24 Feb 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested communications between the Council and the Chinese Government or state owned linked entities in respect of the tidal lagoon project and a visit to China in 2017. The Council provided some information however the complainant believes the Council holds more information than it has disclosed. The Commissioner’s decision is that Swansea Council has complied with the requirements of regulation 5 of the EIR. The Commissioner does not require the Council to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 5(1)
View Swansea Council
24 Feb 2022Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information from North Lincolnshire Council (“the Council”). The information had been provided to the Council by a company director in support of his application for a Certificate of Lawful Existing Use or Development. The Council provided some information to the complainant, but withheld various bills, invoices and insurance documents under regulation 12(5)(e) of the EIR (confidentiality of commercial or industrial information), and/or under regulations 12(3) and 13(1) of the EIR (third party personal data). The Commissioner’s decision is that the exception at regulation 12(5)(e) is engaged, and that the balance of the public interests favours the exception being maintained. Because the Council failed to respond to the request within 20 working days, it breached regulation 5(2) of the EIR. In addition, by failing to carry out a reconsideration within 40 working days, it also breached regulation 11(4). The Commissioner does not require the Council to take any
Exemptions cited: EIR 11(4); EIR 12(5)(e); EIR 5(2)
View North Lincolnshire Council
24 Feb 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
• The complainant requested details of a number of information sharing agreements the Metropolitan Police Service (the “MPS”) may have with other organisations.• The Commissioner’s decision is that the MPS failed to respond to the request within 20 working days and has therefore breached section 10 of the FOIA.• The Commissioner requires the MPS to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation.• Issue a substantive response, under the FOIA, to the request.• The MPS 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 FOIA and may be dealt with as a contempt of court.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Metropolitan Police Service
24 Feb 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from Oxford City Council (“the Council”) relating to the recruitment of British Muslim employees. By the date of this notice the Council had not issued a substantive response to this request.The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has breached section 10(1) of the FOIA in that it failed to provide a valid response to the request within the statutory time frame of 20 working days.The Commissioner requires the Council to take the following step to ensure compliance with the legislation.The Council must provide a substantive response to the request in accordance with its obligations under the FOIA. The Council must take this step within 35 calendar days of the date of this decision notice. Failure to comply may result in the Commissioner making written certification of this fact to the High Court pursuant to section 54 of the Act and may be dealt with as a contempt of court.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Oxford City Council
23 Feb 2022Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant made a request for information for documents that exist relating to email or other correspondence between BBC managers and the BBC Information Office, between September 2020 and November 2020, which has any bearing on the November 1995 Panorama programme with the Princess of Wales. The BBC refused to disclose the requested information under section 42 and 43(2) FOIA. The Commissioner considers that the BBC was correct to apply section 42 FOIA to the information withheld under this exemption but was incorrect to apply section 43(2) FOIA to the information withheld under this exemption. The Commissioner requires the public authority to disclose the information withheld under section 43(2) FOIA. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2022/0069 appeal dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 42; FOI 43
View BBC
23 Feb 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested copies of emails which had been sent to certain domains. Gwent Police initially stated that the information requested was exempt under section 40(2) (Personal information) of the FOIA. In its internal review, Gwent Police applied section 12 (Cost of compliance) to the request. During the Commissioner’s investigation Gwent Police withdrew reliance on section 12 and confirmed that no information was held. The Commissioner finds that Gwent Police breached sections 1 and 10 of the FOIA in failing to inform the complainant that the requested information was not held within the statutory timescale. The Commissioner does not require any steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10
View Gwent Police
22 Feb 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from the Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office (“the FCDO”) about correspondence between the FCDO and a number of British overseas territories. By the date of this notice the FCDO had not issued a substantive response to this request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the FCDO has failed to complete its deliberations on the balance of the public interest within a reasonable time and has therefore breached section 17(3) of the FOIA.The Commissioner requires the FCDO to take the following step to ensure compliance with the legislation: Having confirmed that information is held within the scope of the request: either disclose the requested information or issue a refusal notice in accordance with the requirements of section 17 of the FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 17(3)
View Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office
22 Feb 2022Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information, including an enforcement file, relating to a specified planning application. South Tyneside Council (the ‘Council’) handled the request under the EIR and provided some information with redactions for personal information. It withheld the remainder citing Regulation 12(5)(b) (course of justice). Following its internal review, the Council revised its position; it now said that no enforcement file was held in accordance with Regulation 12(4)(a) and that all information in scope of the request had been provided. The complainant confirmed she was not concerned with the redacted personal information, so the Commissioner has not considered this aspect any further. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council was correct to handle this request under the EIR. He also finds that, on the balance of probabilities, the Council does not hold any further information in scope of the request. However, the Council also breached Regulation 5(2) of the EIR by fail
Exemptions cited: EIR 11(4); EIR 12(4)(a); EIR 5(2)
View South Tyneside Council
22 Feb 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested access to all complaints made to the General Medical Council (‘GMC’) about a named doctor. As the named doctor had conditions placed on his registration by an Interim Orders Tribunal, GMC confirmed that details about the current investigation into the named doctor was subject to the personal data exemption at section 40(2) FOIA. As regards any other complaints into the named doctor, GMC would neither confirm nor deny whether the requested information is held under section 40(5) FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that GMC correctly withheld all the requested information under section 40(2) FOIA and section 40(5) FOIA. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40(2); FOI 40(5)
View GMC
22 Feb 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from Mid and East Antrim Council (“the Council”) in relation to the office relocation of the Council’s Chief Executive in 2014. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has correctly applied section 14 (1) of FOIA to the request. The Commissioner therefore requires no steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14
22 Feb 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from the Home Office regarding asylum claims, legal aid claims and the country of origin of the individuals involved. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Home Office was entitled to rely on section 40(2) of FOIA to withhold the requested information. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken as a result of this decision notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40(2)
View Home Office
22 Feb 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested from the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) information specifically related to the Data sharing code of practice draft code for consultation, and the final Data Sharing Code of Practice. The ICO provided information via a series of links that was technically withheld because it was publicly accessible information (section 21) but withheld some information under section 42(1) legal professional privilege (LPP). The Commissioner’s decision is that the ICO has cited section 42(1) appropriately. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 42
View Information Commissioner
21 Feb 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information regarding flooding in a specific area. The London Borough of Bromley initially disclosed some information. However additional information in scope of the request was disclosed during the course of the Commissioner’s investigation. The Commissioner’s decision is that the London Borough of Bromley breached the requirements of regulation 5(2) in failing to provide all the information it held within the scope of the requests within 20 working days. No steps are required.
Exemptions cited: EIR 5(2)
View Bromley Council
21 Feb 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from the Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC) about correspondence between ministers of the department and Steve Brine MP relating to “Remedium Partners, Microlink PC and Sigma Pharmaceuticals”. By the date of this notice DHSC had failed to provide a substantive response to this request. The Commissioner’s decision is that DHSC 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 DHSC to respond to the complainant’s request in accordance with the FOIA. DHSC 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
21 Feb 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
Summary wording for website: The complainant submitted a request to Cornwall Council (‘the Council’) requesting a copy of the list of properties that had received a Neighbour Notification letter in a specific planning application. 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. As a response has been issued, the Commissioner does not require the Council to take any further steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 5(2)
View Cornwall Council
18 Feb 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
1. The complainant requested information from London Borough of Southwark (“the Council”) relating specifically to its Electoral Services department.
2. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council is entitled to rely on the exemption at section 40(2) of FOIA to the withheld information.
3. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40(2)
View Southwark Council
18 Feb 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to The Metropolitan Police Service (the MPS) for bodycam footage from an officer who attended his property on a specific date. The MPS acknowledged the request but have failed to provide a substantive response to date. The Commissioner’s decision is that the MPS has failed to respond to the request within 20 working days and has therefore breached section 10 of the FOIA. The Commissioner requires the MPS to provide a response within 35 working days of the Decision Notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Metropolitan Police Service
18 Feb 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about payments made to individuals who had received infected blood. The Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC) has advised that it does not hold any of the information the complainant has requested. The Commissioner’s decision is as follows: On the balance of probabilities, DHSC does not hold the requested information and has complied with section 1(1)(a) of FOIA. The Commissioner does not require DHSC to take any corrective steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Department of Health and Social Care
18 Feb 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from the Department for International Trade (“DIT”) about meetings with Syngenta. By the date of this notice DIT had not issued a substantive response to this request. The Commissioner’s decision is that DIT has failed to complete its deliberations on the balance of the public interest within a reasonable time and has therefore breached section 17(3) of the FOIA.The Commissioner requires DIT to take the following step to ensure compliance with the legislation.• Having confirmed that information is held within the scope of the request: either disclose the requested information or issue a refusal notice in accordance with the requirements of section 17 of the FOIA.DIT 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 17(3)
View Department for International Trade
17 Feb 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information in relation to the Director General of the HM Passport Office. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Home Office 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
Exemptions cited: FOI 10(1)
View Home Office
17 Feb 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested from Westminster City Council (“the Council”) information relating to a specific residential property. The Council stated that it does not hold any further information other than already provided to the complainant. The Commissioner’s decision is that on the balance of probabilities, the Council does not hold any further recorded information within the scope of the request. Therefore, the Commissioner does not require the Council to take any steps as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(a)
View Westminster Council
17 Feb 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
1. The complainant requested information from the Medicines & Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (“MHRA”) about suspected adverse cardiac reactions to Covid-19 vaccines.
2. The Commissioner’s decision is that the MHRA were entitled to refuse to comply with the request under section 12(1) of FOIA (cost of compliance), and that it has complied with its obligations under section 16(1) of FOIA to provide adequate advice and assistance to the complainant.
3. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12(1); FOI 16
View Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency
16 Feb 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport about correspondence between it and Philip Davies MP relating to gambling regulation. By the date of this notice the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport had failed to provide a substantive response to this request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport 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 Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport to respond to the complainant’s request in accordance with the FOIA. The Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport must take these steps within 35 calendar days of the date of this decision notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Department for Culture, Media and Sport
16 Feb 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
1. The complainant requested from South Somerset District Council (“the Council”) information relating to a specific planning application. By the date of this notice the Council had not issued a substantive response to this request. 2. 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.3. 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. 4. 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 South Kesteven District Council
16 Feb 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to South Somerset District Council (‘the Council’) requesting a breakdown of spending and a copy of the accounts for the building of Chard Leisure Centre.
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.
• Issue a substantive response to the request in accordance with its obligations under FOIA
The Council must take these steps within 35 calendar days of the date of this decision notice. Failure to comply may result in the Commissioner making written 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: FOI 10
View South Kesteven District Council
16 Feb 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about the organ donor register. NHS Blood and Transplant (NHSBT) advised that it does not hold the specific information requested. The Commissioner’s decision is as follows: On the balance of probabilities, NHSBT does not hold recorded information falling within scope of the request and complied with section 1(1)(a) of FOIA. The Commissioner does not require NHSBT to take any corrective steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
16 Feb 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from West Yorkshire Police about the telephone system used at Havertop Lane Police Station in relation to telephone calls he believed had been made. West Yorkshire Police denied holding some of the requested information and refused to confirm or deny whether it held the remainder, citing sections 40(5) (personal information) and 30(3) (investigations and proceedings) of FOIA. Having investigated its application of section 40(5), the Commissioner’s decision is that West Yorkshire Police was entitled, by virtue of section 40(5A) of FOIA, to neither confirm nor deny holding the requested information. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View West Yorkshire Police
15 Feb 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested statistical information on disciplinary recommendations made against police officers, from the Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC). The IOPC disclosed some information. It also said that it did not hold some information. It refused to provide the remaining information that it did hold, citing section 12 (Cost of compliance exceeds appropriate limit) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the IOPC was entitled to rely on section 12 of FOIA to refuse to comply with the request.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12; FOI 16
View Independent Office for Police Conduct
15 Feb 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to the Cabinet Office seeking information which related to possible processes that might be followed or actions to be undertaken were the Prime Minister to lose his seat in the December 2019 general election. The Cabinet Office confirmed that it held information falling within the scope of the request but refused to disclose it on the basis of section 36(2)(b)(ii) (effective conduct of public affairs) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the information is exempt from disclosure on the basis of section 36(2)(b)(ii) of FOIA and that in all the circumstances of the request the public interest favours maintaining the exemption.
Exemptions cited: FOI 36
View Cabinet Office
15 Feb 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from the Cabinet Office relating to correspondence received by the Head of the Cabinet Office Inquiries Sponsor Team.The Commissioner’s decision is that the Cabinet Office failed to respond to the request within 20 working days and has therefore breached section 10(1) of the FOIA.As a response has subsequently been provided no steps are required.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Cabinet Office
15 Feb 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested statistical information on disciplinary recommendations made against police officers, from the Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC). The IOPC refused to comply with the request, citing section 22 (Information intended for future publication) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the IOPC was entitled to rely on section 22 of FOIA to refuse the refined request.
Exemptions cited: FOI 22
View Independent Office for Police Conduct
15 Feb 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to a decision to consent to prosecute. The Attorney General’s Office (AGO) confirmed it held relevant information but refused to disclose it, citing section 42 (legal professional privilege) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the AGO correctly applied section 42(1) of FOIA to the withheld information. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: FOI 42
View Attorney General's Office
15 Feb 2022Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information held by Arun District Council (the council) relating to a particular planning application. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council has provided the complainant with all the information it holds that is relevant to the first part of his request. However, as the council failed to provide this information within 20 working days, the Commissioner has found there to be a breach of regulation 5(2) of the EIR. In relation to part 2 of the request, the Commissioner is satisfied that, on the balance of probabilities, the council holds no further information falling within the scope of this part of the request that is not the complainant’s own personal data. The Commissioner does not require the council to take any steps as a result of this decision notice.
Exemptions cited: EIR 5(1); EIR 5(2)
View Arun District Council
15 Feb 2022Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to online video footage of a police officer talking to a hunt monitor. After making initial enquiries with the complainant in relation to the footage, Staffordshire Police cited section 21 and provided a link to its Privacy Notice regarding information sharing. Ultimately, at internal review, Staffordshire Police said it did not hold any information relating to the incident in the footage and refused to provide the requested information, citing section 12(1) of FOIA (cost of compliance), as it said to do so would exceed the appropriate cost and time limit. The complainant did not challenge Staffordshire Police’s position that it does not hold any information relating to the video footage incident and instead centered his complaint on its reliance on section 12(1) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that Staffordshire Police was not obliged to comply with the request under section 12(1) of FOIA. He also finds that Staffordshire Police c
Exemptions cited: FOI 12; FOI 16
View Staffordshire Police
14 Feb 2022Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information on the investment to businesses from the British Business Bank (‘BBB’) under the Future Fund Scheme during the COVID-19 pandemic. The Commissioner’s decision is that the BBB has appropriately applied section 43(2) – Commercial interests to withhold the requested information and the public interest favours maintaining the exemption. In regard to the BBB’s reliance on section 21 – Information accessible by other means and section 22 – Information intended for future publication the Commissioner finds neither exemption to be engaged. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2022/0061 dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 21; FOI 22; FOI 43
View British Business Bank
14 Feb 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information NHS Improvement (NHSI) relating to the publication of meeting minutes. By the date of this notice NHSI had not issued 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 take the following step to ensure compliance with the legislation.NHSI must provide a substantive response to the request in accordance with its obligations under the FOIA. NHSI 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
14 Feb 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested from City of York Council various information relating to flooding, buses, and road signage. The Council stated that no relevant information was held for part 3 of the request, but seemingly failed to address parts 1 and 2. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council was correct to state that no information was held for part 3 of the request, but has failed to respond to parts 1 and 2. The Commissioner requires the Council to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: Issue a response to parts 1 and 2 of the request.
Exemptions cited: EIR 5(1)
View York City Council
14 Feb 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested the Environment Agency (EA) to disclose a copy of the contract between District Enforcement (DE) and the EA for the management of moorings on the non-tidal River Thames. The EA disclosed some information by refused to disclose the remainder, citing regulation 12(5)(e) and 13 of the EIR. The complainant confirmed that he has no interest in the personal data redacted. The Commissioner’s investigation therefore focussed on the EA’s application of regulation 12(5)(e) of the EIR. The Commissioner’s decision is that the EA is entitled to refuse to disclose the remaining withheld information in accordance with regulation 12(5)(e) of the EIR.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(e)
View Environment Agency
14 Feb 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested costings information received by the Ministry of Justice (the ‘MOJ’) from OCS Cleaning Group UK Ltd in relation to improving cleaners pay between specified dates. The MOJ initially refused the request on the basis of the section 43 FOIA exemption (commercial interests). During the course of the Commissioner’s investigation, whilst the MOJ maintained that section 43(2) applied, it additionally cited section 36 (prejudice to effective conduct of public affairs), section 41 (information provided in confidence) and section 43(1) (trade secret). The Commissioner’s decision is that sections 36(2)(b)(i) and (ii) and section 36(2)(c) are engaged. Having considered the associated public interest tests the Commissioner finds that the public interest favoured maintaining all three limbs of the section 36 exemption. As he has found that the MOJ was entitled to rely on sections 36(2)(b)(i) and (ii) and section 36(2)(c), he has not deemed it necessary to consider the MOJ’s
Exemptions cited: FOI 36
View Ministry of Justice
14 Feb 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from the Nursing and Midwifery Council (“the NMC”) about policies and procedures relating to whistleblowing disclosures. By the date of this notice the NMC had not issued a substantive response to this request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the NMC has breached section 10 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 NMC to take the following step to ensure compliance with the legislation: The NMC must provide a substantive response to the request in accordance with its obligations under the FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View NMC
14 Feb 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to Solihull Metropolitan Borough Council (SMBC) for copies of information relating to communication between Motorcycle Live, MCIA Events Ltd, its directors or personnel and the Trading Standards Department of Solihull MBC between specific dates. The information was provided by Solihull MBC after 20 working days of the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that SMBC has failed to respond to the request within 20 working days and has therefore breached section 10 of the FOIA. As a response has been issued, the Commissioner does not require SMBC to take any further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Solihull Council
11 Feb 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information on 19 October 2020 relating to an eviction notice served upon her son. 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 take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. Provide a response the request in compliance with FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Brighton and Hove City Council
11 Feb 2022Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information on Bristol City Council (the council) decisions to fell trees. He asked the council to provide the requested information via public access to the live database used by its officers when these decisions are recorded. The council said that it does not record details of the reasons why trees are felled on this database. It also said that it was not reasonable under the circumstances for it to provide live public access to the database used by its tree officers. It therefore provided some of the information which it holds which falls within the scope of the request by email. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council was not correct to state that all relevant information had been disclosed. His decision is that the council holds further information in the form of relevant sections of its database which has not been disclosed to the complainant in response to his request for information. He has however decided that it was correct to apply Regulatio
Exemptions cited: EIR 5(1); EIR 6
View Bristol City Council
10 Feb 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information concerning the value of the chains of office of the mayor and mayoress of Bristol, which were stolen in 2020. The council initially claimed that the exemption in section 31(1)(a) of FOIA applied (prevention and detection of crime). During the course of the Commissioner's investigation, however, it changed its position to state that some information is not held, and to apply section 31(3) to neither confirm or deny whether other relevant information is held. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council was not correct to apply section 31(3). She has also decided that the council did not comply with the requirements of section 10(1) in that it did not provide its response to the request within 20 working days. The Commissioner requires the council to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. As regards parts a) and c) of the request, to respond to the complainant confirming or denying whether the requested information
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 31(3)
View Bristol City Council
10 Feb 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested from Shrewsbury Town Council, all correspondence between itself, the Town Council Leader, the Mayor, Councillors and PFK Littlejohn up to the year ending 2018 accounts and the current date 19 May 2020. The Commissioner’s decision is that Shrewsbury Town Council has disclosed all the requested information falling within the scope of the complainant’s request based on a balance of probabilities and therefore has complied with Section 1 of the FOIA. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take and steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
10 Feb 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested from the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities information about a Stage 3 complaint outcome it had provided. The DLUHC initially responded to the request by denying that the information was held, but at a later stage refused to comply with the request under section 14(1) of the FOIA because it considered that the request was vexatious. The Commissioner’s decision is that the DLUHC was entitled to rely on section 14(1) to refuse to comply with the request. The Commissioner does not require the DLUHC to take any steps. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2022/0058 appeal dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14(1)
View Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government
10 Feb 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from the Cabinet Office relating to correspondence between equalities office ministers and specific organisations. By the date of this notice, the Cabinet Office had not issued a substantive response to the request.The Commissioner’s decision is that the Cabinet Office 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 Cabinet Office 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 Cabinet Office 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 pursua
Exemptions cited: FOI 17(3)
View Cabinet Office
10 Feb 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested a copy of the winning tender submission for the Weltag Appraisal: Barry Docks Transport Interchange (Ref AUG342470). The council applied section 43(2) (prejudice to commercial interests) and refused the request. The complainant accepted that some types of information would be commercially sensitive and therefore narrowed the scope of his request. The council, however, upheld its decision for the remaining information after its review. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council was not correct to apply section 43(2) to withhold the information. The Commissioner requires the council to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. To disclose a copy of the withheld information to the complainant, without information on commercial rates, staff names, survey costs and client contacts.
Exemptions cited: FOI 43(2)
View Vale of Glamorgan Council
10 Feb 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested from Senedd Cymru copies of investigation reports in respect of Julia Davies, the wife of Andrew RT Davies (the leader of the Welsh Conservative party), regarding allegations about her employment as her husband’s personal assistant. The complainant also requested any correspondence between the Senedd Commission and the Commissioner for Standards regarding the alleged referral of Andrew RT Davies to the Commissioner for Standards as a result of any investigation into the allegations about his wife. Senedd Cymru withheld the requested information under section 40(2) FOIA.The Commissioner’s decision is Senedd Cymru correctly withheld the information under section 40(2) FOIA.The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2022/0060 dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40(2)
10 Feb 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested details of gifts received by officers in the planning department of Westminster City Council. The Council disclosed most of the requested information but withheld the names of the officers under section 40(2) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council was entitled to rely on the exemption at section 40(2) in respect of the withheld information. The Commissioner does not require any steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View Westminster Council