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
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 not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant submitted a request to the Cabinet Office seeking correspondence between the then Deputy Prime Minister, John Prescott, and HRH The Prince of Wales concerning hunting during the period June 2001 to June 2002. Under FOIA the Cabinet Office refused to confirm or deny whether it held any such information on the basis of section 37(2) of FOIA, by virtue of section 37(1)(aa) (communications with the heir to the Throne), section 40(5) (personal data) and 41(2) (information provided in confidence). Under the EIR, the Cabinet Office initially relied on regulation 13(5)(a) (personal data) to refuse to confirm or deny whether it held any environmental information. It subsequently withdrew its reliance on that exception and confirmed to the complainant, under the EIR, that it did not hold any environmental information falling within the scope of the request. The complainant challenged the Cabinet Office’s position that it did not hold any environmental information falling within t
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(a); FOI 37
View Cabinet Office
14 Apr 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested from Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole Council (“the Council”) information relating to an Annual Governance Statement. The Council stated that the requested information was not held. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council does not hold the requested information. The Commissioner does not require the Council to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View BCP Council
14 Apr 2022Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information on the number of students returning to the University of Exeter (“the University”) following temporary relocation due to a bomb. The University stated some information was not held and other information was exempt under section 21 as it was reasonably accessible to the requester. The Commissioner’s decision is that the University does not hold the information at parts a) – c) of the request but that the University was not entitled to rely on section 21 in relation to part d) of the request. The Commissioner requires the public authority to provide the information requested at part d) or issue a fresh response without reliance on section 21.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 21
View The University of Exeter
14 Apr 2022Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
Through a 10 part request, the complainant has requested information about a review project associated with the work of associate hospital managers. Lancashire and South Cumbria NHS Foundation Trust (‘the Trust’) disclosed relevant information. It originally applied section 36 of FOIA (prejudice to the effective conduct of public affairs) to one part of the request and refused to comply with the remaining part under section 12 (cost exceeds appropriate limit). The Trust subsequently withdrew its reliance on those exemptions. The Commissioner’s decision is as follows: On the balance of probabilities, the Trust has disclosed all the relevant, recorded information it holds that falls within scope of parts 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10 of the request and has complied with section 1(1) of FOIA. The Trust communicated some of the requested information outside of the 20 working day requirement and therefore breached section 10(1).The Commissioner does not require the Trust to take any corrective
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10
View Lancashire and South Cumbria NHS Foundation Trust
14 Apr 2022Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested emails between various parties at All Souls College (ASC) referring to Oak Circle Ltd over a specified time period. ASC refused the request as it considered it would exceed the cost limit under section 12(1) of the FOIA. It also considered section 40(2) would provide a basis for withholding some of the information. The Commissioner’s decision is that ASC has correctly refused the request under section 12(1), he has therefore not gone on to consider the application of section 40(2). However, ASC failed to fulfil its duty under section 16 to provide advice and assistance to the complainant. The Commissioner requires the public authority to provide advice and assistance to the complainant to assist in submitting a refined request. First-tier tribunal (General Regulatory chamber) information rights appeal EA/2022/0108 appeal withdrawn.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12; FOI 16
14 Apr 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested from the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities information relating to the decision to not call-in two related planning applications. The DLUHC withheld the requested information under regulation 12(4)(b) (manifestly unreasonable requests) of the EIR. The Commissioner’s decision is that the DLUHC was entitled to withhold the requested information under regulation 12(4)(b), and that it has complied with the requirement of regulation 9 (advice and assistance). The Commissioner does not require the DLUHC to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(b); EIR 9
View Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government
14 Apr 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to the total time which has been spent by the officers of the Royal Borough of Greenwich (the council) on a particular legal case. The council provided some information however the complainant argued that the figures provided were not the total figure he had requested. The council responded stating that a total figure is not held. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on a balance of probabilities, the Royal Borough of Greenwich does not hold the information requested by the complainant. The Commissioner does not require the council to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1(1)
View Royal Borough of Greenwich
14 Apr 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from Birmingham City Council (“the Council”) relating to avian influenza. 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 Birmingham City Council
13 Apr 2022Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from the Medicines & Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (“MHRA”) about suspected adverse reactions to Covid-19 vaccines. The MHRA initially advised the requester that they publish weekly Yellow Card data including adverse reactions and provided a link to their website. They stated that an interactive format of all suspected reactions to the Covid-19 vaccinations was intended for future publication, but due to current system constraints, they were unable to provide it in the requested format at this time. The Commissioner’s decision is that the MHRA were entitled to refuse to comply with the request under section 12(1) of FOIA (cost of compliance), and section 22(1) of FOIA (future publication), and that it has complied with its obligations under section 16(1) of FOIA to provide adequate advice and assistance to the complainant. However, MHRA breached section 17(1) as it did not initially identify the exemptions being relied upon to withhold
Exemptions cited: FOI 12(1); FOI 16(1); FOI 17; FOI 22
View Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency
13 Apr 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from Three Rivers District Council (“the Council”) relating to grassland management and refuse collection. 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 Three Rivers District Council
13 Apr 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information from London Borough of Tower Hamlets (“the Council”) relating to bin collections. 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 London Borough of Tower Hamlets
13 Apr 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested building control inspection reports and building plans relating to a specific application.The Commissioner’s decision is that Oxford City Council (the Council) has not demonstrated that regulation 13(1), regulation 12(5)(c) and regulation 12(5)(e) are engaged, and therefore cannot rely on them to refuse to disclose the requested information.Furthermore, the Commissioner has found there to be a breach of regulation 5(2) as the Council failed to respond to the request within 20 working days, and a breach of regulation 11(4) as the Council failed to provide its internal review decision within 40 working days from receipt of the complainant’s representations.The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation.Disclose the requested information, with the exception of names and mobile telephone numbers throughout the inspection note documents, which should be redacted.The public authority must take
Exemptions cited: EIR 11(4); EIR 12(5)(c); EIR 12(5)(e); EIR 13(1); EIR 5(2)
View Oxford City Council
12 Apr 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested, from the Metropolitan Police Service (the “MPS”), information about services it has provided overseas The MPS disclosed some information but cited 27(1)(a)(b) (International relations) and 31(1)(a)(b) (Law enforcement) of FOIA in respect of the remainder. During the Commissioner’s investigation, the MPS revised its position. It said that some information was not held (which was not disputed) and that the remainder of the request was burdensome, citing section 14(1)(Vexatious requests) of FOIA.The Commissioner’s decision is that the MPS was entitled to reply on section 14(1) FOIA. However, it breached sections 10(1)(Time for compliance) and 1(1)(a) and (b)(General right of access) of FOIA. No steps are required.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Metropolitan Police Service
12 Apr 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about the ICO’s processes. The ICO considers the request to be a vexatious request under section 14(1) of FOIA and has refused to respond to it under section 17(6). The Commissioner’s decision is as follows: The complainant’s request is vexatious and the ICO is entitled to rely on section 17(6) as it would have been unreasonable in the circumstances to have expected the ICO to issue a refusal notice. The Commissioner does not require the ICO to take any corrective steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14
View Information Commissioner
12 Apr 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested from Wealden District Council information relating to ‘Exceptional Hardship Payment’ applications. The Council disclosed some of the requested information but stated that the remainder was not held.The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has disclosed all held information. The Commissioner does not require the Council to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Wealden District Council
11 Apr 2022Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information in respect of the creation of a plan relating to land at their property. Swansea Council provided an explanation regarding the reason for the creation of the plan and confirmed it was created from its Geographical Information System (GIS). It also cited section 21 FOIA (information accessible to the applicant by other means) in respect of information available from the Land Registry. The complainant is not satisfied that the Council has provided all relevant information it holds in respect of their request, or with its reliance on section 21 FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the appropriate legislation under which to consider the request in its entirety is the Environmental Information Regulations 2004 (‘the EIR’) and that the Council has complied with its obligations under regulation 5(1) of the EIR. In respect of the information refused on the basis of section 21 FOIA, whilst the Council should have cited regulation 6(1)(b), which is the
Exemptions cited: EIR 5(1); FOI 21
View Swansea Council
11 Apr 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to outcomes of appeals contained in HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) annual reports. The Commissioner’s decision is that HMRC is entitled to rely on section 44(1)(a) FOIA – prohibition on disclosure, to refuse the request. The Commissioner does not require HMRC to take any steps as a result of this decision notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 44
11 Apr 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information regarding teachers and furlough. Lancashire County Council (“the council”) provided some information but stated that other information was not held. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the council has provided all of the information it held in scope of question 1 of the request. However the Commissioner has decided that the council did not provide an adequate response to parts 2 or 3 of the request. The Commissioner’s decision therefore is that the council breached sections 1 and 10 of the FOIA in its handling of parts 2 and 3 of the request. The Commissioner requires the council to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: Issue a fresh response to parts 2 and 3 of the request that complies with section 1 of the FOIA. 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 certificat
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10
View Lancashire County Council
8 Apr 2022Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
In a seven part request, the complainant has requested information about 2020 summer assessments. Rathmore Grammar School (‘the School’) relied on section 12(1) of FOIA to refuse to comply with two of the parts (cost exceeds the appropriate limit) and disclosed information within scope of the remaining five parts. The School subsequently withdrew its reliance on section 12(1) and disclosed information within scope of those two parts. The complainant considers that the School holds further information relevant to four parts of their request. The Commissioner’s decision is as follows: The School holds further information within scope of Q1 and Q5 but, on the balance of probabilities, holds no other recorded information that falls within scope of Q1, Q2, Q3.2 and Q5 of the request that it has not already disclosed. The Commissioner requires the School to take the following step to ensure compliance with the legislation: Disclose to the complainant the information it holds that falls wi
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View CAISTOR GRAMMAR SCHOOL
8 Apr 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested a specific service level agreement from NHS Commissioning Board (NHS England). At the date of this notice, NHS England has not provided a response to the request. The Commissioner’s decision is as follows: NHS England has breached section 10(1) of FOIA as it has not provided a valid response to the request within the statutory timeframe of 20 working days. The Commissioner requires NHS England to take the following step to ensure compliance with the legislation: Provide a response to the complainant’s request of 8 January 2022 that complies with FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View NHS England
8 Apr 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from Ofqual relating to the Acting Chief Regulator’s report and Board minutes. Ofqual provided some information but refused other information citing section 36(i), (ii) and 36(2)(c)(prejudice to the effective conduct of public affairs), section 42 (legal professional privilege) and section 22 (future publication). The Commissioner’s decision is that Ofqual has cited section 36 appropriately to part seven of the information request and that the public interest at the time the request was made favoured withholding the requested information.The Commissioner does not require Ofqual to take any further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 36
View Office of Qualifications and Examinations Regulation
7 Apr 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to dog kennelling. Rochdale Borough Council disclosed some information, confirmed other information was not held and withheld some information under the exemption for commercial interests (section 43(2)). The Commissioner’s decision is that Rochdale Borough Council failed to respond in time and breached section 10(1) of the FOIA. The Commissioner does not require the council to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Rochdale Metropolitan Borough Council
7 Apr 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to performance reviews of employees of Merton Council (“the Council”). The Council applied section 12(1) of FOIA to the complainant’s request, stating that providing the information would exceed the cost limit as set out in that section of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has correctly applied section 12(1) of FOIA to the complainant’s request. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12
View Merton Council
7 Apr 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information from the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) relating to a report on per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances. 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 failed to respond to the request within 20 working days and has therefore breached regulation 5(2) of the EIR.
The Commissioner requires the HSE to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation.
The HSE must provide a substantive response to the request in accordance with its obligations under the EIR.
The HSE 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 Health and Safety Executive
6 Apr 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information relating to a specific landowner. Leeds City Council confirmed that it did not hold the requested information. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the Council does not hold the requested information. The Commissioner does not require the Council to take any further steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 5(1)
View Leeds City Council
6 Apr 2022Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested the name of the individual who placed a particular telephone call to Durham Constabulary. Durham Constabulary withheld the requested information under section 40(2) of FOIA (personal data). The Commissioner’s decision is as follows: Durham Constabulary correctly withheld the requested information under section 40(2) of FOIA as disclosing the information would be unlawful. However Durham Constabulary breached section 17(1) as its refusal of the request was not adequate. The Commissioner does not require Durham Constabulary to take any corrective steps. First-tier tribunal (General Regulatory chamber) information rights appeal EA/2022/0105 appeal struck out.
Exemptions cited: FOI 17; FOI 40
View Durham Constabulary
6 Apr 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested environmental
information on 9 January 2022 (and resent on 6 February 2022) relating to Coal
Tips in Rhondda Cynon Taf. HSE has failed to respond to this request. The
Commissioner considers that the HSE has breached regulation 5(2) EIR as it has
failed to respond within twenty working days. The Commissioner requires the
public authority to provide a response to the information request originally made
on 9 January 2022 in accordance with the EIRs.
Exemptions cited: EIR 5
View Health and Safety Executive
6 Apr 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to drone sorties made by UK Border Force in 2020. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Home Office were entitled to rely on section 12(1) FOIA – cost of compliance, in response to the request. The Commissioner does not require the Home Office to take any steps as a result of this decision notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12
View Home Office
6 Apr 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from Department for Digital Culture, Media and Sport (“DCMS”) about the Dorman Long Tower in Redcar. By the date of this notice DCMS had not issued a substantive response to this request.
The Commissioner’s decision is that DCMS has failed to complete its deliberations on the balance of the public interest within a reasonable time and has therefore breached section 17(3) of the FOIA.
The Commissioner requires DCMS to take the following step to ensure compliance with the legislation.
Having confirmed that information is held within the scope of the request: either disclose the requested information or issue a refusal notice in accordance with the requirements of section 17 of the FOIA.
DCMS must take this step within 35 calendar days of the date of this decision notice. Failure to comply may result in the Commissioner making written certification of this fact to the High Court pursuant to section 54 of the Act and may be dealt wit
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Department for Culture, Media and Sport
6 Apr 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information about incidents of badgers, suspected to have been killed illegally, which were reported to the police in 2013. The Commissioner’s decision is that Gloucestershire Constabulary has correctly relied on the regulation 12(4)(b) (manifestly unreasonable request) and regulation 13(1) (personal information) EIR exceptions to refuse parts of the request and had complied with the EIRs. The Commissioner does not require Gloucestershire Constabulary to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(b); EIR 13
View Gloucestershire Constabulary
6 Apr 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about the rights and obligations of Lambeth Council when it has cause to enter a residential property - generally and in the case of one specific property. The Commissioner’s decision is as follows: Lambeth Council (‘the Council’) has breached section 10(1) of FOIA as it has not provided a response to the complainant’s request of 26 February 2021. The Commissioner requires the Council to take the following step to ensure compliance with the legislation. Provide the complainant with a response to their request of 26 February 2021 that complies with FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View London Borough of Lambeth
5 Apr 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about algorithms that may have been built into the assessment process for the granting of various state benefits. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the Department for Work and Pensions does not hold the requested information. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take steps to ensure compliance with the legislation.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Department for Work and Pensions
5 Apr 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested plans and technical specifications relating to a golf clubhouse, submitted as part of the building control process, from Mid Sussex District Council (“the Council”). The Council withheld some of the information under regulation 12(5)(e) of the EIR – Adverse effect on the confidentiality of commercial information – and the remainder of the information under regulation 12(5)(f) – Adverse effect on the information provider. The Commissioner’s decision is that regulation 12(5)(e) is engaged, but that the balance of the public interests favours disclosure of the information withheld under that exception. He finds that regulation 12(5)(f) is not engaged in respect of the reminder of the information. The Commissioner requires the Council to take the following step to ensure compliance with the legislation. Disclose all of the withheld information to the complainant.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(e); EIR 12(5)(f)
View Mid Sussex District Council
5 Apr 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested the name of the employee at the Independent Office for Police Conduct (‘IOPC’) who dealt with the review of the outcome of a police complaint. The IOPC initially withheld the name under section 40(2) FOIA - third party personal data. During the course of the Commissioner’s investigation, the IOPC revised its position. It withdrew reliance on section 40(2) and instead cited section 40(5A) FOIA, to ‘neither confirm nor deny’ (‘NCND) the information was held. The Commissioner’s decision is that the IOPC has correctly cited section 40(5A) FOIA in response to the request as, if held, the information would be the complainant’s own personal data. The Commissioner does not require the IOPC to take any further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40(5)(a)
View Independent Office for Police Conduct
5 Apr 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information from Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole Council (the Council) relating to the use of the Baiter Slipway and car park. 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 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 BCP Council
5 Apr 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from Hampshire Constabulary regarding specified misconduct proceedings. Hampshire Constabulary provided him with some of the requested information, however it stated that it was withholding the remainder under section 31(1) (a) (b) and (g) of FOIA by virtue of sections 31(2) (a) (b) and (c), also sections 32 and 40 of FOIA.
The Commissioner’s decision is that Hampshire Constabulary has correctly applied section 31 of FOIA to the withheld information. As this applies to all of the withheld information, the Commissioner has not considered Hampshire Constabulary’s application of the exemptions at sections 32 and 40.
Therefore the Commissioner requires no steps to be taken. Information Tribunal UA-2024-000385-GIA appeal allowed. Information Tribunal EA/2022/0100 (Remitted) under appeal.
First-tier tribunal (General Regulatory chamber) information rights appeal EA/2022/0100 under appeal.
Exemptions cited: FOI 31
5 Apr 2022Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested specific documents relating to Exercise Cygnus. The Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police (SYP) initially stated that it did not hold some of the information and that that which it did hold was exempt. However, SYP later reversed its position and said that it did not hold any information within the scope of the request at all. The Commissioner’s decision is that SYP does hold a very small amount of information falling within the scope of the request – but that information is already available to the complainant. As SYP failed to make a correct determination of the information it held within 20 working days, it breached section 10 of FOIA. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10
View South Yorkshire Police
4 Apr 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information on
January 2022 relating to the disqualification of members of Irby upon
Humber Parish Council. The Council responded to the request on 16 March 2022.
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 no steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View North East Lincolnshire Council
4 Apr 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information relating to a neighbourhood plan. Sedgeberrow Parish Council (the Parish Council) provided a link to what it considered to be relevant information but the complainant disputed that it satisfied his request. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the Parish Council does not hold any further information within the scope of the request. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)
4 Apr 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information about communications that recipients of a letter dated 21 December 2018 have had with with Pure Bricks Ltd. By the date of this notice Three Rivers District Council (“the Council”) had not issued a substantive response to this request.
The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has breached section 10(1) of 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 Three Rivers District Council
4 Apr 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to a drone flight carried out at a certain time on a particular day. High Speed Two Limited (HS2 Ltd) has refused to confirm or deny whether it holds any of the requested information under section 31(3) of FOIA, as it believes that to do so would cause prejudice to law enforcement interests protected by this exemption. The Commissioner’s decision is that HS2 Ltd is entitled to refuse to confirm or deny that it holds the requested information under section 31(3) of FOIA, and that the public interest favours maintaining the exemption. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps as a result of this decision notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 31
View High Speed Two (HS2) Limited
4 Apr 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information about Northern Ireland’s minerals and petroleum licensing policy review. The Department for the Economy (DfE/’the Department’) has disclosed some information and is withholding the remainder under regulation 12(4)(d), regulation 12(4)(e) and regulation 13 of the EIR, which concern material still in the course of completion, internal communications and personal data, respectively. The Commissioner’s decision is as follows: At the time of the request, DfE correctly applied regulation 12(4)(d) of the EIR to the information it withheld, and the public interest favoured maintaining this exception. The Commissioner does not require DfE to take any corrective steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(d)
4 Apr 2022Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested the pre-application planning advice relating to particular planning applications. Coventry City Council (the ‘Council’) ultimately denied holding the requested information. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council correctly handled the request under the EIR. He also finds that, on the balance of probabilities, the Council does not hold the requested information for the reasons set out in this notice. However, by failing to provide its substantive response to the request within 20 working days, the Council has breached Regulation 5(2) of the EIR. The Commissioner does not require the Council to take any steps to ensure compliance with the legislation.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(a); EIR 5(2)
View Coventry City Council
4 Apr 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a number of requests for information to Health Education and Improvement Wales (HEIW) regarding contracts between HEIW and Cardiff & Vale University Health Board (CVUHB) and HEIW and Cardiff University in respect of Pre-registration Employment and Training in Clinical Psychology. HEIW originally provided a redacted copy of a contract with Cardiff University, refusing to provide some information on the basis of section 43(2) (commercial interests) FOIA, and the personal information within the contract on the basis of section 40(2). It subsequently provided a further redacted contract with CVUHB citing the same exemptions as above. During the course of the Commissioner’s investigation, it also provided redacted copies of the requested variation orders, again citing section 43(2) to withhold the financial information. After significant correspondence regarding the existence or otherwise of additional contracts, the Commissioner’s decision is that HEIW holds
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 43
View Health Education and Improvement Wales
4 Apr 2022Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to high priority lane procurement during the COVID-19 pandemic. DHSC refused to provide some of the requested information under section 21 FOIA (information reasonably accessible). DHSC initially withheld the information requested in relation to successful and unsuccessful bidders under section 43(2) FOIA. It subsequently withdrew its application of section 43(2) to information relating to successful bidders and confirmed that this information would be published. Information in relation to successful bidders has now been published. Information in relation to unsuccessful bidders remains withheld under section 43(2) FOIA. Finally it refused to comply with the part of the request for names of leads for unsuccessful suppliers under section 12 FOIA as it would exceed the cost limit to do so. The Commissioner’s decision is that section 43(2) FOIA was applied correctly to the withheld information relating to unsuccessful applicants. DHSC was
Exemptions cited: FOI 12; FOI 16; FOI 43
View Department of Health and Social Care
1 Apr 2022Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested from Cumbria County Council information relating to restructuring and its affect on specific posts. The Council eventually stated that it was withholding information but failed to issue a valid refusal notice. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has failed to comply with section 1 of the FOIA. The Commissioner requires the Council to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: Undertake searches for all information that would fall within the parameters of Part 1 of the request and issue a fresh response to the complainant. In doing so, the Commissioner advises the Council to have regard to the matters outlined in ‘Other matters’.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Cumbria County Council
1 Apr 2022Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information relating to statutory transfers of land in respect of schools. Kent County Council (the “council”) refused the request, initially withholding the information under exemptions in the FOIA. It subsequently reconsidered the request under the EIR, withholding the information under the exceptions for internal communications (regulation 12(4)(e)) and commercial confidentiality (regulation 12(5)(e)). The Commissioner’s decision is that the council wrongly handled the request under the FOIA and breached regulation 5(1) and 14(1) of the EIR but that it correctly withheld the requested information under regulation 12(4)(e). First-tier tribunal (General Regulatory chamber) information rights appeal EA/2022/0101 appeal dismissed.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(e); EIR 14(1); EIR 5(1)
View Kent County Council
1 Apr 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested from Chrishall Parish Council the audio and video recordings of a Council meeting. The Council withheld the requested information under section 40 (personal information) of the Freedom of Information Act. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council was entitled to withhold the requested information under section 40(1) (personal data of the applicant) and section 40(2) (personal data of third parties) of the FOIA. The Commissioner does not require the Council to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40