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
10 Nov 2021Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to complaints of sexual misconduct about a named individual. The Commissioner’s decision is that Gloucestershire Constabulary (the Constabulary) correctly applied section 40(5)(B) FOIA in its initial response to neither confirm nor deny NCND) that it held information within the scope of the request. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps as a result of this decision notice. First-tier Tribunal (General Regulatory Chamber) Information Rights appeal EA/2021/0355 appeal dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View Gloucestershire Constabulary
9 Nov 2021Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information Oxford University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust (“the Trust”) relating to the emergency assessment unit at John Radcliffe Hospital. 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 Oxford University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust
9 Nov 2021Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from the ICO relating to correspondence between the ICO and DCMS about the new Data Sharing Code. The Commissioner’s decision is that the ICO 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 Information Commissioner
9 Nov 2021Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from the London Borough of Barking and Dagenham (“the Council”) relating to a controlled parking zone. 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 Barking and Dagenham Council
8 Nov 2021Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to Executive Team expenses claims. The ICO has confirmed that some of the requested information is exempt under section 21 FOIA as it is already reasonably accessible and some information is exempt from disclosure under section 40(2) FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that section 21 and 40(2) FOIA were applied correctly to the withheld information. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken. First-tier tribunal (General Regulatory chamber) information rights appeal EA/2021/0361 appeal dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 21; FOI 40
View Information Commissioner
8 Nov 2021Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from the Ministry of Defence (MOD) about a British Army regiment in Northern Ireland. By the date of this notice the MOD had not issued a substantive response to this request. The Commissioner’s decision is that MOD 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 MOD 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 MOD must take this step within 35 calendar days of the date of this decision notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 17(3)
View Ministry of Defence
8 Nov 2021Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested all of the telephone numbers of the Information Rights Team at the Home Office. The Home Office withheld the requested information under section 40(2) FOIA.The Commissioner’s decision is that the Home Office correctly withheld the information under section 40(2) FOIA.The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken. First-tier Tribunal (General Regulatory Chamber) Information Rights appeal EA/2021/0364 appeal struck out.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40(2)
View Home Office
5 Nov 2021Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from the Home Office regarding the assessment of relaxing Section 60 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act Stop and Search Scheme. By the date of this notice the Home Office has not issued a substantive response to this request.
The Commissioner’s decision is that the Home Office 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 Home Office
5 Nov 2021Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information concerning area regeneration proposals being considered by London Borough of Barnet.
The Commissioner’s decision is that London Borough of Barnet has correctly relied on regulations 13 and 12(5)(e) of the Environmental Information Regulations 2004 to withhold some of the requested information from the complainant. Information Tribunal FTT appeal UA-2022-001392-GIA dismissed.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(e); EIR 13
View Barnet Council
5 Nov 2021Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested from Department for Work and Pensions (“DWP”) information relating to a report on an investigation concerning an employee of the Home Office. DWP refused to confirm or deny whether it held the requested information and relied on section 40(5) (personal information) of the FOIA.
The Commissioner’s decision is that DWP is entitled to rely on section 40(5B)(a)(i) of the FOIA to refuse to confirm or deny that it holds the information requested. Therefore, the Commissioner does not require DWP to take any steps as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View Department for Work and Pensions
4 Nov 2021Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to an investigation arising from criticisms made in the course of an Employment Tribunal. The MoJ confirmed it held information within the scope of the request but refused to disclose it, citing sections 38 (health and safety), 40(2) (personal information), 41(1) (information provided in confidence) and 42 (legal professional privilege) of FOIA. The Commissioner investigated the MoJ’s application of section 40(2) to the withheld information. The Commissioner’s decision is that the information is exempt from disclosure on the basis of section 40(2) of FOIA. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View Ministry of Justice
4 Nov 2021Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant made multiple requests to the Metropolitan Police Service (the “MPS”), for information held in its Counter Terrorism Internet Referral Unit (CTIRU) dedicated database. The MPS initially found the requested information to be exempt by virtue of sections 23(5) (Information supplied by, or relating to, bodies dealing with security matters), 24(1) (National security), 30(1)(a) (Investigations and proceedings), 31(1)(a) (Law enforcement) and 44(1)(a) (Prohibitions on disclosure) of the FOIA. During the Commissioner’s investigation this was revised and the MPS found the requests to be vexatious under section 14(1) (Vexatious or repeated requests) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the MPS was entitled to find the requests to be vexatious. No steps are required.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14
View Metropolitan Police Service
4 Nov 2021Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information from Amber Valley Council (“the Council”) regarding an image that has been provided in relation to a complaint about their property. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has correctly applied Regulation 13 – personal data, of the EIR. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any further steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 13
View Amber Valley Borough Council
3 Nov 2021Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested a copy of a named Crown Court’s “Goldfax” logs showing transmissions received between 23 and 25 September 2020 and relating to a named claim. The Ministry of Justice said that it did not hold the requested information. The Commissioner decided that, on the balance of probabilities, the Ministry of Justice does not hold the requested information. However, she found that the Ministry of Justice breached section 10(1) (Time for compliance) FOIA by failing to communicate this to the complainant within the statutory timescale. The Commissioner does not require the Ministry of Justice to take any steps to comply with the legislation. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2021/0354 dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10
View Ministry of Justice
3 Nov 2021Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information associated with the National Lottery and National Lottery terminals. The Gambling Commission released information relevant to two parts of the request, advised it does not hold information within scope of four parts and withheld information within scope of the remaining two parts under section 43(2) of the FOIA (commercial interests). The Commissioner’s decision is as follows: On the balance of probabilities, the Gambling Commission does not hold the information the complainant has requested in parts 2, 3, 6 and 7 of the request and has complied with section 1(1)(a) of the FOIA. The Gambling Commission is entitled to withhold the information requested in parts 5 and 8 of the request under section 43(2) of the FOIA. Disclosing this information would be likely to prejudice another person’s commercial interests and the public interest favours maintaining the exemption. There was no breach of section 16(1) of the FOIA (advice and assistance) in the
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 16; FOI 43
View Gambling Commission
3 Nov 2021Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested from the London Borough of Croydon (“the Council”) information relating to specific properties. 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
3 Nov 2021Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information about the SLA between North East Combined Authority (“NECA”) and TT2 that relates to the Tyne Pass Initiative. By the date of this notice NECA had not issued a substantive response to this request. The Commissioner’s decision is that NECA 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 NECA to take the following step to ensure compliance with the legislation.• NECA must provide a substantive response to the request in accordance with its obligations under the FOIA. NECA 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 North East Mayoral Combined Authority
3 Nov 2021Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested the Driver & Vehicle Licensing Agency (DVLA) to disclose the information it holds relating to two meetings it held on 10 April and 20 June 2019 with the Road Haulage Association with regards to medicals. The DVLA responded, disclosing the recorded information it holds. The complainant disputed that the DVLA had identified and disclosed all relevant recorded information. During the Commissioner’s investigation further recorded information was identified and disclosed to the complainant. For this late disclosure, the Commissioner has found the DVLA in breach of section 1 and 10 of FOIA. The Commissioner is satisfied that on the balance of probabilities all recorded information held falling within the scope of the complainant’s request has now been identified and disclosed. She does not therefore require any further action to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency
3 Nov 2021Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested partially redacted copies of the P60s of several named councillors. South Tyneside Council (STC) confirmed that it held the information but said it was exempt from disclosure under section 40(2) (Personal information) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that STC was entitled to rely on section 40(2) of the FOIA to refuse the request. However, she found procedural breaches of section 1(1)(a) (General right of access), section 10 (Time for compliance) and section 17 (Refusal of request).
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10; FOI 17; FOI 40
View South Tyneside Council
3 Nov 2021Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to weight management services within St Helens. The St Helens Clinical Commissioning Group (‘the CCG’) confirmed that it does not hold any further information that falls within the scope of the request, other than that which it has already been disclosed. The Commissioner is satisfied that, on the balance of probabilities, the CCG does not hold any further information that falls within the scope of the request. The Commissioner does not require the CCG to take any further steps as she is satisfied that this request has been dealt with in line with section 1(1) (General right of access to information held by public authorities) of the FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View St Helens Clinical Commissioning Group
3 Nov 2021Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested emails and attachments that include mention of the ‘Kent’ variant of Covid-19. The Commissioner’s decision is that Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) has correctly cited section 12 FOIA – cost of compliance exceeds the appropriate limit, in response to the request. The Commissioner does not require BEIS to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12
View Department for Business and Trade
3 Nov 2021Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information about a ground maintenance contract awarded to a landscaping company.The Commissioner’s decision is that Whitchurch Town Council (“the Council”) has failed to respond to the request within 20 working days and has therefore breached Regulation 5(2) of the Environment Information Regulations (EIR). The Commissioner requires the public authority to issue a substantive response to the request in accordance with the EIR and within 35 calendar days of the date of this notice.
Exemptions cited: EIR 5(2)
2 Nov 2021Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information from High Speed Two (HS2) about the number and location of saplings it intended to plant in the winter of 2020/21. HS2 responded by providing the numbers and location by county but refused to provide more specific sites. The information it did not provide was withheld under regulation 12(5)(a) – public safety. Later, it also cited regulations 12(5)(b)(adversely affect the course of justice) and 12(5)(g) – (protection of the environment). The Commissioner’s decision is that none of the exceptions cited are engaged. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: Disclose the information that was withheld and was provided to the Commissioner under the heading ‘Data’. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2021/0356 FTT appeal allowed in part.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(a); EIR 12(5)(b); EIR 12(5)(g)
View High Speed Two (HS2) Limited
2 Nov 2021Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information from London Borough of Hackney (“the Council”) about the number of councillors living in low traffic neighbourhoods. 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 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: EIR 5(2)
View London Borough of Hackney
2 Nov 2021Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information with regards to a development. Hertfordshire County Council (the council) provided information it held but refused some under regulation 12(5)(e) of the EIR - confidentiality of commercial or industrial information. The Commissioner’s decision is that regulation 12(5)(e) of the EIR is engaged. The Commissioner does not require the council to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(e)
View Hertfordshire County Council
2 Nov 2021Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information from London Borough of Redbridge (“the Council”) about its response to concerns by residents about speeding traffic on Hollybush Hill. 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 Redbridge Council
2 Nov 2021Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a multi part request for information about recorded complaints made against West Midlands Police (WMP). WMP responded to each part of the request. The complainant disputed WMP’s response to one point, arguing that WMP holds information which it had not disclosed in response to his request. The Commissioner’s decision is that WMP complied with the duty under section 1(1) (General right of access) of the FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View West Midlands Police
1 Nov 2021Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to an officer of the council’s employment records, council policy and procedures. Whitchurch Town Council withheld some information under section 40(2) of the FOIA (personal information). The Commissioner’s decision is that Whitchurch Town Council was entitled to rely on section 40(2) to withhold the information. The Commissioner does not require any steps. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2021/0104 appeal struck out.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40(2)
1 Nov 2021Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested the results of a 2020 staff survey. East of England Ambulance Service NHS Trust (‘the Trust’) has withheld the information under FOIA section 41(1) (information provided in confidence), sections 36(2)(b) and 36(2)(c) (prejudice to effective conduct of public affairs), section 40(2)(personal data) and section 38(1) (health and safety). The Commissioner’s decision is as follows: The Trust correctly applied section 41(1) to the requested information as it is information provided in confidence. The Commissioner does not require the Trust to take any remedial steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 41
View East of England Ambulance Service NHS Trust
1 Nov 2021Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to any amendments made to the sponsorship agreement for the BP Portrait Award. The National Portrait Gallery (‘the gallery’) refused to disclose the requested information citing section 43(2) (commercial interests) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that section 43(2) does not apply to all of the information that the gallery is withholding. The Commissioner therefore requires the public authority to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: To disclose the information which does not engage the exemption provided by section 43(2). This information is identified in a confidential annex which has been provided solely to the gallery. The gallery 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
Exemptions cited: FOI 43(2)
View National Portrait Gallery
1 Nov 2021Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from Norfolk and Norwich University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust (“the Trust”) relating to the number deaths from COVID-19. 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
1 Nov 2021Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information about the number of appointments made by the Financial Conduct Authority (the ‘FCA’) where the appointment was not advertised. By the date of this notice, the FCA had not issued a substantive response to this request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the FCA 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 FCA to take the following step to ensure compliance with the legislation - the FCA must provide a substantive response to the request in accordance with its obligations under the FOIA. The FCA must take this step within 35 calendar days of the date of this decision notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Financial Conduct Authority
1 Nov 2021Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information about a performance management framework which offers pay progression to caseworkers. By the date of this notice the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman (the PHSO) had not issued a substantive response to this request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the PHSO 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 PHSO to take the following step to ensure compliance with the legislation.• The PHSO must provide a substantive response to the request in accordance with its obligations under the FOIA. The PHSO 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 The Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman
1 Nov 2021Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information from London Borough of Redbridge (“the Council”) about its response to concerns by residents about traffic on Nightingale Lane. 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 Redbridge Council
1 Nov 2021Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested minutes of a meeting that the Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs (‘DEFRA’) held relating to the England Peat Strategy. DEFRA refused to provide the information citing regulation 12(4)(e) (internal communications) of the EIR as its basis for doing so. The Commissioner’s decision is that DEFRA was entitled to rely upon regulation 12(4)(e) as a basis for refusing to disclose the information and that the public interest favoured maintaining the exemption. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take no steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(e)
29 Oct 2021Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information relating to emission data from 2015 to 2020 from Plymouth City Council (the council). The council initially applied Regulation 12(4)(b) to refuse the request (manifestly unreasonable requests). However, during the course of the Commissioner's investigation the council reconsidered its position and disclosed the information to the complainant. The complainant, however, believes that not all of the information has been disclosed to him. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on a balance of probabilities, no further information is held falling within the scope of the complainant's request for information. She has, however, decided that the council did not comply with the requirements of Regulation 5(2) in that it did not disclose the information which it did hold to the complainant within 20 working days of the receipt of his request. The Commissioner does not require the council to take any steps. First-tier tribunal (General Regulatory chamber) i
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(a); EIR 5(2)
View Plymouth City Council
29 Oct 2021Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested from Norfolk and Norwich University Hospital NHS Foundation Trust (“the Trust”) information relating to the cost of installing a rainbow pavement. 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
29 Oct 2021Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information relating to Davenport Energy from Waste Facility in Plymouth. Plymouth City Council (the council) initially declared the request vexatious. However, on review it provided some information and said that other information is not held. The complainant believes that more information is held, that some of the information which was disclosed is inaccurate, and that the council has not responded to all of his requests and questions. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council has not complied with the requirements of Regulation 5(1) in that it has not responded to some sections of the complainant’s request for information. She has also decided that the council did not comply with Regulation 5(2) in that it did not provide this information within 20 working days after the date of receipt of the request. However, she also finds that the council was correct to apply Regulation 6(1) to refuse to provide information in response to some of the requests in t
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(a); EIR 5(2); EIR 6(1)
View Plymouth City Council
29 Oct 2021Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information from Birmingham City Council (“the Council”) about visits to wards by new mobile waste and recycling wagons. 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 Birmingham City Council
29 Oct 2021Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information, including legal advice sought and received by East Kent Hospitals University NHS Foundation Trust (“the Trust”) in relation to allegations made against the complainant. The Trust confirmed all information had previously been provided with the exception of legal advice which was being withheld under section 42(1) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the information withheld by the Trust is subject to legal professional privilege and engages the section 42(1) exemption. The Commissioner finds that the public interest favours maintaining the exemption and withholding the information.
Exemptions cited: FOI 42
View East Kent Hospitals University NHS Foundation Trust
29 Oct 2021Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information relating to emissions and authorisations relating to an Energy from Waste facility (an EfW). The council refused some parts of the request on the basis that Regulation 12(4)(b) applied (manifestly unreasonable) and refused other parts on the basis that the information is not held (Regulation 12(4)(a)). The Commissioner’s decision is that the council was correct to apply Regulation 12(4)(b) to the information. She has also decided that the council is correct to apply Regulation 12(4)(a) on the basis that no further information is held by it. The Commissioner does not require the council to take any steps. First-tier tribunal (General Regulatory chamber) information rights appeal EA/2021/0324 appeal struck out. Information Tribunal UT UA-2023-001938-GIA & UA-2023-001943-GIA PTA refused.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(a); EIR 12(4)(b)
View Plymouth City Council
29 Oct 2021Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from the Governing Body of Stranmillis University College (“the University”) relating to the University’s career’s department assisting companies recruit current and former students. By the date of this notice, the University had not provided a substantive response to the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the University has failed to respond to the request within 20 working days and has therefore breached section 10 of the FOIA.The Commissioner requires the University to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation.Issue a substantive response to the request in accordance with its obligations under the FOIA. The University 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 Stranmillis University College
29 Oct 2021Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant request information from Nottinghamshire Police about domestic abuse procedures documents. By the date of this notice Nottinghamshire Police had failed to provide a substantive response to this request. The Commissioner’s decision is that Nottinghamshire 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 Nottinghamshire Police to respond to the complainant’s request in accordance with the FOIA. Nottinghamshire Police must take these steps within 35 calendar days of the date of this decision notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10(1)
View Nottinghamshire Police
28 Oct 2021Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information NHS England about the allocation of tickets to the FA Cup semi-final and Carabao Cup final for London based NHS staff. By the date of this notice NHS England had failed to provide a substantive response to this request. The Commissioner’s decision is that NHS England has breached section 10(1) of the FOIA in that it failed to provide a valid response to the request within the statutory time frame of 20 working days. The Commissioner requires NHS England to respond to the complainant’s request in accordance with the FOIA. NHS England must take these steps within 35 calendar days of the date of this decision notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View NHS England
28 Oct 2021Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested from West Suffolk Council information relating to the identity of an individual who made the initial referral for a Tree Preservation Order that was subsequently made by the Council. The Council withheld the requested information under section 40(2) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000. The Commissioner subsequently identified that the information is environmental, and that the Council should therefore have cited regulation 13 (personal data) of the Environmental Information Regulations 2004. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council was entitled to withhold the requested information under regulation 13. The Commissioner does not require the Council to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 13
View West Suffolk Council
28 Oct 2021Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from the NHS Commissioning Board (“NHS England”) relating to the effectiveness of the National Genomic Information System within the NHS. The Commissioner’s decision is that NHS England failed to respond to the request within 20 working days and therefore breached Section 10 of the Freedom of Information Act (“the FOIA”).
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View NHS England
28 Oct 2021Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information from Devon County Council relating to any allegations made against a business that they are associated with. The Council refused to confirm or deny if information was held under section 40(5B) (third party personal information) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that any information held by the Council that fell within the scope of the request would be the complainant’s personal data. The Council was therefore correct to neither confirm nor deny whether the requested information was held, but should have applied section 40(5A) (personal information of the requestor). The Commissioner does not require the Council to take any steps as a result of this decision notice. First-tier Tribunal (General Regulatory Chamber) Information Rights appeal EA/2021/0349 under appeal.
Exemptions cited: EIR 5(2); FOI 40(5)
View Devon County Council
28 Oct 2021Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested the names of external examiners and an evaluation report associated with particular courses of study. The Board of Governors of Staffordshire University relied on section 40(2) of the FOIA (third party personal data) to withhold the names of the external examiners and sections 36 (prejudice to the effective conduct of public affairs) and 43 (commercial interests) of the FOIA to withhold the report. The Commissioner’s decision is that the report engages section 36(2)(b)(ii) of the FOIA and that the public interest favours maintaining the exemption. Whilst she accepts that the identities of external examiners are their personal data, she considers that there is a lawful basis for processing this data and therefore the University is not entitled to rely on section 40(2) of the FOIA to withhold the information. The Commissioner requires the University to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: disclose, to the complainant, the list of e
Exemptions cited: FOI 36; FOI 40
28 Oct 2021Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information Oxford University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust (“the Trust”) about staff redeployed due to Covid during the period March 2020 to date and other related information. 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 Oxford University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust