30 May 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to the Valuation Office Agency (“VOA”) requesting information relating to the valuation of their property in determining it’s Council tax band. VOA refused to disclose the requested information, citing section 44(1)(a). The Commissioner’s decision is that VOA was entitled to withhold this information under section 44(1)(a). The Commissioner does not require VOA to take any steps as a result of this decision notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 44(1)(a)
View Valuation Office Agency
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)
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
27 May 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information held by St Helens Council (the council) relating to the funding and plans to redevelop land within the local area. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council has breached regulation 5(2) of the EIR, as it failed to provide a response to the complainant within the required 20 working days. Furthermore, as the council failed to conduct an internal review, the Commissioner has found a breach of regulation 11(3), and regulation 11(4), of the EIR. The Commissioner does not require the council to take any steps as a result of this decision notice.
Exemptions cited: EIR 11(3); EIR 11(4); EIR 5(2)
View St Helens Council
27 May 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested from Exeter Council a DHN plan illustrating the location of underground pipes. Exeter Council has withheld the plan under Regulation 12(5)(e) of the EIR on the basis that its disclosure would adversely affect the confidentiality of commercial information. The Commissioner’s decision is that Exeter Council has not successfully applied Regulation 12(5)(e) of the EIR. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following step to ensure compliance with the legislation: Disclose the requested information to the complainant. The public authority 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: EIR 12(5)(b)
View Exeter City Council
27 May 2022Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information held by Hastings Borough Council (the council) that relates to a retaining wall constructed by the owners of a local caravan park. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the council has now provided all the information that is held that is relevant to the complainant’s request. However, as the council only located and released the information following the Commissioner’s intervention, and much later than the required 20 working days, it has breached regulation 5(2) of the EIR.
Exemptions cited: EIR 5(1); EIR 5(2)
View Hastings Borough Council
26 May 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested a copy of training materials relating to two counter-corruption training courses. The College of Policing refused to provide the requested information, citing section 14 (vexatious request) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the College of Policing was entitled to rely on section 14(1) to refuse the request.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14
View College of Policing
26 May 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from Kellogg College about British Muslim recruitment. By the date of this notice Kellogg College had not issued a substantive response to this request. The Commissioner’s decision is that Kellogg College 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)
26 May 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information about works carried out by Lambeth London Borough Council (‘the Council’) in respect of a specific residential property. The Council refused to provide information requested in two parts, citing section 13 of the EIR (personal data) as its basis for doing so. The Council advised it does not hold information within scope of a third part of the request. The Commissioner’s decision is as follows: The Council is entitled to withhold information within scope of parts 1 and 7 of the request of 16 February 2021 under regulation 13 of the EIR as it is personal data and disclosure would be unlawful. Regulation 12(4)(a) is engaged with regard to part 3 because, on the balance of probabilities, the Council does not hold the specific information requested. The Commissioner does not require the Council to take any remedial steps. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2022/0161 appeal allowed in part.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(a); EIR 13
View London Borough of Lambeth
26 May 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information from Great Wyrley Parish Council (“Great Wyrley”) about a historic land transfer. Great Wyrley, which had previously provided the complainant with some information, stated that no further information was held. It drew the Commissioner’s attention to some information it had obtained from a neighbouring parish council, but stated that, in its view, it was not required to consider this for disclosure. The Commissioner’s decision is that the requested information is “environmental” and has considered the complaint under the EIR. Having considered the information provided to Great Wyrley by the neighbouring parish council, he has determined that this should have been considered for disclosure, and Great Wyrley is therefore in breach of regulation 5(1) of the EIR. He is satisfied that, beyond this, on the balance of probabilities, Great Wyrley does not hold any further information. The Commissioner requires Great Wyrley to take the following step: Consid
Exemptions cited: EIR 5(1)
26 May 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to a phone call he understands was made to West Midlands Police. West Midlands Police refused to confirm or deny whether it holds the requested information, citing section 40(5) (personal information) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that West Midlands Police was entitled, by virtue of section 40(5A) of FOIA, to neither confirm nor deny holding the requested information. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken as a result of this decision. First-tier tribunal (General Regulatory chamber) information rights appeal EA/2022/0131 under appeal.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View West Midlands Police
26 May 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested a copy of a specific prison service order and a copy of an instructor’s manual. The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) provided some information within the scope of the request but refused to provide the remainder, citing sections 21 (information accessible to applicant by other means) and 31(1)(f) (law enforcement – the maintenance and security of good order in prisons) of FOIA. The Commissioner investigated its application of section 31 to the requested manual. The Commissioner’s decision is that the MoJ correctly withheld information relating to the requested manual on the basis of the exemption contained at section 31(1)(f) of FOIA. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: FOI 31
View Ministry of Justice
26 May 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to the Ministry of Defence (MOD) seeking information about an observation post which was referred to in a set of watchkeeper’s logs for C Company, 2nd Battalion Royal Regiment Fusiliers, who were then based in Belfast, for 4 December 1971. The MOD responded by stating that it could not locate any information falling within the scope of the complainant’s request. The Commissioner is satisfied that on the balance of probabilities the MOD does not hold any information falling within the scope of the request.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Ministry of Defence
26 May 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about adverse reactions to COVID-19 vaccines. The Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) originally relied on section 22 of FOIA to withhold the information, which concerns information intended for future publication. It subsequently withdrew its reliance on that exemption and is now withholding the requested information under section 40(2) and 41(1) of FOIA, which concern personal data and information provided in confidence respectively. The Commissioner’s decision is as follows: MHRA is entitled it withhold the requested information under section 41(1) of FOIA as it is information provided in confidence. The Commissioner does not require MHRA to take any remedial steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 41
View Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency
26 May 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to how complaints are logged/recorded. The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) refused to deal with the request on the basis that it did not constitute a valid request for recorded information. The Commissioner’s decision is that the request was valid under section 8 of FOIA. Consequently the Commissioner finds that the MoJ has failed to comply with section 1(1) and section 10(1) of FOIA in failing to issue a substantive response. The Commissioner requires the MoJ to take the following step to ensure compliance with the legislation: issue a response to the complainant in accordance with FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10; FOI 8
View Ministry of Justice
25 May 2022Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information about suppliers that had used the so-called “high priority lane” to bid for contracts to supply personal protective equipment. The Cabinet Office relied on section 12 of FOIA to refuse part of the request and section 43 of FOIA to withhold some of the information. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Cabinet Office has correctly applied section 43 and that the balance of the public interest favours maintaining the exemption. The Cabinet Office was also entitled to rely on section 12 to refuse the remainder of the request. However, the Cabinet Office failed to provide meaningful advice and assistance and therefore failed to comply with its section 16 duty. The Cabinet Office also breached section 17 of FOIA as it failed to issue its refusal notice within 20 working days. The Commissioner does not require further steps. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2022/0157 appeal part allowed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12; FOI 16; FOI 17; FOI 43
View Cabinet Office
25 May 2022Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested the individual email addresses for 20 named police officers from the Chief Constable of Essex Police (Essex Police).Essex Police has refused to confirm or deny that it holds the requested information, citing sections 40 (third party personal data), 31 (law enforcement) and 38 (health and safety) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that Essex Police has demonstrated that section 40(5B) is engaged in relation to some of the names, but not the remainder. It has not demonstrated that either section 31(3) or section 38(2) are engaged in respect of the remaining names. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: Confirm, to the complainant, whether it holds the email addresses of the 15 officers identified in paragraph 26 of this decision notice. If it does hold any of these email addresses, it must either disclose them or issue a refusal notice that complies with section 17 of FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 31(3); FOI 38; FOI 40(5)
View Essex Police
25 May 2022Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant submitted a request to the London Borough of Lewisham seeking information about a specific planning application, in particular information relating to the consideration of that application at the Council’s Planning Committee. The Council disclosed some information but sought to withhold further information on the basis of regulations 12(4)(e) (internal communications) and 13(1) (personal data) of the EIR. The Commissioner’s decision is that the withheld information is exempt from disclosure on the basis of regulation 12(4)(e) or regulation 13(1). However, he has also concluded that the Council breached regulation 5(2) given its delays in responding to the request.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(e); EIR 13(1); EIR 5(2)
View Lewisham Council
25 May 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested a copy of a report on travel proposals for a particular area. Swansea Council (the Council) withheld the information under regulation 12(4)(e) (internal communications). During the Commissioner’s investigation the Council withdrew reliance on regulation 12(4)(e) and stated that it was now relying on regulation 12(4)(d) (material in the course of completion) to withhold the information requested. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has correctly applied regulation 12(4)(d) to the information. He does not require any steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(d)
View Swansea Council
25 May 2022Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from Bicester Town Council (“the Council”) relating to the agendas of Personnel Committee Meetings the Council have held in the past five years. The Council withheld the requested information under section 40(5B)(a)(i) (neither confirm nor deny) of FOIA. During the course of the Commissioner’s investigation, the Council revised its position, and cited section 40(2) (personal information) of FOIA for personal information contained in the agendas and committed to start publishing the redacted agendas on its website. The Commissioner’s decision is that some of the requested information is the personal data of third parties and is exempt under section 40(2) (personal information) of FOIA. However, some of the information appears to be information that should be published on the Council’s website but is not. The Commissioner requires the Council to take the following step to ensure compliance with the legislation: Disclose, the Personnel Committee meeti
Exemptions cited: FOI 40(2)
25 May 2022Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested from Didcot Town Council (DTC) financial information relating to the closure of a council leisure centre. DTC refused the request on the grounds that section 41 (Information provided in confidence) of FOIA applied. The Commissioner’s decision is that part of the request was not a valid request for information under FOIA, because it did not meet the requirements of section 8(1)(c) of FOIA. As regards the remainder of the request, he finds that DTC was not entitled to rely on section 41 to withhold information about the amount owed to DTC, as this information was already in the public domain at the time of the request. He also finds that DTC failed to comply with obligations imposed by section 17(1) (Refusal of request) of FOIA to properly identify the basis of its refusal. The Commissioner requires DTC to disclose the information requested at point (4) of the request.
Exemptions cited: FOI 17; FOI 41; FOI 8
25 May 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant made a multi-part request relating to a variety of policing matters. Nottinghamshire Police refused to comply with the request, citing section 14(1) (vexatious request) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that Nottinghamshire Police was entitled to apply section 14(1). The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14
View Nottinghamshire Police
25 May 2022Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about the sale of a residential property. Haringey London Borough Council (‘the Council’) disclosed some relevant information and withheld the remainder under section 40(2) (personal data), section 42(1) (legal professional privilege) and section 43(2) (commercial interests) of FOIA. The Council subsequently revised its position. It has withdrawn its reliance on section 43(2) and confirmed it is also relying on section 41(1) (information provided in confidence) with regard to some of the information it is withholding. The Commissioner’s decision is as follows: Some of the requested information is exempt from disclosure under both section 41(1) and section 42(1) of FOIA. The Council is entitled to withhold the majority of the remaining information under section 42(1) of FOIA as it attracts legal professional privilege. The public interest favours maintaining this exemption. The Council had already disclosed to the complainant particular Council
Exemptions cited: FOI 17; FOI 41; FOI 42
View Haringey Council
25 May 2022Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested various pieces of information relating to the care of her late Aunt. Gateshead Council (the Council) refused to disclose the information requested but did not cite any specific exemptions. During the course of the Commissioner’s investigation, the Council confirmed that it had provided the complainant with personal data relating to themselves and that it considered the remaining information held exempt under section 40(2) (third party personal data) and 41 (information provided in confidence) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the complainant’s own personal data is exemption under section 40(1) and the other information held is exempt under sections 40(2) and 41. The Commissioner has however determined that the Council breached section 17 (1) of the FOIA in failing to issue a valid refusal within the appropriate timescale. The Commissioner does not require any steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 17; FOI 40(1); FOI 40(2); FOI 41
View Gateshead Council
25 May 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant made a request under FOIA to be provided with information about the number of people living at a specific address in Southsea. Portsmouth Council (“the Council”) withheld this information under section 40(2) of FOIA as when considered alongside other information in the public domain it could lead to the occupants being identified. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council was entitled to rely on section 40(2) to withhold the requested information. The Commissioner does not require the Council to take any steps in relation to this decision notice. First-tier tribunal (General Regulatory chamber) information rights appeal EA/2022/0130 dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40(2)
View Portsmouth City Council
24 May 2022Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested from Datchworth Parish Council information relating to past work undertaken on specific trees. The Council disclosed held information. The complainant believed that further information was held. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has disclosed all held information, but has breached the requirement of regulation 5(2) by disclosing information outside the time for compliance. The Commissioner does not require the Council to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 5(1); EIR 5(2)
24 May 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to diagnosis of pernicious anaemia. By the date of this notice Hounslow Family Practice (“the Practice”) had not issued a substantive response to this request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Practice has breached section 10(1) of FOIA that they failed to provide a valid response to the request within the statutory time frame of 20 working days. The Commissioner requires the Practice to provide a substantive response to the request in accordance with its obligations under FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
24 May 2022Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant made a multi-part request for information to Ormiston Academies Trust (the Trust) on 24 November 2021. The Trust responded on 17 December 2021 to parts 1-6 of the request but asked the complainant to remake parts 7-10 of the request at a later date as the Trust had already occurred a cost of £175 responding to parts 1-6 of this request and a previous request dated 9 November 2021. Whilst the Trust did not formally apply section 12 FOIA (cost limit) or section 14 FOIA (vexatious requests) to parts 7-10, it did ask the complainant to bare these sections in mind. Subsequently in the internal review dated 17 March 2022 the Trust responded to parts 7-10 of the request to the complainant’s satisfaction. The complainant has asked the Commissioner to investigate whether the Trust breached section 10 FOIA (statutory time for compliance) and section 16 FOIA (advice and assistance) in the handling of this request. The Commissioner considers that the Trust breached section 10 FOIA
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 16
View ORMISTON ACADEMIES TRUST
24 May 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information on reports and recommendations made following the Government’s consultation on the New Plan for Immigration (‘NPI’). The Home Office confirmed that it held information falling within scope of the request and it disclosed some statistical data. It refused to disclose the bulk of the information, stating that it was exempt from disclosure under section 35(1)(a) (Formulation of government policy) of FOIA, and that the public interest favoured maintaining the exemption. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Home Office was entitled to rely on section 35(1)(a) to refuse the request. The Commissioner requires no steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 35
View Home Office
24 May 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information about the members of the NHS England SMA Clinical Panel and eligibility criteria for administration programmes related to the medication Risdiplam. By the date of this notice, NHS England had not issued a substantive response to this request. The Commissioner’s decision is that NHS England 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 NHS England to take the following step to ensure compliance with the legislation: NHS England must provide a substantive response to the request in accordance with its obligations under FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View NHS England
24 May 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information about Afghan refugees. 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 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 Croydon
24 May 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information with regards to a councillor. Wigan council (the council) provided some information but withheld the remainder relying on 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) of the FOIA. The Commissioner does not require any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View Wigan Council
23 May 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to outcomes of appeals contained in HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) annual reports. The Commissioner’s decision is that HMRC is entitled to rely on section 44(1)(a) FOIA – prohibition on disclosure, to refuse the request. The Commissioner does not require HMRC to take the following any steps as a result of this decision notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 44
23 May 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has made a request to Windrush Surgery (the Surgery) for information regarding Black Alert status. The Surgery provided some information in response to the request but confirmed that some information requested was not held under section 1(1)(a) FOIA. The Commissioner is satisfied that, on the balance of probabilities, Windrush Surgery does not hold any further information that falls within the scope of the request other than that which has been provided. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
23 May 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information about work by a contractor to a hedge dividing his property from a public right of way. Shardlow & Great Wilne Parish Council provided information it held but the complainant was not persuaded that it did not hold more, so far undisclosed, information. The Commissioner’s decision is that Shardlow & Great Wilne Parish Council correctly refused to provide information it did not hold and that the EIR exception 12(4)(a) meant that Shardlow & Great Wilne Parish Council did not need to take further action. The Commissioner did not require Shardlow & Great Wilne Parish Council to take any steps to comply with the legislation. First-tier tribunal (General Regulatory chamber) information rights appeal EA/2022/0154 appeal allowed.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(a)
23 May 2022Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested from Derby City Council (the council) the inspection records for the Copper Building at One Friargate Square, Agard Street, Derby, relating to the planning department/building control's approval of a change of use planning application in 2015. They also requested records relating to the absence of a fire escape during a particular timeframe. The council provided some information and stated that it held no further information. The complainant does not accept that no further information is held by the council. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probability, the council does not hold any further information and therefore it has complied with regulation 5(1) of the EIR. However, he has also decided that the council breached regulation 5(2) of the EIR by providing some of the requested information beyond the legislative timeframe. The Commissioner does not require the council to take any further steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 5(1); EIR 5(2)
View Derby City Council
20 May 2022Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from Bicester Town Council (“the Council”) relating to the minutes of Personnel Committee Meetings the Council have held in the past five years. The Council withheld the requested information under section 40(5B)(a)(i) (neither confirm nor deny) of FOIA. During the course of the Commissioner’s investigation, the Council revised its position, and cited section 40(2) (personal information) of FOIA to withhold personal information contained within the minutes, and committed to publishing the redacted minutes of future meetings on its website. The Commissioner’s decision is that some of the requested information is the personal data of third parties and is exempt under section 40(2) (personal information) of FOIA. However, some of the information appears to be information that should be published on the Council’s website but is not. The Commissioner requires the Council to take the following step to ensure compliance with the legislation: Disclose, the
Exemptions cited: FOI 40(2)
20 May 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant made a request for information relating to Kevin Bakhurst, Director of Ofcom and a potential role at the BBC. Ofcom refused to confirm or deny whether the requested information was held under section 40(5B)(a)(i) FOIA. The Commissioner considers that Ofcom incorrectly applied section 40(5B)(a)(i) FOIA. The Commissioner requires the public authority to issue a fresh response, which must confirm or deny whether the requested information is held, and either disclose the requested information or issue a valid refusal notice compliant with section 17 of the FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40(5)
View Ofcom
20 May 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information associated with HM Treasury’s contracts with opinion polling firms. HM Treasury (HMT) withheld the requested information under section 35(1)(a) and section 43(2) of FOIA, which concern the formulation and development of government policy and commercial interests respectively. HMT has subsequently also applied section 36(2)(c) to the information, which concerns prejudice to the effective conduct of public affairs. The Commissioner’s decision is as follows: The requested information is exempt information under section 43(2) of FOIA and the public interest favours maintaining this exemption. The Commissioner does not require HMT to take any remedial steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 43
View HM Treasury
19 May 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from the Ministry of Justice (MOJ) relating to the cost of processing Exceptional Case Funding applications. The MOJ refused to comply with the request citing section 12(2) (cost limit) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the MOJ was entitled to refuse to comply with the request in accordance with section 12(2) of the FOIA. He also finds that the MOJ met its obligations under section 16(1) of the FOIA to offer advice and assistance. The Commissioner does not require the MOJ to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12; FOI 16
View Ministry of Justice
19 May 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to the Prime Minister’s ‘lockdown declaration’ on 23 March 2020 and, specifically, any legal advice that had been sought prior to the Prime Minister’s address to the nation. The Cabinet Office initially relied on section 42(2) and, subsequently, section 35(3) of FOIA to refuse to confirm or deny whether it held any relevant information. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Cabinet Office has failed to demonstrate that issuing a confirmation or a denial would, in itself, disclose information to which legal professional privilege could be maintained and is therefore not entitled to rely on section 42(2) of FOIA. Whilst the Commissioner agrees that section 35(3) of FOIA is engaged, he considers that the balance of the public interest favours confirming or denying whether the information is held. The Commissioner requires the Cabinet Office to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: confirm or deny whether it hol
Exemptions cited: FOI 35; FOI 42
View Cabinet Office
19 May 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from the Cabinet Office relating to the Grenfell Tower fire. The Cabinet Office refused to comply with the request citing section 12 (cost limit) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Cabinet Office was entitled to refuse to comply with the request in accordance with section 12(1) of FOIA. He also finds that the Cabinet Office met its obligation under section 16(1) of FOIA to offer advice and assistance. The Commissioner does not require the Cabinet Office to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12(1); FOI 16(1)
View Cabinet Office
19 May 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information from Newport City Council (the ”Council”) regarding correspondence between an applicant and planning officers. The Council initially considered the information was exempt from disclosure under Section 40(2) (personal information) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA). During the course of the Commissioner’s investigation the Council amended its position relying on the Environmental Information Regulations 2004 (EIR) and cited Regulation 12(3) (third party personal information) and regulation 13 of the EIR to withhold the requested information. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council is entitled to rely on regulation 12(3) and Regulation 13 of the EIR to withhold the requested information. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any further steps. First-tier tribunal (General Regulatory chamber) information rights appeal EA/2022/0138 dismissed.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(3); EIR 13
View Newport City Council
19 May 2022Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from Buckhurst Hill Parish Council (“the Council”) regarding the running of the Council’s Facebook page and its associated administration, and included a second request for council staff renumeration information including expenses and benefits, and a copy of an invoice for furniture expenditure. The Council considered it was appropriate to pool the data for the two requests together in order to provide an aggregated response. Whilst the Council disclosed some information including that it held about its Facebook page, and the financial details contained within the invoice, it refused the request for the specific renumeration information on the basis that the information was personal data under section 40(2). The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council was entitled to rely on section 40(2) of FOIA for part of the withheld information. However, the Commissioner finds that the Council has breached section 10(1) of FOIA regarding the request, as it
Exemptions cited: FOI 10(1); FOI 17; FOI 40(2)
19 May 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information about the Nelson Mandela Memorial project at Princes Park. 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 the FOIA in that it failed to provide a valid response to the request within the statutory time frame of 20 working days. The Commissioner requires the Council to take the following step to ensure compliance with the legislation: The Council must provide a substantive response to the request in accordance with its obligations under the FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Liverpool City Council
19 May 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to relating to the Private Sector Leasing Scheme operated by the London Borough of Havering (the Council). The Council issued a partial response but at the date of this decision notice it had not answered the request in full. The Commissioner requires the Council to respond to the outstanding parts of the request.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View London Borough of Havering
19 May 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested Board of Governors meeting minutes and correspondence. The position of Laurelhill Community College (‘the College’) was that it had disclosed all the relevant information it holds, which the complainant disputed. The College has subsequently revised its position and considers that the request is a vexatious request under section 14(1) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is as follows: On the basis of the evidence the College has presented to him, the Commissioner has not been persuaded that the request is vexatious and therefore finds that section 14(1) is not engaged. The Commissioner requires the College to take the following step to ensure compliance with the legislation: Provide the complainant with a fresh response to their request that complies with FOIA, and which does not rely on section 14(1).
Exemptions cited: FOI 14
19 May 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested from Kirklees Metropolitan Council (the “Council”) information contained in user evidence forms provided to the Council by witnesses as to the long-term use of a claimed public right of way. The Council relied on regulation 13 of the EIR (personal information) to withhold some of the information. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council applied regulation 13(1) of the EIR. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken. First-tier tribunal (General Regulatory chamber) information rights appeal EA/2022/0152 appeal dismissed.
Exemptions cited: EIR 13(1)
View Kirklees Metropolitan Council
19 May 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from Copeland Borough Council (“the Council”) relating to Covid-19 grants for a small business. The Council disclosed some of the requested information but refused to disclose the remainder (“the withheld information”), citing section 31(1)(a) of FOIA as a basis for non-disclosure.The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has correctly applied the above exemption to the withheld information. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 31