22 Mar 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested minutes of Governors, Committee, and Academy Member meetings from September 2018 to present. By the date of this notice Bately Grammar School (“the School”) had not issued a substantive response to this request. The Commissioner requires the School to provide the complainant with a response to this request in accordance with its obligations under FOIA. The School must take these steps within 35 calendar days of the date of this decision notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View BEXLEY GRAMMAR SCHOOL
22 Mar 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from the Medicines & Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (“MHRA”) about adverse reactions to Covid-19 vaccines, reported through the yellow card reporting system. The MHRA has cited section 12(1) of FOIA (cost of compliance) to refuse the request for information. The Commissioner’s decision is that the MHRA were entitled to refuse to comply with the request under section 12(1) of FOIA, and that it has complied with its obligations under section 16(1) of FOIA to provide adequate advice and assistance to the complainant. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any further steps. First-tier Tribunal (General Regulatory Chamber) Information Rights appeal EA/2021/0341 appeal withdrawn.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12(1)
View Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency
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
22 Mar 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from Warrington Borough Council (“the Council”) relating to individuals living in supported living and residential care settings with learning disabilities. 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
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Warrington Council
21 Mar 2022Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested the ICO to disclose information relating to the register of fee payers and the processing and publication of personal data. This was a 15 part request and has been submitted three times to the ICO. The three requests are referred to as the Group 1, 2 and 3 requests. The ICO responded to the Group 1 requests on 25 October 2019, following an earlier decision notice issued by the Commissioner on 11 September 2019. It responded to all of the Group 2 requests on 9 January 2022 (it had responded only to parts 10 and 14 previously) and it responded to the Group 3 requests on 8 January 2022. Following receipt of the responses to the Group 1, 2 and 3 requests, the complainant remained dissatisfied and asked the Commissioner to consider whether the ICO had now met its obligations under FOIA, whether any further recorded information was held by the ICO at the time of the requests and to consider whether there had been any procedural breaches of the legislation. The Commi
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10; FOI 16; FOI 17; FOI 21; FOI 42
View Information Commissioner
21 Mar 2022Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information about a ‘healthy streets’ initiative in Dulwich. The London Borough of Southwark (the ‘Council’) handled the request under the EIR and provided some of the requested information. It refused to provide the remainder citing Regulations 12(4)(b) (manifestly unreasonable request) and 12(4)(e) (internal communications). At the internal review stage, the Council partly revised its position and said it was relying solely on Regulation 12(4)(b), explaining that the request was ‘manifestly unreasonable’ on cost grounds. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council was entitled to rely on Regulation 12(4)(b) for the reasons set out in this notice. He finds that the associated public interest test favours maintaining the exception. However, the Council breached Regulation 11(4) as it failed to provide an internal review within 40 working days. The Commissioner does not require the Council to take any steps as a result of this notice.
Exemptions cited: EIR 11(4); EIR 12(4)(b); EIR 9
View Southwark Council
21 Mar 2022Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to the services under Camden and Islington NHS Foundation Trust (‘the Trust’). In relation to parts 1-6 of the request, the Trust disclosed some information but confirmed that it does not hold any further information that falls within the scope of the request. In relation to part 7 of the request, the Trust has explained that it cannot comply citing section 12(1) (cost of compliance exceeds the appropriate limit) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is as follows: On the balance of probabilities, the Trust does not hold any further information within the scope of parts 1-6 of the request; the Trust is entitled to rely upon section 12 as to comply with part 7 of the request would exceed the appropriate limit; and, the Trust has breached section 16 (duty to provide advice and assistance) in failing to provide meaningful advice and assistance to the complainant in relation to part 7 of their request. The Commissioner requires the public a
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 12; FOI 16
View North London NHS Foundation Trust
18 Mar 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from the Charity Commission on evidence it received and processes it followed in relation to issues of regulatory interest it had with the charity. The Charity Commission confirmed information was held but considered it exempt under section 31(1)(g) with 31(2)(a), (c) and (f) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Charity Commissioner has correctly engaged the section 31 exemption and the public interest favours maintaining the exemption. He requires no steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 31
View The Charity Commission
18 Mar 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested all documents sent to the Prime Minister from 1 December 2019 to 31 March 2020, recommending the country be put into lockdown due to the Covid-19 pandemic. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Cabinet Office has appropriately applied the exemptions at section 35(1)(a) and (b) – Formulation of government policy and Ministerial communications. However, the public interest favours disclosure of most of the information. The Commissioner requires the public authority to disclose the requested information to ensure compliance with the legislation. The Commissioner has also found that the Cabinet Office failed to issue their refusal notice to the complainant within the required timescale. The Cabinet Office therefore breached sections 10(1) and 17(1) of the FOIA.
The public authority must disclose the requested information, with the exception of the information contained in paragraph 14 of the withheld information, which can be redacted, within 35 cal
Exemptions cited: FOI 35
View Cabinet Office
18 Mar 2022Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant submitted a multi-part request to London Borough of Bromley (the Council) seeking information about proposals to demolish Beckenham Library. The Council provided some information it considered to fall within the scope of the request but sought to withhold further information on the basis of regulation 12(4)(e) (internal communications) of the EIR. The complainant challenged the Council’s reliance on that exception and argued that it was likely to hold further information that would answer his request. The Commissioner has concluded that on the balance of probabilities the Council does not hold any further information falling within the scope of the request other than that which is has disclosed or is seeking to withhold. In relation to the latter information, the Commissioner is satisfied that this is exempt from disclosure on the basis of regulation 12(4)(e) of the EIR and that in all of the circumstances of the case the public interest favours maintaining the exceptio
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(a); EIR 12(4)(e); EIR 14(2)(1); EIR 5(2)
View Bromley Council
18 Mar 2022Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to the Ministry of Defence (MOD) containing a number of questions relating to the ‘Shifta War’ in Kenya in the early 1960s, issues relating to the health and treatment of service personnel, and matters concerning war pensions. The MOD provided some information in response to the request, but sought to withhold further information on the basis of section 21 (information reasonably accessible to the complainant) and section 40 (personal data). The complainant contacted the Commissioner in order to challenge a number of aspects of the MOD’s handling of his request, primarily that it should have provided more information to him in response to his request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the MOD has located and disclosed all of the information that it is obliged to provide the complainant when responding to his request. However, the Commissioner has concluded that the MOD breached section 10(1) of FOIA by failing to respond to a new, clarified request
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10
View Ministry of Defence
17 Mar 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (FCDO) relating to a UKAID Connect Consortia Grant awarded in 2019. By the date of this notice, the FCDO had not issued a substantive response to the request.
The Commissioner’s decision is that the FCDO has failed 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 FCDO to take the following steps 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.
The FCDO 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
Exemptions cited: FOI 17
View Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office
17 Mar 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to stray dogs. Bolton Borough Council (the “council”) disclosed some information and confirmed that other information was not held. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council failed to respond to the request within the statutory time limit and breached section 10(1) of the FOIA. The Commissioner does not require the council to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Bolton Council
17 Mar 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested from the Chief Constable of Dorset Police (“Dorset Police”) information relating to reports passed to Dorset Police from the National Fraud Intelligence Bureau to investigate.
The Commissioner’s decision is that Dorset Police was entitled to refuse to comply with the request in accordance with section 12(1) of the FOIA. He also finds that Dorset Police met its obligations under section 16(1) of the FOIA to offer advice and assistance.
The Commissioner does not require Dorset Police to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12; FOI 16
View Dorset Police
17 Mar 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to costs of COVID-19 tests. DHSC refused to disclose the requested information under 43(2) FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that section 43(2) FOIA was applied correctly to the withheld information. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 43
View Department of Health and Social Care
16 Mar 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information from the London Borough of Croydon concerning data gathered by “vivacity” traffic monitoring cameras and air pollution monitors in the Auckland Road low traffic neighbourhood area.The Commissioner’s decision is that the London Borough of Croydon (“the Council”) has failed to respond to the request within 10 working days and has therefore breached Regulation 5(2) of the Environmental Information Regulations (“the EIR”).The Commissioner requires the Council to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation.• Issue a substantive response, under the EIR, to the request.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 Croydon
16 Mar 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested an index of the content available on the judicial intranet. The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) stated that the requested information was not held by the MoJ for the purposes of FOIA under the provisions of section 3(2)(a). The Commissioner’s decision is that the requested information is not held by the MoJ for the purposes of FOIA. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken as a result of this decision. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2022/0067 dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 3
View Ministry of Justice
16 Mar 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information about searches for unexploded ordnance in Studland, Dorset. The National Trust for Places of Historic Interest or Natural Beauty drew the complainant’s attention to some information in the public domain, but refused to comply with the request in full because it did not consider itself obliged to comply with requests made under the Environmental Information Regulations as it was not a public authority for the purposes of the legislation. The Commissioner’s decision is that the National Trust is not a public authority for the purposes of the EIR and was therefore not obliged to comply with the request. As the National Trust is not a public authority, the Commissioner has no power to require it to take remedial steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 2(2)
15 Mar 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested from the East Sussex Healthcare NHS Trust (the Trust) the Building for our Future (BFF) Strategic Outline Case (SOC). The Trust withheld the information citing section 36 FOIA – prejudice to the effective conduct of public affairs. Later, the Trust also cited section 21 (information accessible to the applicant by other means) for part of the information. During the Commissioner’s investigation the Trust confirmed that it no longer wished to withhold certain appendices under section 36 as they were now in the public domain and provided them to the complainant. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Trust has correctly cited section 21 and that parts of the information are reasonably accessible to the complainant by other means. He has also decided that section 36 applies to the remaining requested information and that the public interest, at this time, lies in maintaining the exemption. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any fur
Exemptions cited: FOI 36
View East Sussex Healthcare NHS Trust
15 Mar 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to Intellectual Property between the Ministry of Defence (the ‘MOD’), the Atomic Weapons Establishment and the United States. He asked for information where he was named on a patent or ‘form 32’ as an inventor. The MOD initially provided some of the requested information, withheld some of it under section 42, the exemption for legal professional privilege and said it did not hold the remainder. At the internal review stage the MOD revised its position. It now refused to confirm or deny whether the requested information was held, citing section 40(5), the ‘neither confirm nor deny’ provision for personal information. It said that some of the information, if held, would be the personal data of the complainant and the remainder the personal data of third parties. The Commissioner’s decision is that the MOD was entitled to neither confirm nor deny holding information within the scope of the request by virtue of sections 40(5A) of FOIA. As this
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View Ministry of Defence
15 Mar 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has asked the BBC to confirm if it has destroyed any documents relating to the Princess of Wales’s Panorama interview in 1995, and where any documents have been destroyed, he has asked for information relating their destruction. The BBC disclosed information it believed to be relevant to the scope of the request. The Commissioner is satisfied that, on the balance of probabilities, the BBC does not hold any further information that falls within the scope of the request. The Commissioner does not require the BBC to take any further steps as he is satisfied that this request has been dealt with in line with section 1(1) (General right of access to information held by public authorities) of the FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View BBC
15 Mar 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information about section 20 major works notices issued by London Borough of Lambeth (the Council). The Council refused to provide the requested information, citing section 12 of FOIA as its basis for doing so. The Council later accepted the Commissioner’s view that the information is environmental and therefore relied on regulation 12(4)(b) (manifestly unreasonable) of the EIR. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has failed to demonstrate that regulation 12(4)(b) is engaged and is therefore not entitled to rely on this exception.The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation.• Issue a fresh response to the request that does not rely on regulation 12(4)(b) of the EIR.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
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(b)
View London Borough of Lambeth
14 Mar 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested correspondence about an industrial relations framework. The Department for the Economy (‘DfE’) is withholding the majority of information relevant to the request under section 35(1)(a) of FOIA (formulation of government policy). DfE has also applied section 40(2) of FOIA to the personal data within the disputed information. The Commissioner’s decision is as follows: The information to which DfE has applied section 35(1)(a) of FOIA engages that exemption, and the balance of the public interest favours withholding the information. The Commissioner does not require DfE to take any corrective steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 35
14 Mar 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about a grant awarded to an affordable homes project. Homes England (‘HE’) disclosed information within scope of part [c] of the request and withheld information within scope of parts [a] and [b] under section 44(1)(a) of FOIA (prohibitions on disclosure). HE subsequently advised that the information requested at part [a] has now been published and is therefore exempt under section 21(1)(information accessible to applicant by other means). HE also withdrew its reliance on section 44 in respect of the information requested at [b] and now considers that this information is exempt from disclosure under section 43(2) of FOIA (commercial interests). The Commissioner’s decision is as follows: HE is entitled to withhold information within scope of part [b] of the complainant’s request under section 43(2) of FOIA and the public interest favours maintaining this exemption. The Commissioner does not require HE to take any corrective steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 43
View Homes England
14 Mar 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information from the Council about planning applications for homeless housing provision. By the date of this notice the Council had failed to provide a substantive response to this request. The Commissioner considers some parts of the request to fall under the EIR and some parts under the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Home Office has breached regulation 5(2) of the EIR and 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 provide a substantive response to the request in accordance with its obligations under the EIR and 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: EIR 5(2); FOI 10
View South Kesteven District Council
14 Mar 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from Warrington Borough Council regarding the valuation of a property. The Commissioner’s decision is that Warrington Borough Council failed to respond to part of the request within 20 working days and has therefore breached section 10(1) of the FOIA. As a response to the request has been provided no steps are required.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10(1)
View Warrington Council
14 Mar 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information from the City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council (“the Council”) about the Disposal / Leases of Public Open Spaces. The Council initially considered the 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. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any further steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(b)
View City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council
11 Mar 2022Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested findings from two reviews conducted by the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) into the governance arrangements of host Authorised Corporate Directors of investment funds. The FCA provided some redacted documents but withheld information from these under section 43(2), 44 and 31(1)(g) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the information withheld under sections 31(1)(g) and 44(1)(a) has been correctly withheld from disclosure. With regard to section 43(2) the Commissioner finds the exemption has been correctly engaged but the balance of the public interest favours disclosure. The Commissioner also finds the FCA has breached section 10(1) of the FOIA by failing to provide a valid response within 20 working days. The Commissioner requires the public authority to disclose the information highlighted in the redacted documents as engaging section 43(2) of the FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 31; FOI 43; FOI 44
View Financial Conduct Authority
11 Mar 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information relating to a planning application. The Council provided some information and refused the remainder in reliance on the exceptions at regulation 12(4)(e) (internal communications) and regulation 13 (personal data) of the EIR. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council was entitled to rely on the exception at regulation 12(4)(e). No steps are required.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(e)
View London Borough of Brent
10 Mar 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information about the number of arrests in connection with a specific incident. North Wales Police refused to confirm or deny that the requested information was held, citing section 40(5) (personal information) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that North Wales Police was not obliged to confirm or deny whether it held the requested information in accordance with section 40(5) of FOIA. The Commissioner does not require North Wales Police to take any steps as a result of this notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View North Wales Police
10 Mar 2022Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
In a five part request, the complainant has requested information about a complaint. North Yorkshire County Council (NYCC) advised that it holds no information relevant to some parts of the request. NYCC also disputed that the remaining parts of the request were valid requests under FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is as follows: All parts of the request can be categorised as a valid request for information under section 8(1) of FOIA. However, NYCC should have relied on section 40(5B)(a)(i) of FOIA to neither confirm nor deny it held any of the requested information. NYCC Breached section 17(1) of FOIA as it did not refuse the request within the required timescale of 20 working days. The Commissioner does not require NYCC to take any corrective steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 17; FOI 40
View North Yorkshire County Council
10 Mar 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested from the Home Office information regarding unaccompanied asylum-seeking claimed minors who entered the United Kingdom in each month from July 2020 to June 2021.The Home Office refused to comply with the request citing section 12 (cost limit) of the FOIA.The Commissioner’s decision is that the Home Office correctly applied section 12 and section 16 of the FOIA.The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12; FOI 16
View Home Office
10 Mar 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information about tree works associated with a specific property. London Borough of Redbridge (‘the Council’) has disclosed relevant information. The Commissioner’s decision is as follows: On the balance of probabilities, the Council has disclosed all the relevant information it holds and has complied with regulation 5(1) of the EIR. The Commissioner does not require the Council to take any corrective steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 5
View Redbridge Council
10 Mar 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from the NHS Commissioning Board (NHS England) relating to the Covid-19 vaccination programme. By the date of this notice, 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 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 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 the 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 the Act and may be dealt with as a contempt of court.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View NHS England
9 Mar 2022Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant made four requests for information from the Home Office on 21 March 2021. The Home Office aggregated the requests as they stated all were about modern slavery safeguards. The Home Office relied on section 12(1) of FOIA (cost of compliance exceeds the appropriate limit) to refuse the requests. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Home Office was entitled to aggregate the requests under section 12(4) of FOIA and is entitled to rely on section 12(1) of FOIA to refuse the requests. The Commissioner considers that the Home Office has complied with its obligations under section 16(1) of FOIA to provide adequate advice and assistance. However, the Home Office has breached section 10(1) of FOIA as it has failed to respond within the statutory time for compliance. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10(1); FOI 12; FOI 12(1); FOI 16
View Home Office
9 Mar 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested copies of three documents which the owner of a local mineral development site had provided to Oxfordshire County Council (the council). Whilst the council provided copies of two of the documents requested, it stated that it was to withhold the third, which contained counsel opinion (Counsel Opinion document), under regulation 12(5)(f) of the EIR – interests of the person who provided the information. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council has failed to demonstrate why regulation 12(5)(f) is engaged, and therefore, it is not entitled to rely on that exception. The Commissioner requires the council to disclose the Counsel Opinion document, with the exception of the personal data described within paragraph 89 of this decision notice, which should be redacted.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(f)
View Oxfordshire County Council
9 Mar 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from the Welsh Government relating to the recall of ventilator devices. The Welsh Government refused to comply with the request citing section 12 (cost limit) of the FOIA.The Commissioner’s decision is that the Welsh Government was entitled to refuse to comply with the request in accordance with section 12(1) of the FOIA. He also finds that the Welsh Government met its obligations under section 16(1) of the FOIA to offer advice and assistance.The Commissioner does not require the Welsh Government to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12; FOI 16
View Welsh Government
8 Mar 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to the Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office (FCDO) seeking reports provided to it by the World Health Organisation (WHO). The FCDO refused to release the reports under FOIA. The complainant subsequently asked the FCDO to provide him with a copy of WHO’s request that such reports were treated confidentially. The FCDO confirmed that it held such information, but it considered this information to also be exempt from disclosure, citing the exemptions contained at the following sections of FOIA27(1)(b) to (d), 27(2) (international relations) and 40(2) personal data of FOIA. The Commissioner has concluded that the withheld information is exempt from disclosure on the basis of section 27(2) of FOIA and that in all the circumstances of the request the public interest favours maintaining the exemption.
Exemptions cited: FOI 27
View Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office
8 Mar 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information in relation to published expenses claims by Khalid Mahmood MP. IPSA confirmed that some information was not held, it provided some information but refused to disclose the remaining information under 40(2) FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that section 40(2) FOIA was applied correctly to the withheld information. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority
8 Mar 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested from the Education Authority Northern Ireland a copy of an investigation report in respect of an alleged injury to a child at a specified school on a specified date. The Education Authority Northern Ireland refused to confirm or deny whether it held the requested information under section 40(5) FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Education Authority Northern Ireland correctly applied section 40(5) FOIA. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken. First-tier tribunal (General Regulatory chamber) information rights appeal EA/2022/0079 appeal withdrawn.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40(5)
8 Mar 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information from Hampshire County Council (“HCC”) relating to communication about planning applications. By the date of this notice HCC had failed to provide a substantive response to this request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the HCC has breached regulation 7(1) of the EIR in that it failed to provide a valid response to the request within the statutory timeframe of 40 working days. The Commissioner requires the HCC to respond to the complainant’s response in accordance with the EIR. The HCC must take these steps within 35 calendar days of the date of this decision notice.
Exemptions cited: EIR 7(1)
View Hampshire County Council
8 Mar 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested a copy of a risk assessment that was performed at Hawthorn School and swimming pool in December 2019. Rhondda Cynon Taf County Borough 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. The Commissioner does not require any steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Rhondda Cynon Taf County Borough Council
8 Mar 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested a video recording of an appeal hearing from The Planning Inspectorate (“the PI”). The PI refused the request on the basis that it was manifestly unreasonable on grounds of cost (regulation 12(4)(b) of the EIR). The Commissioner’s decision is that the request was manifestly unreasonable, and that the balance of the public interest favours the exception being maintained. The Commissioner does not require the PI to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(b)
View Planning Inspectorate
8 Mar 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to the ‘two ticks’ scheme at Cardiff University. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) does not hold any information within the scope of the request. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps as a result of this decision notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Department for Work and Pensions
8 Mar 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to the Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office (FCDO) seeking four documents provided to it by the World Health Organisation concerning the Ebola crisis in the Democratic Republic of Congo. The FCDO withheld the information on the basis of sections 27(1)(a) to (d), section 27(2) (international relations) and section 40(2) (personal data) of FOIA. The Commissioner has concluded that the withheld information is exempt from disclosure on the basis of section 27(2) of FOIA and that in all the circumstances of the request the public interest favours maintaining the exemption.
Exemptions cited: FOI 27
View Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office
8 Mar 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information on 23 December 2021 relating to a contract awarded to a particular waste management company. The Council has not responded to this 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 South Hams District Council
8 Mar 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to Warwickshire Police requesting information relating to the action taken against officers who attended an alleged BBQ during lockdown. The Commissioner’s decision is that the information requested falls within the definition of personal data. The Warwickshire Police was therefore entitled to withhold this information under section 40(2). The Commissioner does not require the Warwickshire Police to take any steps as a result of this decision notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40(2)
View Warwickshire Police
8 Mar 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information about requests by the Swedish and US authorities to extradite Mr Julian Assange from the UK. Also about his extended stay seeking asylum within the London Embassy of Ecuador and correspondence with the Ecuadorian authorities. She asked the Information Commissioner, in his investigation, to address two issues ‘seriously’: Crown Prosecution Service reliance on the exemptions cited; and, the destruction of emails to and from a named former Crown Prosecution Service officer. The Commissioner decided that the Crown Prosecution Service had complied with FOIA in its reliance on the section 30(1) and 30(3) FOIA (Investigations and Proceedings) exemptions and had correctly redacted personal data from information it had disclosed. The Commissioner did not require the Crown Prosecution Service to take any steps to comply with the legislation. First-tier Tribunal (General Regulatory Chamber) Information Rights appeal EA/2021/0368 appeal allowed in part.
Exemptions cited: FOI 30
View Crown Prosecution Service
8 Mar 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information about a report. London Borough of Redbridge (‘the Council’) has advised that it does not hold the specific information requested. The Commissioner’s decision is as follows: On the balance of probabilities, the Council does not hold any information within scope of the request and the exception under regulation 12(4)(a) of the EIR is engaged. The Commissioner does not require the Council to take any corrective steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(a)
View Redbridge Council
8 Mar 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from Thames Valley Police relating to an incident involving the Kimblewick Hunt. Thames Valley Police withheld the information, citing sections 30(1) (investigations and proceedings) and 40(2) (personal information) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that Thames Valley Police was entitled to rely on section 30(1)(a)(i) to withhold the information. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken as a result of this decision. Information Tribunal FTT EA/2022/0080 appeal dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 30
View Thames Valley Police