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
9 May 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information with regards to a Neighbourhood Plan. East Woodhay Parish Council (the council), provided some information but the complainant considered further information to be held. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council does not hold further information falling within the scope of the request. The Commissioner does not require the council to take any steps. First-tier tribunal (General Regulatory chamber) information rights appeal EA/2022/0133 appeal dismissed.
Exemptions cited: EIR 5(1)
9 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 parties that may have taken place at DCMS. 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. DCMS must provide a substantive response to the request in accordance with its obligations under the FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Department for Culture, Media and Sport
9 May 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested various information in respect of job advertisements for a ‘teacher of the deaf’ both before and after 16 June 2017. London Borough of Bromley Council provided some information but did not address a certain aspect of the request to either confirm or deny whether they held other relevant information the complainant was seeking. The Commissioner’s decision is that Bromley Council has failed to demonstrate that it has complied with its obligations under section 1(1)FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1(1)
View Bromley Council
9 May 2022Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested various information in respect of the Rype Play Park. Lydd Town Council provided its revised Covid-19 Risk Assessment and following the Commissioner’s intervention, provided the inspection sheets for the relevant time period. The Commissioner’s decision is that Lydd Town Council has complied with its obligations under regulation 5(1) of the EIR. However, it failure to provide the inspection sheets within the specified timescales represents a breach of regulation 5(2) of the EIR. First-tier tribunal (General Regulatory chamber) information rights appeal EA/2022/0145 dismissed.
Exemptions cited: EIR 5(1); EIR 5(2)
View Ilkley Town Council
9 May 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information about specific costs charged by three third parties for legal advice and representation during proceedings against the charity Kids Company. The Insolvency Service withheld the information under section 43(2) (commercial interests) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Insolvency Service 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 The Insolvency Service
9 May 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to the late Jimmy Rogers’ interactions with the London Borough of Lambeth (“LB Lambeth”). It refused to confirm or deny that it held this information and cited section 41 (confidentiality exemption) as its basis for doing so. It upheld this at internal review. The Commissioner’s decision is that LB Lambeth is entitled to rely on section 41 as its basis for refusing to confirm or deny whether the requested information is held. No steps are required.
Exemptions cited: FOI 41
View London Borough of Lambeth
9 May 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information shared with the Welsh Government by the UK Government relating to international travel restrictions in response to the Covid-19 pandemic. The Welsh Government initially withheld the requested information under section 35(1)(a) (formulation or development of government policy). It subsequently disclosed some information, and withheld the remainder under section 35(1)(a), section 35(1)(b) (ministerial communications), section 27(1) (prejudice to international relations) and section 28(1) (prejudice to relations between different UK administrations). The Commissioner’s decision is that the Welsh Government was entitled to rely on the exemption at section 28(1) in respect of the requested information.
Exemptions cited: FOI 28
View Welsh Government
9 May 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from South Yorkshire Police (“SYP”) about policies and training relating to section 135(1) warrants. By the date of this notice SYP had not issued a substantive response to this request. The Commissioner’s decision is that SYP 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 SYP to take the following step to ensure compliance with the legislation: SYP must provide a substantive response to the request in accordance with its obligations under the FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View South Yorkshire Police
6 May 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information about the Coventry North Package - part of Coventry’s Strategic Transport Investment Programme. Coventry City Council (‘the Council’) withheld the information under regulation 12(4)(d) and regulation 12(4)(e) of the EIR, which concern material still in the course of completion and internal communications respectively. The Council has subsequently relied on regulation 12(4)(b) (manifestly unreasonable request) to withhold communications that are not covered by regulation 12(4)(e). The Commissioner’s decision is as follows: At the time of the request, the requested information engaged regulation 12(4)(d) of the EIR because it could be categorised as information relating to material in the course of completion. The public interest favoured maintaining this exception. The Commissioner does not require the Council to take any corrective steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(d)
View Coventry City Council
6 May 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information about specific parts of Coventry’s road network. Coventry City Council (‘the Council’) has disclosed some information (with personal data redacted) and withheld the remaining information under regulation 12(4)(d) of the EIR, which concerns material still in the course of completion. The Commissioner’s decision is as follows: At the time of the request, the withheld information engaged regulation 12(4)(d) of the EIR because it could be categorised as information relating to material in the course of completion. The public interest favoured maintaining this exception. The Commissioner does not require the Council to take any corrective steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(d)
View Coventry City Council
6 May 2022Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information associated with a planning application. Borough Council of King’s Lynn & West Norfolk (‘the Council’) released information with personal data redacted. The complainant considers that the Council holds further, relevant information. The Commissioner’s decision is as follows: On the balance of probabilities the Council disclosed all the relevant and non-exempt information that it holds and has complied with regulation 5(1) of the EIR. The Council was in breach of regulation 5(2) and regulation 14(2) however, as it did not disclose the information or issue a refusal within 20 working days of the request. The Council was also in breach of regulation 11(4) of the EIR as it did not provide an internal review within 40 working days of the request for one. The Commissioner does not require the Council to take any corrective steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 11; EIR 14; EIR 5
6 May 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to the Cabinet Office seeking a copy of a feasibility study into the possibility of moving the House of Lords to York. The Cabinet Office withheld the information on the basis of section 35(1)(a) (formulation and development of government policy) of FOIA, or in the alternative, section 36(2)(b)(ii) (prejudice to the effective conduct of public affairs) of FOIA. The Commissioner has concluded that the withheld information is exempt from disclosure on the basis of section 35(1)(a) and that in all the circumstances of the case the public interest favours maintaining the exemption.
Exemptions cited: FOI 35
View Cabinet Office
5 May 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information about the number and length of service of Muslim employees at Washington Academy (“the Academy”). By the date of this notice, the Academy had not issued a substantive response to this request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Academy 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 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 FOIA. The Academy 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
5 May 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested various information regarding the Kings Mill Heritage Centre between 1 January 2018 and 29 January 2021. Wrexham County Borough Council (the Council) withheld the information requested under sections 36(2)(b)(i), 36(2)(b)(ii) and 36(2)(c) (effective conduct of public affairs). The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has correctly applied 36(2)(b)(i) and 36(2)(b)(ii) to the withheld information. The Commissioner does not require any steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 36
View Wrexham County Borough Council
5 May 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information about the number and length of service of Muslim employees at Hayesfield Girls School (“the School”). 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 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 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 FOIA and may be dealt with as a contempt of court. First-tier tribunal (General Regulatory chamber) information rights appeal EA/2
Exemptions cited: EIR 10
5 May 2022Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant made two requests for copies of information relating to Exercise Cygnus. The Department for Levelling Up, Housing & Communities responded to the first request by stating that it did not hold the information. However, when the complainant requested the same information a second time, DLUHC accepted that it did hold some information, but relied on section 35 of FOIA (formulation of government policy) in order to withhold it. The Commissioner’s decision is that DLUHC is entitled to rely on section 35 of the FOIA to withhold the requested information. However, as it incorrectly stated, in response to the first request, that it did not hold any relevant information, DLUHC breached section 10 of FOIA. DLUHC also breached section 10 of FOIA in respect of the second request as it failed to respond within 20 working days. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 35
View Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government
5 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 emails sent and received by Professor Sir Chris Whitty regarding herd immunity. 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
4 May 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information regarding public sector professional courses attracting an enhanced DBS check. By the date of this notice UCAS had not issued a substantive response to this request. The Commissioner’s decision is that UCAS 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 UCAS to take the following step to ensure compliance with the legislation.• UCAS must provide a substantive response to the request in accordance with its obligations under FOIA. UCAS 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
4 May 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested from the University of Southampton (the university) the confidential annex to the Commissioner’s decision notice FS50772671, dated 18 December 2019. The university refused this request, citing section 32 – court records, later also citing 14(1)(vexatious request) and section 40(2)(personal information). The Commissioner’s decision is that the university is entitled to rely on section 14(1) to refuse the request. He does not require the public authority to take any further steps. First-tier tribunal (General Regulatory chamber) information rights appeal EA/2022/0139 appeal allowed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14(1)
View University of Southampton
4 May 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested from the Office of the Police and Crime Commissioner for Cambridgeshire and Peterborough (“OPCC”) copies of the application forms for successfully appointed applicants to the position of Legally Qualified Chair (“LQC”) for Police Conduct Panels for the past ten years.The Commissioner’s decision is that the information requested falls within the definition of personal data. The OPCC was therefore entitled to withhold this information under section 40(2) of FOIA.The Commissioner does not require the OPCC to take any steps as a result of this decision notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40(2)
4 May 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information, relating to several named individuals, in connection with a murder. The Public Prosecution Service for Northern Ireland (PPS) initially refused to disclose information relating to one individual under sections 30, 40(2) and 41 of FOIA, and refused to confirm or deny whether it held information relating to the other individuals under section 40(5) of FOIA. The PPS subsequently amended its position to refuse the entire request under section 12 of FOIA (appropriate limit). The Commissioner’s decision is that the PPS was entitled to refuse the request under section 12 of FOIA, since compliance with the request would exceed the appropriate limit. First-tier tribunal (General Regulatory chamber) information rights appeal EA/2022/0134 struck out.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12
View Public Prosecution Service for Northern Ireland
4 May 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to the Department of Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (“BEIS”) requesting a policy document entitled ‘appointment of prescribed persons’. The Commissioner’s decision is that BEIS has breached section 10 (1) of FOIA in that it failed to provide a valid response to the request within the statutory time frame of 20 working days.
The Commissioner requires BEIS to take the following step to ensure compliance with the legislation.
• Issue a substantive response to the request in accordance with its obligations under FOIA
BEIS 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.The complainant submitted a request to the Department of Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (“BEIS”) requesting a poli
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Department for Business and Trade
4 May 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested various documents relating to specific winding up proceedings. The Insolvency Service stated that it did not hold the documents for the purposes of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the information in question is held by the Official Receiver in their statutory role and is therefore not held either by, or on behalf of, the Insolvency Service for the purposes of FOIA. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View The Insolvency Service
4 May 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information about the cost of a council office building in Time Square. By the date of this notice, Warrington Borough Council (“the Council”) had not issued a substantive response to this request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has breached section 10(1) of FOIA in that it failed to provide a valid response to the request within the statutory time frame of 20 working days.The Commissioner requires the Council to take the following step to ensure compliance with the legislation.The Council must provide a substantive response to the request in accordance with its obligations under FOIA. 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 Warrington Council
4 May 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information held by Cheshire East Council (the council) relating to its business support expenditure during the Covid-19 pandemic; the complainant also asked for certain details held about the council’s Supported Living providers. The council provided the complainant with some information in response to his request. However, it withheld information relating to the hourly rates paid to some of its Supported Living providers, citing section 43(2) – commercial interests, of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council is entitled to rely on section 43(2) of the FOIA in respect of the withheld information. The Commissioner does not require the council to take any steps as a result of this decision notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 43(2)
View Cheshire East Council
4 May 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information from Nottingham City Homes Limited (“NCHL”) regarding works completed on a specific public footpath. By the date of this notice NCHL had not issued a substantive response to this request. The Commissioner’s decision is that NCHL has failed to respond to the request within 20 working days and has therefore breached Regulation 5(2) of the Environmental Information Regulations (“the EIR”). The Commissioner requires NCHL to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: Issue a substantive response, under the EIR, to the request.
Exemptions cited: EIR 5(2)
View Nottingham City Hospital NHS Trust
3 May 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested legal advice obtained by Babergh District Council (“the Council”) which related to open space and surplus land requirements at a specific site. The Council withheld the information, stating that it was covered by Legal Professional Privilege (LPP). The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council correctly withheld the information under the exception at regulation 12(5)(b) of the EIR – adversely affect the course of justice – and that the balance of the public interest favours the exception being maintained. The Commissioner does not require the Council to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(b)
View Babergh District Council
3 May 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to the Cabinet Office seeking a copy of the congratulatory statement which would have been published if President Trump had been re-elected in November 2020. The Cabinet Office confirmed that it held the requested information but sought to withhold it on the basis of sections 27(1)(a) (international relations) and 35(1)(d) (operation of any Ministerial private office) of FOIA. The Commissioner has concluded that withheld information is exempt from disclosure on the basis of section 27(1)(a) of FOIA and that in all the circumstances of the case the public interest favours maintaining the exemption.
Exemptions cited: FOI 27
View Cabinet Office
3 May 2022Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from the Home Office about the suitability of the Napier Barracks site for the purposes of providing accommodation and other services to people seeking asylum and complaints from its residents. The Home Office refused to comply with the request citing section 12(1) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Home Office was entitled to refuse to comply with the request in accordance with section 12(1) of the FOIA. However, the Home Office has breached section 16 of FOIA (duty to provide advice and assistance) in failing to provide advice and assistance to the complainant in relation to part 2 of their request. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following step to ensure compliance with the legislation: provide advice and assistance to the complainant in relation to part 2 of their request by describing to the complainant the monthly data that it does receive from Migrant Help.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12(1); FOI 16
View Home Office
3 May 2022Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (‘DLUHC’)) on building safety advice provided to the government by an Independent Panel of Experts, following the Grenfell fire tragedy. DLUHC confirmed that it held information but said it was exempt from disclosure under section 35(1)(a) (Formulation of government policy) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that DLUHC was entitled to rely on section 35(1)(a) to refuse the request. However, DLUHC breached sections 1 and 10 of FOIA by failing to respond within the statutory 20 working day time for compliance. There were also delays in providing the internal review. The Commissioner requires no steps as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10; FOI 35
View Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government
3 May 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information from Cherwell District Council (“the Council”) about documents relating to the creation of the Graven Hill Village Development Company.The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has breached regulation 11 of the EIR by failing to provide a reconsideration (internal review) of a response within 40 working days. No steps are required.
Exemptions cited: EIR 11
View Cherwell District Council
3 May 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested an engineers report obtained by Shropshire Council in relation to a potential claim being considered by her. Shropshire Council has withheld the engineers report under Regulation 12(5)(b) of the EIR on the basis that its disclosure would adversely affect the course of justice. The Commissioner’s decision is that Shropshire Council has successfully applied Regulation 12(5)(b) of the EIR. The Commissioner does not requires the public authority to any steps to ensure compliance with the legislation.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(b)
View Shropshire Council
29 Apr 2022Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to disguised renumeration (‘DR’) schemes. The Commissioner’s decision is that HM Revenue and Customs (‘HMRC’) has correctly withheld the information within part 1 of the request, citing sections 44(1)(a) (prohibitions on disclosure). However, the Commissioner has also decided that HMRC has failed to explain how compliance with part 2 of the request would be vexatious. Therefore, HMRC is not entitled to rely on section 14(1) (vexatious requests) to refuse it. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation.• Issue a fresh refusal notice in relation to part 2 of the request that does not rely upon section 14(1).
Exemptions cited: FOI 14(1); FOI 44(1)(a)
29 Apr 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested evidence documents used to support a self-assessment of vascular services sent to NHS England by University Hospitals of Leicester NHS Trust (“the Trust”). The Trust provided an operational policy document but stated that no further information was held. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Trust has complied with its obligations under section 1(1) of the FOIA and that, on balance, no further information is held.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View University Hospitals of Leicester NHS Trust
29 Apr 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about the performance of a contractor engaged by two councils. The North East Procurement Organisation (NEPO) stated that it did not hold the information. The Commissioner’s decision is that on the balance of probabilities, NEPO does not hold the requested information. Nor is information held on NEPO’s behalf by any other body. NEPO has therefore correctly discharged its duty under section 1(1)(a) of FOIA. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
29 Apr 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from the City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council (“the Council”) Health and Social Care Department about ad hoc grants given to organisations, businesses, and individuals. The Council cited section 21 (accessible by other means) of FOIA and included links to the published information. They withheld the requested information for individuals citing section 40(2) (personal information) of FOIA in order to do so. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council was entitled to rely on section 40(2) (personal information) of FOIA for the withheld information. The Commissioner does not require any steps to be taken as a result of this decision notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40(2)
View City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council
29 Apr 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information on the “Advance Research and Invention Agency” (ARIA). The Commissioner’s decision is that has BEIS has appropriately applied FOIA section 35(1)(a) – Formulation or development of government policy to withhold the requested information. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps to ensure compliance with the legislation.
Exemptions cited: FOI 35
View Department for Business and Trade
29 Apr 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested on the evidence that informed the government’s position that the Advance Research and Invention Agency’s (ARIA) exemption from FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that BEIS is not entitled to withhold the requested information by relying on FOIA section 35(1)(a) - Formulation or development of government policy, because the public interest favours disclosure of the information. The Commissioner requires the public authority to disclose the information set out in the confidential annex to ensure compliance with the legislation. 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: FOI 35
View Department for Business and Trade
29 Apr 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant made a request for information relating to Kevin Bakhurst, Director of Ofcom and any potential role at the BBC and in particular the role of Director of BBC News. BBC refused to confirm or deny whether the requested information was held under section 40(5B)(a)(i) FOIA. The Commissioner considers that the BBC 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
View BBC
29 Apr 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested details of deaths linked to air pollution. Plymouth City Council stated that the information it held was “zero.” The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has provided all the information that it holds. It has therefore complied with its obligation under Regulation 5(1) of the EIR. The Commissioner does not require further steps. First-tier tribunal (General Regulatory chamber) information rights appeal EA/2022/0115 under appeal.
Exemptions cited: EIR 5(1)
View Plymouth City Council
28 Apr 2022Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested a blank copy of the NEPO2 framework agreement from NEPO. NEPO provided some of the information however it withheld sections of the framework on the basis that sections 43(1) (trade secret), 43(2) (commercial interests) and section 40(2) (personal information) applied. During the course of the Commissioner's investigation, NEPO agreed to disclose further information to the complainant, however, by the date of this notice, it had not done so. The Commissioner’s decision is that NEPO was not correct to apply section 43(1) to withhold the information. Taking into account NEPO’s agreement to disclose further information to the complainant, however, the Commissioner has decided that it was correct to apply section 43(2) to withhold the remaining information. The complainant did not request that the Commissioner consider the council’s application of section 40(2) to redact personal data. The Commissioner therefore requires NEPO to take the following steps to ensure c
Exemptions cited: FOI 43; FOI 43(2)
28 Apr 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from Wealden District Council (“the Council”) regarding the average value of properties for each postcode of its retirement court properties. The Council provided the postal sectors for relevant retirement living courts but refused the wider request on the basis that the information was accessible on its website providing a link and citing section 21 (accessible by other means) of FOIA, and at internal review also sought to rely on the exemption at section 40(2) (personal information) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council was entitled to rely on section 21(1) and section 40(2) of FOIA for the withheld information. The Commissioner does not require any steps to be taken as a result of this decision notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 21; FOI 40(2)
View Wealden District Council
28 Apr 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested correspondence relating to 18 applications for advice that were subsequently withdrawn. The Advisory Committee on Business Appointments pointed to some information that was already in the public domain but refused to provide the remainder of the information it held, relying on section 36 of FOIA (prejudice to the effective conduct of public affairs) in order to do so. The Commissioner’s decision is that ACOBA has correctly applied sections 36(2)(b)(i), 36(2)(b)(ii) and 36(2)(c) of FOIA to the withheld information and that the balance of the public interest favours maintaining the exemption. The Commissioner does not require further steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 36
View Advisory Committee on Business Appointments
28 Apr 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from London Borough of Barnett regarding the registration of skip lorries. The Commissioner’s decision is that London Borough of Barnett failed to disclose all the requested information it held within 20 working days of receiving the request and therefore breached section 10 of the FOIA. However the Commissioner is satisfied that it has provided the complainant with all the requested information it holds. The Commissioner does not require London Borough of Barnett to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Barnet Council
28 Apr 2022Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested costings of several route options. East West Railway Company Ltd initially refused to provide the requested information and relied on Regulation 12(4)(d) of the EIR (material in the course of completion) to withhold it. The Commissioner’s decision is that EWRC does not in fact hold the requested information. As EWRC failed to issue a refusal notice relying on Regulation 12(4)(a) of the EIR (information not held) within 20 working days, it breached Regulation 14 of the EIR. The Commissioner does not require any further steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(a); EIR 14
View East West Railway Company Limited
28 Apr 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information and communications between the council and third parties, and between officers within the council relating to the proposed felling of a tree. The council withheld some of the information under the exceptions in Regulation 13 (personal data of third parties), Regulation 12(4)(e) (Internal communications), 12(5)(e) (commercial confidentiality), and Regulation 12(5)(f) (the interests of the person who provided the information). It did however disclose some information in response to the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council was correct to apply Regulation 13 to withhold personal data, and Regulation 12(4)(e) to withhold internal communications. The Commissioner has not found it necessary to consider the application of Regulations 12(5)(e) and 12(5)(f) to the information given the application of Regulation 13 to the same information. The Commissioner does not require the council to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(e); EIR 13
View Bristol City Council
28 Apr 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested minutes of the Culture Renewal Taskforce meetings. The Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) refused to provide the requested information, citing section 35(1)(a) (formulation or development of government policy etc.) The Commissioner’s decision is the exemption is engaged and the public interest lies in maintaining the exemption. The Commissioner does not require any steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 35(1)(a)
View Department for Culture, Media and Sport
28 Apr 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested various information in respect of Cheshire East Council’s agreement with Stonewall in relation to its Diversity Champions. Cheshire East Council provided some information, but refused to provide its Workplace Equality Index (WEI) Feedback form from Stonewall citing sections 41 (information provided in confidence) and 43(2) (commercial interests). The Commissioner’s decision is that Cheshire East Council was entitled to rely on section 41 FOIA to withhold the WEI Feedback form. The Commissioner does not require Cheshire East Council to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 41
View Cheshire East Council
28 Apr 2022Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to Milton Keynes Council (“the Council”) requesting the names of Council planners dismissed following alleged investigations into corruption. The Council refused to disclose the requested information, citing section 40 of FOI as a basis for non-disclosure, however it later changed its position and stated that it would have refused to comply with the request on the grounds that it was vexatious within the meaning of section 14 (1) (vexatious requests) of FOIA.The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council was entitled to rely on section 14(1) to refuse the request. As the Council failed to issue its refusal notice within 20 working days, it breached section 17(5) of FOIA. The Commissioner does not require further steps. First-tier tribunal (General Regulatory chamber) information rights appeal EA/2022/0125 appeal struck out.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14(1); FOI 17(5)
View Milton Keynes Council