26 Jan 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested from the London Borough of Croydon (“the Council”) correspondence relating to Roundshaw, Sutton, Purley Way and Imperial Way. 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 Croydon
26 Jan 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information about a report which is required for the transfer of ownership of areas of land. By the date of this notice Hughenden Parish 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
26 Jan 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to an incident that Yorkshire Ambulance Service NHS Trust (‘the Trust’) supposedly attended. The Trust would neither confirm nor deny that it held the requested information, citing section 40(5B)(a)(i) (personal information) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that section 40(5B)(a)(i) is not engaged. The Commissioner requires the Trust to take the following steps: 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 the FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40(5)(b)(a)(i)
View Yorkshire Ambulance Service NHS Trust
26 Jan 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information from the Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC) relating to the construction of new hospitals. By the date of this notice, the DHSC had not issued a substantive response to this request.The Commissioner considers some parts of the request to fall under the EIR, and some parts under the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the DHSC has breached regulation 5(2) of the EIR and section 10(1) of the FOIA as it failed to provide a valid response to the request within the statutory time frame of 20 working days.The Commissioner requires the DHSC to take the following step to ensure compliance with the legislation.The DHSC must provide a substantive response to the request in accordance with its obligations under the EIR and FOIA. The DHSC 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
Exemptions cited: EIR 5(2); FOI 10
View Department of Health and Social Care
26 Jan 2022Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about the legal process followed by Welwyn Hatfield Borough Council regarding decisions it made on 5 November 2019 and 10 March 2020 about the redevelopment of the Campus West Car Park. The Council refused the request as it considered that compliance with it would exceed the cost limit under section 12 FOIA.The Commissioner’s decision is that Welwyn Hatfield Borough Council (the ‘Council’) has correctly cited section 12(1) FOIA, in response to the request. It has also complied with its duty to provide advice and assistance in line with the requirements of section 16 FOIA. He finds that the Council breached section 10(1) FOIA by failing to respond to the request within the statutory time for compliance. The Commissioner does not require the Council to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 12
View Welwyn Hatfield Borough Council
26 Jan 2022Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about adverse reactions to approved COVID-19 vaccines. 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. MHRA’s refusal notice was inadequate and did not meet the requirements of section 17(3) of the FOIA. The Commissioner does not require MHRA to take any remedial steps. First-tier tribunal (General Regulatory chamber) information rights appeal EA/2022/0039 appeal dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 17; FOI 22
View Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency
26 Jan 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from Leicestershire Police , in relation to a road traffic accident that happened on a particular date, on a specific road. The Commissioner’s decision is that Leicestershire Police is entitled to rely on the exemption at section 40(2) of the FOIA to withhold the requested information. The Commissioner does not require Leicestershire Police to take any further action in this matter.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40(2)
View Leicestershire Police
25 Jan 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about arrests and investigations related to drill music from the Metropolitan Police Service (the “MPS”). The MPS advised that to comply with the request would exceed to appropriate limit at section 12(1) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the MPS was entitled to rely on section 12(1) of the FOIA. There was no breach of section 16(1) (Advice and assistance). No steps are required.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12; FOI 16
View Metropolitan Police Service
25 Jan 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about arrests and investigations related to drill music from the Metropolitan Police Service (the “MPS”). The MPS advised that some of the information is not held, and that compliance with the remainder of the request would exceed the cost limit at either 12(1) or 12(2) (Cost of compliance) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the civil standard of the balance of probabilities, some of the information is not held. He also finds that, where cited, the MPS was entitled to rely on section 12 of the FOIA. There was no breach of section 16(1) (Advice and assistance) and no steps are required.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 12; FOI 16
View Metropolitan Police Service
25 Jan 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information about viability appraisals and communications relating to an affordable housing development. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has failed to respond to the request within 20 working days and has therefore breached regulation 5(2) of the EIR. The Commissioner requires the Council to 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 Shropshire Council
25 Jan 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested from the Home Office information relating to the death of asylum seekers. By the date of this notice the Home Office had not issued a substantive response to this request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Home 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 Home 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 Home 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 pursuant to section 54 of the Act and may be dealt with as a contempt
Exemptions cited: FOI 17(3)
View Home Office
25 Jan 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information from the London Borough of Hackney (“the Borough”) including a copy of the notice given under section 235 Housing Act 2004 to London & Quadrant Housing Trust by Hackney Council in relation to [redacted address]. By the date of this notice the Borough had failed to provide a substantive response to this request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Borough failed to respond to the complainant’s request within 20 working days of receipt and has therefore breached regulation 5(2) of the EIR. The Commissioner requires NHS England to respond to the complainant’s request in accordance with the EIR. The Borough must take these steps within 35 calendar days of the date of this decision notice.
Exemptions cited: EIR 5(2)
View London Borough of Hackney
25 Jan 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information about the numbers of CCTV related court cases for specified organisations. The Ministry of Justice (the ‘MOJ’) ultimately refused to provide the requested information, citing section 32(1)(c) – a limb of the court records exemption, and section 12(1) – the cost of compliance. The Commissioner’s decision is that the MOJ was entitled to rely on section 32(1)(c) to withhold the requested information. As he has found section 32(1)(c) to be engaged, the Commissioner does not deem it necessary to consider the MOJ’s reliance on section 12(1) of FOIA. The Commissioner does not requires any steps as a result of this notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 32
View Ministry of Justice
25 Jan 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from NHS England relating to UK PMIS data. By the date of this notice NHS England had failed to provide a substantive response to this request. The Commissioner’s decision is that NHS England has breached section 10(1) of the FOIA in that it failed to provide a valid response to the request within the statutory time frame of 20 working days. The Commissioner requires NHS England to respond to the complainant’s request in accordance with the FOIA. NHS England must take these steps within 35 calendar days of the date of this decision notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View NHS England
25 Jan 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from BEIS regarding the Low Oil and Covid -19 Contingency (“LOCC”) team. BEIS refused the request in reliance of FOIA sections 35(1)(a) – Formulation of government policy, 43(2) – Commercial interests, 42(1) – Legal professional privilege and 40(2) – Personal information. BEIS also relied on the EIR regulations 12(4)(e) – internal communications, 12(5)(e) – confidentiality of commercial or industrial information, 12(5)(b) – the course of justice and 13(1) personal data. The Commissioner’s decision is that BEIS has appropriately applied FOIA section 35(1)(a) to the withheld information and the public interest favours maintaining the exemption. The Commissioner does not requires BEIS to take any steps to ensure compliance with the legislation.
Exemptions cited: FOI 35
View Department for Business and Trade
25 Jan 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to the Ministry of Defence (MOD) seeking a risk register for the National Flagship project. The MOD confirmed that it held information falling within the scope of his request but it considered this to be exempt from disclosure on the basis of sections 35(1)(a) (formulation and development of government policy) and 43(2) (commercial interests) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the requested information is exempt from disclosure on the basis of section 35(1)(a) of FOIA and that in all the circumstances of the case the public interest favours maintaining the exemption. First-tier tribunal (General Regulatory chamber) information rights appeal EA/2022/0042 appeal dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 35
View Ministry of Defence
25 Jan 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested the amount spent by Christ Church College on the action against the Dean of Christ Church College for the period April 2020 to April 2021. Christ Church withheld the requested information under section 12 FOIA.The Commissioner’s decision is that Christ Church correctly withheld the information under section 12 FOIA. The Commissioner also found that Christ Church had correctly applied section 16 FOIA.The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12
25 Jan 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from Shropshire Council (‘the Council’) about various road matters. The Council has now provided a response to the request but outside of the necessary timescale. The Commissioner’s decision is as follows: The Council breached section 10(1) of the FOIA as it did not provide a valid response to the request within the statutory timeframe of 20 working days. The Commissioner does not require the Council to take any remedial steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Shropshire Council
24 Jan 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to the number of individuals testing positive for Covid-19 working at, or entering the grounds of, a specified prison. The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) confirmed it held some information within the scope of the request but refused to provide it, citing section 40(2) (personal information) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that section 40(2) did not apply. The Commissioner requires the MoJ to take the following step to ensure compliance with the legislation: disclose the withheld information to the complainant.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View Ministry of Justice
24 Jan 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested the total cost of expenditure on protecting the Royal Family for the financial years 2017/18, 2018/19 and 2019/20. The Home Office relied on the section 24(2) (National security) and section 38(2) (Health and safety) FOIA exemptions to neither confirm nor deny holding the requested information. During the Information Commissioner’s investigation, the Home Office confirmed that relevant information was held, but withheld it relying on the section 24(1) and 38(1) FOIA exemptions. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Home Office should have confirmed holding information within the scope of the request from the outset but had acted correctly in engaging the section 24(1) FOIA exemption. He further decided that the balance of the public interest favoured maintaining the exemption. The Commissioner did not require the Home Office to take any steps to comply with the legislation.
Exemptions cited: FOI 24
View Home Office
24 Jan 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested TNA to disclose file HO 144/21191, which concerns police protection to members of the Royal Family, Cabinet members and others. TNA refused to disclose the information citing section 31(1)(a) to (c) and 40(2) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that TNA is entitled to refuse to disclose the withheld information in accordance with section 31(1)(a) to (c) of FOIA. As the withheld information in its entirety is exempt under section 31(1)(a) to (c) there was no requirement for the Commissioner to consider section 40(2). No further action is required. Information Tribunal FTT EA/2022/0038 appeal allowed in part.
Exemptions cited: FOI 31(1)(a); FOI 31(1)(b); FOI 31(1)(c)
View The National Archives
24 Jan 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from South Wales Police (“SWP”) about policies and training concerning authorisations made under section 60 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994. By the date of this notice SWP had not issued a substantive response to this request. The Commissioner’s decision is that SWP 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 SWP to take the following step to ensure compliance with the legislation: SWP must provide a substantive response to the request in accordance with its obligations under the FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
21 Jan 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested from the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) information relating to the Grade II Listed 'PLUTO pavilion' at Sandown, Isle of Wight. By the date of this notice, DCMS had not issued a substantive response to this request. The Commissioner’s decision is that DCMS 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 DCMS 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.
Exemptions cited: FOI 17
View Department for Culture, Media and Sport
21 Jan 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from the Cabinet Office about preparations made for the possible election of a Conservative government in 2001. By the date of this notice the Cabinet Office had not issued a substantive response to this request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Cabinet Office 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. Having confirmed that information is held within the scope of the request the Commissioner requires the Cabinet Office to 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 Cabinet Office
21 Jan 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from the Department of Health and Social Care (“the DHSC”) regarding the handling of their recent press enquiries to the DHSC press team. By the date of this notice the DHSC had not issued a substantive response to this request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the 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.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10(1)
View Department of Health and Social Care
20 Jan 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to the companies and individuals who made bids for contracts to supply PPE in March 2020. The Commissioner’s decision is that Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC) correctly applied section 43(2) – commercial interests FOIA to the withheld information. The Commissioner does not require DHSC to take any steps as a result of this decision notice. First-tier tribunal (General Regulatory chamber) information rights appeal EA/2022/0030 appeal dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 43
View Department of Health and Social Care
20 Jan 2022Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to case-handling procedures. The Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman initially withheld the information before disclosing all the information it said it held within the scope of the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the PHSO holds no further information beyond that which it has already disclosed to the complainant or published on its website. However, as it failed to respond to the request within 20 working days, it breached section 10 of the FOIA. The Commissioner does not require any further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10
View The Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman
20 Jan 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant made a request for information on 6 June 2021 for copies of all the internal policies and procedures by which a case review he had submitted to PHSO was conducted. The Commissioner considers that PHSO has breached section 10(1) FOIA as it has failed to respond within the statutory time for compliance. The Commissioner requires the public authority to provide a response to the request in compliance with FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View The Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman
20 Jan 2022Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
1. The complainant requested information from the Department of Health (“DoH”) about communications with BBC Northern Ireland between 1 December 2020 and 19 February 2021.2. The Commissioner’s decision is that the DoH were entitled to refuse to comply with the request under section 12(1) of the FOIA (cost of compliance), and that it has complied with its obligations under section 16(1) of the FOIA to provide adequate advice and assistance to the complainant. However, the DoH has breached section 10(1) FOIA as it has failed to respond within the statutory time for compliance, and has failed in its obligation to issue a refusal notice within 20 working days, and therefore breached section 17(5) of the FOIA3. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10(1); FOI 12(1); FOI 16; FOI 17(5)
View Department of Health NI
20 Jan 2022Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
1. The complainant made a request for information from the London Borough of Croydon (“the Council”) on 10 June 2020. The Council aggregated this request with three further requests about Data on disabilities/SEN within the BAME community. The Council relied on section 12(1) of the FOIA (cost of compliance exceeds the appropriate limit) to refuse the requests.
2. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council was entitled to aggregate the requests under section 12(4) of the FOIA, and is entitled to rely on section 12(1) of the FOIA to refuse the requests. The Commissioner considers that the Council has complied with its obligations under section 16(1) of the FOIA to provide adequate advice and assistance. However the Council has breached section 10(1) FOIA as it has failed to respond within the statutory time for compliance.
3. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10(1); FOI 12(1); FOI 16
View London Borough of Croydon
20 Jan 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to guidelines for strong customer authorisation (SCA). The FCA provided some information but refused to disclose some of the requested information under 40(2), 43(2) and 44(1)(a) FOIA. It refused to comply with part 2 of the request under section 12 FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that section 40(2) and 44(1)(a) FOIA were applied correctly to the withheld information (section 43(2) FOIA was applied to the same information that the Commissioner found section 44(1)(a) FOIA to apply to and so section 43(2) was not considered any further). The FCA was also correct to refuse to comply with part of the request under section 12 FOIA. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12; FOI 40; FOI 44
View Financial Conduct Authority
20 Jan 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested from Shrewsbury Town Council the draft or final report from Michael Redfern. Initially Shrewsbury Town Council applied Section 22 of the FOIA to withhold the report. However, during the course of the Commissioner’s investigation it changed its position, claiming the report was not held 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 the FOIA.
However, it breached Section 10(1) of the FOIA as it did not comply with Section 1 promptly and in any event, within 20 working days.
The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take and steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10
19 Jan 2022Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested a copy of an investigation report. The Council of Imperial College of Science, Technology and Medicine relied on section 40(2) of the FOIA (third party personal data) and section 36(2)(c) of the FOIA (prejudice to the effective conduct of public affairs) to withhold the information. The Commissioner’s decision is that not all of the withheld information is personal data and that only some of the withheld information that is personal data engages section 40(2) of the FOIA. Where the withheld information does not engage section 40(2), the Commissioner accepts that section 36 is engaged, but he considers that the public interest favours its disclosure. As the College failed to issue its refusal notice within 20 working days, it also breached section 17 of the FOIA. The Commissioner requires the College to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: disclose, to the complainant, the sections of the report identified in the Confidential Anne
Exemptions cited: FOI 17; FOI 36; FOI 40
19 Jan 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested NHS England to disclose all documents held relating to an investigation into a named doctor between March 2018 and March 2019. Initially NHS England refused the request citing section 40(2) of FOIA. However, at the internal review stage it altered its position and confirmed that it is refusing to confirm or deny whether the requested information is held in accordance with section 40(5) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that NHS England is entitled to refuse to confirm or deny whether the requested information is held in accordance with section 40(5) of FOIA. He does not require any further action to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40(5)
View NHS England
19 Jan 2022Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information associated with a specific student research project. Nottingham Trust University (‘NTU’) has disclosed some information and has withheld the research proposal under section 40(2) of the FOIA as it considers it to be the student’s personal data. The Commissioner’s decision is as follows: NTU is entitled to rely on section 40(2) of the FOIA to withhold the research proposal. NTU breached section 10(1) and section 17(1) with regards to the timeliness of its response to the request. The Commissioner does not require NTU to take any remedial steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 17; FOI 40(2)
View The Nottingham Trent University
19 Jan 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to the performance of a specific Officer and also of the call handling centre of the force. By the date of this notice, Greater Manchester Police (GMP) had not issued a substantive response to this request. The Commissioner’s decision is that GMP 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 GMP to take the following step to ensure compliance with the legislation.GMP must provide a substantive response to the request in accordance with its obligations under the FOIA. GMP 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 Greater Manchester Police
19 Jan 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about the Independent Review of Serious and Organised Crime. The Home Office disclosed some information but it refused to disclose a copy of the review report, on the grounds that it was exempt under section 23(1) (Information supplied by, or relating to, bodies dealing with security matters) of the FOIA. It also argued that section 31 (Law enforcement) applied. In the event that section 23(1) did not apply, it said that section 24 (National security) applied. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Home Office was entitled to rely on section 23 to refuse the request.
Exemptions cited: FOI 23
View Home Office
18 Jan 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to items such as meeting minutes, reports, a decision notice appeal and the village hall. Potto Parish Council (the council) provided some information and advised that other information was not held. The complainant believed that further information was held and that the council was a trustee to the Village Hall, meaning it would therefore hold the Village Hall Trustee minutes / agendas. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council holds no further information within the scope of the request. The Commissioner does not require the council to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 3
18 Jan 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested the ICO to disclose a list of all decision notices issued from January 2010 onwards which contain the text “Schedule 12A” in the body of the decision notice itself. Initially the ICO refused to comply with the request under section 14(1) of FOIA. During the Commissioner’s investigation the ICO changed its position and claimed a late reliance on section 12 of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the ICO is entitled to refuse to comply with the request in accordance with section 12 of FOIA. Section 12 triggers the duty to provide appropriate advice and assistance. The ICO has provided what advice and assistance it can and this is included in this notice. The Commissioner is therefore now satisfied that the ICO has met its obligations under section 16 of FOIA. The Commissioner does not require any further action to be taken. First-tier tribunal (General Regulatory chamber) information rights appeal EA/2022/0037 appeal withdrawn.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12; FOI 16
View Information Commissioner
18 Jan 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information with regards to trustee records. The Commissioner’s decision is that Potto Parish Council (the council) has breached section 10(1) of the FOIA as it has failed to respond to the request within the required 20 working days. The Commissioner requires the council to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. Issue a response to the complainant, to his 4 February 2021 information request in accordance with 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 Act and may be dealt with as a contempt of court.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
18 Jan 2022Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to animal accommodation. Blackburn with Darwen Borough Council (the “council”) refused the request under section 12 because it considered the cost of compliance would exceed the appropriate limit. It also applied the exemption in section 21 (information accessible by other means) in relation to information available on its website. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council correctly confirmed that it did not hold the information in part 6 of the request and complied with section 1, that it correctly applied section 12 to parts 1-5 of the request and that it correctly applied the exemption in section 21 but failed to provide advice and assistance and breached section 16. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1(1); FOI 12(1); FOI 16; FOI 21
View Blackburn with Darwen Council
18 Jan 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested from the NHS Commissioning Board (NHS England) information relating to East and North Hertfordshire Trust’s compliance with patient safety alerts. NHS England refused to comply with the request citing section 12(1) (cost limits) of the FOIA.The Commissioner’s decision is that NHS England was entitled to refuse to comply with the request in accordance with section 12(1) of the FOIA. He also finds that NHS England met its obligations under section 16(1) of the FOIA to offer advice and assistance.The Commissioner does not require NHS England to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12; FOI 16
View NHS England
18 Jan 2022Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested various reports including health and safety reports and asbestos survey reports for specific properties in Brixton. The London Borough of Lambeth (“LB Lambeth”) denied holding the requested information but, after the complainant requested an internal review, it found some relevant information and disclosed it. It argued that it held no further Casework created date: (From E088 report) 25 August 2021 information. However, it found and disclosed additional information within the scope of the requests during the course of the Commissioner’s investigation. The Commissioner’s decision is that on the balance of probabilities, the LB Lambeth does not hold any further information within scope of the requests. However, the Commissioner has concluded that LB Lambeth 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 12(4)(a); EIR 5(2)
View London Borough of Lambeth
18 Jan 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information about how the council determined that planning conditions had been met by the applicant on a specific planning application. The Council said that it does not hold any information falling within the scope of the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on a balance of probabilities, the Council does not hold the requested information. The Commissioner does not require the Council to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 5(1)
View Wiltshire Council
18 Jan 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested correspondence relating to a particular press statement. The Information Commissioner initially relied on section 36 of the FOIA (prejudice to the effective conduct of public affairs) to withhold the information, but later disclosed it. The Commissioner’s decision is that the ICO failed to respond to the request within 20 working days and therefore breached section 10 of the FOIA. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Information Commissioner
17 Jan 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant submitted a request to the Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office (FCDO) seeking a copy of the ‘BIOT [British Indian Overseas Territory] Conservation Management Plan’. The FCDO withheld this on the basis of section 27(1)(a) (international relations) of FOIA and regulation 12(5)(a) (international relations) of the EIR. The Commissioner’s decision is that the requested information is exempt from disclosure on the basis of regulation 12(5)(a) of the EIR and that in all the circumstances of the case the public interest favours maintaining the exception.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(a)
View Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office
17 Jan 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested from GeoPlace LLP information relating to spatial address identifiers called ‘Unique Property Reference Numbers’. The authority withheld the requested information under sections 21 (information accessible to the applicant by other means) and 43(2) (commercial interests) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the authority was entitled to withhold the requested information under section 21. The Commissioner does not require the authority to take any steps. First-tier tribunal (General Regulatory chamber) information rights appeal EA/2022/0044 appeal withdrawn.
Exemptions cited: FOI 21
17 Jan 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to spending for translation and interpretation services. The Commissioner’s decision is that Norfolk and Norwich University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust (the Trust) failed to respond to the request for information within 20 working days and has therefore breached section 10 (time for compliance with the request) of the FOIA.
The Commissioner requires the Trust to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: issue a response, in accordance with its obligations under the FOIA, to the request.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Norfolk and Norwich University Hospitals
17 Jan 2022Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested from Trafford Metropolitan Borough Council (TMBC) a breakdown of how over £66,000 had been spent on repairs to a specific road in 2020. TMBC said that the figure, obtained via a previous request for information, was incorrect and that it had not spent £66,000 on maintaining the road. It said that as its maintenance contract operated on a ‘fixed sum’ basis, it did not hold granular information on costs ‘per-repair’ or ‘per-road’. The Commissioner’s decision is that on the balance of probabilities, TMBC does not hold the requested information and that its handling of the request complied with the requirements of section 1(1) of the FOIA. However, by failing to respond to the request within the statutory 20 working day time for compliance, TMBC breached sections 1(1) and 10(1) of the FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10
View Trafford Council
17 Jan 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information which he considered should have been included within the council’s disclosure required in a step ordered in Decision Notice IC-48031-M7Y5. The council had initially responded saying that it did not hold any further pertinent information. During the course of the Commissioner's investigation, the council accepted that it does hold some further information. It argued that the complainant had already obtained a copy of specific council minutes via the ICO. This, however, was not a correct assumption. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council was not correct to withhold the draft minutes of the meeting of 23 September 2019. In doing so, it failed to comply with the requirements of sections 1(1)(a) and (b) of FOIA. She has also decided that, whilst she is unable to say that the council does hold further information falling within the scope of the request, the council has not provided sufficient evidence to support a conclusion that, on a balance o
Exemptions cited: FOI 1