14 Jan 2022Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant made four requests for information about the employment and research activities of a particular professor. The Governing Body of Keele University provided some information, stated that it did not hold some of the requested information and relied on section 40(5B) of the FOIA (third party personal data) to neither confirm nor deny holding information within the scope of the request. It later dropped its reliance on section 40(5B), disclosed some further information but withheld the remainder, relying on section 40(2) of the FOIA (third party personal data) to do so. The Commissioner’s decision is that the University is entitled to rely on section 40(2) of the FOIA to withhold the remaining information. However as the University failed to confirm or deny holding information within the scope of requests 1 and 4 within 20 working days, it breached section 10 of the FOIA. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 40(2)
View Keele University
14 Jan 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information relating to compulsory purchase orders. Peabody Trust refused to provide the information as it said it was not a public authority and hence not subject to the EIR. The Commissioner’s decision is that Peabody Trust is not a public authority for the purposes of the EIR and was therefore not obliged to respond to the request. As Peabody Trust is not a public authority the Commissioner would be unable to require any remedial steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 2(2)
View Peabody Trust
13 Jan 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
1. The complainant requested from the Metropolitan Police Service (“the MPS”) information relating to a specific road traffic incident which occurred on the road where they live. The MPS withheld the requested information under section 40(5) – personal information (neither confirm nor deny) of the FOIA. 2. The Commissioner’s decision is that the MPS is entitled to rely on section 40(5) to refuse to confirm or deny that it holds the information.3. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40(5)
View Metropolitan Police Service
13 Jan 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested from University Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust (the Trust) information about the cost of translation services over a five year period and the total budget for other items for the organisation over the same timeframe. The Trust stated that it did not hold information regarding the first part of the request and it refused to provide information regarding the second part of the request because it considered it to be publicly available information under section 21 of the FOIA. Some months later the Trust provided information in response to the first part of the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Trust has breached sections 1 and 10 of the FOIA because it did not provide information to which the complainant was entitled within the legislative timeframe of 20 working days. The Commissioner does not require the Trust to take any further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View University Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust
13 Jan 2022Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from the General Dental Council (‘GDC’) about under-guise investigations. The GDC initially advised that it did not hold any relevant information The GDC subsequently identified information within scope of the request that it does hold but which it has withheld under section 21(1) of the FOIA (information accessible to applicant by other means), section 31(1)(g)(law enforcement) and section 40(2) (personal data). The Commissioner’s decision is as follows: The information the GDC is withholding is exempt information under section 21, section 31(1)(g) with subsections 31(2)(b), (2)(c) and (2)(d), and section 40(2) of the FOIA. The public interest favours maintaining the section 31(1)(g) exemption. On the balance of probabilities, the GDC holds no other relevant information and has complied with section 1(1)(a). The GDC breached section 17(1) as it did not provide the complainant with a refusal notice within 20 working days of the request. The Com
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 17; FOI 21; FOI 31; FOI 40
View General Dental Council
12 Jan 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested from the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (FCDO) information relating to the correspondence between the Secretary of State and the Prince of Wales during a specific time period. The FCDO refused to confirm or deny whether it held information within the scope of the request, citing section 12(2) (cost limits) of the FOIA.The Commissioner’s decision is that the FCDO was entitled to refuse to comply with the request in accordance with section 12(2) of the FOIA. He also finds that the FCDO met its obligations under 16(1) of the FOIA to offer advice and assistance. The Commissioner does not require the FCDO to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12; FOI 16
View Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office
12 Jan 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from Velindre University NHS Trust (“the Trust”) relating elating a new hospital facility. By the date of this notice the Trust had failed to provide 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 statuary timeframe of 20 working days. The Commissioner requires the Trust to respond to the complainant’s response in accordance with the FOIA. The Trust must take these steps within 35 calendar days of the date of this decision notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Velindre University NHS Trust
12 Jan 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information from the Environment Agency (“the EA”) about the 2022 tide table for the River Trent. By the date of this notice MPS had failed to provide a substantive response to this request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the EA failed to respond to the request within 20 working days and therefore breached Section 10 of the Freedom of Information Act (“the FOIA”). As a response has been issued, the Commissioner does not require the EA to take any further steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 5(2)
View Environment Agency
11 Jan 2022Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested details of the registered keeper of a particular vehicle. The Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency originally refused to confirm or deny that it held the requested information. It later confirmed that it did hold the information but relied on section 41 of the FOIA (actionable breach of confidence) to withhold it. The Commissioner’s decision is that the DVLA has correctly applied section 41(1) of the FOIA to withhold the information. However, as the DVLA failed to confirm, within 20 working days, that it held the requested information it breached section 10 of the FOIA. The Commissioner does not require further steps to be taken. First-tier tribunal (General Regulatory chamber) information rights appeal EA/2022/0028 withdrawn.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 41
View Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency
11 Jan 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a multi-part request for financial information to Tintagel Parish Council (TPC). TPC initially refused the request as vexatious within the meaning of section 14 of the FOIA. It later withdrew reliance on section 14 and disclosed some information to the complainant. However, it said it was unable to ascertain whether it held any further information falling within the request’s scope, as some information relating to parish council business was not currently in its physical possession. The Commissioner is not satisfied that TPC has conducted sufficiently comprehensive and rigorous searches in order to locate all the information it holds which falls within the scope of the request. By failing to properly ascertain whether or not it holds the information specified in each part of the request, and inform the complainant accordingly, TPC breached section 1(1)(a) of the FOIA. By failing to provide this confirmation or denial within the statutory time for compliance,
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10
11 Jan 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested from Northumbria Police information related to communications it held in relation to a demonstration that took place on 5 September 2020. Northumbria Police refused to comply with the request, stating that it would exceed the cost limit under section 12(1) of FOIA to do so. The Commissioner’s decision is that Northumbria Police is not obliged to comply with the request under section 12(1) of FOIA. She also finds that Northumbria Police complied with its section 16 of FOIA obligations. The Commissioner does not require Northumbria Police to take any steps to ensure compliance with the legislation.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12; FOI 16
View Northumbria Police
10 Jan 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information on 3 August 2021 relating to unaccompanied asylum seeking children. The Council has not responded to this request. The Commissioner considers that the Council has breached section 10(1) FOIA as it has failed to respond within the statutory time for compliance. The Commissioner requires the public authority to provide a response to the request in compliance with FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View London Borough of Croydon
10 Jan 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from Cheshire East Council regarding a determination notice. The council refused to confirm or deny whether the information was held under section 40(B) (third party personal information) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council were correct to neither confirm nor deny whether the requested information was held on the basis of section 40(B). The Commissioner does not require any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View Cheshire East Council
10 Jan 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information about a specified Court of Appeal case. The Crown Prosecution Service (the ‘CPS’) refused to provide the requested information. It initially cited section 40(2) (personal information), but ultimately relied on section 32(1)(c) (court records, etc) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the CPS has properly relied on section 32(1)(c) to refuse this request. No steps are required as a result of this notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 32
View Crown Prosecution Service
10 Jan 2022Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information held by Gravesham Borough Council (the council) about flooding to his land. Whilst the council provided the complainant with some information in response to the request, it is the Commissioner’s decision that parts 1, 3, 4 and 5 of the request involve the complainant’s own personal data, and are therefore exempt under regulation 5(3) of the EIR. With regard to part 2 of the request, the Commissioner is satisfied that this is third party personal data, and that the council is entitled to rely on regulation 13 of the EIR when withholding this information. The Commissioner has found a breach of regulation 14(2), and regulation 11(4), of the EIR, as the council failed to issue both a refusal notice, and carry out an internal review, within the statutory timescales. The Commissioner does not require the council to take any steps as a result of this decision notice.
Exemptions cited: EIR 11(4); EIR 13; EIR 14(2); EIR 5(3)
View Gravesham Borough Council
10 Jan 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested HS2 to disclose copies of the results of environmental surveys and related reports for the worksite containing Grims Ditch for the three months preceding 18 November 2020. HS2 disclosed some information and withheld the remainder under regulations 12(5(g) and 13 of the EIR. The Commissioner’s decision is that HS2 is entitled to refuse to disclose the remaining withheld information in accordance with regulation 12(5)(g) of the EIR. He does not require any further action to be taken.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(g)
View High Speed Two (HS2) Limited
10 Jan 2022Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
Across two pieces of correspondence, the complainant requested ecological and protected species survey reports for a specific location. High Speed Two Limited (HS2 Ltd) released the majority of the relevant information it holds and withheld some under regulation 12(5)(g) of the EIR (the protection of the environment to which the information relates) and regulation 13 (personal data). The Commissioner’s decision is as follows: HS2 Ltd is entitled to apply regulation 12(5)(g) of the EIR to some of the requested information and the public interest favours maintaining this exception. It was reasonable for HS2 Ltd to categorise the complainant’s second piece of correspondence as a separate request and to aggregate it with the first request. HS2 applied regulation 7(1) correctly but did not disclose all the relevant information or issue a refusal in respect of some of the information within 40 working days of receipt of the second request. HS2 Ltd’s response therefore breached regulation
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(g); EIR 14; EIR 5; EIR 7
View High Speed Two (HS2) Limited
10 Jan 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to the sales of £10 scratchcards and Interactive Instant Win Games (IIWG). The Gambling Commission (GC) refused to disclose the requested information citing section 43(2) (commercial interests) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the exemption is engaged but the public interest lies in disclosure. The Commissioner requires the GC to take the following steps: disclose the requested information.
Exemptions cited: FOI 43
View Gambling Commission
7 Jan 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested heating and hot water costs for single bedroom properties within a block of flats. The council disclosed some information however it withheld the details of the annual costs on the basis that section 40(2) of FOIA applies (personal data of third parties). The Commissioner’s decision is that the council was correct to apply section 40(2). The Commissioner does not require the council to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View Bristol City Council
7 Jan 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information from London Borough of Croydon (“the Council”) about the design, scope and proposed timeline of the Sydenham Road Low Traffic Neighbourhood scheme. 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 London Borough of Croydon
7 Jan 2022Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested copies of correspondence relating to a particular planning application. Thames Water Ltd initially stated that the request did not seek environmental information, but eventually disclosed some information and relied on Regulation 12(4)(d) of the EIR (material in the course of completion) to withhold some information – which it said was the only other environmental information it held within the scope of the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that Thames Water Ltd is not entitled to rely on Regulation 12(4)(d) of the EIR to withhold the information that it has identified as falling within the scope of the request. She also finds that Thames Water Ltd holds additional environmental information within the scope of the request and therefore failed to comply with its duty under Regulation 5(1) of the EIR. Finally, the Commissioner finds that Thames Water Ltd breached Regulation 5(2) of the EIR as it failed to communicate non-exempt information within 20 wo
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(d); EIR 5(1); EIR 5(2)
View Thames Water
7 Jan 2022Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested a copy of a Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS) contingency plan. The Department of Health and Social Care disclosed a document, but the complainant considered that additional information was likely to be held. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the DHSC has disclosed the information it holds relevant to the request. However, in failing to disclose the information within 20 working days, the DHSC breached section 10 of the FOIA. The Commissioner does not require further steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10
View Department of Health and Social Care
7 Jan 2022Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information on the access rights of different staff groups using the Universal Credit IT system. Following the Commissioner’s intervention, the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) confirmed that it was withholding some of the requested information under section 31 (law enforcement). The Commissioner’s decision is that section 31 is engaged in relation to the withheld information and the balance of the public interest lies in maintaining the exemption. DWP did not confirm whether it held the 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 of the Act. The Commissioner does not require DWP to take any further steps in relation to this request.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 17; FOI 31
View Department for Work and Pensions
7 Jan 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from the Environment Agency relating to correspondence between senior staff of the Environment Agency and the Director of Environment and Corporate Affairs at Southern Water. By the date of this notice the Environment Agency had failed to provide a substantive response to this request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Environment Agency 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 Environment Agency to respond to the complainant’s request in accordance with the FOIA. The Environment Agency must take these steps within 35 calendar days of the date of this decision notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Environment Agency
7 Jan 2022Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information associated with an incident during an assessment, including the qualifications of an invigilator and a mark scheme. Overton Grange School (‘the School’) withheld some of the information the complainant requested under section 36(2)(c) of the FOIA (prejudice to effective conduct of public affairs) and withheld some under section 40(2) (personal data). The Commissioner’s decision is as follows: The School is entitled to withhold the information requested in part 3 of the request under section 36(2)(c) of the FOIA and the public interest favours withholding the information. The School is entitled to withhold information within scope of part 1 of the request under section 40(2) of the FOIA because it is the personal data of a third person and disclosing it would be unlawful. The School’s refusal of the request was inadequate and did not comply with the requirements of section 17(1) or section 17(3) of the FOIA. The Commissioner does not require the
Exemptions cited: FOI 17; FOI 36; FOI 40
View OVERTON GRANGE SCHOOL
7 Jan 2022Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information held by North Norfolk District Council (the council) about its Employment and Appeals Committee (EAC).
The council provided the complainant with some information in response to her request. Following the intervention of the Commissioner, the council then agreed that some additional information about the EAC members could be released. However, it advised that it could neither confirm nor deny whether it held any information relevant to that part of the complainant’s request that had asked for details about an EAC meeting of December 2019. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council correctly relied on section 40(5B)(a)(i) of the FOI to refuse to confirm or deny whether it held any information about a specific EAC meeting. However, as a result of the late disclosure of information, the Commissioner has found there to be a breach of section 1 and 10 of the FOIA. The Commissioner requires the council to provide the complainant with details of t
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10; FOI 40
View North Norfolk District Council
7 Jan 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from Mid Essex Clinical Commissioning Group (“the CCG”) about common policies and procedures shared across the Essex CCGs. By the date of this notice the CCG had not issued a substantive response to this request.
The Commissioner’s decision is that the CCG 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 CCG to take the following step to ensure compliance with the legislation: The CCG must provide a substantive response to the request in accordance with its obligations under the FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
6 Jan 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information the NHS Commissioning Board (NHS England) relating to a contract between NHS England and the New Foscote Hospital, Banbury. By the date of this notice NHS England had not issued a substantive response to this request. The Commissioner’s decision is that NHS England has breached section 10(1) of the FOIA in that it failed to provide a valid response to the request within the statutory time frame of 20 working days.The Commissioner requires NHS England to take the following step to ensure compliance with the legislation.
NHS England must provide a substantive response to the request in accordance with its obligations under the FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View NHS England
6 Jan 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested from the Ministry of Defence (MOD) information relating to relating to a specific individual. By the date of this notice the MOD had not issued a substantive response to this request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the MOD 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 MOD to take the following step to ensure compliance with the legislation. The MOD must provide a substantive response to the request in accordance with its obligations under the FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Ministry of Defence
6 Jan 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested from the Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC) information relating to a number of phone calls declared by Lord Bethell. By the date of this notice, the DHSC had not issued a substantive response to the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the DHSC 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 DHSC 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 of Health and Social Care
6 Jan 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to the Microsoft Office 365 licencing agreement. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Cabinet Office correctly applied section 41(2) FOIA to neither confirm nor deny (NCND) that it held information within the scope of the request. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps as a result of this decision notice. First-tier tribunal (General Regulatory chamber) information rights appeal EA/2022/0033 appeal withdrawn.
Exemptions cited: FOI 41
View Cabinet Office
6 Jan 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from Dyfed Powys Police (“DPP”) relating to the forms used by officers to request examination of digital devices. The Commissioner’s decision is that DPP were entitled to refuse to comply with the request under section 12(2) of the FOIA, and that they had complied with their obligations under section 16(1) of the FOIA to provide adequate advice and assistance to the complainant. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12; FOI 16
View Dyfed-Powys Police
5 Jan 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from Liverpool City Council (“the Council”) relating to road markings. 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 MPS has breached section 10(1) of the FOIA in that it failed to provide a valid response to the request within the statuary timeframe of 20 working days. The Commissioner requires the Council to respond to the complainant’s response in accordance with the FOIA. The Council must take these steps within 35 calendar days of the date of this decision notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Liverpool City Council
5 Jan 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information the Department for Education (DfE) relating to the DfE’s press rebuttals team. By the date of this notice the DfE had not issued a substantive response to this request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the DfE 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 DfE to provide a substantive response to the request in accordance with its obligations under the FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Department for Education
5 Jan 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested all the information held by the ICO that guides the ICO's interpretation of any aspect of "Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act (LGA) 1972”. The ICO refused to comply with the request citing section 12 of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the ICO is entitled to rely on section 12(1) of the FOIA in this case. He therefore does not require any further action to be taken. First-tier tribunal (General Regulatory chamber) information rights appeal EA/2022/0036 appeal withdrawn.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12
View Information Commissioner
5 Jan 2022Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information relating to a residential development. The Council disclosed some information, but withheld a Viability Report under the exception provided by regulation 12(5)(e) (commercial confidentiality). The Commissioner’s decision is the Council was correct to apply the exception to some parts of the Viability Report (namely, those parts specified in Annex A), however he has decided that it was not correct to apply the exception to the entirety of it. The Commissioner is satisfied that all other held information has been disclosed. The Commissioner requires the Council to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: Disclose the Viability Report, but with those parts specified in Annex A redacted.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(e); EIR 5(1)
View Gateshead Council
5 Jan 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested the evidence that was used to inform the latest National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guidance for chronic pain (NG193) that were published on 7 April 2021. NICE withheld the requested information in accordance with section 21 (information accessible to applicant by other means). The Commissioner is satisfied that the requested information is reasonably accessible to the complainant by other means and therefore the exemption is engaged. Furthermore, on the balance of probabilities, the Commissioner is satisfied that NICE holds no further information within the scope of the request. The Commissioner does not requite any steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 21
View National Institute for Health and Care Excellence
5 Jan 2022Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested correspondence relating to a Tribunal hearing. The Information Commissioner originally denied holding the information, before refusing the request as vexatious. The Commissioner’s decision is that the ICO was entitled to rely on section 14(1) to refuse the request as vexatious. As the ICO failed to issue its refusal notice within 20 working days, it breached section 17(5) of the FOIA. The Commissioner does not require further steps. First-tier tribunal (General Regulatory chamber) information rights appeal EA/2022/0032 appeal struck out.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14; FOI 17
View Information Commissioner
5 Jan 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested a draft report into a proposed Neighbourhood Plan from Bridge Parish Council, Kent (“the Parish Council”). The Parish Council withheld the information under regulation 12(4)(d) of the EIR: unfinished documents. The Commissioner’s decision is that the exception is engaged; however, the balance of the public interest favours the information being disclosed. The Commissioner requires the Parish Council to take the following step to ensure compliance with the legislation: disclose the information to the requester.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(d)
4 Jan 2022Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested copies of correspondence between Gas Safe Register and several named individuals during a particular period. The Health and Safety Executive disclosed a report with personal data redacted and stated that this was the only information it held. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the HSE has identified all the information it holds within the scope of the request. However, as the HSE failed to communicate the non-exempt information and failed to issue its refusal notice within 20 working days, it breached sections 10 and 17 of the FOIA respectively. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10; FOI 17
View Health and Safety Executive
4 Jan 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from Barts Health NHS Trust (“the Trust”) about its correspondence with the Spectrum 10K research project. 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 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.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Barts Health NHS Trust
4 Jan 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested a copy of an investigation report. The Health and Safety Executive withheld the report and relied on section 30 of the FOIA (investigations) in order to do so. The Commissioner’s decision is that the withheld information engages section 30 of the FOIA and that the balance of the public interest favours maintaining the exemption. The Commissioner does not require further steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 30
View Health and Safety Executive
4 Jan 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested copies of correspondence exchanged with three individuals and their legal representatives. The Health and Safety Executive relied on section 30 of the FOIA (criminal investigations) in order to withhold the information. The Commissioner’s decision is that the withheld information engages section 30 of the FOIA and that the balance of the public interest favours maintaining the exemption. The Commissioner does not require further steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 30
View Health and Safety Executive
4 Jan 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information relating to a review of parking undertaken by the Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames (the Council). The Council took two months to issue a substantive response. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council failed to comply with regulation 5(2) of the EIR. Since the Council has now issued a response the Commissioner does not require any steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: EIR 5
View Kingston upon Thames Council
4 Jan 2022Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant made three requests, comprising of 38 separate questions, broadly relating to funding for transport projects. Transport for London relied on section 12 of the FOIA to refuse all three requests as the aggregated cost of responding would have exceeded the appropriate limit. The Commissioner’s decision is that TfL was entitled to consider the combined cost of responding to all three requests and that it has reasonably estimated that combined cost as exceeding the appropriate limit. Consequently TfL was entitled to rely on section 12 of the FOIA to refuse all three requests. However, TfL failed to comply with its section 16 duty because it did not provide reasonable advice and assistance to the complainant to help him refine his request so that it fell within the cost limit. The Commissioner requires TfL to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: provide the complainant with advice and assistance to help him submit a request falling within the ap
Exemptions cited: FOI 12; FOI 16
View Transport for London
4 Jan 2022Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information from London Borough of Croydon (“LBC”) relating to planning applications. By the date of this notice LBC had failed to provide a substantive response to this request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the LBC has breached regulation 5(2) of the EIR in that it failed to provide a valid response to the request within the statuary timeframe of 20 working days. The Commissioner requires LBC to respond to the complainant’s response in accordance with the FOIA. The MPS must take these steps within 35 calendar days of the date of this decision notice.
Exemptions cited: EIR 5(2)
View London Borough of Croydon
4 Jan 2022Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about an Ofsted inspection and the subsequent ramifications. North Yorkshire County Council withheld the information on the basis of sections 36(2) (prejudice to effective conduct of public affairs), 40(2) (personal information) and 42 (legal professional privilege).The Commissioner’s decision is that the council was entitled to withhold the information on the basis of section 36(2). In responding outside of the statutory period of 20 working days, the council breached section 10. The Commissioner does not require any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 36
View North Yorkshire County Council
4 Jan 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested copies of information relating to Ian Brady. The National Archives variously relied on sections 31 (law enforcement), 38 (health and safety), 40(2) and 41 of the FOIA to withhold the requested information. The Commissioner’s decision is that TNA is entitled to rely on sections 31, 41 and 40(2) of the FOIA in the manner that it has done. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 31; FOI 40; FOI 41
View The National Archives
4 Jan 2022Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to Child Maintenance Service (CMS) Cases. The Commissioner’s decision is that Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) is entitled to rely on section 12(2) to refuse the request. The Commissioner does not require DWP to take any steps as a result of this decision notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12
View Department for Work and Pensions
23 Dec 2021Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested from Bristol City Council (the council) information about a questionnaire handed to individuals who were arrested following an incident related to the Colston Statue in Bristol. The council said that it does not hold the information as the questionnaire was created independently of the council, and relates to the activities of We Are Bristol History Commission (‘BHC’). The council said that it provides administrative services for BHC, however the questionnaire was created and used prior to the BHC being fully constituted. The council has never held it. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council does not hold the requested information. The Commissioner does not require the council to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Bristol City Council