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
22 Nov 2021Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested details of certain types of complaints. Oxford, Cambridge and RSA Examinations Ltd relied on section 12(1) of the FOIA (cost exceeds appropriate limit) to refuse the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that OCR has reasonably estimated that the cost of complying with the request would exceed the appropriate limit. It was therefore entitled to rely on section 12 of the FOIA to refuse the request. However, the Commissioner does not consider that OCR complied with its section 16 duty to provide advice and assistance. The Commissioner does not require further steps to be taken. First-tier Tribunal (General Regulatory Chamber) Information Rights appeal EA/2021/0374 appeal dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12; FOI 16
22 Nov 2021Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to the number of days Professor Whitty, Chief Medical Officer (CMO) and Professor Jonathan Van-Tam (DCMO) worked in their offices. The Commissioner’s decision is that Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC) correctly applied section 38(1) FOIA – health and safety, to withhold parts 2 and 3 of the requested information. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps as a result of this decision notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 38
View Department of Health and Social Care
22 Nov 2021Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from the Department of Health and Social Care (“the DHSC”) about Hospital Safety Index evaluation reports. By the date of this notice the DHSC had not issued a substantive response to this request.
The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council 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 Council to take the following step to ensure compliance with the legislation: The Council must provide a substantive response to the request in accordance with its obligations under the FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Department of Health and Social Care
22 Nov 2021Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested the first two of 32 files relating to the ‘Spycatcher’/Peter Wright case between 1986 and 1987. The Cabinet Office withheld the information requested under section 22(1) (information intended for future publication) and section 23(1)(information supplied by, or relating to, bodies dealing with security matters) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000.
The Commissioner has concluded that the Cabinet Office was entitled to withhold the information requested under section 23(1) of the Act.
No steps are required.
Exemptions cited: FOI 23
View Cabinet Office
22 Nov 2021Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainants asked the HM Courts and Tribunals Service of the Ministry of Justice whether any County Courts in England were allowed: to NOT comply with the Judiciary and Functions of Staffing Act 2018 and NOT to comply with the Civil Courts Rules, Procedures and Directives. The Ministry of Justice decided that the request was vexatious and refused to comply with it. In corresponding at length with the Ministry of Justice, the complainants alleged wrongdoing by specified officers at a named County Court, and questioned the legality of the Court’s decisions. The purpose of section 14(1) FOIA is to protect public authorities and their employees from unreasonable demands in their everyday business. Having reviewed the evidence provided, and taking into account that a broad approach should be taken, the Commissioner found that the request was an unjustified and improper use of FOIA and was vexatious. Accordingly, the Commissioner decided that the Ministry of Justice were not obliged to
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 14
View Ministry of Justice
22 Nov 2021Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information from Shropshire Council (“the Council”) about documentation relating to the commissioning of a contractor for consultancy services regarding a planning application. 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 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.
Exemptions cited: EIR 5(2)
View Shropshire Council
22 Nov 2021Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested the call logs for calls made and received by the Chief Executive of Coventry City Council on specified days. The council withheld some information on the basis of section 40(2) (personal information), and denied holding some information. The Commissioner’s decision is that Coventry City Council were correct to withhold some information on the basis of section 40 and that, on the balance of probabilities, the council is not holding any further information in scope of the request. The Commissioner does not require any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 40
View Coventry City Council
22 Nov 2021Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested from Middlewich Town Council information relating to the appointment of a Deputy Community Mayor. The Council withheld part of the requested information under section 40(2) (personal information) of the FOIA, and stated that all remaining information had been disclosed. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council was entitled to withhold part of the requested information under section 40(2), and that all remaining information has been disclosed. The Commissioner does not require the Council to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 40
19 Nov 2021Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from Hertfordshire Constabulary (“the Constabulary”) regarding injury awards pursuant to the Police (Injury Benefit) Regulations 2006. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Constabulary was entitled to apply section 12 of the FOIA – exceeds appropriate limit, and that it has complied with the requirement of section 16 of the FOIA – advice and assistance. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any further steps. First-tier Tribunal (General Regulatory Chamber) Information Rights appeal EA/2021/0345 appeal dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12; FOI 16
View Hertfordshire Constabulary
18 Nov 2021Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information from the London Borough of Croydon (“the Council”) relating to a specific planning application. 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 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 dealt with as a contempt of court.
Exemptions cited: EIR 5(2)
View London Borough of Croydon
18 Nov 2021Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information from the London Borough of Croydon (“the Council”) relating to a specific planning application. 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 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 dealt with as a contempt of court.
Exemptions cited: EIR 5(2)
View London Borough of Croydon
18 Nov 2021Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information from the London Borough of Croydon (“the Council”) relating to a developments flood risk assessment and drainage proposals. 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 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 dealt with as a contempt of court.
Exemptions cited: EIR 5(2)
View London Borough of Croydon
18 Nov 2021Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested details of expenses relating to Operation Eustace. The Commissioner’s decision is that Northumbria Police and Crime Commissioner (PCC) has failed to respond to the request for information within 20 working days and has therefore breached section 10(1) (time for compliance with the request) of the FOIA. The Commissioner requires the PCC to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: issue a response, in accordance with its obligations under the FOIA, to the request.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
18 Nov 2021Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from the Chief Constable of Essex Police (“Essex Police”) relating to employees training on mental health and Essex Police’s powers under the Mental Health Act 1983 (MHA). 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
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Essex Police
18 Nov 2021Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested documentary evidence forwarded to Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council (the Council) by a third party. By the date of this notice the Council had not issued a substantive response to this request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has breached section 10(1) of the FOIA in that it failed to provide a valid response to the request within the statutory time frame of 20 working days.The Commissioner requires the Council to take the following step to ensure compliance with the legislation.• The Council must provide a substantive response to the request in accordance with its obligations under the FOIA. The Council must take this step within 35 calendar days of the date of this decision notice. Failure to comply may result in the Commissioner making written certification of this fact to the High Court pursuant to section 54 of the Act and may be dealt with as a contempt of court. First-tier Tribunal (General Regulatory Chamber) Information Rights appe
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Sandwell Council
17 Nov 2021Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from the University of Central Lancashire (“the University”) regarding graduation ceremony programmes for engineering disciplines from 1997 and 1998. The Commissioner’s decision is that the University has appropriately applied the exemption at section 40(2) of the FOIA to withhold the requested information. The Commissioner does not require the University to take any steps. First-tier tribunal (General Regulatory chamber) information rights appeal EA/2022/0025 appeal dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40(2)
17 Nov 2021Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from the London Borough of Croydon (“the Council”) relating to waste collection from a specific road. By the date of this notice the Council had not issued a substantive response to this request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has breached section 10(1) of the FOIA in that it failed to provide a valid response to the request within the statutory time frame of 20 working days.The Commissioner requires the Council to take the following step to ensure compliance with the legislation.The Council must provide a substantive response to the request in accordance with its obligations under the FOIA. The Council must take this step within 35 calendar days of the date of this decision notice. Failure to comply may result in the Commissioner making written certification of this fact to the High Court pursuant to section 54 of the Act and may be dealt with as a contempt of court.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View London Borough of Croydon
17 Nov 2021Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information from Maker with Rame Parish Council, Cornwall (“the Council”) about decision-making in relation to a planning application, and in relation to its dealings with him as an individual. The Commissioner’s decision is that some parts of the request fell to be considered under the EIR, and some parts under the FOIA. The Council failed to respond to any part of the request within 20 working days, and was therefore in breach of regulation 5(2) of the EIR and section 10 of the FOIA. As a response has now been issued, the Commissioner does not require any steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: EIR 5(2); FOI 10
17 Nov 2021Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from Maker with Rame Parish Council (“the Council”) about its decision-making process in relation to its dealings with unreasonable customers and persistent complainers. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council failed to respond to the request within 20 working days, and was therefore in breach of regulation section 10 of the FOIA. As a response has now been issued, the Commissioner does not require any steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
17 Nov 2021Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to the contract of employment for a named individual. Staffordshire Police refused to comply with the request, citing section 14(1) (vexatious request) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that Staffordshire Police was entitled to rely on section 14(1) to refuse the request. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14
View Staffordshire Police
17 Nov 2021Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information from Maker with Rame Parish Council (“the Council”) about its decision-making processes, with regard to a planning application. The Commissioner’s decision is that request fell to be considered under the EIR. The Council failed to respond to the requests within 20 working days, and was therefore in breach of regulation 5(2) of the EIR. As a response has now been issued, the Commissioner does not require any steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: EIR 5(2)
17 Nov 2021Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information on the increase in the base rate for Universal Credit and the decision not to raise particular legacy benefits in line with this increase. The Commissioner’s decision is that although the exemptions at FOIA section 35(1)(a) Formulation of government policy and section 42(1) Legal professional privilege are engaged, the public interest favours disclosing the requested information. The Commissioner also finds that DWP breached FOIA section 10(1) by not providing its response within 20 working days. The Commissioner requires the public authority to disclose the information requested at the third point of the complainant’s request. 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. First-tier Tribunal (General
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 35; FOI 42
View Department for Work and Pensions
17 Nov 2021Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
In an eight part request, the complainant has requested a variety of information from Midlands Partnership NHS Foundation Trust (‘the Trust’), broadly about particular staffing arrangements. The Trust has addressed the majority of the questions and advised that it holds no information within scope of question 1 and parts of question 8. The complainant considers the Trust holds information relevant to question 1. The Commissioner’s decision is as follows: On the balance of probabilities, the Trust does not hold information within scope of question 1 and has complied with section 1(1)(a) of the FOIA. The Trust breached section 10(1) as it did not comply with section 1(1) promptly, and within 20 working days.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10
View Midlands Partnership University NHS Foundation Trust
17 Nov 2021Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from the London Borough of Redbridge (“the Council”) relating to the cleaning of drains on two specific roads. By the date of this notice the Council had not issued a substantive response to this request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has breached section 10(1) of the FOIA in that it failed to provide a valid response to the request within the statutory time frame of 20 working days.The Commissioner requires the Council to take the following step to ensure compliance with the legislation.The Council must provide a substantive response to the request in accordance with its obligations under the FOIA. The Council must take this step within 35 calendar days of the date of this decision notice. Failure to comply may result in the Commissioner making written certification of this fact to the High Court pursuant to section 54 of the Act and may be dealt with as a contempt of court.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Redbridge Council
16 Nov 2021Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested details of suppliers who bid for contracts with the Department of Health and Social Care through the so-called “VIP lane.” The National Audit Office (“the NAO”) denied holding information within the scope of most of the request. It withheld the remaining information and relied on section 33 of the FOIA (prejudice to audit function) in order to do so. The Commissioner’s decision is that the NAO is entitled to rely on section 33 of the FOIA and that the balance of the public interest favours maintaining the exemption. The Commissioner does not require further steps to be taken. First-tier Tribunal (General Regulatory Chamber) Information Rights appeal EA/2021/0366 withdrawn.
Exemptions cited: FOI 33
View NI Audit Office
16 Nov 2021Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested from Withernwick Parish Council information relating to training undertaken by the Clerk and Councillors. The Council denied that the requested information was held. 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
16 Nov 2021Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested copies of scientific evidence relating to a public statement on vaccines. The Department of Health and Social Care had failed to respond to the request at the date of this notice. 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 DHSC to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: issue a substantive response, under the FOIA, to the request.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Department of Health and Social Care
16 Nov 2021Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information acquired during the course of an independent review. NHS Improvement disclosed some information but variously relied on section 36 (prejudice to the effective conduct of public affairs), section 40 (third party personal data) and section 41 (actionable breach of confidence) of the FOIA to withhold the requested information. The Commissioner’s decision is that almost all of the material within the scope of the request is covered by either section 40(2) of the FOIA, section 41(1) of the FOIA, or both exemptions. However, for reasons explained below, the Commissioner would have made more substantive redactions than NHSI made. For reasons that are expanded upon below, the Commissioner does not require NHSI to take further steps in respect of this complaint. However, she has made comments in Other Matters which NHSI should have regard to when dealing with future, similar, complaints.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40; FOI 41
View NHS England
16 Nov 2021Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
Summary wording for website: The complainant requested information from Southend-on-Sea Borough Council relating to the percentage of enquiries actioned by the Highways Department. By the date of this notice Southend-on-Sea Borough Council had failed to provide a substantive response to this request. The Commissioner’s decision is that Southend-on-Sea Borough Council has breached section 10(1) of the FOIA in that it failed to provide a valid response to the request within the statuary timeframe of 20 working days. The Commissioner requires Southend-on-Sea Borough Council to respond to the complainant’s response in accordance with the FOIA. Southend-on-Sea Borough Council must take these steps within 35 calendar days of the date of this decision notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Southend-on-Sea City Council
15 Nov 2021Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested the submissions and underlying evidence and statistics submitted by government departments in response to a ‘Call for Evidence’ relating to Judicial Review Reform. The Ministry of Justice (the ‘MOJ’) provided the complainant with the web link to the publicly available submissions. For the remaining withheld submissions, the MOJ said that some information contained in these departmental submissions had been incorporated into a summary document which the MOJ had published in April 2021, However, it withheld the exact detail of those unpublished submissions by virtue of section 36(2)(a)(i) (the exemption for the maintenance of the convention of the collective responsibility of Ministers of the Crown). During the latter stage of the Commissioner’s investigation, the MOJ revised its position and cited section 36(2)(c) (prejudice to the effective conduct of public affairs) in relation to the submissions in their entirety. It highlighted those parts of the submis
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 36
View Ministry of Justice
15 Nov 2021Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested various information in relation to planning application 0/44248 ‘ Hafotty Ucha Wind Farm Repowering’ from Conwy County Borough Council (the Council). The Council provided some information, but withheld one document in reliance on section 42 (legal professional privilege) of the FOIA. During the course of the Commissioner’s investigation, the Council disclosed the remaining document, however the complainant was not satisfied that all information falling within the scope of her request had been identified. Although the Council should have considered this request under the EIR, the Commissioner’s decision is that it has now complied with the requirements of regulation 5(1) (making information available on request) in that it identified all the information it held falling within the scope of the request. However, in failing to provide the information within the timescales stipulated the Council has breached regulation 5(2) EIR.
Exemptions cited: EIR 5(1); EIR 5(2)
View Conwy County Borough Council
15 Nov 2021Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information about companies providing or potentially providing Refuse Derived Fuel (RDF) and/or Solid Recovered Fuel (SRF) services. Cumbria Waste Management Ltd (CWM) refused the request, withholding the information under the exception for commercial confidentiality (regulation 12(5)(e)). The Commissioner’s decision is that CWM initially failed to deal with the request under the EIR and breached regulation 5(1) and regulation 14(1) but that it correctly withheld the requested information under regulation 12(5)(e).
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(e); EIR 14(1); EIR 5(1)
15 Nov 2021Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to a free school presumption competition. The Department for Education provided some information and relied on section 36 (effective conduct of public affairs) and section 43 of the FOIA (commercial interests) to withhold the remainder. The Commissioner’s decision is that sections 36(2)(b)(i) and 36(2)(b)(ii) are engaged, but only in respect of some of the withheld information. However, where they are engaged, the balance of the public interest favours maintaining the exemption. The remaining withheld information engages both section 36(2)(c) and section 43(2) of the FOIA, but the Commissioner finds that the balance of the public interest only favours maintaining section 43(2). As the DfE failed to complete its public interest considerations within a reasonable timeframe, it breached sections 10(3) and 17(3) of the FOIA respectively. The Commissioner does not require further steps. First-tier Tribunal (General Regulatory Chamber) Infor
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 17; FOI 36; FOI 43
View Department for Education
15 Nov 2021Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
Summary wording for website:
1. The complainant requested information from Surrey Heath Borough Council (the Council), relating to a specific address.2. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council correctly applied section 40 and section 41 to the unredacted documents.3. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken as a result of the decision.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40; FOI 41
View Surrey Heath Borough Council
15 Nov 2021Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested copies of two pandemic briefing papers and any correspondence between the Head of Emergency, Preparedness, Resilience and Response and the Department of Health and Social Care and the Chief Medical Officer in the three months following the submission of these papers to the Chief Medical Officer. NHSE disclosed the papers to the complainant but stated that no correspondence in the scope of the request was held. The Commissioner’s decision is that NHSE has conducted appropriate searches to identify relevant information but that no information in scope of the request is held. She therefore finds, on balance, that NHSE has complied with its obligations under section 1(1) of the FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View NHS England
15 Nov 2021Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested a range of information associated with COVID-19 and personal protective equipment. Yeovil District Hospital NHS Foundation Trust (‘the Trust’) has refused to comply with the request under section 12(1) of the FOIA (cost exceeds the appropriate limit). The Commissioner’s decision is as follows: The Trust is entitled to refuse to comply with the request under section 12(1) of the FOIA but it contravened its obligation under section 16(1) of the FOIA to provide adequate advice and assistance to the complainant. The Commissioner requires the Trust to take the following step to ensure compliance with the legislation: Offer the complainant advice and assistance on how he might refine his request to bring compliance within the cost limit.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12; FOI 16
View Yeovil District Hospital NHS Foundation Trust
12 Nov 2021Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to the Gambling Commission’s (‘GC’) decision to grant Bet Index Limited, trading as Football Index, a gambling license. The GC refused to disclose the requested information citing section 31(1)(g) (law enforcement) by virtue of section 31(2)(d) of the 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 take the following steps: disclose the requested information with all personal information redacted in accordance with section 40 (personal information) of the FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 31
View Gambling Commission
12 Nov 2021Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information held by Cherwell District Council (the council) relating to a building control application for a particular housing development. The Commissioner’s decision is that regulation 5(3) of the EIR applies to certain parts of the request, as it is the complainant’s own personal data. With regard to the remaining parts of the request, the Commissioner is satisfied that, on the balance of probabilities, the council has provided the complainant with all the information that it holds. However, as some of the information was only provided to the complainant after the intervention of the Commissioner, and not within the required 20 working days, the council has breached regulation 5(2) of the EIR.
Exemptions cited: EIR 5(1); EIR 5(2); EIR 5(3)
View Cherwell District Council
11 Nov 2021Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to an incident report held by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE). The HSE relied on sections 30(1) (investigations and proceedings conducted by public authorities) and 40(2) (third party personal data) of the FOIA to withhold the requested information. The Commissioner’s decision is that the HSE is entitled to rely on section 40(2) of the FOIA to withhold the third party personal data contained within the withheld information. The Commissioner has also decided that the remaining withheld information is exempt from disclosure under section 30(1) of the FOIA, and that the public interest favours maintaining the exemption. However, the Commissioner has recorded a procedural breach of section 17 of the FOIA, as the HSE failed to issue the complainant with a refusal notice within the statutory time limits. The Commissioner does not require any steps to be taken as a result of the decision notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 17; FOI 30; FOI 40(2)
View Health and Safety Executive
11 Nov 2021Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information about noise modelling in the Radstone area. High Speed Two Limited (‘HS2 Ltd’) released some information and withheld the remainder under regulation 12(4)(d) of the EIR (material in the course of completion). HS2 Ltd subsequently advised that it considers some of the withheld information also engages regulation 12(5)(e) (confidentiality of commercial or industrial information) and regulation 13 (personal data). The Commissioner’s decision is as follows: The information being withheld under only regulation 12(4)(d) of the EIR engages that exception but the public interest favours disclosure. The Commissioner requires HS2 Ltd to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: Disclose the withheld information having first redacted from it the information categorised as commercially sensitive information under regulation 12(5)(e), and personal data as appropriate.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(d)
View High Speed Two (HS2) Limited
11 Nov 2021Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested details underlying the consideration of enforcement action against a particular energy company. The Office of Gas and Electricity Markets provided some information but relied on Regulation 12(4)(e) (internal communications) and Regulation 12(5)(b) (course of justice) of the EIR to withhold the remainder. The Commissioner’s decision is that Ofgem is entitled to rely on Regulation 12(5)(b) and that the balance of the public interest favours maintaining the exception. The Commissioner does not require further steps. First-tier Tribunal (General Regulatory Chamber) Information Rights appeal EA/2021/0363 appeal dismissed.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(b)
View Office of Gas and Electricity Markets
11 Nov 2021Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested a copy of a submission provided by a public authority in response to a complaint he had made. The Information Commissioner (“the ICO”) withheld the requested information as it considered that disclosure would contravene section 132 of the Data Protection Act 2018 and therefore section 44 of the FOIA (statutory prohibition on disclosure) would apply. The Commissioner’s decision is that the ICO is entitled to rely on section 44 of the FOIA to withhold the requested information. However, as the ICO’s refusal notice was not issued within 20 working days and failed to state that it was relying on section 44 of the FOIA to withhold information, the ICO breached section 17 of the FOIA. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 17; FOI 44
View Information Commissioner
11 Nov 2021Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested from Irby Upon Humber Parish Council (“the Council”) information relating to meetings held by the Council. By the date of this notice the Council had not issued a substantive response to the request.
The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has breached section 10(1) of the FOIA in that it failed to provide a valid response to the request within the statutory time frame of 20 working days.
The Commissioner requires the Council to take the following step to ensure compliance with the legislation.
The Council must provide a substantive response to the request in accordance with its obligations under the FOIA.
The Council must take this step within 35 calendar days of the date of this decision notice. Failure to comply may result in the Commissioner making written certification of this fact to the High Court pursuant to section 54 of the Act and may be dealt with as a contempt of court.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
11 Nov 2021Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from Calderdale Metropolitan Borough Council (“the Council”), regarding business plans that were submitted to it by The Piece Hall Trust, on how it plans to run The Piece Hall. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council incorrectly cited sections 40(2) – personal data and 43(2) – commercial interest, of the FOIA. It should have cited section 1 of the FOIA – information not held. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Calderdale Council
11 Nov 2021Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from the London Borough of Redbridge (“the Council”) relating to wheelie bins. By the date of this notice, the Council had not provided a response to the requests.
The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has failed to respond to the requests within 20 working days and has therefore breached section 10 of the FOIA.
The Commissioner requires the Council to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation.
The Council must issue a substantive response to the requests in accordance with its obligations under the FOIA.
The Council must take these steps within 35 calendar days of the date of this decision notice. Failure to comply may result in the Commissioner making written certification of this fact to the High Court pursuant to section 54 of the Act and may be dealt with as a contempt of court.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Redbridge Council
10 Nov 2021Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information from West Midlands Combined Authority (WMCA) relating to the development of a specific site.
The Commissioner’s decision is that the WMCA 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 WMCA 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.
WMCA 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: EIR 11
View West Midlands Combined Authority
10 Nov 2021Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested certain information relating to village greens held by Warwickshire County Council (the council). The Commissioner’s decision is that the council is correct to consider the complainant’s representations as three separate requests for information. She is also satisfied that, aside from one small set of information recently identified, the council has, on the balance of probabilities, provided the complainant with all the information it holds that is relevant to the three requests. However, by failing to respond to Request 1, Request 2 and Request 3 within the statutory timescales, the Commissioner has found that the council has breached regulation 5(2) of the EIR. The Commissioner requires the council to release the small set of additional information it recently identified as being relevant to Request 1, if it has not already done so.
Exemptions cited: EIR 5
View Warwickshire County Council
10 Nov 2021Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from the Health and Safety Executive (“the HSE”) about open circuit PEN conductor faults. 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
10 Nov 2021Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested copies of the exceptional use authorisations for two Covid-19 testing kits. The Medicines & Healthcare products Regulatory Agency refused to provide this information as it considered that the Enterprise Act 2002 prevented it from doing so. It therefore relied on section 44 of the FOIA (statutory prohibition on disclosure) to withhold the information. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Enterprise Act only prohibits disclosure of a small quantity of the requested information. The MHRA is therefore entitled to rely on section 44 of the FOIA to withhold most of the information. The Commissioner requires the MHRA to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: disclose copies of both letters that have been withheld, with the exception of: The quoted text in italics at the end of the first paragraph beginning after the words “The reasons for application cited”; The name and address of the recipient of the letter; The sender’s name
Exemptions cited: FOI 44
View Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency