6 Oct 2021Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from the Cabinet Office relating to ethnicity pay gap reporting. By the date of this notice, the Cabinet Office had not issued a substantive response to the request.The Commissioner’s decision is that Cabinet Office has failed complete its deliberations on the balance of the public interest within a reasonable time and has therefore breached section 17(3) of the FOIA.The Commissioner requires the Cabinet Office to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation.Having confirmed that information is held within the scope of the request, either disclose the requested information or, issue a refusal notice in accordance with the requirements of section 17 of the FOIA.The Cabinet Office 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
Exemptions cited: FOI 17(3)
View Cabinet Office
6 Oct 2021Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to 11+ tests provided by the Centre for Evaluating & Monitoring (CEM). The CEM is part of the University of Cambridge. The University refused the request in accordance with section 14 (vexatious requests) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the request was vexatious and the University was therefore entitled to rely upon section 14 to refuse it. The Commissioner requires no further steps. First-tier tribunal (General Regulatory chamber) information rights appeal EA/2021/0302 appeal dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14
View The University of Cambridge
6 Oct 2021Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information relating to a school crossing patrol which is no longer in place. The council initially disclosed some information however the complainant said that this relates to a different crossing patrol. The council argues that no further information is held relating to the specific crossing patrol which the complainant is referring to. During the Commissioner's investigation the council did find one document which falls within the scope of the complainant's request for information which the Commissioner requires it to disclose to the complainant. The Commissioner’s decision is that, other than this document, on a balance of probabilities, the council was correct to apply Regulation 12(4)(a) on the basis that it does not hold any further information which falls within the scope of the complainant's request for information. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: to disclose a c
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(a)
View Cumbria County Council
6 Oct 2021Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) describing a scenario where an accountant is aware that a client failed to submit a tax return and sought any information, policies and guidance HMRC held about such a scenario. HMRC explained that it did not hold any information in the scope of the request. The complainant disputed this position. The Commissioner’s decision is that on the balance of probabilities, HMRC does not hold any recorded information falling within the scope of the request.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
6 Oct 2021Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to .Loan Charge and Loan Charge Settlement statistics. The Commissioner’s decision is that HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) has correctly cited section 12(1) – cost of compliance exceeds the appropriate limit, in response to the request. The Commissioner does not require HMRC to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12
6 Oct 2021Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust (“the Trust”) relating to all surveys submitted by the domestic services department staff.The Commissioner’s decision is that the Trust failed to respond to the requests within 20 working days and therefore breached Section 10 of the Freedom of Information Act (“the FOIA”).
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust
5 Oct 2021Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested correspondence and guidance exchanged with a particular Oxford College. The Charity Commission initially withheld the requested information but, during the Commissioner’s investigation, disclosed some of the information it held. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Charity Commission did not disclose all the non-exempt information it held within 20 working days of receiving the request and therefore breached section 10 of the FOIA. The Commissioner does not require any further steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View The Charity Commission
5 Oct 2021Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (now the Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office) seeking minutes of a meeting between the Foreign Secretary, Dominic Raab, and members of the Hungarian government in autumn 2019. The FCO explained that it did not hold minutes of the meeting but did hold an internal note of the meeting. It provided the complainant with some of the information contained in the note but sought to withhold the remainder on the basis of sections 27(1)(a) (international relations), 35(1)(a) (formulation and development of government policy) and 40(2) (personal data) of FOIA. The Commissioner has concluded that the withheld information is exempt from disclosure on the basis of sections 27(1)(a) and 40(2) of FOIA. However, she has also concluded that the FCO committed breaches of section 10(1) of FOIA by failing to respond to the request within 20 working days and by failing to disclose the information it was prepared to disclos
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 27; FOI 40
View Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office
5 Oct 2021Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO, now part of the Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office, FCDO) seeking information about a ‘Corporate and Programme Effectiveness Team’ set up by the Department for International Development. The FCO explained that it did not hold any information falling within the scope of the request. The complainant argued that the FCO was likely to hold such information. The Commissioner’s decision is that on the balance of probabilities the FCO did not hold any information falling within the scope of the request.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office
5 Oct 2021Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from Greater Manchester Police (“GMP”) about civil cases brought against GMP and the corresponding cost to the tax payer between 2018 and 2019. The Commissioner’s decision is that GMP failed to respond to the request within 20 working days and has therefore breached section 10 of the FOIA. The Commissioner requires GMP 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.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Greater Manchester Police
5 Oct 2021Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested a copy of the post case review report following the death of Caroline Flack. The Crown Prosecution Service (the ‘CPS’) refused to provide the requested information citing section 36(2)(b)(i) of FOIA – the exemption for the free and frank provision of advice. The Commissioner’s decision is that the CPS was entitled to rely on section 36(2)(b)(i) in this case. She also finds that the balance of the public interest favours maintaining section 36. The Commissioner does not require any steps as a result of this notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 36
View Crown Prosecution Service
5 Oct 2021Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from Adderley Primary School (“the School”) about the school’s staff disciplinary policy and procedure.The Commissioner’s decision is that the School 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.The Commissioner requires the School 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. First-tier Tribunal (General Regulatory Chamber) Information Rights appeal EA/2021/0326 Appeal Struck Out.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View GRAVENEY PRIMARY SCHOOL
5 Oct 2021Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to the council’s response statistics to FOI requests. The council initially provided some information and said that other information is available online. When the complainant said he wanted the latter information in hard copy, it applied section 14 and declared the request vexatious. During the course of the Commissioner's investigation, however, it disclosed the information to the complainant in full. The complainant believes that the council has failed to provide him with the information he requested. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council has disclosed the requested information as required by section 1(1) of the FOIA. However, she has also decided that the council failed to comply with the requirements of section 10(1) in that it did not disclose the information to the complainant within 20 working days. The Commissioner does not require the council to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1(1); FOI 10(1)
View Plymouth City Council
5 Oct 2021Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested various information in respect of a report produced by the Wales Animal Health and Welfare Framework Group and published in March 2020 concerning a review of the Animal Welfare (Dog Breeding) (Wales) Regulations 2014. The Welsh Government provided some information but refused to provide information in respect of vets on the basis of section 40(2) (third party personal information) of the FOIA. It further stated that any additional information falling within the scope of the request was not held by the Welsh Government but by a Task and Finish Group. Following the Commissioner’s investigation the Welsh Government conceded that this information was held on its behalf, and whilst it provided redacted copies of some additional information it continued to rely on section 40(2) of the FOIA, and also cited section 38(1)(a) and (b) (health and safety) and section 43 (commercial interests) of the FOIA, to refuse the names of the veterinary practices where the vets who
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10; FOI 38; FOI 40
View Welsh Government
5 Oct 2021Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to any actions, interventions or projects undertaken by the British Museum intended to review any subjects or collections that may have origins in slavery or racism. The Museum confirmed that it held information within the scope of the request, specifically external correspondence received from the public which the museum considered exempt under section 40(2) (personal information) and section 41 (information provided in confidence). The complainant has clarified that they do not wish to receive any external correspondence but did not accept that the museum held no internal communications in relation to the request. The Commissioner is satisfied that, on the balance of probabilities, the Museum does not hold any further information that falls within the scope of the request. The Commissioner does not require the Museum to take any further steps. However, in failing to provide its response to the request within 20 working days the Museu
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10
View British Museum
5 Oct 2021Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information about particular fraud reports and associated fraud charges. Northumbria Police refused to provide the requested information, citing section 12(1) of FOIA (cost of compliance), as to do so would exceed the appropriate cost and time limit. Although Northumbria Police revised its cost estimate during the course of the Commissioner’s investigation and duly informed the complainant, it advised that the reduced estimate still exceeded the cost limit. The Commissioner’s decision is that Northumbria Police is not obliged to comply with the request under section 12(1) of FOIA. She also finds that Northumbria Police complied with its section 16 of FOIA obligations. The Commissioner does not require Northumbria Police to take any steps to ensure compliance with the legislation.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12; FOI 16
View Northumbria Police
5 Oct 2021Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested an areas specific table of scans undertaken for severe headaches listed as migraines. University Hospitals Plymouth NHS Trust (“the Trust”) stated that this information was not held. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the information is not held by the Trust and it has complied with its obligations under section 1(1) of the FOIA. First-tier tribunal (General Regulatory chamber) information rights appeal EA/2021/0281 under appeal.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View University Hospitals Plymouth NHS Trust
5 Oct 2021Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information in relation to the Hampshire Police and Crime Panel. The council refused some of the request on the basis that the request was vexatious and applied section 14. It also said that it did not hold any information in relation to the other parts of the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council was correct to apply section 14 to withhold information in relation to parts 1-3 of the request. She has also decided it was correct to state that it had no information falling within parts 4 and 5 of the request. The Commissioner does not require the council to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 14
View Hampshire County Council
5 Oct 2021Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information that University Hospitals Plymouth NHS Trust (“the Trust”) provided to inform a health study into the proposed site of an incinerator as well as information on yearly case studies on patient admittance by postcode area for a range of different illnesses. The Trust stated this information was not held. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the information is not held by the Trust and it has complied with its obligations under section 1(1) of the FOIA. First-tier tribunal (General Regulatory chamber) information rights appeal EA/2021/0282 under appeal.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View University Hospitals Plymouth NHS Trust
5 Oct 2021Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested details about a counter terrorism meeting held in June 2020. The National Police Chiefs’ Council (the ‘NPCC’) provided some of the requested information with redactions under section 24 (national security), section 31 (law enforcement), section 38 (health and safety) and section 40 (personal information) of FOIA. It also initially withheld a short handwritten note made at the Counter Terrorism Advisory Network (‘CTAN’) meeting in its entirety under the above exemptions. During the course of the Commissioner’s investigation, the NPCC revised its position in relation to part of the request and disclosed the handwritten note in full to the complainant. It said that it considered a video recording of the meeting to be in scope but withheld it under the above exemptions. The NPCC also subsequently disclosed some of the names and specific organisational details of those who had attended/were invited to/were members of the CTAN meeting but withheld the remainder unde
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View National Police Chiefs Council
5 Oct 2021Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information from Guildford Council (“the Council”) about correspondence concerning two planning applications.The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council failed to respond to the request within 20 working days 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: Issue a substantive response to the request in accordance with its obligations under the EIR.
Exemptions cited: EIR 5(2)
View Guildford Borough Council
4 Oct 2021Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested a range of information from Norfolk and Norwich University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust (the ‘Trust’) about deaths at the Trust from Covid 19. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Trust breached section 10(1) of the FOIA by failing to provide a valid response to the request within the statutory time frame of 20 working days. As a response has been issued, no steps are required.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Norfolk and Norwich University Hospitals
4 Oct 2021Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
1. The complainant requested information from the ICO about correspondence it has had with the Centre for Information Policy Leadership (CIPL) since 1 January 2021. 2. 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.3. As a response has been issued, the Commissioner does not require the ICO to take any further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Information Commissioner
4 Oct 2021Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested various information about ”Project Habitance”, “Project Habitance II” and “Project Inhabitance”. Gwent Police refused to confirm or deny whether it held information falling within the scope of the request on the basis of sections 23(5) (security bodies), 27(4)(a) & (b) (international relations), 30(3) (investigations), 31(3) (law enforcement) and section 40(5) (personal information). The Commissioner’s decision is that Gwent Police was entitled to rely on section 23(5) to neither confirm nor deny whether or not it holds the requested information. The Commissioner does not require any steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 23
View Gwent Police
4 Oct 2021Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested Queen Mary University of London (the University) to disclose copies of weekly associated dean meetings from April 2020 to the date of her request and, also, data relating to medical school student placements, and correspondence with a named individual. The University refused to disclose the meeting minutes, citing sections 36(2)(b)(i) and (ii) and 36(2)(c) (prejudice the effective conduct of public affairs) and refused to comply with the remainder of the request, citing section 12 of the FOIA (cost limit). The Commissioner’s decision is that the University is entitled to rely on section 12 of the FOIA in this case. With regards to section 36(2)(c) of the FOIA, the Commissioner is satisfied that this exemption is engaged and the public interest in favour of disclosure is outweighed by the public interest in favour of maintaining the exemption. The Commissioner does not require any further action to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12; FOI 36(2)(c)
View Queen Mary University of London
4 Oct 2021Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information concerning Waheed Saleem and the honours system. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Cabinet Office has appropriately applied section 21(1), information accessible by other means, section 40(2), personal information and section 37(1)(b), the conferring by the crown of any honour or dignity, with the public interest favouring maintaining the exemption. The Cabinet Office failed to issue its refusal notice to the complainant within the necessary timescale and has therefore breached sections 10(1) and 17(1) of the FOIA. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps to ensure compliance with the legislation.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 17; FOI 21; FOI 37; FOI 40
View Cabinet Office
1 Oct 2021Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested a copy of a document commissioned by Mid Devon District Council (the council) which sets out details of the estimated costs of a planned housing development. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council was not correct to rely on section 43(2) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the FOIA) when withholding the requested information, but is entitled to rely on regulation 12(5)(e) (confidentiality of commercial or industrial information) of the EIR. However, by failing to deal with the request under the EIR, the Commissioner has found that the council has breached regulation 14(3) of the EIR. Furthermore, as the council failed to provide its internal review response within the required 40 days, it has also breached regulation 11(4) of the EIR. 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/2021/0293 appeal dismissed.
Exemptions cited: EIR 11(4); EIR 12(5)(e); EIR 14(3)
View Mid Devon District Council
1 Oct 2021Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant wrote to the public authority seeking an explanation of the comments made by an official in an email that had been disclosed pursuant to a freedom of information request. The public authority considers that the complainant did not make a valid request for information under the FOIA. The Commissioner concluded that save for the last part of the request, the complainant’s request does not constitute a valid request for information under the FOIA. Furthermore, on the balance of probabilities, the public authority does not hold recorded information matching the complainant’s request in any event.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 8
30 Sep 2021Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested from the Home Office a copy of a report issued by the Advisory Council for the Misuse of Drugs (ACMD) and an explanation why it was not published. He also asked for a note of a particular meeting he believed had been held to discuss the appointment of certain members to the ACMD. The Home Office refused the request, citing the exemption at section 35(1)(a) (Formulation of government policy) of the FOIA. It said that it did not hold recorded information on why the report was not published. It subsequently withdrew its reliance on section 35(1)(a) to withhold the meeting note, and said it would disclose that information. However, to date it has not done so. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Home Office was entitled to rely on section 35(1)(a) to withhold the report issued by the ACMD. She is also satisfied that it does not hold recorded information on why the report was not published. However, by failing to disclose the meeting note, which it had conce
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10; FOI 17; FOI 35
View Home Office
30 Sep 2021Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council (“the Council”) about faculties between the Council and St James’ Church.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. No steps are required.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council
30 Sep 2021Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from the Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC) relating to a meeting between Matt Hancock and Bridgemere and Circle Group concerning the NHS use of private sector capacity.The Commissioner’s decision is that the DHSC 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.The DHSC 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: FOI 10
View Department of Health and Social Care
30 Sep 2021Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council (“the Council”) relating to correspondence exchanged between the Council’s Legal Services and Anston Parish Council.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. No steps are required.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council
30 Sep 2021Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about the number of former students that completed the Certificate of Higher Education for subjects allied to Life Sciences (certificate of HE) and then entered directly on to the second year of a degree course at other institutions. Birbeck – University of London (the university) denied holding the requested information. The Commissioner’s decision is that on the balance of probabilities the requested information is not held. The Commissioner does not require any steps to be taken as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
29 Sep 2021Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested details of external parties who had been consulted about specific sections of non-statutory government guidance on the development of Relationships, Sex and Health Education curricula. The Department for Education denied holding any information within the scope of the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that on the balance of probabilities, the DfE holds no information within the scope of the request. However, as the DfE failed to inform the complainant, within 20 working days, that it held no information within the scope of the request, the DfE breached section 10 of the FOIA. The Commissioner does not require further steps. First-tier tribunal (General Regulatory chamber) information rights appeal EA/2021/0316 appeal dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10
View Department for Education
29 Sep 2021Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to works carried out by South Lakeland District Council (the Council) to her daughter-in-law’s property. The Council did not comply with the request, citing section 14(1) of the FOIA.The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has not demonstrated that the request was vexatious and was therefore not entitled to rely on section 14(1) to refuse it. The Commissioner required the Council to issue a fresh response to the request which does not rely upon section 14(1). Information Tribunal appeal EA/2021/0115 (Formerly QJ/2021/0009) Appeal Allowed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14(1)
View South Holland District Council
29 Sep 2021Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information from Cambridgeshire County Council (“the Council”) about parking restrictions. The Council handled the request under the EIR and provided some information. It advised the complainant that some of the information he had requested was not held, and the remainder was exempt from disclosure under regulation 13(1) of the EIR: personal data. The Commissioner’s decision is that the requested information fell within the definition of environmental information at regulation 2(1)(c) of the EIR. She has further determined that some of the requested information is not held by the Council, and that the remainder comprises the personal data of third parties. Since there is no lawful basis to disclose the personal data, the Council correctly stated that it was exempt under regulation 13(1). The Commissioner does not require the Council to take any steps. First-tier Tribunal (General Regulatory Chamber) Information Rights appeal EA/2021/0319 withdrawn.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(a); EIR 13(1)
View Cambridgeshire County Council
29 Sep 2021Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested all correspondence between the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) and Ofcom in relation to Laughlines Limited. The BBC confirmed that it does not hold any information that falls within the scope of this request. The Commissioner is satisfied that, on the balance of probabilities, the BBC does not hold any information that falls within the scope of this request. The Commissioner does not require the BBC 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 BBC
28 Sep 2021Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to the Desistance and Disengagement Programme. The Home Office refused to provide the requested information citing section 36(2)(c) (prejudice to effective conduct of public affairs), section 40(2) (personal information) and section 24(1) (national security) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Home Office was entitled to rely on sections 36(2) and 40(2) to withhold the requested information. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken as a result of this decision. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2021/0279 appeal dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 36; FOI 40
View Home Office
28 Sep 2021Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information regarding zero hours contracts. Reading Brough Council initially refused the request on the basis of section 14. This position was revised during the course of the investigation and the information was provided. The Commissioner’s decision is that Reading Borough Council failed to respond to the request for information within 20 working days and has therefore breached section 10 of the FOIA. The Commissioner does not require any steps as the information has been provided.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Reading Borough Council
28 Sep 2021Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information about demolition work at a particular site. Having originally withheld all the relevant information it holds, the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) has now disclosed some of the information. HSE has advised it does not hold some of the requested information. It has withheld the personal data of third persons and has withheld the remainder of the information under regulation 12(5)(b) of the EIR (course of justice), regulation 12(5)(a)(public safety) and regulation 12(4)(b) (manifestly unreasonable request). HSE considers the public interest favours maintaining these exceptions. The complainant considers that HSE holds further information within scope of her request and that the information withheld under regulation 12(5)(b) should be disclosed. The Commissioner’s decision is as follows: HSE holds information within the scope of part [1] of the request and has therefore breached regulation 5(1) and regulation 5(2) of the EIR in respect of that pa
Exemptions cited: EIR 11; EIR 12(5)(b); EIR 5
View Health and Safety Executive
28 Sep 2021Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to procurement. North East Procurement Organisation (NEPO) confirmed that it did not hold the information. The Commissioner’s decision is that NEPO has correctly confirmed that it does not hold the requested information and complied with section 1(1). The Commissioner does not require NEPO to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1(1)
28 Sep 2021Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information with regards to hearing loss. The Isle of Wight Council (the council) provided its response but the complainant believed that it had not complied with section 16 of the FOIA – Advice and Assistance. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council has complied with section 16 of the FOIA and conformed to the section 45 Code of Practice. The Commissioner does not require the council to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 16
View Isle of Wight Council
27 Sep 2021Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested the cost to the Home Office of chartering individual flights for the purposes of deporting and/or administratively removing people from the UK. The Home Office refused to provide the requested information, citing section 43(2) (commercial interests) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Home Office failed to demonstrate why the exemption is engaged and is therefore not entitled to rely on the exemption. The Commissioner requires the Home Office to take the following step to ensure compliance with the legislation: disclose the requested information, as provided to the Commissioner during the course of her investigation, to the complainant. First-tier Tribunal (General Regulatory Chamber) Information Rights appeal EA/2021/0342 withdrawn.
Exemptions cited: FOI 43
View Home Office
27 Sep 2021Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from the Home Office relating to the e-mail inboxes of four specified individuals. The Home Office refused to disclose the requested information, citing section 12(1) of the FOIA as a basis for non-disclosure.The Commissioner’s decision is that the Home Office has correctly applied section 12(1) of the FOIA to the requested information. The Commissioner however finds the public authority in breach of section 16(1) FOIA (duty to advise and assist applicants). The Commissioner requires the Home Office to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation:-• the Home Office should consider whether it can comply with a narrower version of the request e.g. searching the inbox of one of the individuals for e-mails encompassing a shorter time period and attempting to filter out standard terms which would be included in emails such as press briefings. It should discuss this with the complainant further to its duty under section 16(1) of
Exemptions cited: FOI 12; FOI 16
View Home Office
27 Sep 2021Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from Central Bedfordshire Council (“the Council”) relating to two specific planning applications. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has failed to carry out a reconsideration of a response it provided, under the Environmental Information Regulations (“the EIR”), within 40 working days and has therefore breached Regulation 11 of the EIR.
Exemptions cited: FOI 11
View Central Bedfordshire Council
27 Sep 2021Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested from the City of York Council, information regarding the resignation of a councillor from a Scrutiny Committee. The council denied that the requested information was held. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the City of York Council does not hold the requested information. The Commissioner does not require any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View York City Council
27 Sep 2021Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about a staffing committee of the council. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, Dunchurch Parish Council is not withholding any information in scope of the request. However she finds that it contravened its obligations under section 10 of the FOIA in failing to respond to part of the request within 20 working days. The Commissioner does not require any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10
27 Sep 2021Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from the Department for Education (“the DfE”) about email correspondence regarding the “One Britain One Nation Day” initiative.The Commissioner’s decision is that the DfE failed to respond to the request within 20 working days and has therefore breached section 10 of the FOIA.The Commissioner requires the DfE 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.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Department for Education
27 Sep 2021Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to ‘stop and search’ activities. Bedfordshire Police provided some information but refused to provide the remainder, citing sections 24 (national security) and 31 (law enforcement) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that Bedfordshire Police has failed to demonstrate that either exemption is engaged. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: disclose the requested information in scope of parts (1) and (2) of the request.
Exemptions cited: FOI 24; FOI 31
View Bedfordshire Police
27 Sep 2021Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to Bristol City Council (‘the Council’) for the name and contact details of the authorising officer of Special Education Needs funding for Bristol residents. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council failed to respond to the request within 20 working days and has therefore breached section 10 of the FOIA. As a response has been issued, the Commissioner does not require the trust to take any further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10
View Bristol City Council