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
13 Dec 2021Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested details of staff policies and action plans. Aylsham Learning Federation refused the request as vexatious. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Federation was not entitled to rely on section 14(1) of the FOIA to refuse the request. The Commissioner requires the Federation to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: issue a fresh response, to the request, that does not rely on section 14(1) of the FOIA
Exemptions cited: FOI 14
View CABOT LEARNING FEDERATION
13 Dec 2021Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested a copy of minutes of a governor’s meeting and of the constitution. Aylsham Learning Federation refused the request as vexatious. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Federation was not entitled to rely on section 14(1) of the FOIA to refuse the request. The Commissioner requires the Federation to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. Issue a fresh response, to the request, that does not rely on section 14(1) of the FOIA
Exemptions cited: FOI 14
View CABOT LEARNING FEDERATION
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 upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested details of a particular survey. Aylsham Learning Federation refused the request as vexatious. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Federation was not entitled to rely on section 14(1) of the FOIA to refuse the request. The Commissioner requires the Federation to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: issue a fresh response, to the request, that does not rely on section 14(1) of the FOIA
Exemptions cited: FOI 14
View CABOT LEARNING FEDERATION
10 Dec 2021Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from the Cabinet Office about email retention arrangements for correspondence to and from Boris Johnson and Michael Gove. 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 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 Cabinet Office to take the following step to ensure compliance with the legislation: The Cabinet Office must provide a substantive response to the request in accordance with its obligations under the FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Cabinet Office
10 Dec 2021Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
1. The complainant requested information from Hampshire Constabulary (“the Constabulary”) relating to the forms used by officers to request examination of digital devices. 2. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Constabulary was 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.3. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12(1); FOI 16
10 Dec 2021Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information relating to badger culling and bovine tuberculosis (bTB). The Animal and Plant Health Agency (APHA) refused to provide the information, citing regulation 12(4)(b) of the EIR (manifestly unreasonable request). The Commissioner’s decision is that the request was manifestly unreasonable and that the public interest lies in maintaining the exception and therefore the APHA was entitled to refuse it in accordance with regulation 12(4)(b). The Commissioner does not require the APHA to take any further steps. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2022/0007 appeal dismissed.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(b)
View Animal and Plant Health Agency
10 Dec 2021Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from the Cabinet Office regarding information relating to the handling of a previous request for information. 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.The Commissioner requires the Cabinet Office to take the following step to ensure compliance with the legislation.• Having confirmed that information is held within the scope of the request: either disclose the requested information or issue a refusal notice in accordance with the requirements of section 17 of the FOIA.The Cabinet Office must take this step within 35 calendar days of the date of this decision notice. Failure to comply may result in the Commissioner making written certification of this fact to the High Court pursuant
Exemptions cited: FOI 10(1)
View Cabinet Office
10 Dec 2021Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested a complete organogram of ICO staffing structure including staff names and current posts. The ICO stated the information was not held. The Commissioner’s decision is that at the time of the request the information was held and that the ICO failed to respond to the request in accordance with section 1(1). The Commissioner has also found the ICO breached section 10 of the FOIA in failing to respond to the request in the required timeframe. The Commissioner does not require any steps to be taken. As explained in detail in this notice the Commissioner accepts that the information, as requested at the time, cannot now be provided.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10
View Information Commissioner
10 Dec 2021Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to Deal Town Council’s (the “council”) website design. The council disclosed some information and confirmed that other information was not held. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council has disclosed all the relevant information that it holds and complied with section 1(1) of the FOIA. The Commissioner does not require the council to take any steps. First-tier tribunal (General Regulatory chamber) information rights appeal EA/2022/0104 appeal struck out.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1(1)
10 Dec 2021Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information pertaining to the council’s policy on Sexual Entertainment Licences. The council initially applied section 36(2) (prejudice to the effective conduct of public affairs) to withhold some information, said that other information was not held, and it also disclosed some information. During the course of the Commissioner's investigation the council withdrew its reliance upon section 36(2) and disclosed a copy of a report to the complainant. the remaining issues were therefore whether further information is held, and the time which the council took to disclose the information to the complainant. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on a balance of probabilities, the council was correct to state that it holds no information in respect of the time spent by its officers on the licences. He has, however, decided that the council did not comply with the requirements of section 10(1) in that it did not disclose a copy of the report falling within part 1 of
Exemptions cited: FOI 1(1); FOI 10(1)
10 Dec 2021Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to the extension of the West Midlands Metro to the Eastside of Birmingham. By the date of this notice the West Midlands Combined Authority (“the WMCA”) has not issued a substantive response to this request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the WMCA 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 West Midlands Combined Authority
9 Dec 2021Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about the investigation of a complaint. The Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) relied on section 31(3)(law enforcement) and 43(3)(commercial interests) to neither confirm nor deny it holds any relevant information. The Commissioner’s decision is as follows: The FCA is entitled to neither confirm nor deny it holds the requested information under section 31(3) of the FOIA as to do so would be likely to prejudice the exercise of its functions. The public interest favours maintaining this exemption. The Commissioner does not require the FCA to take any remedial steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 31
View Financial Conduct Authority
9 Dec 2021Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested from Staffordshire Police, meta data in respect of previous related information requests. Staffordshire Police refused to provide the requested information, finding that the request was vexatious under section 14 (Vexatious and repeated requests) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the request is not vexatious. The Commissioner requires Staffordshire Police to issue a fresh response to the request under the FOIA, without relying on section 14.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14
View Staffordshire Police
9 Dec 2021Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to matters of policy or practice. The MoJ ultimately refused to confirm or deny whether it held information within the scope of the request, citing section 12(2) (cost of compliance exceeds appropriate limit) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the MoJ was entitled to apply section 12(2) of FOIA and that it has complied with the requirements of section 1(1) (general right of access) and section 16 (advice and assistance). However, she found a procedural breach of section 17(5) (refusal notice). The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken as a result of this decision. Information Tribunal appeal UA-2023-001572-GIA PTA refused.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12; FOI 16; FOI 17
View Ministry of Justice
9 Dec 2021Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to Oxford University NHS Foundation Trust (‘the Trust’) for a copy of the risk assessment upon which the decision to limit people giving birth to one companion was made. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Trust has breached section 10 (1) of the FOIA in that it failed to provide a valid response to the request within the statutory time frame of 20 working days. The Commissioner requires the Trust to take the following step to ensure compliance with the legislation.• Issue a substantive response to the request in accordance with its obligations under the FOIAThe Trust must take these steps within 35 calendar days of the date of this decision notice. Failure to comply may result in the Commissioner making written certification of this fact to the High Court pursuant to section 54 of the Freedom of Information Act and may be dealt with as a contempt of court.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Oxford University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust
9 Dec 2021Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to a hearing aid loop. The partners of Penrose Surgery initially denied holding information within the scope of the request but later refused the request as vexatious. The Commissioner’s decision is that the request was vexatious and therefore the Surgery was entitled to rely on section 14(1) of the FOIA to refuse it. However, he also finds that the surgery failed to issue its refusal notice within 20 working days and therefore breached section 17(5) of the FOIA. The Commissioner does not require any further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14; FOI 17
9 Dec 2021Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested various information from Public Health Wales in respect of decisions it had made in response to the Covid-19 pandemic and protecting public health. Public Health Wales (PHW) refused the request citing section 14(1) (vexatious requests) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that PHW has failed to demonstrate that section 14(1) is engaged in respect of this request.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14(1)
View Public Health Wales NHS Trust
9 Dec 2021Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information held by Warwickshire County Council (the council) relating to a particular village green. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council is correct to state that it did not hold information relevant to part 1 of the complainant’s request. She is also satisfied that the council is entitled to rely on regulation 12(5)(b) of the EIR (course of justice), when withholding information relevant to part 2 of the request. However, the Commissioner has found the council to be in breach of regulation 9 of the EIR, as it failed to provide appropriate advice and assistance to the complainant. Furthermore, as the council failed to provide some of the information, and also its refusal notice, within 20 working days, the Commissioner has also found there to be a breach of regulation 5(2), and regulation 14(2), of the EIR. The Commissioner does not require the council to take any steps as a result of this decision notice.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(b); EIR 14(2)(1); EIR 5(2); EIR 9
View Warwickshire County Council
9 Dec 2021Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information from the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) relating to several meetings regarding energy, industrial decarbonisation and the Green Industrial Revolution. By the date of this notice BEIS had not issued a substantive response to this request. The Commissioner’s decision is that BEIS has breached 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 BEIS to take the following step to ensure compliance with the legislation.BEIS must provide a substantive response to the request in accordance with its obligations under the EIR. BEIS must take this step within 35 calendar days of the date of this decision notice. Failure to comply may result in the Commissioner making written certification of this fact to the High Court pursuant to section 54 of the Act and may be dealt with as a contempt of court.
Exemptions cited: EIR 5(2)
View Department for Business and Trade
8 Dec 2021Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information relating to Horspath Bridge. The Commissioner’s decision is that National Highways (NH) failed to disclose all information within the scope of the request within twenty working days of receipt of the request. Therefore NH breached regulation 5(2) of the EIR. The Commissioner is satisfied that NH has now disclosed all information within the scope of the request. Therefore the Commissioner does not require NH to take any further steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 5(2)
View National Highways
8 Dec 2021Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from the City of Wolverhampton Council (“the Council”) about electoral fraud including copies of documents relating to an investigation. By the date of this notice the Council had failed to provide a substantive response to this request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has breached section 10(1) of the FOIA in that it failed to provide a valid response to the request within the statutory time frame of 20 working days. The Commissioner requires the Council to respond to the complainant’s request 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 Wolverhampton City Council
8 Dec 2021Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested the redacted element of email addresses within material disclosed to him by National Highways Ltd (NH) – formerly Highways England. NH has withheld this information under section 40(2) of the FOIA as it considers it to be the personal data of third persons. The Commissioner’s decision is as follows: The disputed information is exempt from disclosure under section 40(2) of the FOIA. The Commissioner does not require NH to take any remedial steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View National Highways
8 Dec 2021Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant made a request for information relating how DVLA processes personal information, and how that processing complies with the General Data Protection Regulations and the Data Protection Act 2018, how much the ICO has spent on legal fees and the ICO audit of the DVLA from 2016. The ICO has refused to comply with the request under section 14(1) FOIA as it considers the request to be vexatious and has refused to respond to parts of the request under section 17(6) FOIA. The Commissioner considers that the ICO correctly applied section 14(1) and 17(6) FOIA. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14
View Information Commissioner
7 Dec 2021Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to the costs of a specified court case. The Crown Prosecution Service (the ‘CPS’) provided some of the information and denied holding the remainder. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the CPS does not hold the remaining requested information. No steps are required as a result of this notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Crown Prosecution Service
7 Dec 2021Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information from Caerphilly County Borough Council [‘the Council’] relating to planning applications. By the date of this notice the Council had failed to provide a substantive response to this request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has breached 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 the Council to respond to the complainant’s response in accordance with the EIR. The Council must take these steps within 35 calendar days of the date of this decision notice.
Exemptions cited: EIR 5(2)
View Caerphilly County Borough Council
7 Dec 2021Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information in relation to dog breeding licences from Pendle Borough Council (“the council”).The council withheld some information on the basis of section 40(2) (personal information), and denied holding some information. During the course of the investigation the council agreed to release some of the redacted information to the complainant. The council also stated that some information, in relation to the number of dogs, was not held. The Commissioner’s decision is that Pendle Borough Council was correct to withhold some information on the basis of section 40(2). She also finds, on the balance of probabilities, that information regarding the number of dogs is not held. The Commissioner requires the council to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. Disclose the redactions within paragraphs 1.4, 5.1, 11.4 of the Review Report. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2021/0380 under appeal.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 40(2)
View Pendle Borough Council
7 Dec 2021Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested copies of the Condition Data Collection reports for each school. The Department for Education eventually relied on Regulation 12(5)(e) (commercial confidentiality) and Regulation 12(5)(f) (detriment to the confider) of the EIR in order to withhold the requested information. The Commissioner’s decision is that the DfE has not demonstrated why either Regulation 12(5)(e) or Regulation 12(5)(f) of the EIR are engaged and is therefore not entitled to rely on either exception. The Commissioner requires the DfE to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: disclose, to the complainant, a copy of each report.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(e); EIR 12(5)(f)
View Department for Education
7 Dec 2021Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
1. The complainant requested information from the Home Office relating to the number of people being made to wait for 3 months or more for a status change to be reflected in their account, in relation to the EU settlement scheme.
2. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Home Office was 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, the Commissioner finds the Home Office breached FOIA section 10(1) by not providing its response within 20 working days.
3. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 12(1); FOI 16(1)
View Home Office
7 Dec 2021Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information in respect of a meeting which took place between HRH the Prince of Wales and the late Rhodri Morgan, the then First Minister of the Welsh Government on 11 February 2008. The Welsh Government refused the request on the basis of section 12(1) (cost of compliance) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Welsh Government was entitled to rely on section 12(1) to refuse to provide the information. However, in its failure to offer advice and assistance to help refine the request, the Commissioner has recorded a breach of section 16(1) of the FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12; FOI 16
View Welsh Government
7 Dec 2021Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from the Norfolk and Norwich University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust (“the Trust”) about the number of people vaccinated and unvaccinated against Covid-19. 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 statutory time frame of 20 working days. The Commissioner requires the Trust to respond to the complainant’s request 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 Norfolk and Norwich University Hospitals
6 Dec 2021Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from the London Borough of Lambeth (the Council) in relation to council tax payments for a particular property during a specified period of time. The Council withheld the information requested citing section 40(2) (personal information) of FOIA as the basis for this refusal. The Commissioner’s decision is that the information requested at part one of the request falls within the definition of personal data. The Council was therefore entitled to withhold this information under section 40(2). The Commissioner does not require the Council to take any steps as a result of this decision notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40(2)
View London Borough of Lambeth
6 Dec 2021Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from Cheshire and Wirral Partnership NHS Foundation Trust (“the Trust”) about the skills and experience of staff working in Wirral Trust’s Clinical Psychology provision for children and young people. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Trust breached section 10(1) of the FOIA by failing to provide a valid response to the request within the statutory time frame of 20 working days. No steps are required.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Cheshire and Wirral Partnership NHS Foundation Trust
6 Dec 2021Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant submitted a request to the London Borough of Hillingdon (the Council) seeking information it held about concerns that a particular building was being used for education and training purposes. The Council provided the complainant with information falling within the scope of his request but withheld the names and addresses of individuals who had made complaints in relation to the use of a particular building. The Council withheld such information on the basis of regulations 13 (personal data) and 12(5)(f) (interests of the person who provided the information to the authority) of the EIR. The Commissioner has concluded that this information is exempt from disclosure on the basis of regulation 13 of the EIR.
Exemptions cited: EIR 13
View Hillingdon Council
6 Dec 2021Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information associated with the Financial Service Ombudsman’s handling of a complaint submitted to it. The position of the Financial Ombudsman Service (‘FOS’) is that it does not hold the specific information requested. The Commissioner’s decision is as follows: FOS has directed the complainant to published information broadly within scope of their request – the Financial Conduct Authority’s Handbook. On the balance of probabilities, FOS does not hold any other relevant information and has complied with section 1(1) of the FOIA. The Commissioner does require FOS to take any remedial steps. First-tier Tribunal (General Regulatory Chamber) Information Rights appeal EA/2023/0021 appeal dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
6 Dec 2021Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information from Wealden District Council (“the Council”) about its decision-making in relation to a planning application. The Council provided some information relating to an alleged breach of the Code of Conduct, but withheld some information relating to legal advice under regulation 12(5)(b) of the EIR – adversely affect the course of justice (legal professional privilege). The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council does not hold any further information within the scope of the relevant part of the request. He is also satisfied that it is entitled to withhold the information relating to legal advice under regulation 12(5)(b) of the EIR, and the balance of the public interest favours the exception being maintained. The Commissioner does not require the Council to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(a); EIR 12(5)(b)
View Wealden District Council
6 Dec 2021Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to the Ministry of Defence (MOD) seeking information about the clearance process of two books written by a former MOD employee, Nick Pope, as well as information about Mr Pope’s role at the MOD. The MOD responded by stating that it did not hold any information falling within the scope of his request. The MOD explained that it also considered this to be a repeated request and section 14(2) of FOIA applied. The Commissioner is satisfied that on the balance of probabilities the MOD does not hold any information falling within the scope of the complainant’s request. She is also satisfied that the request is a repeated one to which the MOD was entitled to apply section 14(2) of FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 14
View Ministry of Defence
6 Dec 2021Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information from Maldon District Council [‘MDC’] relating to planning applications.. By the date of this notice MDC had failed to provide a substantive response to this request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the MPS 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 the MDC to respond to the complainant’s response in accordance with the EIR. The MPS must take these steps within 35 calendar days of the date of this decision notice.
Exemptions cited: EIR 5(2)
View Maldon District Council
6 Dec 2021Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested from the BBC the total amount it had spent on social distancing devices. The BBC refused to provide the requested information, citing section 43(2) – commercial interests. The Commissioner’s decision is that the BBC has cited section 43(2) correctly. The Commissioner does not require the BBC to take any further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 43
View BBC
3 Dec 2021Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested a copy of the Investigation Manual. The Information Commissioner eventually disclosed most of the requested information. The Commissioner’s decision is that the ICO failed to disclose the information it held, that was not exempt, 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
3 Dec 2021Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested details of the design and maintenance of traffic calming measures on a specific road. Staffordshire County Council (“the Council”) provided some of the information, advised some information within the scope of the request was not held and refused to provide some information by virtue of regulation 12(4)(b) of the EIR. The Commissioner considers that based on the balance of probabilities, the Council does not hold further information other than that which has been provided. Due to the Council taking longer than 20 working days to confirm this, it has breached regulation 5(2) and Regulation 11 of the EIR. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any further steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 11; EIR 12(4)(b); EIR 5(1); EIR 5(2)
View Staffordshire County Council
3 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 initially withheld all information that falls within the scope of the request under section 42 (legal professional privilege) of the FOIA. During the course of this investigation, the EHRC changed its stance to rely upon section 42(1) and section 42(2), the neither confirm nor deny provision. The Commissioner’s decision is that the EHRC is entitled to rely on section 42(1) in relation to part 2 of the request and that the public interest test favoured maintaining the exemption. The Commissioner also finds that the EHRC was entitled to rely on section 42(2) in relation to part 3 of the request, and that the public interest test favoured maintaining the neither confirm nor deny provision. The Commissioner requires the EHRC to take no further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 42(1); FOI 42(2)
View Equality and Human Rights Commission
2 Dec 2021Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested the BBC to disclose all documents relating to a note, written by the late Princess of Wales, to the BBC on 22 December 1995. To date the BBC has failed to respond to the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the BBC has breached section 10 of the FOIA, by failing to respond to the request within 20 working days of receipt. The Commissioner requires the BBC to issue a substantive response to the request in accordance with FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View BBC
2 Dec 2021Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to private prosecution procedures. The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) asked for confirmation of the requester’s identity, which they declined to give. The MoJ refused to deal with the request, citing section 8(1)(b) (request for information) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that, in the circumstances of this case, the MoJ was entitled to consider the request did not meet the criteria for a valid request at section 8(1)(b) of FOIA without confirmation of the complainant’s identity. The Commissioner does not require the MoJ to take any steps as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: FOI 8
View Ministry of Justice
2 Dec 2021Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested terms of reference and policy information referred to in correspondence from the London Borough of Lambeth (“LB Lambeth”) on a planning matter. LB Lambeth refused to provide a response citing regulation 12(4)(b) of the EIR (manifestly unreasonable) as its basis for doing so. It upheld this at internal review. The Commissioner’s decision is that LB Lambeth is not entitled to rely on regulation 12(4)(b) as its basis for refusing the request. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: Provide confirmation or denial as to whether the information is held; and if held, provide the requested information or provide a refusal notice explaining why it is not obliged to do so that does not rely on regulation 12(4)(b).
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(b)
View London Borough of Lambeth
2 Dec 2021Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from Cumbria, Northumberland, Tyne and Wear NHS Foundation Trust (the Trust) relating to diagnosis of mental health conditions, misconduct and board meetings. The Trust applied section 14 of the FOIA (vexatious) to refuse the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the request was vexatious and the Trust was entitled to rely on section 14(1) of the FOIA to refuse it. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14
View Cumbria, Northumberland, Tyne and Wear NHS Foundation Trust
2 Dec 2021Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about the pharmacy registration assessment in March 2021. The General Pharmaceutical Council provided some information but relied on section 36(2)(c) of the FOIA (prejudice to the effective conduct of public affairs) in order to withhold the remainder. The Commissioner’s decision is that the GPhC is not entitled to rely on section 36 to withhold this information. The Commissioner requires the GPhC to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: disclose, to the complainant, the information sought by elements [1] and [2] of the request.
Exemptions cited: FOI 36
View General Pharmaceutical Council
2 Dec 2021Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from the Home Office about Operation Pelican. 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 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 Home 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 Home Office
1 Dec 2021Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to DHSC ‘Performance Update’ documents. DHSC relied on section 35(3) of the FOIA to neither confirm nor deny holding the information. The Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC) has failed to justify why it is entitled to rely on the stated exemption. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. Confirm or deny whether information falling within the scope of the request is held, and If the DHSC confirms that it does hold information, either disclose a copy of that information or issue a refusal notice that complies with section 17 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 35
View Department of Health and Social Care