1 Dec 2021Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information regarding, the steps undertaken, by House of Lords Appointments Commission to vet political nominees for awards .The Commissioner’s decision is that House of Lords Appointments Commission incorrectly relied on section 37(1)(b) to withhold some, but not all, requested information. First-tier tribunal (General Regulatory chamber) information rights appeal EA/2022/0016 appeal disposed by consent.
Exemptions cited: FOI 37
View House of Lords Appointments Commission
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
1 Dec 2021Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information from Waverley Borough Council (the Council) about meetings held and discussions between council officers and a specific Councillor regarding land owned by their client, and a planning application. By the date of this notice the Council has not issued 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 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. The Council must take this step within 35 calendar days of the date of this decision notice. Failure to comply may result in the Commissioner making written certification of this fact to the High Court pursuant to section 54 of the Act and may be de
Exemptions cited: EIR 5(2)
View Waverley Borough Council
1 Dec 2021Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information regarding correspondence held by Essex Police relating to Police Injury Pension Reviews. By the date of this notice, Essex Police had not issued a substantive response to this request. The Commissioner’s decision is that Essex Police 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 Essex Police to take the following step to ensure compliance with the legislation.• Essex Police must provide a substantive response to the request in accordance with its obligations under the FOIA. Essex Police must take this step within 35 calendar days of the date of this decision notice. Failure to comply may result in the Commissioner making written certification of this fact to the High Court pursuant to section 54 of the Act and may be dealt with as a contempt of court.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10(1)
View Essex Police
30 Nov 2021Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information regarding court files at the County Court at Central London between 2018 and 2020. By the date of this notice, the Ministry of Justice (“the MoJ”) had not issued a substantive response to this request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the MoJ 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 MoJ to take the following step to ensure compliance with the legislation: The MoJ must provide a substantive response to the request in accordance with its obligations under the FOIA. The MoJ must take this step within 35 calendar days of the date of this decision notice. Failure to comply may result in the Commissioner making written certification of this fact to the High Court pursuant to section 54 of the Act and may be dealt with as a contempt of court.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Ministry of Justice
30 Nov 2021Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information associated with Kingsdown Sports Centre from Bristol City Council (‘the Council’). At the date of this notice, the Council has not provided a response to the request. The Commissioner’s decision is as follows: 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 Council to take the following step to ensure compliance with the legislation: Provide a response to the complainant’s request of 14 September 2021 that complies with the FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Bristol City Council
30 Nov 2021Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested evidence relied upon by the council to support a view that her tenants could not afford to pay to heat the property it was renting from her. The council applied section 14(1) to refuse the request (vexatious requests). The Commissioner’s decision is that the council was correct to apply section 14(1) to refuse to respond to the complainant's request for information. The Commissioner does not require the council to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14
View Reigate and Banstead Borough Council
30 Nov 2021Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from the London Borough of Waltham Forest (“the Council”) relating to the installation of new entrance doors at five flats within the Council’s property portfolio.The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council 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 from the date that clarification was provided. No steps are required.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Waltham Forest Council
30 Nov 2021Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested correspondence and communications between any officers and executives of Cheshire East Council (the council), third parties and councillors regarding or linked to a planning application and subsequent appeals made by him. The council applied Regulation 12(4)(b) (manifestly unreasonable) to withhold the information. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council was not correct to apply Regulation 12(4)(b) to refuse to respond to the request. The Commissioner requires the council to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. To respond to the complainant again, not relying upon Regulation 12(4)(b).
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(b)
View Cheshire East Council
30 Nov 2021Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to a variant of covid-19. The Commissioner’s decision is that the DHSC has failed to respond to the request within 20 working days and has therefore breached section 10 of the FOIA. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: issue a substantive response, in accordance with the FOIA, to the request.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Department of Health and Social Care
30 Nov 2021Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested from the University of Cambridge (‘the University’) information in the form of peer reviewed academic studies that reached a certain conclusion about persons with a high level of perceptual reasoning. The request was one of three submitted in the same month. The university initially refused the requests as not valid under the FOIA. At review the requests were refused under section 12 (exceeding the fees limit) and section 14 as a “grossly disproportionate burden”. The Commissioner’s decision is that the university was correct to cite section 12. She also finds that the university did not breach section 16(1). The Commissioner does not require the university to take any further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12; FOI 16
View The University of Cambridge
30 Nov 2021Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information with regards to information held by North East Lincolnshire Council (the council) about “provision for future payments to Anglian Water”. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council has, on the balance of probabilities, provided all the information it holds falling within the scope of the request. She also found that the council should have applied section 21 of the FOIA to information that had previously provided to the complainant, and with that, breached section 17(1) of the FOIA in not issuing a refusal notice. The Commissioner also found the council breached section 10(1) of the FOIA as the information was provided outside the required 20 working days following receipt of the request. As the information has been provided, the Commissioner does not require the council to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10; FOI 17
View North East Lincolnshire Council
30 Nov 2021Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information from what was then known as the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, now referred to as the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities [‘the Ministry’] relating to the "standard method of assessing housing need" first proposed in the "Planning for the right homes in the right places: consultation proposals" of September 2017.The Commissioner’s decision is that the Ministry 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.The Commissioner requires the Ministry to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation.Reconsider how it responded to the original request and inform the complainant of the outcome of that reconsideration in accordance with Regulation 11 of the EIR.The Ministry must take these steps within 35 calendar days of th
Exemptions cited: EIR 11
View Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government
30 Nov 2021Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information about a particular freeholder. He asked how many times and how many different flat owners the freeholder had sued. The Ministry of Justice (the ‘MOJ’) neither confirmed nor denied holding the requested information, citing sections 32(3) (court records etc) and 40(5) (personal information) of FOIA. Following an internal review, the MOJ said it was now only relying on section 32(3) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the MOJ has was entitled to rely on section 32(3) of FOIA to neither confirm nor deny holding any information falling within the scope of the request.
Exemptions cited: FOI 32
View Ministry of Justice
30 Nov 2021Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information with regards to a property owned by North East Lincolnshire Council (the council). The council provided the information it held. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council has, on the balance of probabilities, provided all the information it holds falling within the scope of the request. She also found that the council breached section 10(1) of the FOIA as the information was provided outside the required 20 working days following receipt of the request. As the information has been provided, the Commissioner does not require the council to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10
View North East Lincolnshire Council
29 Nov 2021Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from DCMS about the Counter-Disinformation Unit. By the date of this notice, DCMS had not issued a substantive response to this request. The Commissioner’s decision is that DCMS has failed to complete its deliberations on the balance of the public interest within a reasonable time and has therefore breached section 17(3) of the FOIA. The Commissioner requires DCMS to take the following 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. DCMS must take this step within 35 calendar days of the date of this decision notice. Failure to comply may result in the Commissioner making written certification of this fact to the High Court pursuant to section 54 of the Act and may be dealt with as a contempt of court.
Exemptions cited: FOI 17(3)
View Department for Culture, Media and Sport
29 Nov 2021Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to HM Treasury (HMT) seeking copies of the weekly public polling questions conducted by Hanbury Strategy and Communications on behalf of HMT. HMT withheld the information on the basis of sections 35(1)(a) (formulation and development of government policy) and 43(2) (commercial interests) of FOIA. It subsequently argued that if section 35(1)(a) was found not to apply then it would to seek to rely, in the alternative, on section 36(2)(c) (effective conduct of public affairs). The Commissioner’s decision is that the withheld information is exempt from disclosure on the basis of section 43(2) and that in all the circumstances of the request the public interest favours maintaining the exemption.
Exemptions cited: FOI 43
View HM Treasury
29 Nov 2021Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to the Ministry of Defence (MOD) seeking disclosure of UFO reports. The MOD confirmed that it held information falling within the scope of the request, namely information about requests for UFO information processed under FOIA. However, the MOD explained that it considered this information to be exempt from disclosure on the basis of sections 22(1) (information intended for future publication) and 40(2) (personal data) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the MOD can rely on both exemptions to withhold the information falling within the scope of the request.
Exemptions cited: FOI 22; FOI 40
View Ministry of Defence
29 Nov 2021Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from Liverpool City Council (“the Council”) regarding the maintenance logs and call outs covering Roscoe Gardens. By the date of this notice the Council has 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.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Liverpool City Council
26 Nov 2021Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to the admissions process for medicine at Green Templeton College (‘the College’). The College refused to comply with the request, citing section 14(1) (vexatious requests) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the request was vexatious and therefore the College was entitled to rely upon section 14(1) to refuse it. However, in failing to provide its refusal notice to the complainant within twenty calendar days of receiving the request, the College breached section 17(5) (Refusal of request) of the FOIA. The Commissioner does not require the College to take any further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14(1); FOI 17(5)
26 Nov 2021Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested the names of the examiners who examined the then-Miss Tsai Ing-wen (now President of Taiwan) for her PhD and the report from her viva. The Council of the London School of Economics and Political Science denied holding the requested information. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the LSE does not hold the requested information. The Commissioner does not require further steps. First-tier Tribunal (General Regulatory Chamber) Information Rights appeal EA/2021/073 appeal allowed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View London School of Economics and Political Science
26 Nov 2021Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested the Covid-19 action plan and actions taken during January 2020. The Department for Health and Social Care relied on section 12 of the FOIA to refuse the request as it estimated that the cost of complying would exceed the appropriate limit. The Commissioner’s decision is that the DHSC was entitled to rely on section 12 of the FOIA to refuse the request. However, as the DHSC 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.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12; FOI 17
View Department of Health and Social Care
26 Nov 2021Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant made two requests for information which related to the sharing of vehicle data with members of Accredited Trade Associations. The Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency refused both requests as vexatious. The Commissioner’s decision is that the DVLA was entitled to rely on section 14(1) of the FOIA to refuse both requests. The Commissioner does not require further steps. First-tier tribunal (General Regulatory chamber) information rights appeal EA/2021/0383 appeal dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14
View Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency
26 Nov 2021Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested copies of all responses submitted to a consultation. The Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs refused the request as manifestly unreasonable. The Commissioner’s decision is that the request engages Regulation 12(4)(b) of the EIR and that the balance of the public interest favours maintaining the exception. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(b)
26 Nov 2021Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to asbestos at Television Centre 2 including asbestos registers, records related to removal, asbestos surveys and test and details of minutes of meetings relating to the removal of asbestos. The BBC refused the request on the basis it would exceed the cost limit under section 12 of the FOIA to comply. The Commissioner’s decision is that the BBC has correctly refused the request under section 12 but failed to fulfil its obligations under section 16 by providing advice and assistance at the time of the request. The Commissioner now requires the BBC to provide the complainant with advice and assistance to assist in narrowing the request.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12; FOI 16
View BBC
26 Nov 2021Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested the full content of any reports commissioned by Queen Mary University of London in the last three years to examine its own equality, diversity and inclusion practices. The Council of Queen Mary University of London (the University) provided the complainant with a report, but redacted some information contained within the appendices under section 40(2) of the FOIA on the basis that this information is third party personal data and its disclosure would breach data protection law. The Commissioner’s decision is that the University is entitled to withhold this information in accordance with section 40(2) of the FOIA. However, the Commissioner has recorded a procedural breach of section 10 of the FOIA as the University failed to respond to the complainant’s request within the statutory time limits. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps as a result of this decision notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 40(2)
View Queen Mary University of London
25 Nov 2021Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information about maintenance work carried out in a particular area. Hemingbrough Parish Council had failed to issue a substantive response at the date of this notice. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Parish Council has failed to respond to the request within 20 working days and has therefore breached Regulation 5(2) of the Environmental Information Regulations (“the EIR”). The Commissioner requires the Parish Council to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: issue a substantive response, under the EIR, to the request.
Exemptions cited: EIR 5(2)
25 Nov 2021Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested from Department for Communities (“DfC”) information regarding Social Security Appeal stats for 2019/2020. DfC disclosed some information relating to the request but refused to provide the remainder under section 12(1) (cost of compliance exceeds the appropriate limit) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that DfC was entitled to rely on section 12(1) of the FOIA to refuse to comply with the request. DfC had also complied with its duty under section 16 of the FOIA by providing advice and assistance. However, DfC breached sections 1(1)(a) and 10(1) of the FOIA by failing to respond to the request within the 20 working day time for compliance. The Commissioner does not require DfC to take any steps as a result of this decision. First-tier Tribunal (General Regulatory Chamber) Information Rights appeal EA/2021/0375 appeal allowed in part.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1(1)(a); FOI 10(1); FOI 12; FOI 16
25 Nov 2021Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from Cambridgeshire County Council (“the Council”) in relation to various sets of information, including accounts, invoices, missing work orders, and reports. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has appropriately applied the exemption at section 40(2) of the FOIA to withhold the requested information. She also finds that the Council has correctly applied section 43(2) of the FOIA to part of the remaining withheld information, excluding the information detailed below.
The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation.• Disclose the contractors’ day rates
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 40(2); FOI 43(2)
View Cambridgeshire County Council
25 Nov 2021Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
Summary wording for website: 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 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 the LBC to respond to the complainant’s response in accordance with the FOIA. The LBC 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
25 Nov 2021Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from the Chief Constable of Sussex Police (“Sussex Police”) relating to child criminal exploitation. By the date of this notice, Sussex Police had not issued a substantive response to this request.
The Commissioner’s decision is that Sussex Police 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 Sussex Police to take the following step to ensure compliance with the legislation.
Sussex Police must provide a substantive response to the request in accordance with its obligations under the FOIA.
Sussex Police must take this step within 35 calendar days of the date of this decision notice. Failure to comply may result in the Commissioner making written certification of this fact to the High Court pursuant to section 54 of the Act and may be dealt with as a contempt of court.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Sussex Police
25 Nov 2021Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested from the Charity Commission correspondence between the Charity Commission and a charity over a specific period of time. By the date of this notice the Charity Commission had not issued a substantive response to this request.
The Commissioner’s decision is that the Charity Commission 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 Charity Commission to take the following step to ensure compliance with the legislation.
The Charity Commission must provide a substantive response to the request in accordance with its obligations under the FOIA.
The Charity Commission 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 co
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View The Charity Commission
24 Nov 2021Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested from the Ministry of Justice (MOJ) information relating to home working during the COVID 19 pandemic and the deployment of laptops/devices to enable home working during the pandemic. The MOJ refused to comply with the request citing section 12 (cost limits) of the FOIA.
The Commissioner decision is that the MOJ was entitled to refuse to comply with the request in accordance with section 12(1) of the FOIA. She also finds that the MOJ met its obligations under section 16(1) of the FOIA to offer advice and assistance.
The Commissioner does not require the MOJ to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12; FOI 16
View Ministry of Justice
24 Nov 2021Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested from Norfolk and Norwich University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust (“the Trust”) information relating to its spending on services for the deaf and blind. By the date of this notice the Trust had not issued a substantive response to this request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Trust has breached section 10(1) of the FOIA in that it failed to provide a valid response to the request within the statutory time frame of 20 working days.The Commissioner requires the Trust to take the following step to ensure compliance with the legislation.The Trust must provide a substantive response to the request in accordance with its obligations under the FOIA. The Trust must take this step within 35 calendar days of the date of this decision notice. Failure to comply may result in the Commissioner making written certification of this fact to the High Court pursuant to section 54 of the Act and may be dealt with as a contempt of court.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Norfolk and Norwich University Hospitals
24 Nov 2021Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information from St Helens Council (the “Council”) relating to legal action against a named company for failing to adhere to a planning condition. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has failed to respond to the complainant’s request within 20 working days of receipt and has therefore breached regulation 5(2) of the EIR. The Commissioner requires the Council to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation - respond to the complainant’s request in accordance with the EIR.The Council must take these steps within 35 calendar days of the date of this decision notice. Failure to comply may result in the Commissioner making written certification of this fact to the High Court pursuant to section 54 of the FOIA and may be dealt with as a contempt of court.
Exemptions cited: EIR 5(2)
View St Helens Council
24 Nov 2021Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from the University of East London (“the University”) about the Post Qualified Professional Practice Programme. By the date of this notice the University had failed to provide a substantive response to this request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the University 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 University to respond to the complainant’s request in accordance with the FOIA. The University must take these steps within 35 calendar days of the date of this decision notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
24 Nov 2021Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from the Health and Safety Executive (“the HSE”) about fees for intervention. By the date of this notice the HSE had failed to provide a substantive response to this request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the HSE 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 HSE to respond to the complainant’s request in accordance with the FOIA. The HSE must take these steps within 35 calendar days of the date of this decision notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Health and Safety Executive
23 Nov 2021Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from Avon Fire Authority (AFA) about its financial accounting. AFA refused the request as vexatious under section 14(1) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that AFA was entitled to rely on section 14(1) to refuse the request. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2021/0379 dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14
23 Nov 2021Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
In a multi-part request, the complainant requested information from the General Teaching Council Northern Ireland (GTCNI) relating to its Publication Scheme, meetings, minutes of meetings, procedures and its handling of complaints/referrals about teachers. The complainant also requested further, related, information in a subsequent request. GTCNI ultimately provided some information but withheld the remainder citing sections 22 (information intended for future publication), 40(2) (personal information) and 42 (legal professional privilege) of FOIA. The Commissioner investigated its application of sections 22 and 40(2) to the information withheld by virtue of those exemptions. The Commissioner’s decision is that GTCNI correctly withheld information withheld by virtue of section 40(2) but that section 22 is not engaged. She also found procedural errors relating to GTCNI’s overall handling of the requests. The Commissioner requires GTCNI to take the following steps to ensure compliance wi
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 17; FOI 19; FOI 22; FOI 40
View General Consumer Council for Northern Ireland
23 Nov 2021Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant made three separate requests from North Somerset Council (“the council”) for information related to a planning decision. The council aggregated the requests and refused to comply under regulation 12(4)(b) (manifestly unreasonable request) of the EIR. Regulation 12(5)(b) (the course of justice) was also applied to two of the requests. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council was entitled to aggregate the requests and apply regulation 12(4)(b). Having made this decision, the Commissioner did not need to consider the application of regulation 12(5)(b). The council breached regulation 14 by failing to inform the complainant correctly of the grounds of its refusal. The Commissioner does not require any steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(b); EIR 14; EIR 9
View North Somerset Council
23 Nov 2021Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information from Birstall Parish Council, Leicestershire (“the Parish Council”) about trees. The Parish Council provided some information, but stated that it did not hold any information about actions taken or work done. It also withheld information relating to a lease, under regulation 12(5)(b) of the EIR – adversely affect the course of justice – and/or regulation 12(4)(d) of the EIR – material in the course of completion. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Parish Council does not hold the information about actions taken and work done, and correctly withheld the information relating to a lease under regulation 12(5)(b). However, by failing to provide a response under the EIR within 20 working days, it breached regulation 5(2). The Commissioner does not require the Parish Council to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(a); EIR 12(5)(b); EIR 5(2)
23 Nov 2021Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information from Birstall Parish Council, Leicestershire (“the Parish Council”) about the local BMX bike track. The Parish Council provided some information and explanations, and links to documents that were published online. After reconsidering the request under the EIR, at the request of the Commissioner, the Parish Council provided some further information and links, but stated that no information was held in respect of certain parts of the request; it also considered that another part of the request was expressed in too general a manner. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Parish Council holds no information in relation to the relevant parts of the request. However, it did not inform the complainant that it decided that one part of his request was expressed in too general a manner, within 20 working days, nor subsequently offer him any advice and assistance in respect of this; the Parish Council therefore breached regulation 9(2) of the EIR. The Commis
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(a); EIR 9(2)
23 Nov 2021Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested National Highways (NH) to disclose information relating to a claim dating back to 2014. He also requested certain information about all claims above £10,000 since 2014. NH refused to comply with the request in accordance with section 14(1) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that NH is entitled to rely on section 14(1) of FOIA. She therefore does not require any further action to be taken. First-tier Tribunal (General Regulatory Chamber) Information Rights appeal EA/2021/0377 withdrawn.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14
View National Highways
23 Nov 2021Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from Durham County Council (“the Council”) comprising the legal advice given to a councillor on whether they should declare a disclosable pecuniary interest (DPI) at a meeting of Great Aycliffe Town Council. The Council withheld the information under section 42(1) of the FOIA: legal professional privilege. The Commissioner’s decision is that the exemption at section 42(1) of the FOIA is engaged, and that balance of the public interests favours the information being withheld under the exemption. The Commissioner does not require the Council to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 42
View Durham County Council
23 Nov 2021Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information held by Manchester City Council (the council) relating to works carried out on the pavement outside his home. The Commissioner’s decision is that it is likely that, on the balance of probabilities, the council has provided the complainant with all the information that it holds that is relevant to the request. The Commissioner does not require the council to take any steps as a result of this decision notice.
Exemptions cited: EIR 5(1)
View Manchester City Council
23 Nov 2021Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information held by West of England Combined Authority (WECA) relating to plans for six strategic transport schemes in the region. The Commissioner’s decision is that WECA was not correct to rely on section 44 of the FOIA (prohibitions on disclosure) when refusing the request. Furthermore, whilst WECA subsequently cited regulation 12(4)(d) of the EIR (material in the course of completion), it has also failed to demonstrate why this exception is engaged. As WECA failed to initially deal with the request under the EIR, the Commissioner has also found a breach of regulation 14(3) of the EIR. The Commissioner requires WECA to disclose the withheld information set out within paragraph 12 of this decision notice.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(d); EIR 14(3)
View West of England Combined Authority
23 Nov 2021Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information on deaths associated with air pollution. University Hospitals Plymouth NHS Trust (‘the Trust’) has advised that it does not hold the requested information. The Commissioner’s decision is as follows: The Trust does not hold the information the complainant has requested and therefore regulation (12)(4)(a) of the EIR is engaged. The Commissioner does not require the Trust to take any remedial steps. First-tier tribunal (General Regulatory chamber) information rights appeal EA/2021/0352 under appeal.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(a)
View University Hospitals Plymouth NHS Trust
23 Nov 2021Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested correspondence on a particular matter from London Borough of Croydon. At the date of this notice, London Borough of Croydon has not provided a response to the request. The Commissioner’s decision is as follows: London Borough of Croydon 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 take the following step to ensure compliance with the legislation: Provide a response to the complainant’s request of 5 October 2021 that complies with the FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View London Borough of Croydon
23 Nov 2021Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from London Borough of Croydon about its spend on a particular matter. At the date of this notice, London Borough of Croydon has not provided a response to the request. The Commissioner’s decision is as follows: London Borough of Croydon 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 take the following step to ensure compliance with the legislation: Provide a response to the complainant’s request of 16 September 2021 that complies with the FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View London Borough of Croydon
23 Nov 2021Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information about a pre-planning application enquiry received by Selby District Council (‘SDC’). SDC disclosed much of the requested information, with redactions for personal data. SDC withheld email correspondence between the council and the applicant’s agent regarding the enquiry, in its entirety, citing regulation 13(1) (Personal data) of the EIR. The complainant said that personal data could be redacted from the correspondence, which she believed would permit its disclosure. Having excluded the names and contact information in the emails from the scope of the complaint, the Commissioner concluded that the remaining withheld information still comprised personal data. However, she found there is an Article 6 basis for processing and so the disclosure of the information would be lawful. Her decision is therefore that SDC was not entitled to rely on regulation 13(1) of the EIR to withhold the email correspondence. The Commissioner requires SDC disclose the
Exemptions cited: EIR 13(2)