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
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
7 Mar 2022Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to dealings with the London Borough of Enfield. The London Ambulance Service NHS Trust originally provided some information and said that some was not held. However, LAS subsequently identified some additional information which it provided to the complainant. The Commissioner’s decision is that LAS has, on the balance of probabilities, disclosed, to the complainant, all the information it holds within the scope of the request. However, as LAS failed to identify all the information it held or provide it to the complainant within 20 working days, it breached section 10(1) of FOIA. The Commissioner does not require any further steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10
View London Ambulance Service NHS Trust
7 Mar 2022Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested from Uplands Community College (UCC) surveys completed by parents and information about incidents. UCC disclosed some information within scope of parts 1 and 3 of the request and withheld information within scope of part 2 and the remainder of the information within scope of part 3. UCC referred to Subject Access Requests and section 40(2) of FOIA in its correspondence with the complainant and that it considered certain information to be other people’s personal data. The Commissioner’s decision is as follows: On the balance of probabilities, UCC has disclosed all the information it holds that is relevant to the 2019 and 2020 parent surveys and does not hold the raw data for these surveys. With regard to the 2021 survey UCC was entitled to redact some of the information in the ‘open question’ material it disclosed under section 40(2) of FOIA as it is other people’s personal data, and special category personal data, and it would be unlawful to disclose it. U
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 40
7 Mar 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested from the Chief Constable of Devon and Cornwall Police (“Devon and Cornwall Police”) information relating to firearm licences and shotgun certificates.The Commissioner’s decision is that Devon and Cornwall 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.
As a response to the request has been provided no steps are required.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
7 Mar 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information held by the London Borough of Wandsworth (the council) relating to major works carried out on a particular property in 2020. By the date of this notice, the council had not issued a substantive response to the complainant’s request. The Commissioner considers both the FOIA and EIR to be relevant to the request. It is his decision that the council has breached regulation 5(2) of the EIR, and section 10(1) of the FOIA, by failing to provide a valid response to the complainant within the statutory time frame of 20 working days. The Commissioner requires the council to provide a substantive request to the complainant’s request in accordance with its obligations under the EIR, and the FOIA.
Exemptions cited: EIR 5(2); FOI 10(1)
View London Borough of Wandsworth
7 Mar 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from Liverpool City Council (‘the Council’) about job interviews. At the date of this notice, the Council has not provided a response to the request. The Commissioner’s decision is as follows: The Council 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 the Council to take the following step to ensure compliance with the legislation: Provide a response to the part of the complainant’s request of 16 November 2021 that is covered by FOIA, that complies with that legislation.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Liverpool City Council
7 Mar 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from Lewes and Eastbourne Borough Council (“the council”) regarding an increase to the rental rates for beach huts. The council withheld some information on the basis of section 43(2) (commercial interests) of FOIA, and stated that further information was not held. The Commissioner’s decision is that section 43(2) was correctly applied and the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosure. The Commissioner also finds that, on the balance of probabilities, no further information is held by the council. No steps are required. First-tier tribunal (General Regulatory chamber) information rights appeal EA/2022/0075 appeal allowed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 43(2)
View Eastbourne Borough Council
4 Mar 2022Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested from London Borough of Hackney (“the Council”) information relating to building control files. The Council maintained that it does not hold one of the three files requested and relied on the exception under regulation 12(4)(a) (information not held). With regard to the remaining two files, the Council stated that the information was exempt from disclosure and relied on regulation 13(1) (personal data), regulation 12(5)(c) (intellectual property rights) and regulations 8(1) and (3) of the EIR.The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the Council is correct to state that it does not hold recorded information falling within the scope of the request to file FP2016/24498. With regard to the two files FP2005/0992 and FP2007/0724 the Commissioner’s decision is that the Council is not entitled to rely on regulation 13(1) to withhold the information requested. Also, the Council failed to demonstrate that regulations 12(5)(c), 8(1) and 8(3) o
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(c); EIR 12(4); EIR 13(1); EIR 8; EIR 8(1)
View London Borough of Hackney
4 Mar 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested from NHS Hampshire, Southampton and Isle of Wight Clinical Commissioning Group (the CCG) a contract between the CCG and Parnering Health Ltd (PHL) for out-of-hours services including the expectations/targets, the payment received, and the number of times (within specified dates) that PHL failed to meet the relevant timeframes passed on by the 111 service provider. The CCG provided some information but withheld the remainder, citing the exemption at section 43(2) – commercial interests. The Commissioner’s decision is that the CCG has correctly cited section 43(2) for the withheld information. However, he has concluded that it is in the public interest for this information to be disclosed, apart from the detailed financial figures in Schedule 4, Annex 1 which should not be disclosed. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. • The Commissioner expects the CCG to disclose the informat
Exemptions cited: FOI 43(2)
View Hampshire and Isle of Wight Clinical Commissioning Group
4 Mar 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to the purchase of a barge by the council. The council refused the request on the basis that section 43(2) of the FOI Act applies to the information (prejudice to commercial interests). The Commissioner’s decision is that the council was correct to apply section 43(2) to withhold the information from disclosure. The Commissioner does not require the council to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 43(2)
View Bristol City Council
4 Mar 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
1. The complainant requested information from the Home Office relating to the Home Offices recruitment for a vacant post, specifically the personal statements of the four candidates shortlisted for interview.2. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Home Office was entitled to rely on section 40(2) of FOIA to withhold the requested information. 3. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40(2)
View Home Office
3 Mar 2022Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information on the scope and results of a review into safeguarding from the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP). DWP disclosed some information regarding the scope of the review and withheld information regarding the results of the review under section 35(1)(a). DWP also withheld the personal data within the scope of the request on the basis of section 40(2). The complainant has not disputed the redactions made on the basis of section 40(2). The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, DWP does not hold any further information relating to the scope of the review. He considers that section 35(1)(a) is not engaged in relation to the withheld information regarding the results of the review. The Commissioner requires the public authority to disclose the information withheld under section 35(1)(a) with the exception of the information exempt under section 40(2). The public authority must take these steps within 35 calendar days of th
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 35
View Department for Work and Pensions
3 Mar 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to Covid tests outside of hospital for Ministers and family. The Commissioner’s decision is that Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC) has correctly cited section 12(1) in response to the request. The Commissioner does not require DHSC to take any steps as a result of this decision notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12
View Department of Health and Social Care
3 Mar 2022Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested photographs of work carried out by Northern Ireland Housing Executive (“NIHE”) on his property. NIHE disclosed two photographs, which it said was the only information it held, but the complainant argued that, in light of the other occasions contractors had visited his property to carry out certain repairs, it must hold further photographs. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the civil standard of the balance of probabilities, NIHE has disclosed all the information it holds in response to the request. However, he found that in failing to respond to the request within the 20 working day time for compliance, NIHE breached sections 1 and 10 of FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10
View Northern Ireland Housing Executive
3 Mar 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to Civil Nuclear Constabulary (“CNC”) requesting information relating to relating to UFO/UAP incidents over the past 70 years. CNC refused to disclose the requested information, citing section 12(1) of FOI as a basis for non-disclosure, however it later changed its position and stated that it did not hold the requested information. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, CNC does not hold the requested information. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Civil Nuclear Constabulary
3 Mar 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from the London Borough of Merton about a specific project team. The London Borough of Merton has failed to respond to this request. The Commissioner requires the London Borough of Merton to provide the complainant with a response to this request in accordance with its obligations under FOIA. The London Borough of Merton must take these steps within 35 calendar days of the date of this decision notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Merton Council
3 Mar 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about royal protection officers and Prince Andrew from the Metropolitan Police Service (the “MPS”). The MPS denied holding some of the requested information. It also refused to confirm or deny holding any information relating to Prince Andrew, citing sections 24(2) (National security), 31(3) (Law enforcement), 38(2) (Health and safety) and 40(5) (Personal information) of FOIA. During the Commissioner’s investigation the MPS revised its position. It aggregated all parts of the request and cited section 12(2) (Cost of compliance exceeds appropriate limit) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the MPS was entitled to rely on section 12(2) and there was no section 16 (Advice and assistance) breach. No steps are required.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12; FOI 16
View Metropolitan Police Service
3 Mar 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from the London Borough of Bromley about specified contracts. The London Borough of Bromley has failed to respond to this request. The Commissioner requires the London Borough of Bromley to provide the complainant with a response to this request in accordance with its obligations under FOIA. The London Borough of Bromley must take these steps within 35 calendar days of the date of this decision notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Bromley Council
2 Mar 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested the interview score that would have guaranteed entry into the course ‘Medicine A100’ for 2021. The University of Nottingham (‘the University’) withheld this information under section 43(2) (commercial interests) 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 the University to take any steps to ensure compliance with the legislation.
Exemptions cited: FOI 43(2)
View University of Nottingham
2 Mar 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested the interview score that would have guaranteed entry into the course ‘Medicine A100’ for 2021. The University of Leeds (‘the University’) withheld this information under section 36(2)(c) (Prejudice to the effective conduct of public affairs) 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 the University to take any steps to ensure compliance with the legislation.
Exemptions cited: FOI 36(2)(c)
View The University of Leeds
2 Mar 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from the Metropolitan Police Service (the “MPS”) about a certain criminal threshold and why an action taken by a named individual did not meet that threshold. The MPS refused to confirm or deny whether it held information regarding this, citing the exemptions at sections 40(5) (Personal information), 30(3) (Investigations and proceedings) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the MPS was entitled to rely on section 40(5) of the FOIA to issue a neither confirm nor deny response. Therefore he did not consider the MPS’ application of section 30(3) of FOIA to the requested information. No steps are required.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View Metropolitan Police Service
2 Mar 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to the Cabinet Office seeking minutes of any Cabinet meeting from 2020 where the review into the fit and proper person test carried out by Tom Kark QC was discussed. The Cabinet Office refused to confirm or deny whether it held the requested information on the basis of section 35(3) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Cabinet Office is entitled to rely on section 35(3) of FOIA to refuse to confirm or deny whether it holds the requested information.
Exemptions cited: FOI 35
View Cabinet Office
2 Mar 2022Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested, from the Independent Office for Police Conduct (the “IOPC”), information about an investigation it undertook in respect of allegations of corruption. The IOPC withheld the requested information citing the exemptions at sections 30(1)(a)(i) and 30(2) (Investigations and proceedings), and 40(2) (Personal information) of the FOIA (it later removed reliance on section 30(2)). During the Commissioner’s investigation, the IOPC accepted that some information, which is contained within nine reports, could be disclosed. The Commissioner agreed that the remainder was appropriately withheld under section 40(2) of FOIA. However, in failing to provide disclosable information by the completion of the internal review the Commissioner finds breaches of sections 10(1) and 1(1)(b). The Commissioner requires the IOPC to disclose the agreed text from within each of the nine reports.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10; FOI 40
View Independent Office for Police Conduct
2 Mar 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to the Covid-19 vaccine. The Commissioner’s decision is that Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC) does not hold the requested information. The Commissioner does not require DHSC to take any steps as a result of this decision notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Department of Health and Social Care
1 Mar 2022Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested copies of the minutes of the Town Centre Regeneration Board meetings held by Welwyn Hatfield Borough Council (the council). The council initially withheld the information, citing section 43(2) -commercial interests, and section 36 - effective conduct of affairs, of the FOIA. Following the Commissioner’s intervention, the council confirmed that, given the passage of time, it regarded the public interest to now lie in favour of the release of some of the requested information, and it provided the complainant with a copy of the minutes of the relevant meetings in a redacted format. Following advice from the Commissioner, the council then reconsidered the request under the EIR; however, it maintained its view that the remaining withheld information was exempt from disclosure, now citing regulation 12(5)(e) - confidentiality of commercial or industrial information, regulation 12(4)(e) - internal communications, and regulation 12(5)(f) - interests of the informa
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(e); EIR 14
View Welwyn Hatfield Borough Council
1 Mar 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information regarding a proposal for a Materials Recovery Facility in the county. Hampshire County Council responded to the request, but the complainant sought a reconsideration (internal review) of that response – which the Council had yet to complete at the date of this notice. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has failed to carry out a reconsideration (internal review) of a response it provided, under the Environmental Information Regulations, within 40 working days and has therefore breached Regulation 11 of the EIR. As the Council failed to respond to the request within 20 working days, it also breached Regulation 5(2) of the EIR. The Commissioner requires the Council to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. Reconsider how it responded to the original request and inform the complainant of the outcome of that reconsideration in accordance with Regulation 11 of the EIR.
Exemptions cited: EIR 11; EIR 5(2)
View Hampshire County Council
1 Mar 2022Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested a copy of a report submitted to the council by a campaign group regarding its Sex Entertainment Venue (SEV) policy. The council applied section 41 (information provided in confidence) and 40(2) (personal data of third parties) to withhold the report. In its internal review the council changed its opinion to find that it held no information falling within the scope of the request. The Commissioner has decided that the council did not initially comply with the requirements of section 16 of the FOIA (advice and assistance) in aiding the complainant to reformulate her request for information to encompass the information which it did hold. The Commissioner’s decision regarding the application of the exemptions to the information it did hold is that the council was correct to apply section 41 to withhold this information from disclosure. It has not been necessary to also consider the application of section 40(2) to the information. The Commissioner does not require
Exemptions cited: FOI 16; FOI 41
View Bristol City Council
1 Mar 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested, from the Home Office, information about aerial surveillance of migrants. The Home Office provided a copy of a contact, withholding some content under sections 40(2) (Personal information) and 43(2) (Commercial interests) of FOIA. At a late stage, it added reliance in sections 31(1)(a) (Prejudice to prevention or detection of crime) and section 31(1)(e) (Prejudice to operation of the immigration controls) of FOIA.The Commissioner’s decision is that a late disclosure of information satisfied section 40 so this was not considered. He also found that the Home Office was entitled to rely on sections 43(2) and 31(1)(a) and (e) to withhold the remaining information. The Commissioner does not require the Home Office to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 31; FOI 43
View Home Office
1 Mar 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information with regards to a Neighbourhood Development Plan. Witherley Parish Council (the council) provided some information, then following two internal review requests, the council issued a refusal notice citing section 14(1) of the Freedom of Information Act (the FOIA) – vexatious request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the request fell under the EIR and accordingly found that regulation 12(4)(b) of the EIR – manifestly unreasonable - was engaged and that the public interest favours maintenance of the exception. The Commissioner does not require any steps, but has set out some points in the ‘other matters’ section of this decision notice for both parties to note. First-tier tribunal (General Regulatory chamber) information rights appeal EA/2022/0068 appeal allowed.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(b)
1 Mar 2022Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested, from the Office of the Police and Crime Commissioner for West Mercia (the “OPCC”), information about its data sharing practices with a company called Sancus. The OPCC refused to provide the requested information citing the exemptions at sections 43(2) (Commercial interests) and 36(2)(c) (Prejudice to the effective conduct of public affairs) of FOIA. Although not cited, the Commissioner has also considered section 40(2) (Personal information) in respect of the names and email addresses of the parties concerned.The Commissioner’s decision is that section 43 is not engaged and that section 36 is only partially engaged. He also finds that section 40 is only partially engaged. He requires the OPCC to disclose the information which the Commissioner has identified in a separate confidential annex.
Exemptions cited: FOI 36; FOI 40; FOI 43
1 Mar 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information about Caribbean judges sitting on the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. The Ministry of Justice (the ‘MOJ’) initially said it did not hold the requested information. During the course of the Commissioner’s investigation, the MOJ revised its position. It now said that the requested information was held but refused to provide it citing sections 35 of FOIA (formulation of government policy) and 40 (personal information). The complainant confirmed he was only concerned with the information withheld under section 35 so the Commissioner has not considered the MOJ’s reliance on section 40 any further. The Commissioner’s decision is that the MOJ has appropriately applied section 35(1)(a) of FOIA to the withheld information and that the balance of the public interest test favours maintaining the exemption. The Commissioner does not require the MOJ to take any steps as a result of this notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 35
View Ministry of Justice
1 Mar 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about a deceased police officer including complaints made about him, his disciplinary record and reports relating to misconduct. South Yorkshire Police (‘SYP’) would neither confirm nor deny whether it held the requested information, citing the exemption at section 38(2) (Health and safety) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that SYP has not demonstrated that section 38(2) is engaged in this case. The Commissioner requires SYP to confirm or deny whether information falling within the scope of the request is held, and either disclose that information or issue a refusal notice compliant with section 17 of FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 38
View South Yorkshire Police
1 Mar 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
1. The complainant has requested information from Durham Constabulary relating to an arrest which took place in 2012. Durham Constabulary first sought to apply section 40(5)(b) of FOIA to the request, however it later changed its approach and stated that the requested information was not held.
2. The Commissioner’s decision is that Durham Constabulary does not, on the balance of probabilities, hold the requested information.
3. Therefore the Commissioner requires no steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Durham Constabulary
1 Mar 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant made a request under FOIA about the data retention policy for a ticketing system used by the University and also requested a copy of the policy relating to retention of data for the system. The University failed to provide this information and has not done so at date of this notice. The Commissioner’s decision is that the University failed to respond to the request within 20 working days and has therefore breached section 10 of the FOIA. The Commissioner requires the University to provide a substantive response under FOIA within 35 days of this notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
1 Mar 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information about parking complaints from the London Borough of Enfield (“the Council”). 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 FOIA in that it failed to provide a valid response to the request within the statutory time frame of 20 working days. The Commissioner requires the Council to take the following step to ensure compliance with the legislation. The Council must provide a substantive response to the request in accordance with its obligations under FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10(1)
View Enfield Council
1 Mar 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information with regards to a Neighbourhood Development Plan. Witherley Parish Council (the council) provided some information, then following an internal review request the council issued a refusal notice citing section 14(1) of the Freedom of Information Act (the FOIA) – vexatious request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the request fell under the EIR and accordingly found that regulation 12(4)(b) of the EIR – manifestly unreasonable - was engaged and that the public interest favours maintenance of the exception. The Commissioner does not require the council to take any steps, but has set out some points in the ‘other matters’ section of this decision notice for both parties to note. First-tier tribunal (General Regulatory chamber) information rights appeal EA/2022/0072 appeal allowed.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(b)
1 Mar 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from the West of England Combined Authority (“WECA”) about the basis of claims made about the economic impact of the proposed Great Western Freeport. WECA disclosed information in response, but the complainant argued that he believed further recorded information was held. The Commissioner’s decision is that he is satisfied that WECA has disclosed all the relevant recorded information which it held. The Commissioner does not require WECA to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1(1)
View West of England Combined Authority
28 Feb 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information from Maldon District Council (“the Council”) relating to members of the public’s responses to a specific planning application. 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 regulation 5(2) of the EIR 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 EIR. 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)
View Maldon District Council
28 Feb 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested correspondence between the now former leader of the London Borough of Waltham Forest (“LB Waltham Forest”) and Stella Creasy MP about a Community Protection Notice. LB Waltham Forest cited section 40 (personal data) as its basis for refusal. It upheld this at internal review. It introduced additional reliance on section 36 (prejudice to the effective conduct of public affairs) and section 38 (prejudice to health and safety) during the Commissioner’s investigation. The Commissioner’s decision is that LB Waltham Forest is entitled to rely on section 36(2)(b)(i) as its basis for withholding all the requested information. No steps are required.
Exemptions cited: FOI 36
View Waltham Forest Council
28 Feb 2022Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information from Isle of Wight Council (“the Council”) about expenditure on a replacement ferry, known as “the floating bridge”. The Council disclosed information in response, but the complainant argued that further recorded information was held. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council should have considered the request under the EIR, rather than FOIA. However, he is satisfied that the Council has disclosed all the relevant recorded information which it held. The Commissioner does not require the Council to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(a); EIR 2(1)
View Isle of Wight Council
28 Feb 2022Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information from Westminster City Council (“the Council”) about meetings, phone calls and correspondence with the Prince of Wales (“the Prince”) regarding the redevelopment of the Chelsea Barracks site. The Council stated that it did not hold any recorded information falling within the scope of the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council should have considered the request under the EIR, rather than FOIA. However, he is satisfied that the Council does not hold the requested information. The Commissioner does not require the Council to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(a); EIR 2(1)
View Westminster Council
28 Feb 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information regarding the rates charged to Birmingham City Council for damage repairs on the road network, and details of claims. Birmingham City Council withheld some information on the basis of section 43(2) (commercial interests), and stated that some information was not held. The Commissioner’s decision is that section 43(2) was correctly applied and the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosure. The Commissioner also finds that, on the balance of probabilities, no further information is held by the council. No steps are required.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 43(2)
View Birmingham City Council
28 Feb 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested the cost of advertisements placed in the Guardian and Observer newspapers. The Office for National Statistics relied on section 43 of FOIA (commercial interests) to withhold the requested information. The Commissioner’s decision is that the requested information engages section 43(2) of FOIA and that the balance of the public interest favours maintaining the exemption. The Commissioner does not require further steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 43
View Office for National Statistics
28 Feb 2022Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information on the Department for Transport’s (DfT) communications with the General Directorate MOVE of the European Commission and for documents issued by the DfT containing rules of aviation security relating to cabin luggage in a specific time period. The DfT refused the first part of the request citing section 12(1) of the FOIA. The DfT withheld the information in the second part of the request under section 24 of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the DfT has correctly relied on section 12(1) to refuse to comply with the first part of the request but failed to comply with its obligations under section 16 (advice and assistance) of the FOIA. The Commissioner also finds that section 24 was correctly engaged in relation to the second part of the request and the balance of the public interest favours maintaining the exemption. The Commissioner requires the public authority to provide advice and assistance to the complainant to assist in submitt
Exemptions cited: FOI 12; FOI 16; FOI 24
View Department for Transport
28 Feb 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
1. The complainant requested information from Bristol City Council (“the Council”) about plans for all phases of a particular residential development, along with the Health & Safety file for the development.
2. The Council initially considered the information was exempt from disclosure under Section 40(2) (personal information) 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) cited below:
• Regulation 12(3) – Personal data of an individual other than the applicant• Regulation 12(4)(a) – Information is not held• Regulation 12(4)(b) – Manifestly unreasonable• Regulation 12(5)(a) – Disclosure would adversely affect public safety• Regulation 12(5)(e) - Confidentiality of commercial or industrial information where such confidentiality is provided by law to protect a legitimate economic interest
3. The Commissioner’s decision is that
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(b)
View Bristol City Council
25 Feb 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to Ministry of Justice (MoJ) complaint procedures. The Commissioner’s decision is that MoJ has correctly cited section 12(1) FOIA (cost of compliance) in response to the request. The Commissioner does not require MoJ to take any steps as a result of this decision notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12
View Ministry of Justice
25 Feb 2022Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested the marks achieved by students on Masters of Law (LLM) modules for 2017-2021. The University of London (‘the University’) disclosed the award classifications for each year but withheld the remainder of the information that fell within the scope of the request, citing section 43(2) (commercial interests) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that section 43(2) does not apply to all of the information that the University is withholding. The Commissioner therefore requires the public authority to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: to disclose the information requested in part 3 of the request. Furthermore, in failing to disclose all non-exempt information within twenty working days, the University has breached section 10 (time for compliance with request) of FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 43(2)
View London
25 Feb 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant submitted a request to the London Borough of Enfield (the Council) seeking information about a public consultation regarding a Low Traffic Neighbourhood scheme. The Council provided some information in response to the request and explained that in relation to other points of the request explained that it did not hold any recorded information. The complainant disputed the Council’s position that it did not hold any information in relation to questions 2 and 4 of his request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council does not hold any recorded information falling within the scope of request 2 of the request and the information sought by question 4 is now in the public domain.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(a)
View Enfield Council
25 Feb 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested the driving licence application information of Elaine Parent. The DVLA refused to comply with the request, citing section 14(1) (vexatious requests) of FOIA. The DVLA then changed its position to neither confirm nor deny that it held the requested information, citing section 41(2) (information provided in confidence). The Commissioner’s decision is that section 41(2) is engaged but that the public interest lies in confirming or denying that the information is held. The Commissioner requires the DVLA to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: issue a fresh response, which must confirm or deny whether the information is held, and either disclose the requested information or issue a valid refusal notice compliant with section 17 of FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 41
View Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency