31 Mar 2022Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainants submitted two requests for information held by the Planning Inspectorate (the Inspectorate) about a particular appeal decision. The Commissioner is satisfied that the Inspectorate has, on the balance of probabilities, now provided the complainants with all the information held that is relevant to their two requests. However, by failing to provide all the relevant information within the required timescales, the Commissioner has found that the Inspectorate has breached regulation 5(2) of the EIR, and section 10(1) of the FOIA. Furthermore, the Inspectorate’s failure to complete an internal review in respect of Request 1 within 40 working days is also a breach of regulation 11(4) of the EIR. The Commissioner does not require the Inspectorate to take any steps as a result of this decision notice.
Exemptions cited: EIR 11(4); EIR 5(1); EIR 5(2); FOI 1; FOI 10(1)
View Planning Inspectorate
31 Mar 2022Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information concerning a meeting between Michael Gove (then Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and Secretary of State for the Cabinet Office) and the American software company, Palantir. The Cabinet Office withheld the information on the basis of sections 35(1)(a)(formulation or development of government policy), 35(1)(d)(information relating to the operation of any Ministerial office) 43(2)(prejudice to commercial interests), 21(1)(information reasonably accessible by other means) and 40(2)(third party personal data). In her complaint to the Commissioner, the complainant challenged the application of sections 35 and 43.
In respect of section 35(1)(a) and (d), the Commissioner’s decision is that the
Cabinet Office correctly applied the exemptions to the withheld information but that the balance of the public interest favours disclosing most of the withheld information. In respect of section 43(2), the Commissioner’s decision is that the exempt
Exemptions cited: FOI 35; FOI 43
View Cabinet Office
31 Mar 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested from South Gloucestershire Council (‘SGC’) information on the options it had considered for the proposed location and design of a new railway station car park. He also requested copies of communications between SGC and a landowner over the sale of land for the car park. SGC said the information was exempt from disclosure under sections 22 (Information intended for future publication) and 43 (Commercial interests) of FOIA. During the Commissioner’s investigation, SGC reconsidered the request under the EIR and applied regulations 12(4)(d) (Material still in the course of completion) and 12(5)(e) (Confidentiality of commercial or industrial information) to withhold the information. The Commissioner’s decision is that SGC has not demonstrated that it was entitled to rely on either regulation to withhold the requested information. The Commissioner therefore finds that SGC breached Regulation 5(1) of the EIR (Duty to make available environmental information on r
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(d); EIR 12(5)(e); EIR 5(1)
View South Gloucestershire Council
31 Mar 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) seeking a specific piece of internal analysis. DWP initially responded to the request but at internal review introduced section 14(1) (vexatious) and section 14(2) (repeated request) of the Act. The Commissioner has concluded that the request is neither vexatious nor repeated and therefore DWP is not entitled to rely on section 14(1) or section 14(2) in response to the request. The Commissioner requires the public authority to issue a fresh response to the complainant’s request dated 14 January 2021 which does not rely on section 14(1) or 14(2). 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 14
View Department for Work and Pensions
31 Mar 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested a copy of the legal opinion in respect of a particular planning application. Buckinghamshire Council (the Council) withheld the information under regulations 12(4)(d) (material in the course of completion, 12(4)(e) (internal communications) and 12(5)(b) (course of justice). At the internal review stage the Council withdrew reliance on regulation 12(4)(e) and it also withdrew reliance in regulation 12(4)(d) during the Commissioner’s investigation. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council is entitled to rely on Regulation 12(5)(b) and that the balance of the public interest favours maintaining the exception. The Commissioner does not any steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(b)
View Buckinghamshire Council
31 Mar 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested a copy of advice received by the monitoring officer at the council relating to a complaint about parish councillors. The council refused the request under section 41(1) (information provided in confidence). The Commissioner’s decision is that the council was correct to apply section 41(1) to withhold the information. The Commissioner does not require the council to take any steps
Exemptions cited: FOI 41
View Elmbridge Borough Council
31 Mar 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to the timelines for paediatric assessments held by the council. The council provided a link to some relevant information, however it said that there is no set timeline or policy as this is dependant upon the welfare of each individual child. The complainant argues that that information should be held as every other London Borough Council holds, and publishes this information. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on a balance of probabilities, the council was correct to state that no relevant information is held by it. The Commissioner does not require the council to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Southwark Council
31 Mar 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested correspondence and other communications, relating to the 9 September 2019 prorogation of Parliament, sent or received by Dominic Cummings (then Chief Adviser to Prime Minister Boris Johnson). The Cabinet Office has asserted that aside from a memo of 15 August 2019 from Nikki Da Costa (Director of Legislative Affairs) they hold no other information within scope of the complainant’s request. The complainant also made a meta request for all communications relating to the handling of his substantive request. The Cabinet Office withheld that information under section 36 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA).The Commissioner’s decision is that, based on the information available to him at the time of his investigation, on the balance of probabilities, the Cabinet Office does not hold any further relevant information within scope of the complainant’s request. However, the Commissioner considers that the Cabinet Office should have carried out more comprehe
Exemptions cited: FOI 1(1)
View Cabinet Office
31 Mar 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested pre-planning information in respect of a proposed expansion at Trinity Fields School. Caerphilly County Borough Council (the Council) withheld the information under regulation 12(4)(e) (internal communications) of the EIR. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has correctly applied regulation 12(4)(e) to the request. He does not require any steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(e)
View Caerphilly County Borough Council
31 Mar 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested from Shrewsbury Town Council financial information held in connection with the disposal of Greenfield’s Recreation Ground. Shrewsbury Town Council provided website links to the information it held which was readily accessible to the complainant and clarified which information was not held. The Commissioner’s decision is that on the balance of probabilities Shrewsbury Town Council does not hold any further information and therefore it complied with Section 1(1)(a) of the FOIA. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take and steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
31 Mar 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information the Chief Constable of Surrey Police (“Surrey Police”) relating to investigations into misconduct. By the date of this notice Surrey Police had not issued a substantive response to this request. The Commissioner’s decision is that Surrey Police 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 Surrey Police to take the following step to ensure compliance with the legislation.Surrey Police must provide a substantive response to the request in accordance with its obligations under the FOIA. Surrey Police 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 Surrey Police
30 Mar 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information from Milton Keynes Council (“the Council”) relating to agendas and minutes for all meetings of the Planning Improvement Board. 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: EIR 5(2)
View Milton Keynes Council
30 Mar 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to a tenancy at will, issued by Brighton and Hove City Council (the council). Whilst the council provided the complainant with some information, it withheld the name of the individual who was granted the tenancy at will, citing section 40(2) – personal information, of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council is entitled to rely on the exemption at section 40(2), when withholding the name of the tenant at will. The Commissioner does not require the council to take any steps as a result of this decision notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40(2)
View Brighton and Hove City Council
30 Mar 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information about the Spectrum 10k research project. By the date of this notice Norfolk and Norwich University NHS Foundation Trust had not issued a substantive response to this request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Trust 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 Trust must provide a substantive response to the request in accordance with its obligations under FOIA. The Trust 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 Norfolk and Norwich University Hospitals
30 Mar 2022Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information held by Rother District Council (the council) regarding the provision of services relating to stray dogs in its area. The Commissioner’s decision is that as the council failed to provide the complainant with all the information held within the scope of the request within 20 working days, it has breached section 10(1) – time for compliance, of the FOIA. However, the Commissioner is satisfied that all the information held by, or on behalf of, the council has now been released to the complainant, and therefore, no steps are required.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10(1); FOI 3
View Rother District Council
29 Mar 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about Prince Andrew and police protection from the Metropolitan Police Service (the “MPS”). The MPS would neither confirm nor deny (NCND) holding any information , citing sections 24(2) (National security), 31(3) (Law enforcement), 38(2) (Health and safety) and 40(5) (Personal information) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the MPS was entitled to rely on section 24(2) FOIA to NCND holding the requested information. He does not require any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 24
View Metropolitan Police Service
29 Mar 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC) contracts for PPE with a number of different companies. The Commissioner’s decision is that DHSC correctly applied section 43(2) (commercial interests) FOIA to the withheld information. The Commissioner does not require DHSC to take any steps as a result of this decision notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 43
View Department of Health and Social Care
29 Mar 2022Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted to the Ministry of Defence (MOD) an application for the military service record of a deceased individual and a further request seeking all information the MOD held about the individual. The MOD initially argued that the information sought by the application for the service record was exempt from disclosure on the basis of section 21 (information reasonably accessible by other means). It subsequently provided the complainant with a copy of the service record with some information redacted on the basis of section 41(1) (information provided in confidence) of FOIA. In respect of the wider request the MOD located some medical records of the individual in question but it also considered these to be exempt from disclosure on the basis of section 41(1) of FOIA.The Commissioner’s decision is that by failing to process both the application for the service record and the wider request within 20 working days the MOD breached section 10(1) of FOIA. The Commissioner also c
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 21; FOI 41
View Ministry of Defence
29 Mar 2022Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested a range of information relating to stray dogs. Chorley Council (the “council”) disclosed some information, confirmed other information was not held and withheld some information under the exemption for commercial interests (section 43(2)). The council subsequently dropped its reliance on the exemption and disclosed the information to the complainant. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council disclosed all the relevant information it held and complied with section 1(1) but that in disclosing some information outside the 20 working day time limit, it breached section 10(1). The Commissioner does not require the council to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1(1); FOI 10(1)
View Chorley Borough Council
29 Mar 2022Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information on the increase in the base rate for Universal Credit and the decision not to raise legacy benefits in line with this increase. The Commissioner’s decision is that although the exemption at section 35(1)(a), formulation or development of government policy, the public interest favours disclosure of the majority of the information. The Commissioner has also determined that where the information engages section 42(1), the public interest favours maintaining the exemption. The Commissioner requires the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) to disclose the submissions to the Secretary of State with the exception of paragraph 20 of document (a). 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 the Act and may be dealt with as a contempt of court. First-tier trib
Exemptions cited: FOI 35; FOI 42
View Department for Work and Pensions
29 Mar 2022Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested a copy of an audit report. London Borough of Newham (the “council”) disclosed the requested information and confirmed that no further information was held. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council disclosed all the relevant information that it holds and complied with section 1(1) but that it failed to do this within 20 working days and breached section 10(1). The Commissioner does not require the council to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1(1); FOI 10(1)
View Newham Council
29 Mar 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information regarding the change of ownership for some land. Capel Parish Council provided some information in response to the request, but stated that some information is not held. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, Capel Parish Council does not hold any further information in scope of the request.
Exemptions cited: EIR 5(1)
28 Mar 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information with regards to a traffic proposal for double yellow lines. Bath & North East Somerset Council (the council) provided the information but redacted third party personal data under section 40(2) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that section 40(2) of the FOIA is engaged. The Commissioner does not require the council to take any steps. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2022/0085 appeal struck out.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View Bath and North East Somerset Council
28 Mar 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from the London Borough of Hillingdon (“the council”), relating to Project Axis.The council provided the complainant with some of the requested information, however it withheld some information on the basis of section 41 (information provided in confidence) of the FOIA.The Commissioner’s decision is that the council correctly applied section 41 to the withheld information. The Commissioner does not require the council to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 41
View Hillingdon Council
28 Mar 2022Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant submitted a request to the London Borough of Lewisham (the Council) seeking objections to the Low Traffic Neighbourhoods in the borough received by certain individuals and traffic department staff. The Council responded by stating that it did not hold the requested information. During the course of the Commissioner’s investigation the Council amended its position and sought instead to rely on regulation 12(4)(b) (manifestly unreasonable) of the EIR. The complaiant challenged its reliance on that exception and argued that the Council had failed to provide him with any advice and assistance to allow him to submit a refined request in line with regulation 9 of the EIR. The Commissioner has concluded that the Council is entitled to rely on regulation 12(4)(b) to refuse the request and that in the circumstances of this request it was not under any obligation to provide any advice and assistance. However, the Commissioner has concluded that the Council breached regulations 5(
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(b); EIR 14(1); EIR 5(2); EIR 9
View Lewisham Council
28 Mar 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about the ‘Nave Andromeda’ incident that occurred in October 2020. The Commissioner’s decision is that Hampshire Constabulary (HC) has correctly applied section 30(1) – investigations and proceedings, to the withheld information. The Commissioner does not requires the public authority to take the any steps as a result of this decision notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 31
28 Mar 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information about the Spectrum 10k research project. By the date of this notice Black Country Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust had not issued a substantive response to this request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Trust 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 Trust must provide a substantive response to the request in accordance with its obligations under FOIA. The Trust 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 Black Country Healthcare NHS Foundation
28 Mar 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a two part request to the Ministry of Defence (MOD) seeking information about the RAF's application of the pay proposals as detailed in a report by the Armed Forces’ Pay Review Body. The MOD confirmed that it held information falling within the scope of the first part of the request but considered this to be exempt from disclosure on the basis of section 36(2)(c) (effective conduct of public affairs) of FOIA. The MOD explained that it did not hold any information falling within the scope of the second part of the request. The complainant challenged the MOD’s response to the second part of the request. The Commissioner is satisfied that on the balance of probabilities the MOD does not hold any information falling within the scope of the second part of the request.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Ministry of Defence
28 Mar 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to the Ministry of Defence (MOD) seeking a copy of the service record of his late father. The MOD responded by explaining that it could not locate any such record. The complainant challenged this decision and the Commissioner issued a decision notice concluding that on the balance of probabilities no information was held. The complainant appealed that notice to the First-Tier Tribunal who concluded that the MOD had not conducted sufficient searches to locate the requested information and ordered the MOD to issue a fresh response to the request. The MOD did so, and after conducting further searches, again concluded that it did not hold the requested information. The complainant has challenged this finding to the Commissioner. The Commissioner has again concluded that on the balance of probabilities the MOD does not hold any information falling within the scope of the request. Information Tribunal UA-2022-001664-GIA UT PTA refused
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Ministry of Defence
28 Mar 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from the University of Chichester (the university) relating to sexual abuse/assaults at the university within a particular timeframe. The university provided information in relation to the first part of the request but refused to provide any information regarding parts two and three of the request, citing section 40(2) – personal information. The Commissioner’s decision is that the university has appropriately cited section 40(2) and that the requested information should not be disclosed. The Commissioner does not require the university to take any further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View The University of Chichester
25 Mar 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested raw and standardised test scores for the 11+ Kent test in 2017 – 2019. The Council initially refused the request under section 40(2) of the FOIA, later also seeking to rely on section 43(2). The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has correctly applied the section 43(2) exemption to the requested information and the public interest favours withholding the information. He has therefore not gone on to consider the section 40(2) exemption in this case.
Exemptions cited: FOI 43
View Kent County Council
25 Mar 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to an employment tribunal. The Commissioner’s decision is that Ministry of Justice (MOJ) was entitled to rely on section 32(3) FOIA to neither confirm nor deny that the requested information is held. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps as a result of this decision notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 32
View Ministry of Justice
25 Mar 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to financial penalties imposed by the Financial Conduct Authority on Prudential Insurance Company (Prudential) and Standard Life Assurance Ltd (Standard Life). The Commissioner’s decision is that the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) has correctly cited section 44(1)(a) in response to the request. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps as a result of this decision notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 44
View Financial Conduct Authority
24 Mar 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information about badgers. The Commissioner’s decision is that DAERA failed to respond to the request within 20 working days and has therefore breached Regulation 5(2) of the EIR.
The Commissioner does not require further steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: EIR 5(2)
View Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs (Northern Ireland)
24 Mar 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information about the operation of speed cameras. North Wales Police stated that it did not hold information relating to some parts of the request and stated that other information was exempt under section 31 – law enforcement. The complainant considered that North Wales Police held recorded information relating to parts 1 and 2 of the request. During the course of the Commissioner’s investigation North Wales Police identified information held relevant to parts 1 and 2 of the request which it disclosed to the complainant. The Commissioner finds that North Wales Police breached sections 1 and 10 of the FOIA in failing to inform the complainant that the requested information was held and for failing to disclose the information within the statutory timescale. The Commissioner does not require any steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10
View North Wales Police
24 Mar 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to charging referrals made by the police. South Yorkshire Police refused to comply with the request on the grounds that it was vexatious within the meaning of section 14(1) (vexatious request) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that South Yorkshire Police was entitled to rely on section 14(1) to refuse the request. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken as a result of this decision. First-tier Tribunal (General Regulatory Chamber) Information Rights appeal EA/2022/0091 appeal allowed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14
View South Yorkshire Police
24 Mar 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from the Home Office relating to correspondence between the Home Office and Avon and Somerset Police. 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. He also finds that the Home Office met its obligations under section 16(1) of the FOIA to offer advice and assistance.
The Commissioner does not require the Home Office to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12; FOI 16
View Home Office
24 Mar 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to an investigation that the Health and Safety Executive carried out. The Health and Safety Executive withheld the requested information, citing section 30(1)(b) (investigations and proceedings) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the exemption is engaged and the public interest lies in maintaining the exemption. The Commissioner does not require any further steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 30
View Health and Safety Executive
24 Mar 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested details of pre-planning advice provided on a particular redevelopment scheme for Surrey County Council’s County Hall. The Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames relied on numerous exceptions before finally settling on Regulation 12(5)(d) of the EIR (confidentiality of proceedings) to withhold the requested information. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Royal Borough has not demonstrated that Regulation 12(5)(d) of the EIR is engaged and is therefore not entitled to rely on the exception. The Commissioner requires the Royal Borough to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. Disclose the email of 6 February 2020 with appropriate personal data redactions. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2021/0353/GDPR appeal struck out.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(d)
View Kingston upon Thames Council
23 Mar 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information about a specific piece of pre-application advice. Horsham District Council initially withheld the requested information before later determining that it could be disclosed as it was no longer sensitive. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council failed to carry out a reconsideration (internal review) of a response it provided, under the Environmental Information Regulations, within 40 working days and therefore breached Regulation 11 of the EIR. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 11
View Horsham District Council
23 Mar 2022Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information collected as part of the Sedgeberrow Parish Neighbourhood Plan Household Survey. Sedgeberrow Parish Council (the Parish Council) refused to provide the requested information on the basis that it is personal information (section 40 of FOIA). The Commissioner’s decision is that the requested information was appropriately withheld under section 40(2) of FOIA. However, he found a procedural breach of section 17 (refusal of request). The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: FOI 17; FOI 40
23 Mar 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested from the Ministry of Defence (“MOD”) information regarding work orders for installed fencing and gates at Long Valley training area B4. MOD provided information that falls within scope of the first part of the request, and confirmed that it does not hold information to some other parts of the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the MOD should have considered the request under the EIR, rather than FOIA. However, the Commissioner is satisfied that on the balance of probabilities, the MOD does not hold any recorded information falling within the scope of the remaining parts of the request. Therefore, he does not require the MOD to take any steps as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(a)
View Ministry of Defence
23 Mar 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from the Charity Commission relating to a whistleblowing complaint. The Charity Commission has disclosed some of the requested information, however it has refused to disclose the remainder, citing sections 40(2) and 41 of FOIA as a basis for non-disclosure.
The Commissioner’s decision is that the Charity Commission has correctly applied section 41 of FOIA.
The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken by the public authority. First-tier tribunal (General Regulatory chamber) information rights appeal EA/2022/0096 struck out.
Exemptions cited: FOI 41
View The Charity Commission
23 Mar 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information relating to payments made in connection with work on Cressingham Gardens. The Commissioner’s decision is that The London Borough of Lambeth (“LB Lambeth”) incorrectly dealt with the request under FOIA and should, instead haven considered it under the EIR. The Commissioner further finds that the LB Lambeth is not entitled to withhold the requested information under regulation 12(4)(b) – manifestly unreasonable. The Commissioner requires LB Lambeth to issue a fresh response that does not rely on regulation 12(4)(b) of the EIR. LB Lambeth must take these steps within 35 calendar days of the date of this decision notice. Failure to comply may result in the Commissioner making written certification of this fact to the High Court pursuant to section 54 of FOIA and may be dealt with as a contempt of court.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(b)
View London Borough of Lambeth
23 Mar 2022Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from Barking Havering & Redbridge University Hospitals Trust (“the Trust”) regarding child deaths and illnesses related to pollution in the area. The Trust initially refused the request on the basis that the information was personal data under section 40(2) of FOIA and later sought to rely on the exemption at section 41(1) of FOIA (information provided in confidence). The Commissioner’s decision is that the Trust was entitled to rely on section 41(1) of FOIA to the withheld information. However, the Commissioner finds that the Trust has breached section 10(1) of FOIA regarding the request, as it did not provide the complainant, within 20 working days, the information it held within the scope of the request. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any further steps. First-tier tribunal (General Regulatory chamber) information rights appeal EA/2022/0093 under appeal. Information Tribunal UT UA-2023-000316-GIA PTA refused.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10(1); FOI 41(1)
View Barking, Havering and Redbridge University Hospitals NHS Trust
23 Mar 2022Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information sent or received by the Home Secretary and her private office staff between certain dates in relation to the policing of the Clapham vigil by the Metropolitan Police and the passage of the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill. The Home Office refused the request as it considered that compliance with it would exceed the cost limit under section 12 FOIA.The Commissioner’s decision is that the Home Office has correctly cited section 12(1) FOIA, in response to the request. It has also complied with its duty to provide advice and assistance in line with the requirements of section 16 FOIA. He finds that the Home Office breached section 10(1) FOIA by failing to respond to the request within the statutory time for compliance. The Commissioner does not require the Home Office to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 12; FOI 16
View Home Office
23 Mar 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from NHS Improvement (NHSI) relating to a review by the Kings Fund commissioned by NHSI. By the date of this notice NHSI had failed to provide a substantive response to this request. The Commissioner’s decision is that NHSI has breached section 10(1) of the FOIA in that it failed to provide a valid response to the request within the statutory time frame of 20 working days. The Commissioner requires NHSI to respond to the complainant’s request in accordance with the FOIA. NHSI must take these steps within 35 calendar days of the date of this decision notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Department of Health and Social Care
23 Mar 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information from Carmarthenshire County Council about Glan Lash opencast coal mine. 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. No steps are required.
Exemptions cited: EIR 11
View Carmarthenshire County Council
22 Mar 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information from Ceredigion County Council (“the Council”) relating to traffic management around McDonalds in Aberystwyth. 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: EIR 5(2)
View Ceredigion County Council
22 Mar 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested details of hate crimes that took place between 23 June and 23 August 2016. The Commissioner decided that the Metropolitan Police Service had applied correctly the section 12(1) (cost of compliance) FOIA exemption. He also decided that the Metropolitan Police Service had engaged positively with the complainant and had provided reasonable advice and assistance in line with the requirements of section 16(1) FOIA. The Commissioner did not require the Metropolitan Police Service to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12; FOI 16
View Metropolitan Police Service