18 May 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information from the London Borough of Croydon relating to a planning application and notice served upon the complainant. By the date of this notice the London Borough of Croydon (“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.
Exemptions cited: EIR 5(2)
View London Borough of Croydon
18 May 2022Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested from the Environment Agency (EA) information relating to Kingmoor Energy Recovery Facility and the correspondence and communications between the EA and the permit applicant and/or agent, Fortum Carlisle Ltd (FCL) since the submission of a referenced permit application. The EA provided some information in response to the request, withholding other information under regulation 12(5)(e) EIR - commercial or industrial information and regulation 12(5)(f) EIR – interests of the information provider. The EA also withheld some personal information. The Commissioner’s decision is that the EA has correctly cited regulation 12(5)(e) and that the public interest favoured maintaining the exception at the time the request was made. However, by failing to provide all the relevant information within the required timescales, the EA has breached regulation 5(2) EIR.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(e); EIR 5(2)
View Environment Agency
18 May 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested disclosure of redacted information contained in an email of 15 January 2019. The Commissioner’s decision is that HM Revenue and Customs (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 any steps as a result of this decision notice. First-tier tribunal (General Regulatory chamber) information rights appeal EA/2022/0129 appeal dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 44
18 May 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information held by the London Borough of Hillingdon (the council) which relates to its ‘Domestic Vehicle Footway Crossover Policy’. The council refused the request, citing section 14(1) - vexatious request, of the FOIA. Following the intervention of the Commissioner, the council revised its position, and provided the complainant with some information. It is the Commissioner’s decision that the request would fall within the scope of the EIR, and not the FOIA. Whilst the information provided by the council was not what the complainant required, the Commissioner is satisfied that, on the balance of probabilities, the council does not hold any other information that is relevant to the request. Therefore, the Commissioner does not require the council to take any further action as a result of this decision notice.
Exemptions cited: EIR 5(1)
View Hillingdon Council
18 May 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from the Ministry of Justice (“MOJ”) regarding biographical details of a District Judge and a case they presided over. The MOJ explained that part of the request did not relate to recorded information and was therefore not covered by FOIA. It explained further that it did not hold some of the recorded information requested. The MOJ relied on section 21 of FOIA to withhold the requested information it did hold as it was already reasonably accessible to the requestor. The Commissioner’s decision is that the MOJ is entitled to rely on section 21 of FOIA – information already reasonably accessible by other means, to withhold the requested information. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any further steps as a result of this decision notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 21
View Ministry of Justice
18 May 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from the Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC) relating to SARS and the National Risk Register. The. The DHSC refused to comply with the request citing section 12(1) (cost limit) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the DHSC was entitled to refuse to comply with the request in accordance with section 12(1) 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.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12(1); FOI 16
View Department of Health and Social Care
18 May 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from the Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC) relating to a SARS contingency plan. The DHSC refused to comply with the request citing section 12(1) (cost limit) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the DHSC was entitled to refuse to comply with the request in accordance with section 12(1) 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.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12(1); FOI 16
View Department of Health and Social Care
18 May 2022Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant made a request for information relating to President Tsai Ing-wen’s Thesis. The LSE provided some information, it withheld some information under section 40(2) FOIA and confirmed that no further information was held. The Commissioner considers that section 40(2) FOIA was applied correctly to the withheld information and that the LSE was correct to confirm that no further information was held under section 1(1)(a) FOIA other than that which had been provided or withheld under section 40(2) FOIA. The LSE breached section 10 in the handling of this request as it did not provide a response within the statutory time for compliance. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 40
18 May 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about police officers’ compliance with the law. Humberside Police refused the request on the grounds that it was not a valid request for recorded information under section 8 of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that Humberside Police was entitled to rely on section 8(1)(c) of FOIA to refuse the request.
Exemptions cited: FOI 16; FOI 8
View Humberside Police
18 May 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to the National Tutoring Programme. The Department for Education disclosed some information but relied on section 36 of FOIA (prejudice to effective conduct of public affairs) to withhold the remainder. The Commissioner’s decision is that the DfE has not demonstrated that either section 36(2)(b)(i) or 26(2)(b)(ii) of FOIA is engaged in respect of the non-statistical information. Whilst section 36(2)(c) is engaged in respect of this information, the balance of the public interest favours disclosure. The remaining information is statistical information and the DfE has not demonstrated that any of the limbs of the exemption are engaged. The DfE is therefore not entitled to rely on any limb of the exemption to withhold the statistical information. The Commissioner requires the DfE to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: disclose, to the complainant, the information it has withheld.
Exemptions cited: FOI 36
View Department for Education
17 May 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information from the London Borough of Waltham Forest (“the Council”) relating to experimental traffic order (ETO) schemes. 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 has failed to demonstrate that regulation 12(4)(b) is engaged and therefore, is not entitled to rely on this exception. The Commissioner requires the Council to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: Issue a fresh response to the request that does not rely on regulation 12(4)(b) of the EIR.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(b)
View Waltham Forest Council
17 May 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information about school transport provided by KentCounty Council. By the date of this notice Kent County 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 Kent County Council
17 May 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from Blackpool Borough Council (“the Council”) about how it arranges leaseholders buildings cover, specifically a copy of the Council’s contract with its insurance broker, Thomas Sagar Insurances Limited (Sagar). The Council initially refused to provide a copy of the contract with Sagar on the basis of prejudice to commercial interests under section 43(2) of FOIA, however, following the intervention of the Commissioner it disclosed a redacted version of the contract. The Council continued to withhold some information within the contract under section 43(2) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has correctly relied on section 43(2) of FOIA and that the balance of the public interest favours maintaining this exemption. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 43(2)
View Blackpool Council
17 May 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested copies of a business case on staff pay put to HM Treasury. HM Revenue & Customs withheld the requested information and relied on section 36 of FOIA (prejudice to the effective conduct of public affairs) in order to do so. The Commissioner’s decision is that HMRC is entitled to rely on section 36(2)(b)(ii) of FOIA to withhold the information and that the public interest favours maintaining the exemption. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 36
17 May 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested from North Devon District Council information relating to specified planning applications. The Council disclosed held information, subject to redactions under the exceptions provided by regulation 13 (Personal data) and regulation 12(5)(f) (Interests of the person who provided the information) of the EIR. The complainant subsequently disputed the application of regulation 12(5)(f). The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council was entitled to withhold the information under regulation 12(5)(f). The Commissioner does not require the Council to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(f)
View North Devon District Council
17 May 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from the London Borough of Southwark (“the Council”) relating to refugees living in the borough. By the date of this notice, the Council had not provided a substantive response to the 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: Issue a substantive response to the request in accordance with its obligations under FOIA. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10(1)
View Southwark Council
17 May 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to a number of University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust (UCLH) policies. UCLH provided all the information requested aside from the Information Security Policy. The Commissioner’s decision is that UCLH is entitled to rely on section 31(1)(a) to withhold the information relating to the Information Security Policy. The Commissioner does not require UCLH to take any steps as a result of this decision notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 31(1)(a)
View University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust
17 May 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested details relating to a specified court case. The Ministry of Justice (the ‘MOJ’) refused to provide the requested information, citing section 32 (court records) and section 40 (personal information) of FOIA, but provided details as to how the complainant might be able to obtain the information via the Criminal Procedure Rules on payment of a fee. During the course of the Commissioner’s investigation the MOJ provided some information outside the scope of FOIA on a discretionary basis, but maintained that both sections 32 and 40 applied to the remainder of the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the MOJ was entitled to rely on section 32(1)(c)(i) and (ii) to refuse the remainder of this request. As he has found section 32 to be engaged, he has not deemed it necessary to consider the MOJ’s reliance on section 40(2) of FOIA. The Commissioner does not require the MOJ to take any steps as a result of this notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 32
View Ministry of Justice
16 May 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested data relating to the operation of a Sewage Treatment Works. Northumbrian Water Ltd relied on Regulation 8 of the EIR and stated that it would only provide the information for a fee of £75. The Commissioner’s decision is that Northumbrian Water Ltd has sought to levy an unreasonable charge for environmental information and has therefore breached Regulation 8 of the EIR. The Commissioner requires Northumbrian Water Ltd to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. Either provide the information to the complainant or issue a refusal notice that complies with Regulation 14 of the EIR.
Exemptions cited: EIR 8
View Northumbrian Water
16 May 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from Oldham Council (“the Council”) regarding safety certification for Boundary Park Stadium. The Council provided the complainant with some information, however it refused to disclose the remainder (“the withheld information), citing section 38(1) of FOIA as a basis for non-disclosure. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has correctly applied section 38 to the withheld information. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken. First-tier tribunal (General Regulatory chamber) information rights appeal EA/2022/0141 under appeal.
Exemptions cited: FOI 38
View Oldham Council
16 May 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from the Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC) in relation to whether a specific investigation had taken place and for copies of any report/s connected to it, were they to be held. The IOPC refused to confirm nor deny whether it held the requested information under section 40(5) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the IOPC has correctly cited sections 40(5A) and 40(5B)(a)(i) of FOIA in response to the request as, if held, the information would be a combination of the complainant’s own personal data as well as the personal data of third parties. The Commissioner does not require the IOPC to take any steps as a result of this decision notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40(5)
View Independent Office for Police Conduct
16 May 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested correspondence relating to phonecalls that Lord Bethell, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health, had with various companies during the early stages of the Covid-19 pandemic. The Department for Health and Social Care (“the DHSC”) disclosed some information but relied on section 35 (government policy) and section 43 (commercial interests) of FOIA to withhold the remainder. The Commissioner’s decision is that sections 35(1)(a), 35(1)(b) and 35(1)(d) of FOIA are all partially engaged in relation to some of the withheld information but, where they are, the public interest favours disclosure. The Commissioner does not consider that the DHSC has demonstrated why section 43 of FOIA is engaged in relation to any of the withheld information. The Commissioner requires the DHSC to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: disclose, to the complainant, all of the information it has relied on either section 35 or section 43 of FOIA to wi
Exemptions cited: FOI 35; FOI 43
View Department of Health and Social Care
16 May 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from NHS Improvement (NHSI) relating to an EDI glossary. By the date of this notice NHSI had not issued a substantive response to this request. The Commissioner’s decision is that NHSI 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 NHSI to take the following step to ensure compliance with the legislation: NHSI must provide a substantive response to the request in accordance with its obligations under the FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View NHS England
16 May 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from Monkwearmouth Academy (“the Academy”) about staff training on Parental Alienation at the Academy. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Academy has breached section 10 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 Academy to take the following step to ensure compliance with the legislation: The Academy must provide a substantive response to the request in accordance with its obligations under the FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
16 May 2022Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information held by City of York Council (the council) relating to the legal status of a particular road. The council refused to provide the information requested, citing regulation 13 – personal information, regulation 12(5)(b) - course of justice, and regulation 12(5)(f) - interests of the information provider, of the EIR. During the Commissioner’s investigation, the council stated that it also considered regulation 11(4)(b) – manifestly unreasonable, of the EIR, to be engaged. The Commissioner finds that the council has failed to demonstrate that any of the exceptions cited are engaged in respect of part 1 of the request. The Commissioner is satisfied that the council is entitled to rely on regulation 13 when withholding all the information relevant to part 2 of the request (with the exception of that information which also relates to part 1 of the request). With regard to part 3 of the request, it is the Commissioner’s decision that the council has bre
Exemptions cited: EIR 11(4); EIR 12(5)(b); EIR 12(5)(f); EIR 13; EIR 14(2); EIR 9
View York City Council
16 May 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested owner information on five vehicles. The Driver & Vehicle Licensing Agency (DVLA) refused to provide the requested information originally stating that the request did not meet its ‘reasonable cause’ criteria. It later confirmed that the information was withheld citing the exemption under section 40(2) (third party personal data) and 41(1) (information provided to public authority in confidence) of the FOIA, as its basis for doing so. The Commissioner’s decision is that DVLA has correctly applied section 40(2) of FOIA to the withheld information. First-tier tribunal (General Regulatory chamber) information rights appeal EA/2022/0151 appeal withdrawn.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40(2)
View Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency
13 May 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information about a police dog biting incident which occurred on 14 November 2020. The Independent Office for Police Conduct (“the IOPC”) disclosed some of the information requested through provision of a redacted referral form. The IOPC relied on section 40(2) of FOIA to withhold information which identified the individual concerned and included health information and criminal offence data. The Commissioner’s decision is that the IOPC correctly applied section 40(2) of FOIA. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken as a result of this decision notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40(2)
View Independent Office for Police Conduct
13 May 2022Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested data relating to a water source. Anglian Water Services Ltd provided some information but the complainant considers that more is held. The Commissioner’s decision is that Anglian Water has, on the balance of probabilities, disclosed, to the complainant, all the information it holds and has therefore complied with its duty under Regulation 5(1) of the EIR. Anglian Water breached Regulation 10 of the EIR in it handling of this request. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 10; EIR 5(1)
View Anglian Water
13 May 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested data about Sewage Treatment Works (STWs). Northumbrian Water Ltd declined to provide the information and relied on Regulation 6(1)(b) of the EIR as it said that the information was publicly available from the Environment Agency. The Commissioner’s decision is that the information in question is both publicly available and easily accessible. Northumbrian Water Ltd was therefore entitled to rely on Regulation 6(1)(b) of the EIR to not provide the information. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 6(1)(b)
View Northumbrian Water
12 May 2022Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested a copy of a particular file the Cabinet Office holds on a deceased British businessman. The Cabinet Office applied sections 23(1) (Information supplied by, or relating to, bodies dealing with security matters) and 24(1) (National security) of FOIA, in the alternative, to refuse the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Cabinet Office was entitled to apply sections 23(1) and 24(1) in the alternative, to withhold the requested information. The Commissioner requires no steps as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: FOI 23; FOI 24; FOI 45
View Cabinet Office
12 May 2022Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested correspondence relating to a draft letter and made a “meta-request” for correspondence generated as a result of that earlier request. The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs disclosed the content of the emails, but redacted the names and contact details of some of the recipients, relying on section 40(2) of FOIA (third party personal data) in order to do so – although it subsequently disclosed one of the previously-withheld names. The Commissioner’s decision is that DEFRA is entitled to rely on section 40(2) of FOIA to withhold the remaining names. He is also satisfied that DEFRA holds no further information. As DEFRA did not disclose all the information, to which the complainant was entitled, within 20 working days, it breached section 10 of FOIA in respect of both requests. As it failed to issue a refusal notice in respect of the Meta-request within 20 working days it also breached section 17 of FOIA when responding to that request. The Commis
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10; FOI 17; FOI 40
12 May 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from Sheffield City Council’s (“the Council”) process for marking out legally privileged documents. 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 issue a substantive response to the request in accordance with its obligations under FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Sheffield City Council
12 May 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested from the Hampshire Constabulary (“the Constabulary”) information about body camera footage, written and audio recordings and an investigation outcome relating to a named police officer during an alleged incident in October 2021. Another named individual involved was reported by the complainant to have subsequently died following the incident.The Constabulary refused to provide the information citing that they neither confirmed or denied the information was held. The Commissioner does not require the Constabulary to take any steps in relation to this matter.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40(5)
12 May 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to meetings between the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care and Sir Nick Clegg. The Department of Health and Social Care provided some information but withheld the remainder, relying on section 35 (development of government policy), section 36 (prejudice to the effective conduct of public affairs) and section 43 (commercial interests) of FOIA to withhold the requested information. The Commissioner’s decision is that the DHSC has not demonstrated that either section 36 or section 43 is engaged in relation to the withheld information. Whilst he accepts that section 35(1)(a) has been correctly engaged in respect of some of the withheld information, he considers that the balance of the public interest favours disclosure. In failing to respond to the request within 20 working days, the DHSC breached section 10 of FOIA. The Commissioner requires the DHSC to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: disclose th
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 35; FOI 43
View Department of Health and Social Care
12 May 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information about Independent Legal Observers. By the date of this notice Greater Manchester Police (GMP) had not issued a substantive response to this request. The Commissioner’s decision is that GMP 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 GMP to take the following step to ensure compliance with the legislation: GMP must provide a substantive response to the request in accordance with its obligations under FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Greater Manchester Police
12 May 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from All Souls College concerning the online availability of a founding document that established the status and governance of All Souls College that was filed with the Charity Commission on 16 July 2010. By the date of this notice, All Souls College had still failed to provide a substantive response to this request. The Commissioner’s decision is that All Souls College failed to provide a substantive response to the request within 20 working days and has therefore breached section 10 of the FOIA. The Commissioner requires All Souls College to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: All Souls College must provide a substantive response to the request in accordance with its obligations under FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
12 May 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested from the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (DLUHC) information relating to advice received by the DLUHC from the Civil Service regarding Town Deals. The Commissioner’s decision is that the DLUHC was entitled to refuse to comply with the request in accordance with section 12(1) of the FOIA. He also finds that the DLUHC met its obligations under section 16(1) of the FOIA to offer advice and assistance. The Commissioner does not require the DLUHC to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12(1); FOI 16
View Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government
12 May 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from Derbyshire County Council (“the Council”) associated with disciplinary related procedural measures applied to employees of the County Council. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council were entitled to refuse to comply with the request under section 12(1) of FOIA (cost of compliance), and that it has complied with its obligations under section 16(1) of FOIA to provide adequate advice and assistance to the complainant. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12(1); FOI 16
View Derbyshire County Council
11 May 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information about ideas submitted to Hastings Brough Council (the Council) for community projects on which to spend money awarded through the Towns Fund. The Council refused to disclose the information, citing regulations 12(5)(e) (Confidentiality of commercial or industrial information) and 12(5)(f) (Interests of the person who provided the information) of the EIR. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has not demonstrated that it was entitled to rely on either regulation to withhold the requested information. The Commissioner requires the Council to disclose the withheld information. In doing so it should redact personal data, in accordance with regulation 13 (Personal data) of the EIR
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(e); EIR 12(5)(f)
View Hastings Borough Council
11 May 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant made a multi-part request for information relating to meetings between the Mayor of London and the Prince of Wales between 1 January 2010 and 1 January 2012. The Greater London Authority (GLA) provided details of some relevant information and confirmed it did not hold any further information within the scope of the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the GLA has conducted reasonable searches for the requested information which would have located further information if it was held. He has therefore concluded that, on the balance of probabilities, the GLA does not hold any further information in the scope of the request. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4); FOI 1
View Greater London Authority
11 May 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to Accounting Officer Advice regarding the selection of towns for the Towns Fund. The Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (DLUHC) confirmed it held relevant information but refused to disclose it, citing sections 36 (prejudice to effective conduct of public affairs) and 42 (legal professional privilege) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the DLUHC has failed to demonstrate that either section 36 or 42 applies. The Commissioner requires the DLUHC to take the following step to ensure compliance with the legislation: disclose the withheld information to the complainant. First-tier tribunal (General Regulatory chamber) information rights appeal EA/2022/0143 & 0144 appeal allowed in part.
Exemptions cited: FOI 36; FOI 42
View Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government
11 May 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant submitted two requests for information held by Bidborough Parish Council (the parish council) about matters that relate to the proposed development of a local pavilion. The Commissioner is satisfied that the parish council has, on the balance of probabilities, now provided the complainant with the information held that is relevant to both requests. However, as it took the parish council more than a year to provide all the relevant information to the complainant, the Commissioner has found there to be a breach of regulation 5(2) of the EIR in respect of both requests. Furthermore, the Commissioner has determined that the parish council’s failure to complete an internal review in respect of both of the requests is also a breach of regulation 11(4) of the EIR. The Commissioner does not require the parish council to take any steps as a result of this decision notice.
Exemptions cited: EIR 11(4); EIR 5(2)
11 May 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested Ysgol Gyfun Gwyr about the management of asbestos in school buildings. By the date of this notice Ysgol Gyfun Gŵyr had not issued a substantive response to this request. The Commissioner’s decision is that Ysgol Gyfun Gŵyr has failed to respond to the request within 20 working days and has therefore breached regulation 5(2) of the EIR. The Commissioner requires Ysgol Gyfun Gŵyr to provide a substantive response to the request in accordance with its obligations under the EIR.
Exemptions cited: EIR 5(2)
11 May 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to Accounting Officer Advice regarding the selection of towns for the Towns Fund. The Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (DLUHC) confirmed it held relevant information but refused to disclose it, citing sections 36 (prejudice to effective conduct of public affairs) and 42 (legal professional privilege) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the DLUHC has failed to demonstrate that either section 36 or 42 applies. The Commissioner requires the DLUHC to take the following step to ensure compliance with the legislation: disclose the withheld information to the complainant. First-tier tribunal (General Regulatory chamber) information rights appeal EA/2022/0143 & 0144 appeal allowed in part.
Exemptions cited: FOI 36; FOI 42
View Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government
11 May 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information from the London Borough of Waltham Forest (“the Council”) about ‘LTN’s (Low Traffic Neighbourhoods), Road Closures and Mini Holland’. The Council disclosed some of the requested information but cited section 40(2) of FOIA (personal information) as its basis for refusal to disclose the redacted information. It introduced additional reliance on section 31(1)(a)(b) of FOIA (law enforcement), and section 24 of FOIA (national security). During the Commissioners investigation, the Council amended its response changing its reliance to regulation 12(5)(a) (national security) of the EIR, and regulation 13(1) of the EIR (personal information) to withhold the redacted information. The Commissioner is satisfied that the Council is entitled to refuse to comply with the request for the redacted information on the basis of regulation 12(5)(a) and regulation 13(1) of the EIR and that the public interest favours maintaining the exception. The Commissioner does not
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(a); EIR 13(1)
View Waltham Forest Council
11 May 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information as to who currently occupies the role of Minister for the Civil Service and copies of any public announcement made in relation to any change of this appointment. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Cabinet Office is entitled to rely on section 21 of FOIA as information within scope of his request is already reasonably accessible to him on the government website. The Commissioner does not require the Cabinet Office to take any remedial steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Cabinet Office
10 May 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from the Department for Digital Culture, Media and Sport (“DCMS”) relating to minutes of a meeting between Oliver Dowden, Lord Brownlow and the Royal Albert Hall. By the date of this notice DCMS had failed to provide a substantive response to this request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the DCMS has breached 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 respond to the complainant’s response in accordance with the FOIA. DCMS must take these steps within 35 calendar days of the date of this decision notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 17(3)
View Department for Culture, Media and Sport
10 May 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested from NHS Improvement copies of correspondence between Emily Lawson and Baroness Michelle Mone since March 2020 relating to personal protective equipment. By the date of this notice NHS Improvement had not issued a substantive response to this request. The Commissioner’s decision is that NHS Improvement 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 Improvement to provide a substantive response to the request in accordance with its obligations under FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View NHS England
10 May 2022Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information related to the fire safety of the Copper Building in Derby from the University of Derby (the university). The university refused to provide some of the requested information, citing regulations 12(5)(a)(public safety), 12(4)(b)(manifestly unreasonable), 12(5)(e)(commercial confidentiality) and the exception for third party personal data of the EIR which it later partly withdrew. The Commissioner’s decision is that the university has not demonstrated that either regulation 12(5)(a) or 12(4)(b) of the EIR are engaged. The university also failed to provide adequate advice and assistance to the complainant regarding regulation 12(4)(b), contravening regulation 9. The Commissioner has decided that regulation 12(5)(e) is only engaged in relation to part four of the request where the public interest favours maintaining the exception. The Commissioner has also concluded that the third party personal data the university sought to withhold under regulati
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(b); EIR 12(5)(a); EIR 12(5)(e); EIR 13; EIR 5(1); EIR 9
View University of Derby
10 May 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested all information in respect of how the Council arrived at its decision regarding the ownership of a piece of land on which a shed was located near their property. Swansea Council provided some information, but refused part of the request citing section 14(2) (repeated request) FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the request in its entirety should have been considered under the Environmental Information Regulations 2004 (EIR) and as there is no equivalent to section 14(2) under the EIR that section 14(2) cannot apply. However, having recently issued a decision notice (IC-96416-S3G8) in respect of essentially the same information, the Commissioner is satisfied Swansea Council has previously provided all information it holds to the complainant and that regulation 6(1)(b) is therefore an appropriate exception to refuse to supply it again in respect of this request.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14(2)
View Swansea Council