10 Feb 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from Black Country Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust (“the Trust”) relating to information requests the Trust has received which concern interpreting and translation services. By the date of this notice the Trust had not issued a substantive response to this request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Trust 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 Trust to take the following step to ensure compliance with the legislation.The Trust must provide a substantive response to the request in accordance with its obligations under the FOIA. The Trust must take this step within 35 calendar days of the date of this decision notice. Failure to comply may result in the Commissioner making written certification of this fact to the High Court pursuant to section 54 of the Act and may be dealt with as a contempt of court.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Black Country Healthcare NHS Foundation
9 Feb 2022Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about Watton Sports and Recreation Centre (‘the Charity’). The Charity Commission disclosed some information in response to the request but withheld the remainder, citing several exemptions under FOIA including section 40(2) (personal information). The Commissioner’s decision is that the Charity Commission has correctly withheld information under section 40(2). However, the Commissioner also finds that the Charity Commission has breached section 10 of FOIA. The Commissioner does not require the Charity Commission to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 40(2)
View The Charity Commission
9 Feb 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from the Office of the Police and Crime Commissioner for Lincolnshire (PCC) relating to complaints received by the PCC. By the date of this notice the PCC had not issued a substantive response to this request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the PCC 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 PCC to take the following step to ensure compliance with the legislation.The PCC must provide a substantive response to the request in accordance with its obligations under the FOIA. The PCC 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
9 Feb 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information about the use of “PACE powers.” The Office of Gas and Electricity Markets relied on section 21 of FOIA to withhold the requested information as it was already reasonably accessible to the requestor. The Commissioner’s decision is that Ofgem is entitled to rely on section 21 of FOIA to withhold the requested information and, on the balance of probabilities, holds no further information within the scope of the request. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 21
View Office of Gas and Electricity Markets
9 Feb 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) relating to correspondence between BEIS and Sir John Hayes MP. By the date of this notice BEIS had not issued a substantive response to this request. The Commissioner’s decision is that BEIS 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 BEIS to take the following step to ensure compliance with the legislation.BEIS must provide a substantive response to the request in accordance with its obligations under the FOIA. BEIS 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 Department for Business and Trade
9 Feb 2022Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested a copy of the HMO (House in Multiple Occupation) database held by City of York Council (the council) for the purposes of planning. Whilst the council provided some information to the complainant, it refused to provide details which would reveal the addresses of student occupied properties, citing regulation 12(5)(a) - public safety, and regulation 12(5)(b) - the course of justice. It then later advised that it was also relying on regulation 13 - personal data. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council is entitled to rely on regulation 12(5)(a), when withholding the street addresses of student HMO’s. However, as the council failed to provide some of the information, and also its refusal notice, within 20 working days, the Commissioner has found there to be a breach of regulation 5(2), and regulation 14(2), of the EIR. The Commissioner does not require the council to take any steps as a result of this decision notice.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(a); EIR 14(2)(1); EIR 5(2)
View York City Council
8 Feb 2022Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about an incident in which a member of the public was seriously injured by a police dog when Avon and Somerset Constabulary (ASC) shut down an illegal rave. ASC withheld the information, citing sections 30 (Investigations and proceedings), 31 (Law enforcement), 38 (Health and safety) and 40 (Personal information) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that ASC was entitled to rely on section 40(2) to withhold the information it held in respect of parts 1), 2), and 5) of the request. It was also entitled to rely on section 40(2) to withhold some of the information it held in respect of part 3) of the request. ASC was entitled to rely on section 30 to withhold the information it held in respect of parts 6), 7) and 8) of the request. However, it was not entitled to rely on these exemptions to withhold the information it held in respect of part 4) of the request. By failing to disclose that information, and some information it held in respect of p
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10; FOI 30; FOI 40
View Avon and Somerset Police
8 Feb 2022Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested a copy of a particular policy. The Information Commissioner relied on section 21(1) of FOIA (reasonably accessible) to withhold the requested information. The Commissioner’s decision is that the ICO has correctly identified the information within the scope of the request and that it is entitled to rely on section 21 to withhold that information. As the ICO failed to issue its refusal notice within 20 working days, it breached section 17 of FOIA. The Commissioner does not require further steps to be taken. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2022/0057 under appeal.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 17; FOI 21
View Information Commissioner
8 Feb 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information from Westminster City Council (“the Council”) about the way the Council had made a decision about a sound recording relating to a noise complaint. 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 regulations 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.
Exemptions cited: EIR 5(2)
View Westminster Council
8 Feb 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from Bolton Council regarding discretionary funds and grants. The council initially stated that it did not hold the requested information however following the Commissioner’s intervention it changed its position to provide some information and to withhold some information on the basis of section 12(1)(cost of compliance exceeds appropriate limit).The Commissioners decision is that the council did not provide requested information within the statutory timeframe and has therefore breached section 10(1). It also did not provide a valid refusal notice within the statutory timeframe and has therefore also breached section 17.The Commissioner does not any steps. First-tier tribunal (General Regulatory chamber) information rights appeal EA/2022/0045 appeal struck out.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10(1); FOI 17
View Bolton Council
8 Feb 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from the Department for Digital Culture, Media and Sport (“DCMS”) about its email correspondence with the Cabinet Clearing House in 2019. By the date of this notice DCMS had not issued a substantive response to this request. The Commissioner’s decision is that DCMS 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 DCMS to take the following step to ensure compliance with the legislation: DCMS must provide a substantive response to the request in accordance with its obligations under the FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Department for Culture, Media and Sport
8 Feb 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested correspondence relating to a particular planning application. At the date of this notice, Brighton and Hove City Council had failed to respond to the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has failed to respond to the request within 20 working days and has therefore breached Regulation 5(2) of the Environmental Information Regulations. 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.
Exemptions cited: EIR 5(2)
View Brighton and Hove City Council
7 Feb 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested from West Midlands Police (“WMP”), information about speed enforcement action that he understood to have taken place. WMP denied holding any information. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the civil standard of the balance of probabilities, no information is held and therefore that WMP complied with the requirements of section 1 of FOIA in this case. No steps are required.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View West Midlands Police
7 Feb 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested Transport for London (TfL) to disclose a breakdown of costs for paid for and sponsored digital advertisements. TfL refused to comply with the request citing section 12 of FOIA (cost limit). The Commissioner’s decision is that TfL is entitled to refuse to comply with the complainant’s request in accordance with section 12 of FOIA. He is also satisfied that TfL complied with section 16 of FOIA and provided reasonable advice and assistance to the complainant.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12; FOI 16
View Transport for London
7 Feb 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
In a four part request, the complainant has requested information about wildlife surveys. High Speed Two Limited (HS2 Ltd) advised it does not hold information within scope of parts 1 and 3 of the request and relied on regulation 12(4)(b) of the EIR (manifestly unreasonable request) to refuse to disclose the information requested in parts 2 and 4. HS2 Ltd subsequently advised the Commissioner that, on reconsideration, its position is that parts 1 and 3 of the request also engage regulation 12(4)(b). The Commissioner’s decision is as follows: The complainant’s entire 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. No breach of regulation 9(1) occurred (advice and assistance).The Commissioner does not require HS2 Ltd to take any remedial steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(b); EIR 9
View High Speed Two (HS2) Limited
7 Feb 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (“DLUHC”) about Town Deals and the New Towns Fund.The Commissioner’s decision is that the DLUHC was entitled to rely upon section 35(1)(a) to withhold the requested information. The Commissioner does not require any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 35(1)(a)
View Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government
7 Feb 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about a specific Post Office. The Post Office disclosed some information but withheld the remainder under section 40(2) (personal information), section 43(2) (commercial interests) and section 41(1) (information provided in confidence). The Post Office subsequently withdrew its reliance upon section 41(1). The Commissioner’s decision is that the Post Office is entitled to withhold information under section 40(2). The Post Office is also entitled to withhold information under section 43 and the public interest lies in maintaining this exemption. The Commissioner does not require the Post Office to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40(2); FOI 43
View Post Office
7 Feb 2022Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information from North Somerset Council (“the Council”) about the reasons for specific locations having been chosen for the planting of 7,000 trees. The Council provided some information and explanations, but stated that no further recorded information, falling within the scope of the request, was held. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the Council does not hold any further information. However, since it failed to issue a response within 20 working days, it breached regulation 5(2) of the EIR. The Commissioner does not require the Council to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(a); EIR 5(2)
View North Somerset Council
7 Feb 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested from Rugby Borough Council information relating to emails sent and received by a specific officer, between two dates, about a specified topic. The Council denied that the information was held. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council does not hold the information. The Commissioner does not require the Council to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 5(1)
View Rugby Borough Council
4 Feb 2022Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to work that had been carried out by the council on properties in relation to the right to buy those properties. The council provided some information however it withheld other information on the basis that section 40(2) (personal information) of the FOI Act applied. The complainant disputed this. He also felt that other information should be held by the council. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council was correct to apply section 40(2) to withhold the information. He has, however decided that the council did not comply with the requirements of section 10(1) of the FOI Act as its response to the complainant’s request was not issued within 20 working days. The Commissioner does not require the council to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10(1); FOI 40(2)
View Bristol City Council
4 Feb 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested details of how many houses had work carried out to specific parts of the property by Bristol City Council (the council), and the addresses of the properties where this work was carried out. The council provided an explanation in response to part of the request, and disclosed partial information in regard to the request for the addresses concerned. It redacted other parts under section 40(2) (personal data) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council was correct to apply section 40(2) to redact partial addresses from the information it disclosed. The Commissioner does not require the council to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40(2)
View Bristol City Council
4 Feb 2022Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to work carried out by the council on some of its properties. The council provided some information however it withheld other information on the basis that section 40(2) (personal information) of the FOI Act applied. It also applied section 14(1) of the FOIA and declared that the request was vexatious. The complainant disputed this. He also felt that other information should be held by the council. The Commissioner has decided that the council was not correct to apply section 14(1) to the request. The Commissioner has, however, decided that the council was correct to apply section 40(2) to withhold the information. He has also decided that, on a balance of probabilities, it does hold information on a copy of one warranty which the complainant requested information about, but that this is exempt under section 40(2). The Commissioner does not require the council to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 14(1); FOI 40(2)
View Bristol City Council
4 Feb 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about a tenancy with Vodaphone Limited. The Hillingdon Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust (‘the Trust’) withheld the information under section 43(2) of the FOIA (commercial interests) and section 21(1) (information accessible to the applicant by other means). The Commissioner’s decision is as follows: The Trust is entitled to withhold the requested information under section 43(2) of the FOIA and the public interest favours maintaining this exemption. The Commissioner does not require the Trust to take any remedial steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 43
View The Hillingdon Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust
4 Feb 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from Staffordshire Police in relation to an alleged theft at a petrol station in a specific area. The Commissioner’s decision is that Staffordshire Police is entitled to rely on the exemption at section 40(5) of the FOIA to neither confirm nor deny that it holds the requested information. The Commissioner does not require Staffordshire Police to take any further action in this matter.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40(5)(b)
View Staffordshire Police
3 Feb 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (FCDO) relating to Dominic Raab’s ministerial diaries. 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 54 of the Ac
Exemptions cited: FOI 17
View Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office
3 Feb 2022Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested copies of correspondence from Thames Water Utilities Ltd (Thames Water) relating to a particular planning application. Thames Water initially refused to provide the information it held, citing regulation 12(5)(e) – commercial confidentiality. After the Commissioner had begun his investigation, Thames Water withdrew its reliance on that exception and relied instead upon regulation 12(4)(d). That too was later withdrawn in favour of regulation 12(5)(f) – interests of the information provider. It also cited regulation 13 concerning third party personal data it had withheld. Some information was disclosed over the course of the investigation when it was located by Thames Water. The Commissioner has also considered whether Thames Water holds any further information. The Commissioner’s decision is that Thames Water cited regulation 12(5)(f) inappropriately and that the exception is not engaged. He has decided that Thames Water has cited regulation 13 inappropria
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(f); EIR 13; EIR 5(1); EIR 5(2)
3 Feb 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested from Shrewsbury Town Council any information held in connection with a Code of Conduct outcome or investigation into the actions of named officers and councillors concerning alleged malfeasance in public office relating to the disposal of Greenfields Recreations Ground. Shrewsbury Town Council stated it did not hold any recorded information as no Code of Conduct investigation had been carried out at the date of the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that Shrewsbury Town Council does not hold the requested information based on the balance of probabilities and therefore complied with Section 1(1)(a) of FOIA. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take and steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
3 Feb 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested the UK Health Security Agency (UKHSA, formerly known as Public Health England or PHE) to disclose the total amount spent on locum consultants in the microbiology department in Birmingham between April 2020 and the date of the request. They also asked for the most spent on one individual consultant during the same time period. UKHSA refused to disclose the requested information citing section 40(2) and 43 of FOIA. UKHSA later withdrew its application of section 40(2) but proceeded on the basis that the requested information was still exempt in accordance with section 43 of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that UKHSA is entitled to refuse to disclose the requested information in accordance with section 43 of FOIA. He therefore does not require any further action to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 43
View UK Health Security Agency
3 Feb 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information on fatalities by age as a result of having received an approved COVID-19 vaccine. The Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) is withholding the information under section 22(1) of the FOIA as it intends to publish it at some future date. The Commissioner’s decision is as follows: MHRA is entitled to withhold the requested information under section 22(1) of the FOIA and the public interest favours maintaining the exemption. The Commissioner does not require MHRA to take any remedial steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 22
View Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency
2 Feb 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from the NHS Commissioning Board (NHS England) relating to a specific complaint.
The Commissioner’s decision is that NHS England 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 NHS England
2 Feb 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from the Home Office about modern slavery referrals. By the date of this notice the Home Office had failed to provide a substantive response to this request. 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. The Commissioner requires the Council to provide a substantive response to the request in accordance with its obligations under the FOIA. The Home Office 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 Home Office
2 Feb 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested from Greater Manchester Police (“GMP”) information about a meeting. Having initially advised the complainant that the requested information was not held, during the Commissioner’s investigation GMP located and disclosed some information; some exemptions were applied but these were not queried by the complainant.
The Commissioner’s decision is that GMP breached section 10(1) of FOIA by failing to comply with both section 1(1)(a) and 1(1)(b) within the statutory time period. Furthermore, in failing to disclose information within the statutory time limit it breached sections 1(1)(a) and (b) of the FOIA. No steps are required.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10
View Greater Manchester Police
2 Feb 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested copies of any correspondence and communications to the Secretary of State from The Duke and Duchess of York concerning Ghislaine Maxwell made between the period 1 January 2002 to 31 December 2002. The Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities refused to confirm or deny whether it held the requested information and cited sections 40(5) (third party personal data) and 41(2) (information provided in confidence) as its basis for doing so. The Commissioner’s decision is that the DLUHC is entitled to rely on section 40(5B) of the FOIA to neither confirm or deny whether it holds the requested information.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government
2 Feb 2022Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant made six related requests for information in connection to the Department for Education’s (‘DfE’) procurement of services from Havas Media Limited (‘Havas’). The DfE refused the requests as it considered that compliance with them would exceed the cost limit under section 12 FOIA.The Commissioner’s decision is that the DfE has correctly cited section 12(1) FOIA, in response to the requests. It has also complied with its duty to provide advice and assistance in line with the requirements of section 16 FOIA. However, he finds that the DfE breached section10(1) FOIA by failing to respond to the requests within the statutory time for compliance. The Commissioner does not require the DfE to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 12
View Department for Education
2 Feb 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested a full copy of the internal COVID-19 test and trace business case. DHSC refused to disclose the requested information under section 35(1)(a) FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that section 35(1)(a) FOIA was applied correctly to the withheld information. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 35
View Department of Health and Social Care
2 Feb 2022Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested correspondence about policing a vigil for Sarah Everard from the Metropolitan Police Service (the “MPS”). The MPS advised that to respond to the request would be burdensome and it refused to do so citing section 14(1)(Vexatious requests) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the MPS breached section 10(1) of FOIA by failing to respond to the request within the statutory time limit. He also finds that the request is vexatious. No steps are required.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 14
View Metropolitan Police Service
2 Feb 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant asked to know the name of a consultant who had been paid to do work for Tunbridge Wells Borough Council (‘the Council’) and what he was paid for. The Council refused the request, citing the exemption at section 43 (Commercial interests) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council was not entitled to rely on section 43 to withhold the requested information. He also finds that it breached sections 1 and 10 of FOIA, by failing to respond to the request within the statutory time for compliance. The Commissioner requires the Council to disclose the name of the consultant and what the payments made by the Council were for.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10; FOI 43
View Tunbridge Wells Borough Council
1 Feb 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested from Workington Town Council (“the Council”) information relating to advice the Council had received from Cumbria Association of Local Councils (CALC). 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
1 Feb 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from NHS Brighton and Hove Clinical Commissioning Group (the CCG) about the risk assessment for Brighton racecourse vaccination centre because he was concerned about its layout. The CCG provided the information it held but the complainant did not accept that the site assurance statement was the most up-to-date version. The Commissioner’s decision is that the CCG, on the balance of probability, has provided all the information falling within the scope of the request that it holds. The Commissioner does not require the CCG to take any further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Brighton and Hove Clinical Commission Group
1 Feb 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from the London Borough of Hackney (“the Council”) relating to the issue and cancellation of Penalty Charge Notices. 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 London Borough of Hackney
31 Jan 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from the Council about communications between council staff regarding a complaint and any information on the Council’s complaints handling procedure. By the date of this notice the Council had failed to provide 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 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 Rossendale Borough Council
31 Jan 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested from the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities information relating to the proposed expansion of Stansted Airport. The DLUHC withheld the requested information under regulation 12(4)(e) (internal communications) and regulation 12(5)(b) (course of justice) of the EIR. The Commissioner’s decision is that the DLUHC was entitled to withhold the requested information under regulation 12(4)(e). The Commissioner does not require the DLUHC to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(e)
View Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government
31 Jan 2022Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested evidence considered in a police misconduct investigation which had been reported in the media. Hampshire Constabulary withheld the information, citing section 30(1) (Investigations and proceedings) and 40(2) (Personal information) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that Hampshire Constabulary was entitled to rely on section 30(1)(a)(i) to withhold the information. However, by failing to respond to the request within the statutory time for compliance, Hampshire Constabulary breached section 1 (General right of access) and section 10 (Time for compliance) of the FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10; FOI 30
31 Jan 2022Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
In a seven part request, the complainant has requested information about an information governance incident from Midlands Partnership NHS Foundation Trust (‘the Trust’). The Trust addressed two parts of the request, disclosed information within scope of one part, advised it does not hold information relevant to another part and withheld information within scope of the remaining three parts under section 40 of the FOIA (personal data). The Trust subsequently withdrew its reliance on section 40 and confirmed it does not hold the information requested in these parts. The Commissioner’s decision is as follows: On the balance of probabilities, the Trust does not hold any further information within scope of the request and has complied with section 1(1)(a) of the FOIA. The Trust’s response breached section 10(1) of the FOIA as it did not fully comply with section 1(1)(a) within 20 working days. The Commissioner does not require the Trust to take any remedial steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10
View Midlands Partnership University NHS Foundation Trust
31 Jan 2022Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information relating to written authority for a named individual to maintain and prune certain trees. Somerset County Council (the ‘Council’) refused to confirm or deny whether the requested information was held on the cost of compliance grounds (section 12(2) of FOIA). At the internal review stage, the Council revised its position citing section 40(2) – the exemption for personal information. During the course of the Commissioner’s investigation, the Council reconsidered its position and again cited section 12(2) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the requested information is environmental as defined by the EIR. There is no equivalent ‘neither confirm nor deny’ provision within the EIR regulations. However, the Commissioner has determined that the Council was entitled to refuse the request by virtue of the exception in Regulation 12(4)(b) – manifestly unreasonable, for the reasons set out in this notice. The Commissioner does not require the Council
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(b); FOI 12
View Somerset Council
27 Jan 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information about proposed residents parking schemes for Union Street, Blyth. By the date of this notice, Northumberland County Council (“the Council”) had not issued a substantive response to this request.
The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has breached section 10(1) of the FOIA in that it failed to provide a valid response to the request within the statutory time frame of 20 working days.
The Commissioner requires the Council to take the following step to ensure compliance with the legislation.
The Council must provide a substantive response to the request in accordance with its obligations under the FOIA.
The Council must take this step within 35 calendar days of the date of this decision notice. Failure to comply may result in the Commissioner making written certification of this fact to the High Court pursuant to section 54 of the Act and may be dealt with as a contempt of court.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Northumberland County Council
27 Jan 2022Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from the Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC) relating to news articles published in The Telegraph. The DHSC refused to disclose the requested information, citing section 12(1) of FOIA 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. the DHSC does not hold the requested information. The Commissioner also considers that the DHSC has breached sections 1 and 10 of FOIA as it did not state initially within 20 working days that it did not hold the requested information.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10
View Department of Health and Social Care
27 Jan 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) seeking emails exchanged between two senior officials about disguised remuneration tax avoidance schemes. HMRC relied on section 14(1) of FOIA to refuse to answer the request because it considered it to be vexatious. The Commissioner’s decision is that HMRC is entitled to rely on section 14(1) of FOIA to refuse the request. First-tier tribunal (General Regulatory chamber) information rights appeal EA/2022/0049 appeal allowed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14
27 Jan 2022Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from the Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC) relating to news articles published in The Times. The DHSC refused to disclose the requested information, citing section 12(1) of FOIA 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. the DHSC does not hold the requested information.
The Commissioner also considers that the DHSC has breached sections 1 and 10 of FOIA as it did not state initially within 20 working days that it did not hold the requested information.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10
View Department of Health and Social Care
27 Jan 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested from Hambleton District Council information relating to a loan it had made to Broadacres Housing Association, deriving from the two-year period ending 5 March 2016. The Council disclosed information in response, but the complainant contested that further recorded information was held. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has disclosed all held recorded information. The Commissioner does not require the Council any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1