23 Dec 2021Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested contact details of solicitors acting on behalf of London Borough of Barnet in legal proceedings under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 .The Commissioner’s decision is that London Borough of Barnet correctly relied on EIR Regulation 13 (personal data) to withhold requested information from the complainant.
Exemptions cited: EIR 13
View Barnet Council
23 Dec 2021Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from the Police Service of Northern Ireland (“PSNI”) about the number of student and police officers charged with or had a criminal conviction during 2019/2020. The Commissioner’s decision is that the PSNI were entitled to refuse to comply with the request under section 12(1) of the FOIA, 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, PSNI failed in its obligation to respond within 20 working days of the request, and therefore breached section 10(1) of the FOIA. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 16; FOI 23
View Police Service of Northern Ireland
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
23 Dec 2021Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested, from Thanet District Council (the “Council”), information relating to a planning application. The Council denied holding some of the information, said that it would exceed the cost limit at section 12 to locate some information and withheld some citing section 40(2)(Personal information) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the Council does not hold some of the requested information. Furthermore, the Council was entitled to rely on sections 12 and 40 of the FOIA. He does however find a breach of section 16(1) (Advice and assistance) of the FOIA. The Commissioner does not require the Council to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 12; FOI 40
View Thanet District Council
22 Dec 2021Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) (now the Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office, FCDO) seeking copies of three files concerning Sri Lanka in the 1980s. The FCO disclosed two of these files in full. It also provided the majority of the information from the third file but sought to withhold the remaining information on the basis section 23(1) (security bodies) or, in the alternative, section 24(1) (national security) and sections 27(1)(a) and 27(2) (international relations) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that parts of the withheld information are exempt from disclosure on the basis of section 23(1) or section 24(1) of FOIA and that the remaining withheld information is exempt from disclosure on the basis of section 27(2). However, he has also concluded that the FCO breached section 17(3) of FOIA by failing to conclude its public interest test considerations and provide the complainant with a substantive response to his req
Exemptions cited: FOI 23; FOI 24; FOI 27
View Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office
22 Dec 2021Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) (now the Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office, FCDO) seeking access to four files concerning Sri Lankan in the 1980s. The FCO disclosed some parts of the files to the complainant but sought to withhold other parts on the basis of the following exemptions within FOIA: section 23(1) (security bodies), section 24(1) (national security), sections 26(1)(a) and (b) (defence), sections 27(1)(a), section 40(2) (personal data) and section 41(1) (information provided in confidence). The complainant disputed the FCO’s reliance on these exemptions and also argued that the FCO should have provided him with a schedule of how it was applying the exemptions to the specific redactions. The Commissioner’s decision is that FCO is entitled to withhold the remaining information on the basis of the exemptions it has cited. The Commissioner has also concluded that the FCO was not obliged to provide the complainant with
Exemptions cited: FOI 23; FOI 24; FOI 26; FOI 27; FOI 40
View Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office
22 Dec 2021Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information from Fylde Borough Council (“the Council”) for all exchanges between the Council, the developer and other agencies regarding drainage schemes and site levels. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has failed to carry out a reconsideration (internal review) of a response it provided, under the Environmental Information Regulations (“the EIR”), within 40 working days and has therefore breached Regulation 11 of the EIR.
Exemptions cited: EIR 11
View Fylde Borough Council
22 Dec 2021Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) (now the Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office, FCDO) seeking access to six files concerning Sri Lanka in the 1980s. The FCO disclosed some part of the files to the complainant but sought to withhold other parts on the basis of the following exemptions within FOIA: section 23(1) (security bodies), section 24(1) (national security), sections 26(1)(a) and (b) (defence), sections 27(1)(a) and 27(2) (international relations), sections 31(1)(a) and (b) (law enforcement), section 40(2) (personal data) and section 41(1) (information provided in confidence). The complainant disputed the FCO’s reliance on these exemptions and also argued that the FCO should have provided him with a schedule of how it was applying the exemptions to the specific redactions. The Commissioner’s decision is that FCO is entitled to withhold the remaining information on the basis of the exemptions it has cited, the only exception
Exemptions cited: FOI 23; FOI 24; FOI 26; FOI 27; FOI 31; FOI 40; FOI 41
View Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office
21 Dec 2021Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested various information covering an Environment Agency (EA) investigation of a pollution incident in 1997. Natural Resources Wales (NRW) (which replaced the EA in 2013), confirmed that it held some relevant information, provided a link to information it was prepared to disclose and cited regulation 13 (personal information) in respect of other information. Following an internal review, NRW confirmed that it had provided all relevant information except the Farm Management Plan and cited regulation 12(5)(d) (adversely effect the confidentiality of proceedings of that or any other public authority where such confidentiality is provided by law) and regulation 12(5)(f) (adversely effect the interests of the person who provided the information) to withhold the report. Following the Commissioner’s investigation, NRW confirmed that it wished to withdraw its reliance on regulation 12(5)(d), maintain its reliance on 12(5)(f) and reinstate its reliance on regulation 13. The
Exemptions cited: EIR 5(1)
View Natural Resources Wales
21 Dec 2021Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from the Department for International Trade (“DIT”) for full copies of all internal analysis of post-Brexit international trade deals produced by the department. The Commissioner’s decision is that the DIT were entitled to refuse to comply with the request under section 12(1) of the FOIA, and that it has complied with its 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 Department for International Trade
20 Dec 2021Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to the removal of his relative’s computer following their death. Staffordshire Police denied holding some information and refused to provide the remainder, citing section 38(1)(a) (health and safety) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the exemption is engaged and that the public interest lies in maintaining the exemption. Therefore Staffordshire Police is entitled to rely upon section 38(1)(a) as a basis for refusing to disclose the requested information. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken as a result of this decision. First-tier tribunal (General Regulatory chamber) information rights appeal EA/2022/0005 appeal struck out.
Exemptions cited: FOI 38
View Staffordshire Police
20 Dec 2021Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from the London Ambulance Service NHS Trust (LAS) consisting of job descriptions, staff responsibilities, policies, procedures, guidelines, manning levels, and numbers of complaints. LAS provided some information, withheld certain information under section 40 (personal information) and section 21 (information accessible by other means), stated that it did not hold certain information, and that some of the requested information fell outside the scope of the FOIA. The complainant argued that he had not been provided with the information to which he was entitled. During the Commissioner’s investigation LAS conducted a detailed review of the request and its responses. Further information was disclosed at a late stage and there is now no further information to be provided. The Commissioner’s decision is therefore confined to procedural matters and he has concluded that LAS has breached sections 1, 10 and 17 of the FOIA. As there is no further inform
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10; FOI 17
View London Ambulance Service NHS Trust
20 Dec 2021Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested the total number of covid-19 deaths in the South Tyneside Area from February 2020 to November 2020. South Tyneside and Sunderland NHS Foundation Trust (the Trust) explained that to provide the information would exceed the cost limit outlined in section 12(1) of the FOIA (cost of compliance exceeds the appropriate limit). The Commissioner’s decision is that the Trust is entitled to rely on section 12(1). However, he also finds that the Trust failed to provide any advice and assistance to the complainant in the making of their request and has therefore failed to comply with its obligations according to section 16(1) of the FOIA (duty to provide advice and assistance). The Commissioner therefore requires the public authority to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: Provide advice and assistance to the requestor in relation to their request.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12; FOI 16
View South Tyneside and Sunderland NHS Foundation Trust
20 Dec 2021Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 27
View Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office
17 Dec 2021Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (FCDO) about Lord Lebedev. The Commissioner’s decision is that the FCDO has breached section 10 of the FOIA by failing to respond to the request within 20 working days. The Commissioner requires the FCDO to issue a substantive response to the request in accordance with the FOIA. The public authority 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
View Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office
17 Dec 2021Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information on the spending related to a volunteer event. At the date of this notice, the London Borough of Bexley (the council) has not provided a response to the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council has breached section 10(1) of the FOIA as it has not provided a valid response to the request within the statutory timeframe of 20 working days. The Commissioner requires the public authority to provide a response to the complainant’s request dated 18 October 2021 that complies with section 1(1) of the FOIA. The public authority 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
View Bexley Council
17 Dec 2021Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested copies of minutes, agendas and briefing notes for the High Priority Appraisals Team meetings. The DHSC confirmed that it does not hold any information that falls within the scope of the request. The Commissioner is satisfied that, on the balance of probabilities, the DHSC does not hold any information that falls within the scope of the request. The Commissioner does not require the DHSC to take any further steps. However, in failing to comply with section 1(1) within twenty working days, and in applying the extension that section 10(3) allows inappropriately, the DHSC has breached both section 10(1) and section 10(3) (time for compliance with request) of the FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10; FOI 10
View Department of Health and Social Care
17 Dec 2021Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
In a four part request, the complainant has requested from University Hospitals of North Midlands NHS Trust (‘the Trust’) information associated with its vascular services. The Trust released information within scope of Q1 and Q2 of the request, released information relevant to Q3 and directed the complainant to where other relevant information is published, and advised that it does not hold information relevant to Q4. The Commissioner’s decision is as follows: On the balance of probabilities the Trust has released all the information it holds that is relevant to Q3 and Q4 of the request and has complied with section 1(1) with regard to those questions. The Trust breached section 10(1) of the FOIA as it did not comply with section 1(1) within 20 working days of the complainant’s request. The Commissioner does not require the Trust to take any remedial steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10
View University Hospitals of North Midlands NHS Trust
17 Dec 2021Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested all emails and documents exchanged between the Shrewsbury Town Council and Apricus Property Limited. Shrewsbury Town Council responded after more than 20 working days stating it was unable to provide the requested information due to commercial interests. However, following a review it stated that it did not hold the requested information. 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 Shrewsbury Town Council to take any action to ensure compliance with the legislation.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10
17 Dec 2021Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested from Great Bowden Parish Council (“the Council”) information relating to the feedback received from Leicestershire Highways concerning a specific junction . 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 provide a substantive response to the request in accordance with its obligations under the FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
16 Dec 2021Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to the company, now in administration, BetIndex Limited, trading as Football Index. The Gambling Commission (GC) refused to disclose the requested information, citing section 31(1)(g) by virtue of subsection 31(2)(c) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the exemption is engaged but that the public interest lies in disclosure. The Commissioner requires the GC to disclose the requested information to the complainant. First-tier tribunal (General Regulatory chamber) information rights appeal appeal EA/2022/0015 appeal disposed by consent.
Exemptions cited: FOI 31
View Gambling Commission
16 Dec 2021Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested from Cambridgeshire Constabulary (“the Constabulary”) information about an outcome of a particular hearing regarding officer misconduct. The Constabulary supplied a link to its website for some of the information, it advised that there is no transcript of the hearing, and it also withheld some information by virtue of section 40(2) (personal information) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Constabulary was entitled to rely on section 40(2) of the FOIA to withhold some of the information requested. However, the Commissioner has recorded a procedural breach of section 17 of the FOIA, as the Constabulary failed to issue the complainant with a refusal notice within the statutory time limits. The Commissioner does not require the Constabulary to take any steps as a result of this decision. First-tier tribunal (General Regulatory chamber) information rights appeal EA/2021/0376 appeal dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 17; FOI 40
View Cambridgeshire Constabulary
16 Dec 2021Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from Legal Services Agency Northern Ireland (“LSANI”) about sums of legal aid granted to a specific individual in relation to two legal hearings. LSANI stated that it would neither confirm nor deny that it holds the requested information, citing section 40(5B)(a)(i) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that LSANI is entitled to rely on section 40(5) to neither confirm nor deny that it holds the information. The Commissioner does not require LSANI to take any further steps. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2022/0002 dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View Legal Services Agency (Northern Ireland)
16 Dec 2021Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information on 13 August 2021 regarding information relating to which companies pay business rates in the London Borough of Hackney. By the date of this notice, London Borough of Hackney (“the Borough”) had not issued a substantive response to this request.
The Commissioner’s decision is that the Borough 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
View London Borough of Hackney
16 Dec 2021Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about child sexual exploitation offences dealt with by Staffordshire Police, including the names of any paedophile hunter groups involved in incidents which resulted in charges. Staffordshire Police disclosed some information and it confirmed that a paedophile hunter group had been involved in two incidents which resulted in criminal charges. However, it said that it did not hold information on the identity of the paedophile hunter group or groups in question. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, Staffordshire Police does not hold the requested information and therefore that its handling of the request complied with the requirements of section 1(1) of the FOIA. The Commissioner requires no steps as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Staffordshire Police
16 Dec 2021Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from the National Archives (TNA) relating to an information request for specific file held by TNA. By the date of this notice, TNA had not issued a substantive response to the request.The Commissioner’s decision is that the TNA 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 TNA 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 The National Archives
16 Dec 2021Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from the National Archives (TNA) contained in record reference numbers J271/136/1 and 2. TNA refused to disclose the requested information, citing the exemptions at sections 24, 31 and 40 of the FOIA as a basis for non-disclosure.The Commissioner’s decision is that TNA has correctly applied the exemptions at sections 24 and 40 to the majority of the requested information. As the information to which section 31 was applied was also covered by section 24, the Commissioner did not investigate TNA’s application of section 31. The Commissioner also considers that some of the information contained within the relevant record can be disclosed as the above exemptions do not apply. The Commissioner requires the public authority to disclose the Items as identified by the Commissioner’s correspondence with TNA of 28 July 2021 which are specified in the Confidential Annex to this Notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 24; FOI 40
View The National Archives
15 Dec 2021Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested confirmation of whether a named individual was a former pupil at Westfield Academy (the public authority). The Commissioner’s decision is that on the balance of probabilities the requested information is not held. The Commissioner does not require any steps to be taken as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View WESTFIELD ACADEMY TRUST
15 Dec 2021Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information about a bulk order of purchases from Hotel Chocolat. The ICO initially relied on section 36 of the FOIA (prejudice to the effective conduct of public affairs) to withhold all the requested information, but subsequently disclosed most of the information it held. However, it relied on section 40(2) of the FOIA (third party personal data) to withhold the name of an employee. The Commissioner’s decision is that the ICO is entitled to rely upon section 40(2) of the FOIA in the manner that it has done. However, the ICO failed to obtain the correct objective reading of the request and therefore breached section 16 of the FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 16; FOI 40
View Information Commissioner
15 Dec 2021Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from Betsi Cadwaladr University Health Board relating to the end of life care of his late mother. Betsi Cadwaladr University Health Board refused the request made under FOIA relying on the section 40(2) FOIA (Personal information) and section 41(1) FOIA (Information provided in confidence) exemptions. The Commissioner decided that the Betsi Cadwaladr University Health Board had conducted appropriate searches to identify information falling within the scope of the request. He received assurances that all the relevant information held either had been disclosed or was exempt from disclosure. Following his investigation, the Commissioner decided that the Betsi Cadwaladr University Health Board had correctly engaged the section 40(2) and 41(1) FOIA exemptions to refuse the FOIA request and had complied with its obligations under section 1(1) FOIA. The Commissioner decided that, by not responding to the request for information within 20 working days, the
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 40; FOI 41
View Betsi Cadwaladr University Health Board
15 Dec 2021Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from Brighton and Hove City Council (“the Council”) relating to the lease of the pavilions owned by the Council. By the date of this notice the Council had not issued a substantive response to this request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has breached section 10(1) of 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.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Brighton and Hove City Council
15 Dec 2021Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about criminal investigations conducted by Sussex Police which involved civil claims being lodged against the force. Sussex Police disclosed some information, but it said that to provide information about the nature of the criminal investigations involved would exceed the appropriate cost limit at section 12 of the FOIA, because of the way the information was held. The Commissioner’s decision is that Sussex Police was entitled to rely on section 12 to refuse the request. However, he found that in failing to provide advice and assistance on how the complainant might refine his request, Sussex Police breached section 16 of the FOIA. The Commissioner requires no steps as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12; FOI 16
View Sussex Police
15 Dec 2021Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested a copy of the Declaration of Intent between the UK and France, agreeing a coordinated approach to tackling migrant smuggling. The Home Office refused to disclose the information, citing sections 23(1) (Information supplied by, or relating to, bodies dealing with security matters), 27(1)(a) (International relations) and 31(1)(a) (Law enforcement) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Home Office was entitled to rely on section 23(1) of the FOIA to withhold the information. However, in taking excessive time to conduct the internal review, he found that the Home Office did not act in accordance with the code at section 45 of the FOIA. The Commissioner requires no steps as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: FOI 23
View Home Office
14 Dec 2021Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about murders and attempted murders from the Metropolitan Police Service (the “MPS”). The MPS provided some information but withheld the remainder citing sections 40(2)(Personal information) and 30(1)(a) (Investigations and proceedings).
The Commissioner’s decision is that section 30(1) is engaged and that the public interest favours maintaining the exemption. No steps are required.
Exemptions cited: FOI 30
View Metropolitan Police Service
14 Dec 2021Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) (now the Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office, FCDO) seeking information about the settlement made to men from the UK who had been held in Guantanamo Bay. The FCO refused to provide the information in the scope of the request on the basis of sections 27(1)(a) (international relations), 36(2) (effective conduct of public affairs, 40(2) (personal data) and 42(1) (legal professional privilege) of FOIA. The FCO also refused to confirm or deny whether it held any further information falling within the scope of the request on the basis of sections 23(5) (security bodies) and 24(2) (national security) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that FCO was entitled to withhold the information it acknowledged it held on the basis of the exemptions cited above. The Commissioner is satisfied that the FCO was entitled to refuse to confirm or deny whether it held any further information in the scope of the requ
Exemptions cited: FOI 23; FOI 24; FOI 26; FOI 27; FOI 36; FOI 40; FOI 42
View Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office
14 Dec 2021Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a two part request to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) (now the Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office, FCDO) seeking firstly information from 2004 about the ‘involvement in rendition of Sami al- Saadi’ and secondly details of which individuals had agreed the UK government’s settlement with Mr al-Saadi. The FCO refused to confirm or deny whether it held any information falling within the scope of the first part of the request on the basis of sections 23(5) (security bodies), 24(2) (national security), 27(4) (international relations) and section 40(5) (personal data). It confirmed that it held information falling within the second part of the reques
t, but it considered this to be exempt from disclosure on the basis of sections 23(1), 27(1)(a), 36(2) (effective conduct of public affairs), 40(2) and 42(1) (legal professional privilege) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the FCO was entitled to rely on sections 23(5) and 24(2) to re
Exemptions cited: FOI 23; FOI 24; FOI 36; FOI 40
View Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office
14 Dec 2021Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has made three linked requests information regarding the treatment of five individuals who have made a legal claim made against the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (then called the Foreign and Commonwealth Office) (“FCDO”). FCDO refused to provide the information citing section 40 (unfair disclosure of personal data), section 32 (court records) and section 42 (legal professional privilege) as its basis for doing so. It also refused to confirm or deny whether it held information within the scope of the request that would be caught by section 24 (national security) or section 23 (security bodies). It upheld this at internal review. During the course of the Commissioner’s investigation it also sought to rely on section 31 (prejudice to the administration of justice) as an additional basis for withholding some of the information. It also denied holding information within the scope of the third request. The Commissioner’s decision is that FCDO is entitled to rel
Exemptions cited: FOI 23; FOI 24; FOI 31; FOI 32
View Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office
14 Dec 2021Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested the names of borrowers receiving loans following the Government’s implementation of loans to support businesses facing financial disruption due to the COVID-19 pandemic. The Commissioner’s decision is that the British Business Bank (“BBB”) has appropriately relied on section 43(2) Commercial interests to withhold the information and the public interest favours maintaining the exemption. In regard to the BBB’s reliance on section 21 – Information accessible by other means and section 22 – Information intended for future publication the Commissioner finds neither exemption to be engaged. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take the any steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2022/0014 dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 21; FOI 22; FOI 43
View British Business Bank
14 Dec 2021Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested from Bath and North East Somerset Council information relating to communications between the Standards Committee and the Monitoring Officer. The Council disclosed some information, but withheld the remainder under section 40(2) (personal information) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council was entitled to withhold the information under section 40(2). The Commissioner does not require the Council to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View Bath and North East Somerset Council
14 Dec 2021Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested financial information about under-guise investigations from the General Dental Council (GDC). The GDC released information it holds and has advised it does not hold some of the information the complainant has requested.
The Commissioner’s decision is as follows: On the balance of probabilities, the GDC has released all the relevant information it holds and has complied with section 1(1) of the FOIA. The Commissioner does not require the GDC to take any remedial steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View General Dental Council
14 Dec 2021Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information relating to particular footpaths between specified dates. Shropshire Council (the ‘Council’) provided some information and ultimately said that no further information was held. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council was correct to handle this request under the EIR for the reasons set out in this notice. He also finds that, on the balance of probabilities, the Council does not hold any further information within the scope of the request. No steps are required as a result of this notice.
Exemptions cited: EIR 5(1)
View Shropshire Council
14 Dec 2021Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested various information relating to a contract awarded to District Enforcement by Denbighshire County Council. The Council provided some information but withheld other information on the basis of section 40(2) (personal information) FOIA, or regulation 13 EIR in the alternative. It also refused to provide other information either in reliance on section 43 FOIA (commercial interests) or regulation 12(5)(e) EIR (confidentiality of commercial or industrial information) and regulation 12(5)(d) (the confidentiality of proceedings) of the EIR. The Commissioner’s decision is that Denbighshire County Council has now complied with its obligations under regulation 5(1) of the EIR, and that it was entitled to rely on regulation 12(5)(e) and regulation 13 to withhold the remaining information. However, in failing to provide all of the information within the required timescales, the Council has breached regulation 5(2) of the EIR.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(e); EIR 13; EIR 5(1); EIR 5(2)
View Denbighshire County Council
14 Dec 2021Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
Through a four part request, the complainant has requested monitoring information about the Archibald Corbett Community Library, Arts and Heritage Centre. The National Lottery Community Fund (NLCF) addressed one part of the request, advised it does not hold information relevant to two parts and relied on section 21 of the FOIA (information accessible to applicant by other means) to withhold information relevant to the remaining part. The Commissioner’s decision is as follows: NLCF has addressed questions 1, 2 and 4 satisfactorily and has complied with section 1(1) of the FOIA with regard to those questions. The information requested in question 3 is exempt information under section 21(1) of the FOIA as it is already reasonably accessible to the complainant by other means. The Commissioner does not require NLCF to take any remedial steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 21
View The National Lottery Community Fund
14 Dec 2021Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to the bids submitted for the purchase of a particular site owned by Birmingham City Council (the council). The council initially refused the request in its entirety, citing section 43(2) of the FOIA - commercial interests. However, at the internal review stage, it released some information to the complainant. During the Commissioner’s investigation, the council then agreed to release some additional information. The Commissioner is satisfied that the council is entitled to rely on section 43(2) of the FOIA, in respect of the remaining information that has been withheld. However, as a result of the late disclosure of information, and the time it took the council to issue a refusal notice, the Commissioner has found a breach of sections 1, 10, and 17 of the FOI. Furthermore, the council failed to release a full set of redacted letters which it held that were relevant to the complainant’s request, which is a further breach of section 1 o
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10; FOI 17; FOI 43
View Birmingham City Council
14 Dec 2021Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to the Equality and Human Rights Commission’s (‘EHRC’) investigation into the Labour party. The EHRC originally withheld all information within the scope of the request under section 44(1)(a) (prohibitions on disclosure) of the FOIA. During the course of this investigation, the EHRC changed it stance. The EHRC has now confirmed that it does not hold all of the information that falls within the scope of the request and the information that it does hold is exempt from disclosure under section 44(1)(a) and section 31(1)(g) by virtue of section of 31(2)(c) (law enforcement). The Commissioner’s decision is that, in relation to parts 1 and 2 of the request, on the balance of probabilities the EHRC does not hold the requested information. The Commissioner has also determined that the EHRC is entitled to withhold the information that it does hold under section 44(1)(a). The Commissioner does not require the EHRC to take any further steps. Fir
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 44
View Equality and Human Rights Commission
14 Dec 2021Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested generic contracts of employment for foreign nationals employed as trainee clinical psychologists. Birmingham and Solihull Mental Health Foundation Trust (‘the Trust’) had advised that it did not hold the requested information but identified and released some relevant information during the course of the Commissioner’s investigation. The Commissioner’s decision is as follows: The Trust has now complied with section 1(1) of the FOIA and, on the balance of probabilities, holds no further information falling within scope of the complainant’s request. The Trust breached section 10(1) of the FOIA as it did not communicate to the complainant all the relevant information it holds within 20 working days of the request. The Commissioner does not require the Trust to take any remedial steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10
View Birmingham and Solihull Mental Health NHS Foundation Trust
14 Dec 2021Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information with regard to missing emails and attempts to recover them. Milton Keynes Council disclosed held information. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has disclosed all the information it held within the scope of the request. The Commissioner does not require the Council to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Milton Keynes Council
13 Dec 2021Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested correspondence concerning the 2020 Durham Students’ Union elections. The Council of the University of Durham relied on section 36 of the FOIA (prejudice to the effective conduct of public affairs) to withhold the requested information. The Commissioner’s decision is that the University is entitled to rely on section 36(2)(b)(i) of the FOIA and that the balance of the public interest favours maintaining the exemption. The Commissioner does not require any further steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 36
13 Dec 2021Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested from the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) the nature of complaints that were sampled in a report, Investigation into antisemitism in the Labour Party that was published in October 2020. The EHRC refused to provide this information, citing section 44 – prohibitions on disclosure, later it also cited section 31 – law enforcement. The Commissioner’s decision is that the EHRC has correctly cited section 44(1)(a) of the FOIA. The public authority is not required to take any further steps. First-tier tribunal (General Regulatory chamber) information rights EA/2022/0013 appeal struck out.
Exemptions cited: FOI 44
View Equality and Human Rights Commission
13 Dec 2021Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information about drone pilots at a specified race meeting in York. Ultimately, North Yorkshire Police (‘NYP’) provided some of the requested information but withheld the remainder under section 40(2), the exemption for personal information, of FOIA. The complainant disputed NYP’s reliance on section 40(2) and considered that parts of his request were not responded to in full. During the course of the Commissioner’s investigation, NYP confirmed it was relying on section 40(2) for the remaining parts of the request disputed by the complainant. The Commissioner’s decision is that NYP is not entitled to rely on section 40(2) of FOIA for the remaining withheld information on the basis of its submissions submitted to him. The Commissioner requires NYP to disclose the requested information within 35 calendar days of this decision notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View North Yorkshire Police