28 Apr 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO, now the Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office, FCDO) seeking the retained parts of a particular file, the remainder of which had been transferred to The National Archives. The FCO withheld the requested information on the basis of section 23(1) (security bodies) or, in the alternative, section 24(1) (national security) of FOIA. The Commissioner has concluded that the withheld information is exempt from disclosure on the basis of section 23(1) or section 24(1) of FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 23; FOI 24
View Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office
27 Apr 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant made a request for information on 27 October 2021 relating to CCTV cameras used by DCMS. DCMS failed to respond to the request. The Commissioner considers that DCMS has breached section 10(1) FOIA as it has failed to respond within the statutory time for compliance. The Commissioner requires the public authority to provide a response to the request in compliance with FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Department for Culture, Media and Sport
27 Apr 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information concerning NHS England’s Review of Serenity Integrated Mentoring (SIM). By the date of this notice the NHS Commissioning Board (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. NHS England 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 NHS England
27 Apr 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant made a request for information on 17 February 2022 relating to the DCMS Disinformation & Misinformation Unit. DCMS has failed to respond to this request. The Commissioner considers that DCMS has breached section 10(1) FOIA as it has failed to respond within the statutory time for compliance. The Commissioner requires the public authority to provide a response to the request in compliance with FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Department for Culture, Media and Sport
27 Apr 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information relating to a planning enforcement investigation. Hastings Borough Council initially withheld the requested information but disclosed it during the course of the Commissioner’s investigation. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has complied with its duty under Regulation 5(1) of the EIR to provide the information it holds. It also issued a refusal notice that complied with Regulation 14 of the EIR. As the Commissioner was unable to identify a statutory breach of the legislation, no remedial steps are required.
Exemptions cited: EIR 14
View Hastings Borough Council
27 Apr 2022Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information relating to the Marine Management Organisation’s (MMO) investigation into the Whitstable Oyster Fishery Company. The request was broken down into 9 parts. The MMO disclosed some information and confirmed that the rest was exempt from disclosure in accordance with several exceptions of the EIR, including regulation 12(5)(b) (course of justice and inquiries). The MMO also confirmed that it held no information that fell within some parts of the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that:• The MMO is entitled to withhold all information in accordance with regulation 12(5)(b).• On the balance of probabilities, the MMO does not hold any information that falls the scope of some parts of the request and regulation 12(4)(a) is engaged.• However, in failing to disclose all relevant information that falls within the scope of the request within the appropriate timeframe, the MMO has breached regulation 5(2) of the EIR.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(a); EIR 12(5)(b); EIR 5(2)
View Marine Management Organisation
27 Apr 2022Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from Hertsmere Borough Council (“the Council”) relating to damaged bins. The Council denied holding some information within the scope of the request and refused the remainder citing section 12(1) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council was entitled to refuse to comply with the request in accordance with section 12(1) of the FOIA. However, he finds that the Council failed to provide reasonable advice and assistance and therefore failed to meet its obligations under section 16(1) of the FOIA. The Commissioner requires the Council to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation.Provide the complainant with advice and assistance to help him submit a request falling within the appropriate limit.The Council must take these steps 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 sect
Exemptions cited: FOI 12(1); FOI 16(1)
View Hertsmere Borough Council
27 Apr 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from the London Borough of Croydon (“the Council”) relating to Transport for London and Croydon Council’s low traffic neighbourhood (LTN) scheme. 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 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. 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 the Act and may be dealt with as a contempt of court.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View London Borough of Croydon
26 Apr 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to Non-Disclosure Agreements (NDAs) entered into by the Medicines & Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (MHRA). The Commissioner’s decision is that MHRA correctly cited section 12(2) in response to the request. However, the Commissioner considers that MHRA breached section 16 FOIA (advice and assistance) as it did not offer to consider a refined request. As MHRA has now contacted the complainant to advise of this, no further steps are required as a result of this decision notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12
View Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency
26 Apr 2022Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested correspondence about works to a ditch at Toft Monks. Norfolk County Council (‘the Council’) originally relied on regulation 12(4)(b) of the EIR to refuse the request as manifestly unreasonable. However it subsequently withdrew its reliance on that exception and disclosed the relevant information it holds, with personal data redacted. The Commissioner’s decision is as follows: The Council correctly applied regulation 13(1) of the EIR to the majority of the information it is withholding as it is the personal data of third parties and disclosing it would be unlawful. The Council breached regulation 14(2) as it did not issue the complainant with a refusal notice within the required timescale. The Council also breached regulation 14(3)(a) as it incorrectly applied regulation 13(1) to information that is the complainant’s own personal data. However, under regulation 5(3) of the EIR the Council is not obliged to disclose that particular information. Finally, the
Exemptions cited: EIR 11; EIR 13; EIR 14
View Norfolk County Council
26 Apr 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant made a request for information on 4 July 2021 relating to any incidents of alleged or actual sexual harm, including sexual harassment, sexual bullying and sexual violence (including rape and attempted rape) in schools. The Council has failed to respond to the request. The Commissioner considers that the Council has breached section 10(1) FOIA as it has failed to respond within the statutory time for compliance. The Commissioner requires the public authority to provide a response to the request in compliance with FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Brighton and Hove City Council
26 Apr 2022Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to a complaint made about a Councillor. Fareham Borough Council (‘the Council’) withheld the requested information, citing section 36(2) (prejudice to effective conduct of public affairs) and section 40(2) (personal information). The Commissioner’s decision is as follows:• The Council is entitled to withhold information under section 36(2) and section 40(2).• However, in failing to disclose all eligible information within the statutory timeframe, the Council has breached section 10 (time for compliance with request). The Commissioner does not require the Council to take any further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 36(2)(b); FOI 40(2)
View Fareham Borough Council
25 Apr 2022Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested correspondence relating to the possibility of free parking for patients of a vaccination centre. Buckinghamshire Council relied on section 36 of FOIA (prejudice to the effective conduct of public affairs) to withhold the requested information.The Commissioner’s decision is that sections 36(2)(b)(i) and 36(2)(b)(ii) are engaged in respect of this information – with the exception of a single email which he considers to be in the public domain. Where these exemptions are engaged, the balance of the public interest favours maintaining the exemption. As the Council failed to issue its refusal notice within 20 working days, it breached section 17 of FOIA. The Commissioner does not require any further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 17; FOI 36
View Buckinghamshire Council
25 Apr 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) about the Managed Migration Pilot and Universal Credit. DWP provided an initial response to withhold the information on the basis of section 35(1)(a) (Formulation of Government Policy), which it upheld at internal review. DWP later chose to revisit their decision and decided to disclose the requested information. The Commissioner’s decision is that DWP breached section 10(1) of FOIA by failing to provide a valid response to the request within the statutory time frame of 20 working days. No steps are required.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10(1)
View Department for Work and Pensions
25 Apr 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information regarding a surveyor’s report for a specified property. The council provided a copy of the report but redacted some information on the basis of EIR 12(5)(d), confidentiality of proceedings. As it appeared that the withheld information constituted personal data, the Commissioner exercised his discretion and considered whether regulation 13 was engaged. His conclusion is that the information should be withheld on the basis of regulation 13 (personal information). The Commissioner does not require any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 13
25 Apr 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information from Gwynedd Council (“the Council”) for planning, development and flood risk documents relating to a property.The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has failed to carry out a reconsideration (internal review) of a response it provided under the EIR within 40 working days. It has therefore breached regulation 11 of the EIR.The Commissioner requires the Council to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. Reconsider how it responded to the original request and inform the complainant of the outcome of that reconsideration in accordance with regulation 11 of the EIR.The Council must take these steps within 35 calendar days of the date of this decision notice. Failure to comply may result in the Commissioner making written certification of this fact to the High Court pursuant to section 54 of the Freedom of Information Act and may be dealt with as a contempt of court.
Exemptions cited: EIR 11
View Gwynedd Council
25 Apr 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant is a law firm acting on behalf of its client. On behalf of its client, the complainant requested information about SCL Security Ltd’s apprenticeship training. The Education and Skills Funding Agency (ESFA) withheld the information under section 36(2)(b)(ii) and section 36(2)(c) of FOIA, which concern the effective conduct of public affairs. ESFA is a government executive agency that is sponsored by the Department for Education (DfE) and has no separate legal basis other than that which comes from DfE. ESFA corresponded with the complainant but, in the circumstances, the Commissioner is satisfied that the complainant’s correspondence was, in effect, with DfE. DfE has dealt with the complaint to the Commissioner. DfE subsequently advised the Commissioner that it is relying on section 40(2) and section 41 to withhold the information. These exemptions concern personal information and information provided in confidence, respectively. DfE advised that in the event that the Co
Exemptions cited: FOI 36; FOI 41
View Department for Education
25 Apr 2022Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested correspondence regarding the planning history at a specified address. Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council relied on Regulation 13 (third party personal data), Regulation 5(3) (personal data of the requestor) and Regulation 12(4)(e) of the EIR (internal communications). The Commissioner’s decision is that some of the requested information is the requestor’s own personal data and is thus exempt under Regulation 5(3) of the EIR. The remaining information is the personal data of a third party and is mostly exempt under Regulation 13. However some of the information appears to be information that should be published on the Council’s planning portal, but isn’t. The Commissioner requires the Council to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. Disclose, to the complainant, any of the emails within the withheld information that should be visible on the Council’s planning portal, with appropriate redactions for personal data.
Exemptions cited: EIR 13; EIR 5(3)
View Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council
25 Apr 2022Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information from Shropshire Council (“the Council”) regarding a highways project to create a new access from a privately owned property onto the public highway. The Council made a partial disclosure, and initially considered the remaining information was exempt from disclosure under Section 12(1) (cost of compliance) of the Freedom of Information Act (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(4)(b) (manifestly unreasonable) to the withheld information. The Commissioner’s decision is that the complainant’s request can be categorised as manifestly unreasonable under regulation 12(4)(b) of the EIR, by virtue of cost, and the public interest favours maintaining this exception, and that the Council provided adequate advice and assistance under regulation 9 of the EIR. However, the Council failed to comply with the request withi
Exemptions cited: EIR 11(4); EIR 12(4)(b); EIR 5(2); EIR 9
View Shropshire Council
25 Apr 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from Lincolnshire Police about the theft of Range Rover Sport motor vehicles for the period between 01/01/2021 and 31/12/2021. The Commissioner’s decision is that Lincolnshire Police breached section 10(1) of FOIA by failing to provide a valid response to the request within the statutory time frame of 20 working days. No steps are required.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Lincolnshire Police
25 Apr 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from Chief Constable of Kent Police (“Kent Police”) about the theft of Range Rover Sport motor vehicles for the period between 01/01/2021 and 31/12/2021. The Commissioner’s decision is that Kent Police breached section 10(1) of FOIA by failing to provide a valid response to the request within the statutory time frame of 20 working days. No steps are required.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Kent Police
25 Apr 2022Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested mapping data showing conservation areas. Hertfordshire County Council initially relied on Regulation 12(5)(c) of the EIR (intellectual property rights) to withhold the information, before eventually relying on Regulation 6(1)(b) (publicly available) and Regulation 12(4)(d) of the EIR (material in the course of completion) to withhold the information. The Commissioner’s decision is that, with the exception of the data relating to Broxbourne and Three Rivers, the information the Council holds is publicly available and easily accessible. It is therefore excepted from disclosure under Regulation 6(1)(b) of the EIR. In respect of Broxbourne and Three Rivers, the Council has not demonstrated that Regulation 12(4)(d) of the EIR is engaged and is therefore not entitled to rely on this exception. The Commissioner requires the Council to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: disclose the data it holds relating to the Broxbourne District
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(d); EIR 6(1)(b)
View Hertfordshire County Council
22 Apr 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from the London Borough of Southwark (“the Council”), in relation to copies of court order charge forms and redacted copies of any court orders obtained. The Council relied on section 21 of FOIA to withhold the requested information as it was already reasonably accessible to the requestor. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council is entitled to rely on the exemption at section 21 of FOIA (information accessible by other means) to withhold the information. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 21
View Southwark Council
22 Apr 2022Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested a copy of an internal report and the GMC numbers of specific clinicians. Tavistock and Portman NHS Foundation Trust (‘the Trust’) withheld the report under section 40(2) (personal information) and the GMC numbers under section 21 (information reasonably accessible to applicant by other means) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is as follows: • The first three paragraphs of the report are the personal data of the complainant and are therefore exempt under section 40(1).
• Not all of the information within the report represents personal data and therefore cannot be withheld under section 40(2).
• Of the information that does engage section 40(2), disclosure would not be lawful.
• The Trust has incorrectly applied section 21 in relation to the GMC numbers. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation:• Disclose a redacted copy of the report with all personal data removed. Th
Exemptions cited: FOI 21; FOI 40
View Tavistock and Portman NHS Foundation Trust
22 Apr 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to the London Borough of Enfield (the Council) seeking information about its evaluation of a particular post. The Council provided the complainant with information falling within the scope of his request but redacted some information on the basis of section 40 (personal data) of FOIA. In the complainant’s view the Council is likely to hold more information falling within the scope of his request beyond that previously disclosed to him or withheld on the basis of section 40(2). The Commissioner’s decision is that on the balance of probabilities the Council does not hold any further information falling within the scope of this request beyond that disclosed to the complainant or withheld on the basis of section 40(2) of FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Enfield Council
22 Apr 2022Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested all correspondence between Matt Hancock and Gina Colangelo relating to government business from 1 January 2021 to the date of the request. DHSC refused to disclose the requested information under section 35(1)(a) and (d) FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that section 35(1)(a) FOIA was applied correctly to the information withheld under this exemption. However section 35(1)(d) FOIA was applied incorrectly to the information withheld under this exemption. The Commissioner requires the public authority to disclose the information being withheld under section 35(1)(d) FOIA. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2022/0163 appeal allowed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 35(1)(a); FOI 35(1)(d)
View Department of Health and Social Care
22 Apr 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested a recording of a meeting from Hampton Lucy Parish Council, Warwickshire (“the Parish Council”). The Parish Council refused the request under section 14(1) of the FOIA: vexatious requests. The Commissioner’s decision is that the request was not a vexatious request. The Commissioner requires the Parish Council to take the following step to ensure compliance with the legislation: Issue a fresh response to the complainant, which does not rely on section 14(1) FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14(1)
22 Apr 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) relating to a specific property. By the date of this notice the HSE had not issued a substantive response to this request.
The Commissioner’s decision is that the HSE has breached section 10(1) of FOIA 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 HSE to take the following step to ensure compliance with the legislation. The HSE must provide a substantive response to the request in accordance with its obligations under FOIA.
The HSE 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 Health and Safety Executive
22 Apr 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information from Salford City Council (“the Council”) relating to maintenance and repair reports of a section of road. 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 failed to respond to the request within 20 working days and has therefore breached regulation 5(2) of the EIR.The Commissioner requires the Council to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. Issue a substantive response to the request in accordance with its obligations under the EIR. The Council must take these steps within 35 calendar days of the date of this decision notice. Failure to comply may result in the Commissioner making written certification of this fact to the High Court pursuant to section 54 of the Freedom of Information Act and may be dealt with as a contempt of court.
Exemptions cited: EIR 5(2)
View Salford City Council
22 Apr 2022Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested, from Sefton Metropolitan Borough Council (the “Council”), information about the management of stray dogs. The Council disclosed some information, said that some had been previously provided and denied holding the remainder. The complainant challenged whether or not the Council held some information, which the Council advised was held by a third party rather than by itself.During the Commissioner’ investigation the Council revised its position. It obtained information held by a subcontractor and provided this to the complainant. It maintained that no further information was held.The Commissioner’s decision is that by failing to respond to the request within 20 working days of receipt, the Council breached sections 1(1) and 10(1) of FOIA. In failing to disclose information it subsequently located within the statutory time limit, the Commissioner finds a further breach of section 10(1) as well as breaches of 1(1)(a) and (b). On the civil standard of the bala
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10
View Sefton Council
22 Apr 2022Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted two requests to the Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office (FCDO) seeking briefings provided to Ministers about Julian Assange. The FCDO refused to comply with the requests on the basis of section 12(1) (cost limit) of FOIA but did provide some advice and assistance to the complainant to allow her to make a refined request. The complainant challenged the FCDO’s reliance on section 12(1) and also argued that the FCDO had failed to provide sufficient advice and assistance to her. The Commissioner’s decision is that the FCDO can rely on section 12(1) of FOIA to refuse to the two requests. However, the Commissioner has also concluded that the FCDO could have provided the complainant with further advice and assistance and its failure to do so represents a breach of section 16(1) of FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12; FOI 16
View Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office
21 Apr 2022Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information about the carpet and waste bin cleaning contracts. Wealden District Council (the Council) stated that it did not hold the information requested. The Commissioner’s decision is that on the balance of probabilities the Council does not hold the information requested. However, in failing to respond to the request within the statutory timescale, the Commissioner has determined that the Council breached section 10(1) of the FOIA. The Commissioner does not require any steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10
View Wealden District Council
21 Apr 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested from Chalvington with Ripe Parish Council (‘CRPC’) information about a public consultation it had conducted with local residents. CRPC refused the request under section 14(1) (Vexatious or repeated requests) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that CRPC was entitled to rely on section 14(1) to refuse the request. The Commissioner requires no steps as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14
21 Apr 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about contract associated with a report into adult social care reform that was awarded to Public First Limited. The Department for Health and Social Care (DHSC) withheld the information under section 22(1) of FOIA (information intended for future publication) and section 35(1)(a) (formulation or development of government policy). DHSC subsequently published the information to which it had applied section 22 and is now relying on section 21(1) to withhold it (information accessible to applicant by other means). The complainant is dissatisfied with DHSC’s reliance on section 35(1)(a) of FOIA to withhold the remaining information they have requested. The Commissioner’s decision is as follows: The information to which DHSC applied section 35(1)(a) of FOIA engages that exemption and, at the time of the request, the public interest favoured maintaining this exemption. The Commissioner does not require DHSC to take any corrective steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 35
View Department of Health and Social Care
21 Apr 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested from the Welsh Office copies of correspondence between Peter Hain (the former Welsh Secretary) and the Prince of Wales about complementary health/complementary medicine during the period of 24 October 2002 to 24 October 2003.The Welsh Office refused to confirm or deny whether the information requested was held citing section 12(2) (cost of compliance exceeds appropriate limit) of FOIA.The Commissioner’s decision is that the Welsh Office correctly applied section 12(2) of FOIA.The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12
View Wales Office
20 Apr 2022Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information relating to the consideration by Basingstoke and Deane Borough Council of a planning application for building works. The Commissioner has decided that Basingstoke and Deane Borough Council had correctly applied EIR regulations 12(4)(d) (material in the course of completion) and 12(4)(e) (internal communications) when determining the information request. He did not require any steps to be taken. The Commissioner criticised the delays by Basingstoke and Deane Borough Council which were in breach of EIR regulation 5(2) and for which it has apologised. He also decided that the searches the Basingstoke and Deane Borough Council made for information had been appropriate and not a breach of EIR regulation 12(4)(a).
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(a); EIR 12(4)(d); EIR 12(4)(e); EIR 5(2)
View Basingstoke and Deane Borough Council
20 Apr 2022Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information about a planning application. Bassetlaw District Council (‘the Council’) applied section 21 of FOIA (information accessible to applicant by other means) to the information it holds, and which is published on its website. The Council confirmed that it holds no further relevant information. The Commissioner’s decision is as follows: The requested information is environmental information which the Council should have considered under the EIR. However, on the balance of probabilities, the Council holds no further information within scope of the request and regulation 12(4)(a) of the EIR is engaged. As the Council wrongly handled the request under FOIA, the Commissioner has found there to have been a breach of regulation 14 of the EIR. The Commissioner does not require the Council to any corrective steps. First-tier tribunal (General Regulatory chamber) information rights appeal EA/2022/0123 under appeal.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(a); EIR 14
View Bassetlaw District Council
20 Apr 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested from HMRC copies of messages sent by any mobile phone-based applications between three individuals over a specified period.
HMRC refused to comply with the request citing section 40(2) (third party personal data) of FOIA.
The Commissioner’s decision is that HMRC correctly applied section 40(2) of FOIA.
The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40(2)
20 Apr 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from the Department of Culture, Media and Sport (“DCMS”) relating to a meeting held between Oliver Dowden and Lord Brownlow in January 2021. By the date of this notice DCMS had failed to provide a substantive response to this request. The Commissioner’s decision is that DCMS has failed to complete its deliberations on the balance of the public interest within a reasonable time and has therefore breached section 17(3) of the FOIA. The Commissioner requires the DCMS to respond to the complainant’s response in accordance with the FOIA. The 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
20 Apr 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information about councillors using private email addresses for official business and Bedford Borough Council’s policies relating to email account usage. By the date of this notice Bedford 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 Bedford Borough Council
20 Apr 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant made a request for information on 4 February 2022 relating to a contract for the supply of PPE equipment. The Commissioner considers that DHSC has breached section 10(1) FOIA as it has failed to respond within the statutory time for compliance. The Commissioner requires the public authority to Provide a response to the request in compliance with FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Department of Health and Social Care
20 Apr 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information about if the council uses its own on-site email servers, or if it uses the cloud. By the date of this notice Bedford 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 Bedford Borough Council
20 Apr 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to councillors’ use of private email accounts for official business. By the date of this notice Bedford 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 Bedford Borough Council
20 Apr 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to evidence that all council members had signed a Corporate Computer User Security Policy document. By the date of this notice Bedford 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 Bedford Borough Council
20 Apr 2022Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from the London Borough of Southwark (“the Council”) relating to strategy meetings that took place during a specific time period. The Council denied holding some information within the scope of the request and refused the remainder citing section 12(1) of the FOIA.The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council was entitled to refuse to comply with the request in accordance with section 12(1) of the FOIA. However, he finds that the Council failed to provide reasonable advice and assistance and therefore failed to meet its obligations under section 16(1) of the FOIA. The Commissioner requires the Council to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation.Provide the complainant with advice and assistance to help him submit a request falling within the appropriate limit.The Council must take these steps within 35 calendar days of the date of this decision notice. Failure to comply may result in the Commissioner making written certi
Exemptions cited: FOI 12(1); FOI 16(1)
View Southwark Council
20 Apr 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information held by Cumbria County Council (the council) relating to a particular planning case. The council provided some information to the complainant in response to the request; however, it advised that it was withholding certain information under regulation 12(5)(b) – the course of justice, of the EIR. The Commissioner has found that part of the withheld information provided for his consideration either did not fall within the scope of the request, or has already been disclosed by the council. With regard to the information contained within the one remaining document that does fall within the scope of the request, it is the Commissioner’s decision that the council has failed to demonstrate that the exception at regulation 12(5)(b) is engaged. Furthermore, the Commissioner has found that the council has breached regulation 5(2) of the EIR, as it failed to provide its response to the complainant’s request within 20 working days. The Commissioner require
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(b); EIR 5(2)
View Cumbria County Council
19 Apr 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from the London Borough of Croydon (“the Council”) relating to notes taken during a pre-application planning meeting held on 17 December 2021. 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 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: FOI 5
View London Borough of Croydon
19 Apr 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to the Cabinet Office seeking electronic communications made from the Prime Minister's Office in March 2020 containing both the words 'virus' and 'hoax'. The Cabinet Office responded by explaining that it considered the request to be vexatious and therefore it was refusing to comply with it on the basis of section 14(1) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Cabinet Office is entitled to rely on section 14(1) to refuse to comply with the request.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14
View Cabinet Office
19 Apr 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from the Financial Conduct Authority (“the FCA”) about the number of Directors and Heads of Department that had been placed on Performance Improvement Plans.The Commissioner’s decision is that the FCA breached section 10(1) of the FOIA by failing to provide a valid response to the request within the statutory time frame of 20 working days. No steps are required.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Financial Conduct Authority
19 Apr 2022Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested legal advice obtained by the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) regarding whether applying an increase to Universal Credit benefit payments but not other benefits was discriminatory. The Commissioner’s decision is that section 42(1) of the Act is engaged with respect to the information falling within the scope of the request and the public interest favours maintaining the exemption. The Commissioner does however find that DWP breached section 17(1) by providing its refusal notice outside of the statutory timeframe. The Commissioner does not require DWP to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10; FOI 42
View Department for Work and Pensions