3 Aug 2021Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to an online Book of Condolence opened by Ards and North Down Borough Council (the ‘Council’) following the death of George Floyd. The Council said it did not hold some of the requested information and refused to provide the remainder, citing section 36, the FOIA exemption for prejudice to effective conduct of affairs. Specifically, it cited 36(2)(b)(ii) for one part of the request and 36(2)(c) for the remaining part. The complainant was only concerned with the Council’s reliance on section 36. The Commissioner’s decision is that sections 36(2)(b)(ii) and 36(2)(c) are engaged and she finds that the public interest favours non-disclosure of the requested information. The Commissioner does not require the Council to take any steps to ensure compliance with the legislation.
Exemptions cited: FOI 36
3 Aug 2021Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested a breakdown of the number of child maintenance cases in which a specific scenario has occurred and the sanctions that may be implemented. The Commissioner’s decision is that DWP is entitled to rely on section 12(2) of the Act to refuse to comply with the request. The Commissioner finds, however, that DWP has breached section 17(5) of the Act as it failed to provide its section 12 refusal notice within the statutory timeframe. She also finds that DWP did not provide adequate advice and assistance under section 16. The Commissioner requires the public authority to provide the complainant with advice and assistance regarding the last element of the request, namely the sanctions that FIU may implement when it has determined that a paying parent has deliberately provided false information. 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 certif
Exemptions cited: FOI 12; FOI 16; FOI 17
View Department for Work and Pensions
3 Aug 2021Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested from HM Revenue and Customs (“HMRC”) information relating to the Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme (“CJRS”). HMRC refused to disclose some of the information and cited section 31(1)(a) (prejudice to the prevention or detection of crime) of the FOIA.
The Commissioner’s decision is that HMRC correctly applied the exemption to the information relating to questions 2, 4 and 6 of the request. Therefore, the Commissioner does not require HMRC to take any steps as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: FOI 31(1)(a)
3 Aug 2021Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information relating to a Local Plan. Dover District Council withheld the information under the exception for internal communications – regulation 12(4)(e). During the Commissioner’s investigation Dover District Council disclosed some of the information but retained its reliance on regulation 12(4)(e) to withhold the outstanding information. The Commissioner’s decision is that Dover District Council correctly handled the request under the EIR and complied with regulation 5, and that it correctly withheld the requested information under regulation 12(4)(e). The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(e); EIR 5
View Dover District Council
3 Aug 2021Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested an address through which the Home Office UK Visas and Immigration Central Operations Department could be contacted directly by email. The Home Office said that the information was not held. The Commissioner decided that, following its response to the request and disclosure of some information, the Home Office held no undisclosed recorded information that was relevant to it and had complied with the legislation. The Commissioner also decided that, in failing to comply with section 1(1) FOIA within the appropriate timescale, the Home Office had breached section 10(1) FOIA. The Commissioner did not require the Home Office to take any steps to comply with the legislation. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2021/0246 appeal allowed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10
View Home Office
2 Aug 2021Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to an investigation into a named doctor. The Health and Social Care Board in Northern Ireland (the ‘HSCB’) provided some of the requested information but refused to provide the remainder, citing section 40(2) (personal information) of FOIA. During the course of the Commissioner’s investigation, the HSCB revised its position and said it should have neither confirmed nor denied (‘NCND’) whether it held the requested information in response to the initial request. It now cited section 40(5B), the ‘neither confirm nor deny’ provision for personal information on the basis that, if held, the information would constitute the personal data of a third party. The Commissioner’s decision is that the HSCB was correct to rely on section 40(5B) of FOIA. She does not require the HSCB to take any steps as a result of this notice. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2021/0231 withdrawn.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View SoS of Health and Social Care
2 Aug 2021Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about audience research contained in an annual report. The British Broadcasting Corporation initially refused to provide any information, but subsequently indicated where some of the information could be found and also denied holding some of the requested information. The Commissioner’s decision is that any information the BBC held within the scope of elements [1] and [8] of the request would be held for the purposes of journalism, art or literature and would therefore fall outside of the FOIA. The Commissioner does not require any further steps to be taken. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2021/0220 under appeal. First-tier tribunal (General Regulatory chamber) information rights appeal UA-2022-000648-GIA UT Appeal Dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View BBC
2 Aug 2021Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea (the Council) seeking the total cost of replacement doorsets at a particularly property. The Council withheld the information on the basis of section 43(2) (commercial interests) of FOIA. During the course of the Commissioner’s investigation the Council provided the complainant with the information it held falling within the scope of the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council breached section 10(1) of FOIA by failing to disclose the requested information within 20 working days.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea
2 Aug 2021Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has submitted 10 requests to North Cumbria Integrated Care NHS Foundation Trust (‘the Trust’), about a variety of matters. The Trust addressed five of the requests and refused to comply with the remaining five requests as it considered the cost of doing so would exceed the appropriate limit under section 12(1) of the FOIA. The complainant disputes the Trust’s reliance on section 12(1) to refuse to comply with his requests. The Commissioner’s decision is as follows: The Trust is entitled to rely on section 12(4) of the FOIA to aggregate the complainant’s requests and to refuse to comply with them under section 12(1). The Trust provided adequate advice and assistance and there was no breach of section 16(1) in the Trust’s handling of the request. The Commissioner does not require the Trust to take any remedial steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12; FOI 16
View North Cumbria Integrated Care NHS Foundation Trust
2 Aug 2021Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a three part request for information about religiously aggravated hate crime to Thames Valley Police (TVP). TVP said that the requested information was exempt from disclosure under sections 30(1)(a) and (b) (Investigations and proceedings) and 40(2) (Personal information) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that TVP was not entitled to rely on the exemptions at section 40(2) or sections 30(1) (a) and (b) of the FOIA to withhold the information described in part (1) of the request. However, she found that it was entitled to rely on section 40(2) of the FOIA to refuse to disclose the information specified in parts (2) and (3) of the request, which she found to be special category data. The Commissioner requires TVP to disclose the information described in part (1) of the request.
Exemptions cited: FOI 30; FOI 40
View Thames Valley Police
2 Aug 2021Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant submitted a request to the Royal Borough of Greenwich (the Council) seeking information about a consultation it had undertaken in relation to proposed traffic management measures in the borough. The Council provided the complainant with some of the information falling within the scope of the request but relied on section 12(1) (cost limit) of FOIA to withhold the remaining information. The complainant disputed the Council’s reliance on section 12(1) and also questioned whether it held further information falling within certain parts of his request.
The Commissioner decided that the Council should have considered this request under the EIR rather than FOIA given the subject matter of the request. However, she is satisfied that the Council can rely on regulation 12(4)(b) (manifestly unreasonable) of the EIR to refuse the parts of the request to which it had previously refused on the basis of section 12(1) of FOIA. Furthermore, the Commissioner is satisfied that the Co
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(b)
View Royal Borough of Greenwich
2 Aug 2021Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested a copy of the complaints procedure. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Ministry of Justice (MOJ) has breached section 10 FOIA. She further finds that MOJ has incorrectly cited section 21 in response to the request. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. Provide a copy of the complaints procedure or issue a fresh response without reliance on section 21. 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 10; FOI 21
View Ministry of Justice
2 Aug 2021Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested various categories of data about pollution incidents over a two-year period. The Maritime & Coastguard Agency (“the MCA”) relied variously relied upon Regulations 12(4)(a) (not held), 12(4)(b) (manifestly unreasonable) and 12(4)(d) of the EIR (material in the course of completion) to withhold information. The Commissioner’s decision is that the request engages Regulation 12(4)(b) of the EIR and that the public interest favours maintaining this exception. However, she also finds that the MCA failed to provide adequate advice and assistance to help the complainant refine his request and therefore Breached Regulation 9 of the EIR. Also, in failing to issue a valid refusal notice within 20 working days, the MCA breached Regulation 14 of the EIR. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(b); EIR 14; EIR 9
View Maritime and Coastguard Agency
2 Aug 2021Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested from Hertfordshire Constabulary information about someone he believes to be a police officer. Hertfordshire Constabulary would neither confirm nor deny whether it held the requested information, under section 40(5B)(a)(i) (Personal information) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that Hertfordshire Constabulary was entitled to rely on section 40(5B)(a)(i) to neither confirm nor deny whether it held the information.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View Hertfordshire Constabulary
2 Aug 2021Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information regarding child sexual exploitation. The Commissioner’s decision is that Oldham Metropolitan Borough Council was entitled to withhold information on the basis of section 31(1) and section 40(2). The Commissioner does not require any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 31(1); FOI 40(2)
View Oldham Council
30 Jul 2021Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from the Department of Health and Social Care (“the DHSC”) about a ‘blog’ published by the government, rebutting the contents of an article published in the Sunday Times. The DHSC confirmed that information was held, but refused the request under section 12(1) of the FOIA (exceeds appropriate cost). The Commissioner’s decision is that the DHSC has failed to demonstrate that section 12(1) of the FOIA is engaged. The Commissioner requires the DHSC to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: issue a fresh response to the request to the complainant, which does not rely on section 12(1) of the FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12
View Department of Health and Social Care
30 Jul 2021Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested any risk assessment related to the Department for Education’s (DfE’s) advice on face coverings in schools published in August 2020. The complainant also asked for the rationale behind the policy. The DfE refused the request on the basis of section 35(1)(a) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the DfE has correctly applied the section 35(1)(a) exemption and the public interest favours maintaining the exemption and withholding the information. First-tier tribunal (General Regulatory chamber) information rights appeal EA/2021/0216 Appeal Dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 35
View Department for Education
29 Jul 2021Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information on British companies’ founders who had graduated from Oxford and Cambridge and founded companies in Oxford and Cambridge. The Commissioner’s decision is that BEIS does not hold any information in the scope of the request. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps to ensure compliance with the legislation.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Department for Business and Trade
29 Jul 2021Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information on the government’s investment in OneWeb. The Commissioner’s decision is that BEIS has appropriately relied on the exemption at section 43(2), commercial interests, and the public interest favours maintaining the exemption. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps to ensure compliance with the legislation.
Exemptions cited: FOI 43(2)
View Department for Business and Trade
29 Jul 2021Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested from the London Borough of Southwark (“the Council”) information on the Council’s consultation process for installing Fire Equipment at a specific location. By the date of this notice the Council had not provided a substantive response to this request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has failed to respond to the request within 20 working days and has therefore breached regulation section 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. 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: EIR 5(2)
View Southwark Council
29 Jul 2021Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information in relation to the selling of essential and non-essential items for a specific date and time during the national firebreak period in Wales during October and November 2020. The Welsh Government responded by providing an explanation in relation to its decision to close non-essential shops, and provided a link to its most up to date list of goods which could be sold. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Welsh Government has breached section 1 and section 10 of the FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10
View Welsh Government
29 Jul 2021Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information on the dates of meetings of the Union Policy Implementation Committee and the attendees at the meetings for a specific time period. The Commissioner’s decision, which is a finely balanced decision, is that the Cabinet Office may rely on section 35(1)(a) and (b), formulation of government policy and Ministerial communications, to withhold the requested information. The Commissioner would stress that she determined that the public interest favoured maintaining the exemption by a very narrow margin in the circumstances of this case. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2021/0203 under appeal
Exemptions cited: FOI 35
View Cabinet Office
29 Jul 2021Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested from the London Borough of Southwark (“the Council”) information relating to a Fire Assessment Report. By the date of this notice the Council had not provided a substantive response to this request.
The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has failed to respond to the request within 20 working days and has therefore breached regulation section 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. 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: EIR 5(2)
View Southwark Council
28 Jul 2021Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office about legal advice. The Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office has failed to respond to this request. The Commissioner requires Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office to provide the complainant with a response to this request in accordance with its obligations under FOIA. Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office must take these steps within 35 calendar days of the date of this decision notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office
28 Jul 2021Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information relating to a proposed expansion of Leeds Bradford Airport. Leeds City Council withheld the information under the exception for the course of justice – regulation 12(5)(b) of the EIR. The Commissioner’s decision is that Leeds City Council correctly withheld the requested information under regulation 12(5)(b). The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2021/0224 dismissed.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(b)
View Leeds City Council
28 Jul 2021Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to NHS Trusts evidence that Trainee Consultant Psychiatrists (TCPs) are engaged in training contracts. The Commissioner’s decision is that HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) has correctly applied section 44(1)(a) to the withheld information. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps as a result of this decision notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 44
28 Jul 2021Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from the Cabinet Office (CO) about correspondence between LGB Alliance and the Government Equalities Office. By the date of this notice the CO had not issued a substantive response to this request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the CO 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 CO 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 CO 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 a
Exemptions cited: FOI 17
View Cabinet Office
28 Jul 2021Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
In a seven part request, the complainant has requested information about any meetings or communications between The Prince of Wales and the Chief Executive and/or the Chair of Historic Royal Palaces between January 2014 and January 2015. He has requested this information under the EIR and the FOIA. Historic Royal Palaces (HRP) released some environmental information within scope of part 4 of the request and advised that it does not hold any other environmental information within scope of parts 2, 3, 5 and 7 that it has not previously released. HRP released non-environmental information within scope of part 6 of the request and relied on section 37(2) of the FOIA (communications with the heir to the Throne) to neither confirm nor deny it holds any non-environmental information within scope of parts 1-5 and part 7. The Commissioner’s decision is as follows: The information requested in parts 2, 3, 4 and 5 of the request can be categorised as environmental information within the meaning o
Exemptions cited: EIR 5; FOI 37
View Historic Royal Palaces
28 Jul 2021Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested from the Planning Inspectorate (“the PI”) information about two inspectors and their engagement in a planning appeal process. The PI disclosed part of the information requested, withheld some under regulation 13(1) of the EIR (personal information) and stated that it did not hold any further information, beyond what was already disclosed.
The Commissioner has exercised her discretion to consider regulation 13(5) of the EIR. Her decision is that regulation 13(5) is engaged and that the PI should have refused to confirm or deny whether it held the requested information.
The Commissioner also found that on the balance of probabilities, the PI disclosed all the other information it held within the scope of the request, at the time it was submitted.
The Commissioner does not require the PI to take any step as a result of this decision notice.
Exemptions cited: EIR 13(5); EIR 5(1)
View Planning Inspectorate
28 Jul 2021Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information with regards to an internal system used by the Financial Ombudsman Service (the FOS). The FOS asked the complainant to refine the first part of his request, provided links to the second part and refused the part of the request asking for the index / contents page of its internal system under section 14(1) of the FOIA as it considered it to be vexatious. The complainant complained to the Commissioner about the part of his request that was refused as vexatious. The Commissioner’s decision is that section 14(1) of the FOIA is not engaged. The Commissioner requires the FOS to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. Issue a fresh response to the part of the complainant’s request that was refused as vexatious without relying on section 14(1) of the FOIA. The FOS 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 thi
Exemptions cited: FOI 14
27 Jul 2021Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested from the London Borough of Waltham Forest (“the Council”) information relating to heating and hot water outages on the Walnut Court housing estate. By the date of this notice the Council had not provided a substantive response to this request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has failed to respond to the request within 20 working days and has therefore breached regulation section 10 of the FOIA. 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 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 Waltham Forest Council
27 Jul 2021Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from Ceredigion County Council (“the Council”) relating to Ysbyty Carreg Aberteifi and Aberystwyth temporary hospitals. By the date of this notice the Council had not provided a substantive response to the request.
The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has failed to respond to the request within 20 working days and has therefore breached section 10 of the FOIA.
The Commissioner requires the Council to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation.
• The Council must issue a substantive response to the request in accordance with its obligations under the FOIA.
The Council must take these steps within 35 calendar days of the date of this decision notice. Failure to comply may result in the Commissioner making written certification of this fact to the High Court pursuant to section 54 of the Act and may be dealt with as a contempt of court.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Ceredigion County Council
27 Jul 2021Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested copies of named documents regarding UK/US trade discussions that were allegedly leaked. The Department for International Trade (“DIT”) refused to confirm or deny whether it held such information and cited section 27(4) (prejudice to international relations) and section 35(3) (formulation/development of government policy) as its basis for doing so. It upheld this at internal review. The Commissioner’s decision is that DIT is entitled to rely on section 27(4) as its basis for refusing to confirm or deny whether it holds the requested information. No steps are required.
Exemptions cited: FOI 27
View Department for International Trade
27 Jul 2021Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information regarding fire safety measures of a specified housing development. The Commissioner’s decision is that the information is environmental and the appropriate legislation is the Environmental Information Regulations 2004 (EIR). The Commissioner also finds that the London Borough of Tower Hamlets (the council) is not entitled to rely on regulations 12(5)(b) or 12(5)(f) to withhold the requested fire safety reports. The Commissioner requires the public authority to disclose the PRP and Tri-Fire reports. 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: EIR 12(5)(b); EIR 12(5)(f); EIR 14(1); EIR 5(2)
View London Borough of Tower Hamlets
27 Jul 2021Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information held by Kirby Muxloe Parish Council in relation to a valuation report discussed at a council meeting on 28 January 2021.
The Commissioner’s decision is that Kirby Muxloe Parish Council (“the council”) failed to respond to the request within 20 working days and has therefore breached section 10 of the FOIA.
The Commissioner requires the council to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation.
Issue a substantive response, under the FOIA, to the request.
The council must take these steps within 35 calendar days of the date of this decision notice. Failure to comply may result in the Commissioner making written certification of this fact to the High Court pursuant to section 54 of the FOIA and may be dealt with as a contempt of court.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
27 Jul 2021Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information on inspections and correspondence relating to a liability claim which he made against the council for damage to his property. The council initially withheld some information under Regulation 12(5)(d), but on review, it also applied Regulation 12(5)(b) and Regulation 12(4)(e). The complainant also considers that further information should be held by it. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council was not correct to apply Regulation 12(5)(d) to withhold the information. She has however decided that it was correct to apply Regulation 12(5)(b), and Regulation 12(4)(e). Further to this she has decided that the council has located and considered all of the information falling within the scope of the request, and that, on a balance of probabilities, no further information is held by it. She has however decided that it did not comply with the requirements of Regulation 5(2) in that it did not provide its response within 20 working days. The Commiss
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(a); EIR 12(4)(e); EIR 12(5)(b); EIR 12(5)(d); EIR 5(2)
View York City Council
27 Jul 2021Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from the Cabinet Office about specified correspondence. The Cabinet Office has failed to respond to this request. The Commissioner requires the Cabinet Office to provide the complainant with a response to this request in accordance with its obligations under FOIA. The Cabinet Office must take these steps within 35 calendar days of the date of this decision notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Cabinet Office
27 Jul 2021Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information broadly on the subject of alleged image tampering by a third party evidencing damage to Highways England. Highways England categorised the request as vexatious under section 14(1) of the FOIA and refused to comply with it. The Commissioner’s decision is that the request is a vexatious request under section 14(1) of the FOIA and Highways England is not obliged to comply with it. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2021/0236 no right of appeal.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14
View National Highways
27 Jul 2021Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from the ICO she received from NHS Digital. By the date of this notice the ICO had failed to provide a substantive response to this request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the ICO 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 ICO to respond to the complainant’s request in accordance with the FOIA. The ICO must take these steps within 35 calendar days of the date of this decision notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Information Commissioner
27 Jul 2021Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
Information was requested about complaints submitted about a particular market stall. Eastleigh Borough Council initially relied on section 40(2) of the FOIA to withhold all the requested information, before disclosing some redacted information as a result of an internal review. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council did not discharge its duty under section 1(1)(b) of the FOIA within 20 working days and has therefore breached section 10 of the FOIA. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Eastleigh Borough Council
27 Jul 2021Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to The Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2020. The Commissioner’s decision is that Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC) has correctly applied sections 35(1)(a) and 35(1)(b) to the withheld information. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps as a result of this decision notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 35
View Department of Health and Social Care
27 Jul 2021Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from the Department for Education (“the DfE”) about a report prepared by a School Resource Management Advisor, recommending potential savings at a particular school. The DfE provided some redacted information and withheld other information in its entirety, citing all three limbs of the exemption at section 36(2) of the FOIA – prejudicial to the effective conduct of public affairs. The Commissioner’s decision is that while the exemption at section 36(2)(b)(ii) is engaged, the balance of the public interest favours the disclosure of the information. The Commissioner requires the DfE to take the following step to ensure compliance with the legislation: subject to the redaction of personal data, as described in this notice, disclose the information to the complainant. First-tier tribunal (General Regulatory chamber) information rights appeal EA/2021/0262 appeal allowed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 36(2)
View Department for Education
26 Jul 2021Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested papers relating to meetings of the governing body. The Governing Body of Cotham School relied on section 22 of the FOIA to withhold some information and stated that it could only provide the remaining information in hard copy. The Commissioner’s decision is that it was reasonably practicable for the requested information to be provided electronically. The School therefore breached section 11 of the FOIA in responding to the request. As the School has since provided an acceptable copy of the information, the Commissioner does not require any steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 11
View COTHAM SCHOOL
26 Jul 2021Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested details of expenses relating to Operation Kenova. The Commissioner’s decision is that Bedfordshire Police (BP) has failed to respond to the request for information within 20 working days and has therefore breached section 10(1) (time for compliance with the request) of the FOIA. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. Issue a response, in accordance with its obligations under the FOIA, to the request.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Bedfordshire Police
26 Jul 2021Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested details of expenses relating to Operation Kenova. The Commissioner’s decision is that Bedfordshire Police (BP) has failed to respond to the request for information within 20 working days and has therefore breached section 10(1) (time for compliance with the request) of the FOIA. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. Issue a response, in accordance with its obligations under the FOIA, to the request.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Bedfordshire Police
26 Jul 2021Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to the London Borough of Waltham Forest (the Council) seeking information about a trial of facial recognition software by a company called AnyVison. More specifically the request sought the agreement with AnyVison, the Data Protection Impact Assessment (DPIA) and the evaluation report for the trial. The Council explained that it had not conducted a DPIA for the trial and although it held information falling within the remaining parts of the request, it considered this information to be exempt from disclosure on the basis of sections 41(1) (information provided in confidence) and 43(2) (commercial interests). The Commissioner’s decision is that the withheld information is exempt from disclosure on the basis of section 43(2) of FOIA and that in all the circumstances of the case the public interest favours maintaining the exemption.
Exemptions cited: FOI 43
View Waltham Forest Council
26 Jul 2021Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
On behalf of their client, the complainant, a firm of solicitors, has requested information associated with an application to the Southern Regional Flood and Coastal Committee relating to grant-in-aid funding. The Environment Agency (EA) released some information and withheld the remainder under regulation 12(5)(b) of the EIR (course of justice). EA considered the public interest favoured maintaining this exception. EA has subsequently advised that, on reconsideration, it considers it could also rely on regulations 12(4)(e) (internal communications) and 12(5)(e) (commercial interests) to withhold the information in question. The Commissioner’s decision is as follows: The information EA is withholding engages the exception under regulation 12(5)(b) of the EIR and the public interest favours maintaining this exception. The Commissioner does not require EA to take any remedial steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(b)
View Environment Agency
23 Jul 2021Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested from Three Rivers District Council (“the Council”) information relating to a specific planning application. By the date of this notice, the Council had not provided the complainant with a substantive response to his request.
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.
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 Freedom of Information Act and may be dealt with as a contempt of court.
Exemptions cited: EIR 5(2)
View Three Rivers District Council
23 Jul 2021Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested copies of communications regarding traffic and the construction of a new school on Nine Acre Field in Wrexham. Wrexham County Borough Council (the Council) withheld the information requested under section 36 of the FOIA (effective conduct of public affairs). During the course of the Commissioner’s investigation, the Council reconsidered the request under the EIR and sought to rely on regulation 12(4)(e) (internal communications) to withhold the information. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has correctly applied regulation 12(4)(e) to the withheld information. She does not require any steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(e)
View Wrexham County Borough Council
23 Jul 2021Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from the Parliamentary and Health Services Ombudsman (“the PHSO”) about the number of complaint forms that had been signed by a particular Member of Parliament.
The Commissioner’s decision is that the PHSO failed to respond to the request within 20 working days and therefore breached section 10(1) of the FOIA.
As the request has since been responded to, the Commissioner does not require the PHSO to take any further steps in relation to this complaint.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View The Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman