2 Sep 2021Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested the scoring and assessment notes from his company’s bid for a tender. Black Country and West Birmingham Clinical Commissioning Group withheld the requested information and relied on section 43(2) of the FOIA to withhold the requested information. The Commissioner’s decision is that the CCG has failed to demonstrate why the exemption is engaged in the circumstances of this case and is therefore not entitled to rely on the exemption. The Commissioner requires the CCG to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: disclose, to the complainant, a copy of the withheld information.
Exemptions cited: FOI 43
2 Sep 2021Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested City, University of London (City) to disclose details of any and all awards made by City in any higher education framework other than FHEQ (Frameworks for Higher Education Qualifications). City answered some of the questions but for the remainder advised the complainant that it does not hold the requested information. The Commissioner’s decision is that on the balance of probabilities City does not hold the requested information. She has however found City in breach of section 10 of the FOIA, as it failed to provide a response to all elements of the request within 20 working days of receipt. The Commissioner does not require any further action to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10
View City of London
2 Sep 2021Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested emails sent and received by the Chief Medical Officer, during March 2020, that contain the phrase ‘herd immunity’. This includes attachments. The Commissioner’s decision is that DHSC has failed to demonstrate on what grounds section 14(1) is engaged and therefore is not entitled to rely on the exemption.The Commissioner requires the DHSC to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: Issue a fresh response to the request which does not rely upon section 14(1).
Exemptions cited: FOI 14
View Department of Health and Social Care
1 Sep 2021Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from the Council about information held on parking applications for two roads in their local area. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council failed to respond to the request within 20 working days and therefore breached Section 10(1) of the Freedom of Information Act (“the FOIA”). As a response has been issued, the Commissioner does not require the Council to take any further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Chelmsford City Council
26 Aug 2021Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to the Emergency Active Travel Fund. Surrey County Council (the Council) provided some information within the scope of the request. The complainant considered that further information should be held, namely information within the scope of parts (3) and (5) of the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council holds information falling within the scope of parts (3) and (5) of the request, which it has not sought to exempt from disclosure and which it has not disclosed. It has therefore breached section 1(1)(b) and section 10 of the FOIA. However, she is satisfied that, on the balance of probabilities the Council does not hold any further information within the scope of those parts of the request. The Commissioner requires the Council to take the following step to ensure compliance with the legislation: disclose, to the complainant, the spreadsheet provided to the Commissioner during the course of her investigation.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10
View Surrey County Council
26 Aug 2021Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to several job roles. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Public Health England (PHE) has failed to demonstrate on what grounds section 14(1) is engaged and therefore is not entitled to rely on the exception. The Commissioner requires PHE to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation:Issue a fresh response to the request which does not rely upon section 14(1). The public authority must take these steps within 35 calendar days of the date of this decision notice. Failure to comply may result in the Commissioner making written certification of this fact to the High Court pursuant to section 54 of the Act and may be dealt with as a contempt of court.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14(1)
View UK Health Security Agency
26 Aug 2021Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from Kirklees Council (“the Council”) relating to a Public Spaces Protection Order (PSPO) permit scheme. 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.A response has subsequently been provided and no steps are required.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Kirklees Metropolitan Council
26 Aug 2021Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) LGBT hate crime schools resource pack, launched in January 2020 and subsequently withdrawn following a threat of legal action. The CPS refused to provide the requested information by virtue of section 36(2)(b)(ii) (prejudice to effective conduct of public affairs) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that section 36(2)(b)(ii) is engaged and that the balance of the public interest lies in maintaining the exemption. However, the Commissioner found procedural breaches of sections 10(1) (time for compliance), 17(1) and 17(3) (refusal notices) of the FOIA. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken as a result of this decision. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2021/0249 appeal dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 17; FOI 36
View Crown Prosecution Service
25 Aug 2021Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from BEIS about specific correspondence. BEIS says it is not obliged to comply with the request under section 12 of the FOIA, as it would exceed the appropriate cost and time limit to do so. The Commissioner’s decision is that BEIS is not obliged to comply with the request under section 12 and is satisfied that BEIS met its obligations under section 16 to offer advice and assistance. The Commissioner does not require BEIS to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12
View Department for Business and Trade
25 Aug 2021Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to an annual self-assessment for specialised vascular surgical services. The Commissioner’s decision is that University Hospitals of Derby and Burton NHS Foundation Trust (the Trust), on the balance of probabilities, does not hold any further information within the scope of the request. The Commissioner does not require public authority to take any action as a result of this decision notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View University Hospitals of Derby and Burton NHS Foundation Trust
25 Aug 2021Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested copies of ministerial submissions about a farm payment appeal. The Rural Payments Agency disclosed some information, but withheld one paragraph. It relied on Regulation 12(4)(e) of the EIR (internal communications) as its basis for doing so. The Commissioner’s decision is that Regulation 12(4)(e) of the EIR is engaged in respect of this request, but that the public interest favours disclosure. As the RPA did not comply with the statutory time limits for either issuing a response or completing an internal review (reconsideration), it breached Regulations 5(2) and 11(4) of the EIR respectively. The Commissioner requires the RPA to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: disclose, to the complainant, a copy of the withheld information.
Exemptions cited: EIR 11; EIR 12(4)(e); EIR 5(2)
View Rural Payments Agency
24 Aug 2021Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant submitted an information request to the British Indian Ocean Territory (BIOT) Administrator, who stated that BIOT was not a public authority under the EIR. The complainant maintained that the BIOT Administrator was acting on behalf of the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (the FCDO). The Commissioner’s decision is that the BIOT Administrator is not part of the FCDO, nor does he act on the FCDO’s behalf. Consequently a request made to the BIOT Administrator is not made to the FCDO for the purposes of the EIR. The Commissioner does not require any steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: EIR 2
View Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office
24 Aug 2021Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about the decision to de-classify COVID-19 as a High Consequence Infectious Disease. Public Health England (“PHE”), provided some information but withheld the remainder, relying on section 36 of the FOIA (prejudice to the effective conduct of public affairs) to do so. The Commissioner’s decision is that PHE is not entitled to rely on section 36 in respect of two out of the three documents it has withheld. Where PHE is entitled to rely on section 36, the public interest favours maintaining the exemption. PHE also breached both section 10 and section 17 of the FOIA in responding to the request. The Commissioner requires PHE to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: disclose, to the complainant, the documents it has identified to the Commissioner as Annex B and C respectively.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 17; FOI 36
View UK Health Security Agency
24 Aug 2021Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has made a request to Derbyshire County Council for recorded information regarding a Traffic Regulation Order (“TRO”), being the original map from Schedule 2 of that TRO.The Commissioner’s decision is that the council is entitled to rely on Regulation 12(4)(b) of the EIR as the basis for not complying with the complainant’s request. The Commissioner considers the complainant’s request to be manifestly unreasonable on the grounds that complying with it would far exceed the appropriate limit. Furthermore the Commissioner is satisfied that the council is not withholding any other information that is in scope of the request. The Commissioner does not require any steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(b); EIR 5(1)
View Derbyshire County Council
24 Aug 2021Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
1. The complainant has requested information regarding Armagh City Banbridge and Craigavon Borough Council’s (“the Council”) decision not to revoke planning permission relating to a specified piece of land. The Council applied regulation 12(4)(a) to the requested information.2. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council does not hold the requested information and that therefore regulation 12(4)(a) has been correctly applied.3. The Commissioner’s decision is also that the Council has not complied with regulation 14 of the EIR.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(a); EIR 14
24 Aug 2021Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information with regards to an allotment society. Southend-on-Sea Borough Council (the council) responded to part of the request, but refused to provide the names of the committee members of the allotment society under section 40(2) of the FOIA as it considered it to be third party personal data. The Commissioner’s decision is that section 40(2) of the FOIA is engaged. The Commissioner does not require the council to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View Southend-on-Sea City Council
24 Aug 2021Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information about meetings and discussions concerning the establishment of the Windrush Cross-Government Working Group. The Home Office initially refused the request in its entirety, citing section 35(1)(a) (formulation of government policy, etc) of FOIA. During the course of the Commissioner’s investigation, the Home Office partly revised its position. Whilst the Home Office maintained that section 35(1)(a) applied to the request in its entirety, it cited additional exemptions which it said applied to some parts of the withheld information; namely, section 35(1)(b) (ministerial communications) for one letter, section 38 (health and safety) and section 40(2) (personal information). The Home Office also said that in the event that the Commissioner were to find that section 35(1)(a) is not engaged to any information, or section 35(1)(b) to one Ministerial letter, it would seek to rely on section 36 (prejudice to effective conduct of public affairs) ‘in the alter
Exemptions cited: FOI 35; FOI 36
View Home Office
24 Aug 2021Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information about the existence of procedures relating to specified criminal proceedings. The MOJ initially failed to respond to the request. When the MOJ provided its response, it said that the request had not been considered under FOIA because it was not for recorded information. However, the MOJ provided some information “outside the Act”. The Commissioner has considered whether the request was valid for the purposes of section 8 of FOIA (request for information). The Commissioner’s decision is that the request was valid for the purposes of section 8 of FOIA and, therefore, she finds that the MOJ should have handled it under FOIA. As the MOJ has failed to respond to a valid request within the 20 working days’ statutory timescale required by FOIA, it has also breached sections 1 and 10 of FOIA. Given that the MOJ has already provided the requested information, the Commissioner does not require the MOJ to take any steps to ensure compliance with the legislati
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10; FOI 8
View Ministry of Justice
24 Aug 2021Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about the contract and payments for an interim Chief Executive from Sheffield City Council (the “Council”). The Council provided some information but refused to provide the remainder citing sections 40(2) (Personal information) and 43(2) (Commercial interests). The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council was entitled to rely on both exemptions. No steps are required.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40; FOI 43
View Sheffield City Council
23 Aug 2021Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested copies of structural reports on Hammersmith Bridge. The Commissioner’s decision is that Transport for London (‘TfL’) is entitled to rely upon section 14 (1) (vexatious requests) of the FOIA to refuse the request. However, in applying section 14(1) outside the time for compliance, the Council has breached section 17. The Commissioner requires no further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14
View Transport for London
23 Aug 2021Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested from the Metropolitan Police Service (the “MPS”) information about the disciplinary records of a named former police officer. The Commissioner’s decision is that the MPS is entitled to rely on section 40(5) to refuse to confirm or deny that it holds the information. The Commissioner does not require the MPS to take any further steps. First-tier tribunal (General Regulatory chamber) information rights appeal EA/2021/0273 appeal dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40(5)
View Metropolitan Police Service
23 Aug 2021Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested statistics relating to deprivation of British nationality pursuant to section 40(2) of the British Nationality Act 1981 (“BNA”) from the Home Office. The Home Office refused to provide the requested information citing sections 22 (Information intended for future publication), 36(2)(c) (Prejudice to effective conduct of public affairs), 40(2) (Personal information) and 23(1) (Information supplied by, or relating to, bodies dealing with security matters) / 24(1)(National security) in the alternative. The Commissioner is satisfied that the withheld information is exempt from disclosure on the basis of sections 22 and 23(1) or, in the alternative, section 24(1) of the FOIA. No steps are required. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2021/0268 appeal dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 22; FOI 23; FOI 24
View Home Office
23 Aug 2021Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from Cambridgeshire Constabulary (“the Constabulary”), in relation to footways and unlawful use of e-scooters. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Constabulary is entitled to rely on section 12(1) of the FOIA. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any further steps to ensure compliance with the legislation.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 12(1); FOI 16
View Cambridgeshire Constabulary
23 Aug 2021Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested from Longstock Parish Council (“the Council”) information relating to a complaint made to the Council by a named individual. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council 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 the Council to take any steps as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40(5)(b)(a)(i)
23 Aug 2021Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested from Hambleton District Council information relating to a loan it had made to Broadacres Housing Association. The Council withheld the requested information under section 41(1)(1) (information provided in confidence) and section 43(2) (commercial interests) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council was not entitled to withhold the requested information under section 41(1) or section 43(2). The Commissioner requires the Council to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: Disclose the withheld information, subject to any necessary redactions of personal data.
Exemptions cited: FOI 41(1); FOI 43(2)
20 Aug 2021Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested some correspondence from Hart District Council (“the Council”) relating to Dogmersfield Parish Council. The Council withheld the information under section 36(2) of the FOIA: prejudicial to the effective conduct of public affairs. The Commissioner’s decision is that the requested information comprises the personal data of the complainant, as explained in this notice. She has, therefore, used her discretion to consider the exemption at section 40(1) of the FOIA, and finds that the information is exempt. She does not require the Council to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40(1)
View Hart District Council
20 Aug 2021Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested the application for University status submitted by Writtle University College (“the College”). The College initially refused the request on the basis of section 43(2) of the FOIA before later amending its position to refuse the request under section 14(1). The Commissioner’s decision is that the College has demonstrated there would be a considerable burden on it in responding to the request and the Commissioner accepts the request has been correctly refused under section 14(1) of the FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14
View Writtle University College
19 Aug 2021Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information relating to wind turbine noise complainants. Huntingdonshire District Council confirmed that it did not hold the requested information. The Commissioner’s decision is that Huntingdonshire District Council correctly confirmed that it does not hold the requested information and that it complied with regulation 5(1) of the EIR. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps. First-tier tribunal (General Regulatory chamber) information rights appeal EA/2021/0250 appeal allowed.
Exemptions cited: EIR 5(1)
View Huntingdonshire District Council
19 Aug 2021Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested from Castle Point Borough Castle information relating to financial contributions that the Council has received under Section 106 Agreements over the past 10 years. The Council disclosed some of the requested information but refused to provide the remainder under section 12 (exemption where cost of compliance exceeds appropriate limit) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council was entitled to apply section 12, and that it has complied with the requirement of section 16. The Commissioner does not require the Council to take any steps. First-tier tribunal (General Regulatory chamber) information rights appeal EA/2021/0299 Appeal Struck Out.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12; FOI 16
View Castle Point Borough Council
19 Aug 2021Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested copies of complaints made to the Pension Regulator and any responses received. NHS Business Services Authority provided some redacted information, but withheld the remainder. It relied on section 43(2) of the FOIA (commercial interests) and section 44(1) of the FOIA (statutory prohibition on disclosure) in order to do so. The Commissioner’s decision is that NHSBSA has correctly relied upon section 44 of the FOIA to withhold information. However, it has not demonstrated that section 43(2) of the FOIA is engaged and is thus not entitled to rely on that exemption. NHSBSA also breached sections 10 and 17 of the FOIA respectively in responding to the request. The Commissioner requires NHSBSA to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: disclose, to the complainant, copies of the two BoL reports it has shown to the Commissioner. NHSBSA may only redact the PSR numbers and the personal data that it has already highlighted.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 17; FOI 43
View NHS Business Services Authority
18 Aug 2021Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from The National Archives (TNA) held in closed files ‘PREM 19/4418/1 and 19/4418/2 from the open parent piece PREM 19/4418: ROYAL FAMILY. Prince Charles' interest in youth unemployment: The Prince's Trust; The Prince's Youth Business Trust; part 1. TNA withheld the requested information citing section 37(1)(a) and later amended this to section 37(1)(aa) which relates to communications with the heir to the throne. TNA also cited section 40(2) and section 41 regarding the withheld information. TNA denied that the files contained any environmental information falling within the scope of the EIR. The Commissioner’s decision is that TNA was correct in withholding most of the information on the basis of the exemption at section 37(1)(aa). However, the Commissioner considers that some limited information falls within the scope of the EIR 2004. The Commissioner also finds that TNA breached section 10(1) FOIA by not responding within the statutory time
Exemptions cited: FOI 37(1)(aa)
View The National Archives
18 Aug 2021Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested data, relating to iPlayer usage, in a machine-readable format. The BBC provided this data, but not in a machine-readable format. The Commissioner’s decision is that the BBC has failed to comply with its obligations under section 11 of the FOIA. The Commissioner requires the BBC to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: provide the complainant with a copy of the requested information in a machine-readable format.
Exemptions cited: FOI 11
View BBC
18 Aug 2021Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested correspondence relating to a contract entered into by the council with ORS, a company owned by one of the councillors. The council initially refused the request on the basis that the request was vexatious, however it subsequently disclosed the information to the complainant. The complainant accepted the majority of the information which was disclosed, however he argues that one bundle of information contained a computer virus and refused to accept this. The council therefore sought to provide the information in PDF format however in transferring the information into PDF it missed important information from the full correspondence. The Commissioner's decision is that the council has provided all of the information to the complainant in compliance with the requirements of section 1(1) of the Act. She has decided however, that the council did not comply with the requirements of section 10(2) in that it did not provide the information to the complainant within
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Ashford Borough Council
18 Aug 2021Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about enforcement action in relation to a breach of planning control. The Council supplied some information but withheld the remainder, citing the exemption in section 30(1)(b) of the FOIA – (investigations and proceedings). The Commissioner’s decision is that South Cambridgeshire District Council has correctly engaged section 30(1)(b) of the FOIA and that the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosure. The Commissioner does not therefore require the council to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 30
View South Cambridgeshire District Council
18 Aug 2021Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from East Cambridgeshire District Council (ECDC) about enforcement action in relation to a breach of planning control. The request related to an active prosecution case which was being pursued by South Cambridgeshire District Council (SCDC), partially on behalf of ECDC. The complainant submitted a request to SCDC for the same information, which was refused, and the Commissioner upheld the refusal in that case. In this case, ECDC applied section 42 to withhold the information (legal professional privilege). Given the overall context of the requests and the overlap in withheld information with the SCDC case, the Commissioner has used her own discretion and decided that the exemptions in section 31(1)(b) and 31(1)(c) are applicable to the information held by ECDC. She has also decided that the public interest rests in the exemptions being maintained. The Commissioner does not require the council to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 31(1)(b); FOI 31(1)(c)
View East Cambridgeshire District Council
17 Aug 2021Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested from Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council (‘the Council’) a copy of a sub-contract covering the kennelling of stray dogs on its behalf. The Council initially responded that it did not hold any relevant information, which the complainant disputed. During the Commissioner’s investigation the Council located a copy of the sub-contract and disclosed it to the complainant. However, the complainant believed it was incomplete. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council failed to locate and disclose the requested information within 20 working days, which is a breach of section 1(1)(a) and (b) (General right of access) and section 10(1) (Time for compliance) of the FOIA. However, she is satisfied that it complied with its duty under section 1(1)(b) of the FOIA to disclose all the information it held falling within scope of the request.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10
View Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council
17 Aug 2021Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from the Metropolitan Police Service (“the MPS”) about policies and procedures for police officers driving police vehicles.
The Commissioner’s decision is that the MPS failed to respond to the request within 20 working days and has therefore breached section 10 of the FOIA.
The Commissioner requires the MPS 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 Metropolitan Police Service
17 Aug 2021Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
1. The complainant requested information from Dyfed-Powys Police about a photograph containing the image of an individual. Dyfed Powys Police refused to confirm or deny whether it held the information requested by virtue of section 40(5) of the FOIA.
2. The Commissioner’s decision is that Dyfed Powys Police correctly applied section 40(5) to the request. The Commissioner does not require any steps to be taken. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2021/0248 appeal allowed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View Dyfed-Powys Police
17 Aug 2021Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested access to the pre-application material in respect of a particular pre-planning application and application for Listed Building Consent. Swansea Council refused to provide the information citing regulation 12(5)(f) (the interests of the person who provided the information) of the EIR. Following the Commissioner’s investigation, the Council provided some information, but continued to withhold information relevant to the request on the basis of the exception cited. The Commissioner’s decision is that Swansea Council has correctly relied on regulation 12(5)(f) to withhold the remaining information. The Commissioner does not require the Council to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(f)
View Swansea Council
17 Aug 2021Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from DCMS about exemptions given by the Secretary of State, concerning the transfer of specific files to the National Archives. By the date of this notice DCMS had failed to provide a substantive response to this request. The Commissioner’s decision is that DCMS 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 DCMS to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. Respond to the complainant’s request in accordance with the FOIA. DCMS 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 contempt of court.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Department for Culture, Media and Sport
17 Aug 2021Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information on children diagnosed with paediatric tumours within specific time periods. Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust (“the Trust”) initially refused the request on the basis that the information was personal data under section 40(2) of the FOIA and later also sought to rely on the exemption at section 41 of the FOIA for information provided in confidence. The Commissioner’s decision is that the information does engage the section 41 exemption and there is no public interest defence for breaching the duty of confidence. As such the Trust has correctly withheld the information.
Exemptions cited: FOI 41
View Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust
17 Aug 2021Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested various pieces of information relating to Llanelidan Village Green (the Village Green). Llanelidan Community Council (the Council) refused the request under section 42 (legal professional privilege) of the FOIA. At the internal review stage the Council reconsidered the request under the EIR, disclosed some additional information and sought to rely on regulation 12(5)(b) to withhold information relating to the request. During the course of the Commissioner’s investigation, the Council reconsidered the request again under the FOIA and sought to rely on section 43 (commercial interests) to withhold information relevant to the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council does not hold any further information relevant to the request. The Commissioner has also determined that the Council has failed to demonstrate that section 43 applies to the withheld information. The Commissioner requires the Council to disclose the information it has withheld under se
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 43
17 Aug 2021Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information from Debden Parish Council about agreements to change the location of a village hall. The council provided some information in response to the request, but stated that some information is not held. During the course of the investigation the council provided further information but maintained that the remainder is not held. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, Debden Parish Council does not hold any further information in scope of the request. However due to its failure to provide information within 20 working days, it breached regulation 5(2) of the EIR. The Commissioner does not require any steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 5(2)
17 Aug 2021Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about services it has provided overseas from City of London Police (COLP). COLP disclosed some of the requested information but, after revising its position, withheld the remainder under the exemptions at sections 23(1) (Information supplied by, or relating to, bodies dealing with security matters) and 24(1) (National security). The Commissioner’s decision is that both exemptions are only partly engaged. She requires COLP to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: disclose the parties withheld under section 23(1) in rows (1), (2), (3), (6) and (7) of the table provided which do not refer to any section 23(3) body; disclose the country at row (3) which does not engage section 24(1); and, disclose details of the services offered at rows (6) and (7) of the table as the public interest favours disclosure.
Exemptions cited: FOI 23; FOI 24
View City of London Police
17 Aug 2021Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information on the aim of All Souls College of the Faithful Departed (‘ASC’). ASC has refused the request under section 21 of the FOIA as it considers that information within scope of the request is already accessible to the complainant. The Commissioner’s decision is as follows: ASC is entitled to rely on section 21(1) of the FOIA as information within scope of the complainant’s request is already reasonably accessible to him on ASC’s website. The Commissioner does not require ASC to take any remedial steps. First-tier tribunal (General Regulatory chamber) information rights appeal EA/2021/0227 appeal disposed by consent.
Exemptions cited: FOI 21
17 Aug 2021Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information about the work of the Racial Inequalities Commission. The Cabinet Office did not respond to the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Cabinet Office has failed to respond to the request within 20 working days and has therefore breached section 10 of the FOIA. The Commissioner requires the Cabinet Office 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 Cabinet Office
17 Aug 2021Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from Liverpool City Council (“the Council”) about grants and loans the Council and Mayor have made since 2010. By the date of this notice the Council had failed to provide a substantive response to this request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has breached section 10(1) of the FOIA in that it failed to provide a valid response to the request within the statutory time frame of 20 working days. The Commissioner requires the Council to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. Respond to the complainant’s request in accordance with the FOIA. The Council must take these steps within 35 calendar days of the date of this decision notice. 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 Liverpool City Council
17 Aug 2021Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to the public authority’s investments in Redwood Bank Ltd.. Warrington Borough Council disclosed some information and withheld other information under the exemption for legal professional privilege (section 42). The Commissioner’s decision is that Warrington Borough Council correctly withheld the information under section 42. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 42
View Warrington Council
16 Aug 2021Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about diminishing leasehold terms relating to property. Northern Ireland Housing Executive (‘NIHE’) refused to provide the requested information, citing section 36(2) of FOIA, the exemption for prejudice to effective conduct of public affairs, for some parts and section 42(1), the exemption for legal professional privilege, for the remainder. A small part of the information has been withheld under both exemptions. The Commissioner’s decision is that NIHE has correctly applied sections 36(2)(b)(i) and 36(2)(b)(ii), cited for the majority of the withheld information. She also finds that NIHE properly relied on section 42(1) for the remainder of the withheld information and that the balance of the public interest favours maintaining both sections 36 and 42. She does not require NIHE to take any steps as a result of this notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 36; FOI 42
View Northern Ireland Housing Executive
16 Aug 2021Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested Highways England (HE) to disclose the Cost Breakdown Document for a list of 15 sub threshold claims. HE refused the request stating that the information is not held and nor it is held by Kier Highways on its behalf. The Commissioner’s decision is that HE does hold the requested information for the purposes of the FOIA. She considers the requested information is held by Kier Highways on HE’s behalf. HE is required to reconsider the complainant’s request on the basis that it does hold the requested information and issue a fresh response to the complainant in accordance with its obligations under the FOIA. First-tier tribunal (General Regulatory chamber) information rights appeal EA/2021/0257 Appeal Withdrawn.
Exemptions cited: FOI 3
View National Highways