FOI 41(1)
View Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government
6 Jun 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information about at-risk children in the borough. By the date of this notice the London Borough of Hackney (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. The Council must take this step 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 10
View London Borough of Hackney
6 Jun 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information relating to the standard operating procedures for domestic planning applications. By the date of this notice Bridgend County Borough Council (“the Council”) had not issued a substantive response to this request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has failed to respond to the request within 20 working days and has therefore breached regulation 5(2) of the EIR. The Commissioner requires the Council to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. Issue a substantive response to the request in accordance with its obligations under the EIR. 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 Freedom of Information Act and may be dealt with as a contempt of court.
Exemptions cited: EIR 5(2)
View Bridgend County Borough Council
6 Jun 2022Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information about the calculation of rent in respect of properties which, in the opinion of the Council, were of a similar size to their own property. Wealden District Council (the Council) stated that it did not hold recorded information concerning the opinion of its officers, however, the Council provided the complainant with other information concerning the calculation of rent. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council does not hold any further recorded information falling within the scope of the request. However, in failing to respond to the request within the statutory timescale, the Commissioner has determined that the Council breached section 10(1) of the FOIA. The Commissioner does not require any steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10
View Wealden District Council
1 Jun 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The Commissioner’s decision is that Bentley Parish Council (the Council) disclosed all the information it held within the scope of the request, which concerned the development of a neighbourhood plan.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
1 Jun 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information in relation to DHL Patient Transport. By the date of this notice, Whittington Health NHS Trust (“the Trust”) had not issued a substantive response to this request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Trust has breached section 10(1) of FOIA in that it failed to provide a valid response to the request within the statutory time frame of 20 working days.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10(1)
View Whittington Health NHS Trust
1 Jun 2022Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested serious incident reports into Covid-19 outbreaks. The Royal Berkshire NHS Foundation Trust initially relied on section 40(2) – personal data – and section 41 of FOIA – actionable breach of confidence – to withhold the information, but disclosed a redacted version during the course of the investigation. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Trust has now disclosed all the information it holds within the scope of the request. However, the Trust failed to identify all the information that it held within the scope of the request within 20 working days and therefore breached section 10 of FOIA. The Commissioner does not require further steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10
View Royal Berkshire NHS Foundation Trust
31 May 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information relating to a number of redevelopment projects. The Council issued a refusal notice citing section 42 of FOIA but advised that it required additional time to consider the public interest. The Council subsequently advised that it was seeking legal advice in respect of the requests. At the date of this decision notice it has not issued a substantive response to either request. The Commissioner finds that the requests are for environmental information and requires the Council to respond to both requests under the EIR.
Exemptions cited: EIR 5
31 May 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested a copy of a review into the role of the Attorney General for Northern Ireland which was produced in 2012. The Executive Office provided some information but withheld the remainder under the exemptions at sections 35(1)(a) and 42 of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Executive Office was entitled to refuse the request in reliance on section 35(1)(a) of FOIA. No steps are required.
Exemptions cited: FOI 35
31 May 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested an information sharing document held by the Police Service of Northern Ireland (PSNI) relating to domestic abuse. PSNI provided some information and withheld the remainder in reliance on the exemptions at sections 31(1)(a), 31(1)(b), 38(1)(a), 38(1)(b) and 40(2) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that PSNI was entitled to rely on the exemptions claimed. No steps are required.
Exemptions cited: FOI 31; FOI 38; FOI 40
View Police Service of Northern Ireland
31 May 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested a copy of Swansea Council’s “Pay and Conditions” Document. By the date of this notice, Swansea 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 Swansea Council
31 May 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to newspaper reports that a team from the Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ) has been embedded within the Cabinet Office, giving the Prime Minister advice on emerging threats posed by Covid-19. The Cabinet Office relied on section 23(5) of FOIA to refuse to confirm or deny whether it held any relevant information. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Cabinet Office was entitled to rely on section 23(5) to refuse confirm nor deny whether it held the requested information. No steps are required.
Exemptions cited: FOI 23
View Cabinet Office
31 May 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant made two separate requests regarding a copy of a spatial dataset for conservation area boundaries in a specified format under Open Government Licence. Buckinghamshire Council initially refused the requests on the basis of the Environmental Information Regulations (“EIR”) 6(1)(b) (information available in another format). It did release some information under a restrictive licence which did not meet the scope of the request. During the course of the investigation the council reviewed its response and decided to release the information, in the requested format and licensing conditions, under the RPSI. The Commissioner has decided that Buckingham Council breached regulation 8(1) of RPSI by failing to provide the requested information within a reasonable time. As the information has now been provided, no further steps are required.
Exemptions cited: RPSI 8(1)
View Buckinghamshire Council
31 May 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from the Department for Digital, Media, Culture and Sport (DCMS) relating to the Great Exhibition 2.0. By the date of this notice DCMS had not issued a substantive response to this request. The Commissioner’s decision is that DCMS 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 DCMS to take the following step to ensure compliance with the legislation.DCMS must provide a substantive response to the request in accordance with its obligations under the FOIA. DCMS must take this step 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: FOI 10
View Department for Culture, Media and Sport
31 May 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information about the council waste management proposals. Cheshire West and Chester Council (the council) withheld the information on the basis that the exception in Regulation 12(4)(d) applied (Material in the course of completion, unfinished documents, and incomplete data). During the course of the Commissioner’s investigation, the council indicated that it had reconsidered its position and was preparing to send the withheld information out to the complainant. It did not, however, subsequently confirm to the Commissioner that it had done so. The Commissioner’s decision is that as the council indicated that it was now prepared to disclose the information to the complainant, and did not provide any arguments to the Commissioner to support its position that Regulation 12(4)(d) applied, then the withheld information should be disclosed to the complainant in its entirety. The Commissioner requires the council to take the following steps to ensure compliance with
Exemptions cited: EIR 5(2)
View Cheshire West and Chester Council
31 May 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information about correspondence by Council staff of ministers regarding housing number requirements. By the date of this notice, Three Rivers District 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 Three Rivers District Council
31 May 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from Blackwater Community Primary School (“the School”) relating to the recruitment of British Muslim employees. By the date of this notice the School had not issued a substantive response to this request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the School 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 School to take the following step to ensure compliance with the legislation.The School must provide a substantive response to the request in accordance with its obligations under the FOIA. The School must take this step 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: FOI 10
31 May 2022Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
1. The complainant submitted a three-part request for information from the National Highways (“the NH”) relating to the decision on moving from one vehicle with a double crew to two vehicles with a single crew to attend incidents during the Covid-19 pandemic, and additional costs involved. The NH provided a response to the request, disclosing information for parts one and two of the request, and cited section 1(1) (information not held) of FOIA to the third part of the request. The Commissioner’s decision is as follows: • On the balance of probabilities, National Highways does not hold the information the complainant has requested, and its response complied with section 1(1)(a) of the FOIA.
However, the Commissioner finds that the NH 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 does not require the NH to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1(1)(a); FOI 10
View National Highways
31 May 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information about correspondence and meetings between Three Rivers Council (“the Council”) and Warner Brothers. By the date of this notice, the Council had not issued a substantive response to this request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has 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 Three Rivers District Council
31 May 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested from Watford Borough Council (“the council”) a copy of its complaints procedure relating to section 165 of the Data Protection Act 2018. The council said that that the requested information was not held, and advised the complainant that section 165 of the DPA 2018 refers to duties of the Information Commissioner, not to the council. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on a balance of probabilities, the council does not hold the requested information. The Commissioner does not require the council to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Watford Borough Council
31 May 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information from Rodmersham Parish Council in Kent (“the Parish Council”) about a proposal to install posts around the village green. The Parish Council provided some of the information. After reconsidering the request under the EIR, it confirmed that one of the requested pieces of information (a plan) was not held, and withheld the remainder of the information under regulation 12(5)(e) of the EIR: adversely affect the confidentiality of commercial information.The Commissioner’s decision is that the requested plan is not held. He is also satisfied that the Parish Council correctly withheld the remainder of the requested information under regulation 12(5)(e) of the EIR, and that the balance of the public interests favours maintaining the exception.The Commissioner does not require the Parish Council to take any steps. First-tier tribunal (General Regulatory chamber) information rights appeal EA/2022/0178 under appeal. First-tier tribunal (General Regulatory cha
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(a); EIR 12(5)(e)
30 May 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested legal advice which supported a statement made that the UK’s nuclear deterrent and an increase in its stockpile ceiling is consistent with the UK’s international legal obligations. The Ministry of Defence (MOD) confirmed that it held information falling within the scope of the request but that it considered this to be exempt from disclosure on the basis of sections 24 (national security), 26 (defence), 35 (Law Officers’ advice) and 42 (legal professional privilege) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the MOD was entitled to rely on the exemption at section 42(1) in respect of all of the withheld information, and section 35(1)(c) in respect of some of the withheld information. The Commissioner does not require the MOD to take any further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 35; FOI 42
View Ministry of Defence
30 May 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information regarding enforcement of licence fees. The British Broadcasting Corporation disclosed some information but relied on sections 31 (law enforcement) and 36 (prejudice to the effective conduct of public affairs) of FOIA to withhold the remainder. The Commissioner’s decision is that none of the limbs of section 36 are engaged and therefore the BBC is not entitled to rely on this exemption. The Commissioner also considers that the BBC failed to complete its public interest deliberations in respect of elements [D2], [E1] and [E2] within a reasonable timeframe and therefore breached sections 10(3) and 17(3) of FOIA. The Commissioner requires the BBC to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: disclose, to the complainant, the two reports it has withheld. The BBC may make appropriate redactions to remove personal data. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2022/0166 appeal withdrawn.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 17(3); FOI 36
View BBC
30 May 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to a specific coin. The Royal Mint withheld the requested information, citing section 43(2) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the withheld information engages section 43(2) and the public interest lies in maintaining the exemption. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 43(2)