7 Jun 2021Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about companies founded with the assistance of Cambridge Enterprise Limited (‘CEL’). CEL’s position is that it does not hold the requested information. The Commissioner’s decision is as follows: On the balance of probabilities CEL does not hold the information the complainant has requested and has complied with section 1(1)(a) of the FOIA. The Commissioner does not require CEL to take any remedial steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
7 Jun 2021Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested correspondence relating to conveyancing queries concerning the leasehold agreement for a specific property. Southwater Parish Council (the Parish Council) refused to provide the requested information, citing sections 42 (legal professional privilege) and 43 (commercial interests) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Parish Council correctly applied section 42(1) (legal professional privilege) of the FOIA to the withheld information. However, she found procedural breaches of sections 1(1) (general right of access) and 17 (refusal of request). The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 17; FOI 42
7 Jun 2021Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested data about homelessness from The Barnet Group which maintains that it is supplied all the requested data it holds. The Commissioner’s decision is that The Barnet Group has provided the complainant with all the information he has requested. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take no steps to ensure compliance with the legislatation.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
7 Jun 2021Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information related to how the Financial Investigation Unit (FIU) of the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) contacts parents liable to pay child maintenance. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, DWP does not hold information falling within the scope of the request. The Commissioner does not require DWP to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Department for Work and Pensions
7 Jun 2021Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested Special Branch reports from 1937 from the Metropolitan Police Service (the “MPS”). The MPS advised that it did not hold the requested information. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the civil standard of the balance of probabilities, the requested information is not held. No steps are required.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Metropolitan Police Service
4 Jun 2021Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested copies of correspondence sent to a particular company. The Financial Conduct Authority refused to confirm or deny holding information, relying on section 43 (commercial interests) and section 44 of the FOIA (statutory prohibition) to do so. The Commissioner’s decision is that the FCA was not entitled to rely on either section 44(2) or section 43(3) of the FOIA to neither confirm nor deny holding relevant information. As the FCA also failed to complete its public interest considerations within a reasonable timeframe, it breached section 17(3) of the FOIA. The Commissioner requires the FCA to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: either confirm or deny holding information within the scope of the request. If the FCA holds information it must either disclose it, or issue a refusal notice that complies with section 17 of the FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 17; FOI 43; FOI 44
View Financial Conduct Authority
4 Jun 2021Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information regarding the Council’s response to a previous request which had been refused under regulation 12(4)(b). The Council refused this request under the exception at regulation 12(4)(b) on the basis that the request was manifestly unreasonable. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council is entitled to rely on regulation 12(4)(b), and the public interest in maintaining the exception outweighs the public interest in disclosure. No steps are required. First-tier Tribunal (General Regulatory Chamber) Information Rights appeal EA/2021/0173 allowed.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(b)
View Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea
4 Jun 2021Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information relating to the Council’s handling of a noise complaint about her family home. The Council initially refused the request under regulation 12(5)(b), regulation 12(5)(f) and regulation 13 of the EIR, as well as stating that some information was not held. The Council subsequently sought to rely on the exception at regulation 12(4)(b) on the basis that the request was manifestly unreasonable. The Commissioner finds that the Council was entitled to refuse the request and does not require any steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(a); EIR 12(4)(b)
View Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea
4 Jun 2021Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information relating to the Council’s handling of a noise complaint about her family home. The Council provided some of the requested information and stated that the remainder was not held. The Council withheld some information in reliance on the exception at regulation 12(5)(b) of the EIR. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council was entitled to rely on regulation 12(5)(b) in respect of the withheld information. On the balance of probabilities the Commissioner also finds that the Council does not hold any further information relevant to the request other than that which has already been identified. No steps are required.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(a); EIR 12(5)(b)
View Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea
4 Jun 2021Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested communications the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) has had with Danish Authorities and Credit Suisse about Danske Bank in the context of money laundering. The complainant also requested documents and communications regarding a named individual and records relating to the evaluation the FCA were conducting. The FCA provided some information but withheld the remaining information on the basis of sections 27, 31, 40 and 44 of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is the FCA has correctly applied the section 31(1)(g) with 31(2)(c) and (d) exemptions and the balance of the public interest favours maintaining the exemption and withholding the information.
Exemptions cited: FOI 31
View Financial Conduct Authority
4 Jun 2021Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested the height of a kerb in a specified location. The Council provided the requested information but the complainant believed it to be inaccurate. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has complied with regulation 5(2) in that it has provided the complainant with the recorded information that it holds. No steps are required.
Exemptions cited: EIR 5
View London Borough of Lambeth
4 Jun 2021Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested a copy of a spreadsheet used by Kier Highways setting out a schedule of rates for Area 3 claims, as well as a description of the rates given to adjustors and a description of the information disclosed about rates. Highways England stated that for the first parts of the request the information was not held and for the descriptors the information was commercially sensitive and should be withheld under section 43(2) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that Highways England does not hold the information requested at parts (1) and (2) of the request and has correctly refused to provide the information at part (3) on the basis of section 43(2) of the FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 43
View National Highways
3 Jun 2021Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested from the Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC) information about who it supplied personal protective equipment (PPE) to, the dates concerned, and the numbers per item for March 2020. The DHSC stated that it held the information but cited section 12(1) FOIA – that the cost of compliance would exceed the appropriate limit. It later transpired that the DHSC did not in fact hold this information and the DHSC withdrew its reliance on section 12. The Commissioner’s decision is that the DHSC has breached section 1(1)(a) of the FOIA as it indicated it held the requested information but later concluded that it did not. The Commissioner does not require the DHSC to take any further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Department of Health and Social Care
3 Jun 2021Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information as to individuals who have forfeited their honours since 2015. The Cabinet Office applied section 21(1)(b)(information accessible to the applicant by other means) to the majority of the requested information. The remaining information was withheld by the Cabinet Office under section 37(1)(b)(information relating to the conferring by the Crown of any honour or dignity) and section 40(2)(third party personal data). The Commissioner’s decision is that the Cabinet Office has correctly applied section 40(2) of FOIA to withhold the relevant information. No steps are required.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View Cabinet Office
3 Jun 2021Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information as to whether the Chief Executive and the Director of Operational and Commercial Services at Thanet District Council have given notice in writing to the Council of an alleged personal relationship between them, in accordance with the Council’s Code of Conduct, and the date and copies of such notices if provided by both individuals. The Council refused to confirm or deny that they held the information requested under section 40(5B)(personal information) and section 41(2)(information provided by a third party in confidence) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council were entitled to rely on section 40(5B) of the Act to neither confirm nor deny holding the requested information.
The Commissioner does not require any steps to be taken as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View Thanet District Council
3 Jun 2021Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested the logbook of a council vehicle relating to specific dates. The council disclosed copies of the logbook entries for the dates in question, however it redacted information under section 40(2) of FOIA (personal data). The complainant initially argued that whilst he had received some information, he considered that the council holds further information which it has not provided to him. He later sought to argue that he has not received any information from the council. The Commissioner’s decision is that the complainant did receive the information which was disclosed to him. She has decided that the council was correct to apply section 40(2) to withhold the identity of the drivers of the vehicle on the days requested, however sections of a status column which were redacted should be disclosed. She has also decided that, on a balance of probabilities, no further information is held by the council. She has, however decided that the council did not comply with the r
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10; FOI 40
View Doncaster Council
3 Jun 2021Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested terms of reference for various members of staff. The National Museum of Science and Industry refused the request as vexatious. The Commissioner’s decision is that the request was vexatious and the Museum was entitled to rely on section 14(1) of the FOIA to refuse it. The Commissioner does not require further steps. First-tier Tribunal (General Regulatory Chamber) Information Rights appeal EA/2021/0169 dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14
2 Jun 2021Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information relating to a planning enforcement case. Cornwall Council variously relied upon Regulation 12(5)(b) (administration of justice), Regulation 12(5)(f) (voluntary supply) and Regulation 13 of the EIR to withhold information. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has correctly relied upon Regulations 12(5)(b) to withhold information and that the balance of the public interest favours maintaining that exception. She also finds that the Council has not demonstrated why Regulation 12(5)(f) is engaged and is therefore not entitled to rely on that exception. In respect of Regulation 13, the Commissioner only finds that this is engaged in respect of some of the withheld information. The Commissioner requires the Council to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: Disclose all the photographs it has withheld. The Council must take appropriate steps to obscure the identity of any individual pictured in any of the photograph
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(b); EIR 12(5)(f); EIR 13(1)
View Cornwall Council
2 Jun 2021Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested a variety of information regarding the use of canine cadavers. The Council of the University of Liverpool provided some of the information and relied on sections 43 (commercial interests) and 41 (breach of confidence) of the FOIA respectively to withhold some information. It also stated that it did not hold some of the requested information. The Commissioner’s decision is that the University is entitled to rely on sections 43(2) and 41(1) of the FOIA in the manner that it has done. She also considers that it holds no information within the scope of element [6] of the request. The Commissioner does not require further steps to be taken. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2021/0162 appeal dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 41; FOI 43
View The University of Liverpool
2 Jun 2021Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested planning performance agreement information from the London Borough of Lambeth (“LB Lambeth” or “Lambeth Council”). LB Lambeth refused to provide this citing FOIA section 43 (prejudice to commercial interests) and upheld this at internal review. During the Commissioner’s investigation, LB Lambeth changed its position and sought to rely on EIR regulation 12(4)(b) (manifestly unreasonable on the grounds of cost). The Commissioner’s decision is that LB Lambeth is not entitled to rely on EIR regulation 12(4)(b). It also failed to provide a proper response under the EIR in time in contravention of regulation 14 and failed to provide adequate advice and assistance to the complainant in contravention of regulation 9. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: Disclose the requested information or explain why it is not obliged to under relevant provisions of the EIR which do not include regu
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(b); EIR 14; EIR 9
View London Borough of Lambeth
2 Jun 2021Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested copies of correspondence relating to the Government’s agreement of an emergency funding package for Transport for London. The Department for Transport relied on sections 35 (formulation of government policy) and 41 (breach of confidence) of the FOIA to withhold the requested information. The Commissioner’s decision is that section 35 of the FOIA is engaged and that the balance of the public interest favours maintaining the exemption. The Commissioner does not require any further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 35
View Department for Transport
2 Jun 2021Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from Bedford Borough Council (“the Council”) relating to the items considered during Council meetings. 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.
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 Bedford Borough Council
2 Jun 2021Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested details of applications made to the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) to fly unmanned aerial vehicles (UAV) beyond the visual line of sight. This is what is known as BVLOS applications. The complainant specifically requested the BVLOS applications from January 2019 to the date of their request. The CAA refused to provide the requested information, citing section 44(1)(a) (prohibitions on disclosure) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the CAA has correctly applied section 44(1)(a) and the Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps to ensure compliance with the legislation.
Exemptions cited: FOI 44
View Civil Aviation Authority
2 Jun 2021Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested data controller registration information of Irby Upon Humber Parish Council (“the Council”) from the ICO. The Commissioner’s decision is that the ICO failed to respond to the request within 20 working days and therefore breached Section 10 of the FOIA. 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
2 Jun 2021Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested correspondence between the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency (DVLA) and the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) from 2019 to 13 March 2020 regarding its release of data under the Road Vehicles (Registration and Licensing) Regulations 2002. The complainant also requested any legal advice regarding that regulation from the five years prior to March 2020. The DVLA refused to provide any of this information, citing section 35(1)(a) FOIA (the formulation of government policy etc) and section 42(1) FOIA (legal professional privilege). The Commissioner’s decision is that the DVLA has incorrectly cited section 35(1)(a) and that the exemption is not engaged. However, she accepts that the exemption at section 42(1) is engaged and that the public interest favours non-disclosure. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation.
Disclose the information that was withheld under section 35 of
Exemptions cited: FOI 35; FOI 42
View Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency
1 Jun 2021Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested statistics regarding people deported under the UK Borders Act 2007 from the Home Office. The Home Office refused to disclose the requested figures citing the exemptions at sections 27(1)(a) (International relations) and 31(1)(e) (Law enforcement) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that neither exemption is engaged. The Commissioner requires the Home Office to disclose the requested information.
Exemptions cited: FOI 27; FOI 31; FOI 40
View Home Office
28 May 2021Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from the University Hospitals Leicester NHS Trust (“the Trust”) regarding various procedures within the Trust, but with a specific focus on staff inappropriately accessing patient records, within three specified timeframes. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Trust was entitled to withheld the requested information under section 40(2) of the FOIA. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps as a result of this decision notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40(2)
View University Hospitals of Leicester NHS Trust
28 May 2021Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information from the London Borough of Tower Hamlets (the Council) about any planning, inspections and building controls carried out on a specified property. The Council had failed to provide a response by the date of this notice. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has failed to respond to the request within 20 working days and has therefore breached Regulation 5(2) of the Environmental Information Regulations (the EIR). The Commissioner requires the Council to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. Issue a substantive response, in accordance with its obligations under the EIR, 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 Freedom of Information Act and may be dealt with as a contempt of court.
Exemptions cited: EIR 5(2)
View London Borough of Tower Hamlets
28 May 2021Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from the Ministry of Defence (MOD) relating to the Sky Sabre, Sea Ceptor and Land Ceptor weapons systems. By the date of this notice the MOD had not provided a substantive response to the request.
The Commissioner’s decision is that the MOD has failed to respond to the request within 20 working days and has therefore breached section 10 of the FOIA.
The Commissioner requires the MOD 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 MOD 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 Ministry of Defence
27 May 2021Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant made a request for information relating Highways England’s (HE) compliance with FOIA and the ICO’s position where a public authority does not complete an internal review within 20 working days. The ICO refused to comply with the request under section 14(1) FOIA as it considered the request to be vexatious. The Commissioner considers that the ICO correctly applied section 14(1) FOIA. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14
View Information Commissioner
27 May 2021Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to a decision taken not to alter the Annual Retention Fee. The General Dental Council withheld the requested information and relied on section 36 of the FOIA to do so. The Commissioner’s decision is that sections 36(2)(b)(i) and 36(2)(b)(ii) are engaged in respect of all the withheld information. In respect of the majority of the withheld information, the public interest favours maintaining the exemption. However, in respect of one document, the public interest favours disclosure. Section 36(2)(c) is not engaged in respect of any of the withheld information. The Commissioner requires the GDC to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: disclose a copy of the Chairman’s email to colleagues of 27 April 2020. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2021/0156 appeal allowed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 36
View General Dental Council
27 May 2021Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from the Office of the Police, Fire and Crime Commissioner for North Yorkshire (OPFCC) relating to the role of a named individual within the Civil Disclosure Unit. The OPFCC refused to comply with the request, citing section 14(1) (vexatious request) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the request was vexatious and the OPFCC was entitled to apply section 14(1) to refuse the request. However, the Commissioner found a procedural breach of section 10 (time for compliance) of the FOIA. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 14
27 May 2021Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested the DVLA to disclose the registration marks linked to previously commercially owned vehicles from its vehicle database up to the cost limit of £600. The DVLA did not respond to the request, relying on section 17(6) of the FOIA.
The Commissioner’s decision is that the DVLA is entitled to rely on section 17(6) of the FOIA in this case. The request is vexatious and it would be unreasonable to expect the DVLA to issue a further refusal notice in relation to this request. The Commissioner does not require any further action to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 17(6)
View Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency
27 May 2021Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to the lease of a building. The General Dental Council provided some information and relied on section 43 of the FOIA (commercial interests) to withhold some information. The Commissioner’s decision is that the GDC has correctly relied on section 43(2) of the FOIA to withhold information. The Commissioner does not require any further steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 43
View General Dental Council
27 May 2021Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested the Canal and River Trust (the trust) to disclose a copy of report 445, which provided an update to the board at the meeting of 21 November 2019 on the situation at, and plans for, Toddbrook Reservoir in Whaley Bridge. The trust refused to disclose the requested information citing regulation 12(4)(e) of the EIR. During the Commissioner’s investigation the trust claimed a late reliance on regulation 12(4)(b) and 12(5)(a) of the EIR. The Commissioner first considered the trust’s application of regulation 12(4)(b) and decided that this exception is not engaged. She then went on to consider the application of regulation 12(4)(e). The Commissioner decided that this exception is engaged and that the public interest rests in maintaining this exception. As she decided that 12(4)(e) had been correctly applied she did not go on to consider regulation 12(5)(a). The Commissioner does not require any further action to be taken.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(b); EIR 12(4)(e)
View Canal and River Trust
27 May 2021Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested the DVLA to disclose the registration marks linked to previously commercially owned vehicles from the date the DVLA stopped including this information on the V5C log book up to the cost limit. The DVLA refused to comply with the request citing section 14(1) of the FOIA. It also cited section 17(6) and advised the complainant that it would not respond to any future requests of this nature. The Commissioner’s decision is that the DVLA is entitled to refuse to comply with the complainant’s request in accordance with section 14(1) of the FOIA. She therefore does not require any further action to be taken. First-tier Tribunal (General Regulatory Chamber) Information Rights appeal EA/2021/0152 dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14(1)
View Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency
27 May 2021Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested correspondence between “Better Archway Forum” (BAF) and the London Borough of Islington (the council) regarding proposals for a specified site. The council disclosed some of the information and withheld the remainder under regulation 12(5)(f) of the EIR. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council is not entitled to rely on regulation 12(5)(f) to withhold this information. The Commissioner requires the public authority to disclose the remainder of the requested information previously withheld under regulation 12(5)(f). 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)(f)
View Islington Council
26 May 2021Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from the Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS) which had been provided to the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA). The request concerns the FOS’s requirements as a certified alternative dispute entity as set out in the Alternative Dispute Resolution Regulations 2015. The FOS provided some information but withheld part of the information citing section 36(2)(c) and, later, section 36(2)(b)(ii) - prejudice to the effective conduct of public affairs. The Commissioner’s decision is that the FOS correctly cited section 36(2)(b)(ii) with regard to the withheld information and that the public interest favours non-disclosure. However, the FOS has breached section 10(1) of the FOIA in that it failed to provide a valid response to the request within the statutory timeframe of 20 working days. The Commissioner does not require any further steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 36
25 May 2021Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from the Cabinet Office about a ‘blog’ published by the government, which rebutted the contents of an article published in the Sunday Times. The Cabinet Office initially refused the request under section 12 of the FOIA (exceeds appropriate cost); it subsequently stated that the requested information was not held. During the course of the investigation, it became apparent that the Cabinet Office had interpreted the scope of the request differently from the complainant. The Commissioner has therefore considered whether an objective reading of the request was carried out by the Cabinet Office. The Commissioner’s decision is that there is only one objective reading of the request and that the Cabinet Office did not interpret the request in line with this objective reading. The Commissioner requires the Cabinet Office to take the following step to ensure compliance with the legislation: issue a fresh response to the request based on the correct objectiv
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Cabinet Office
25 May 2021Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information relating to Stoke Lodge Playing Fields. Bristol City Council disclosed some information and withheld other information under the exceptions for internal communications (regulation 12(4)(e)) and the course of justice (regulation 12(5)(b)). The Commissioner’s decision is that Bristol City Council has correctly applied regulation 12(4)(e) and regulation 12(5)(b) to withhold the requested information and that the public interest favours maintaining the exceptions. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(e); EIR 12(5)(b)
View Bristol City Council
25 May 2021Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from the Department relating to the probability on a certain date of encountering an individual with Covid-19 in each of three Council areas in Northern Ireland. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the Department has complied with section 1 of the FOIA and does not hold the aforementioned minutes. Therefore the Commissioner requires no steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Department of Health NI
25 May 2021Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from Conwy County Borough Council (the Council) regarding three housing developments recently approved by the Council. The Council failed to provide a substantive response within 20 working days and had failed to provide a response to points four and five of the complainants request by the date of this notice. 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. The Commissioner requires the Council to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. Issue a substantive response, in accordance with its obligations under the FOIA, to the outstanding points of 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
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Conwy County Borough Council
25 May 2021Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested an inspection report relating to St Helens College. St Helens Council (the council) initially refused the request under sections 30 (investigations) and 31 (law enforcement) of the FOIA, but following an internal review, relied only on section 30(1)(a)(i) of the FOIA to uphold its refusal. The Commissioner’s decision is that section 30(1)(a)(i) of the FOIA is not engaged in relation to this request and she therefore does not uphold the refusal. The Commissioner requires the council to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. Provide the complainant with requested information. 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 30
View St Helens Council
25 May 2021Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested a series of questions relating to the council’s monitoring of road and pavement defects. The council answered some of the questions however the complainant considers that further information should be held by it. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council has complied with the requirements of Regulation 5(1) in that no further information is held by it which can respond to the complainant's questions. The Commissioner does not require the council to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(a); EIR 5(1)
View Essex County Council
25 May 2021Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested statistical information about the classification of masters degrees that had been awarded. The University of Leicester provided some information, but withheld all numbers fewer than five and relied on section 40(2) of the FOIA (third party personal data) to do so. The Commissioner’s decision is that the University of Leicester is not entitled to rely on section 40(2) of the FOIA to withhold the information. The Commissioner requires the University to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. Disclose the remaining withheld data.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40(2)
View The University of Leicester
24 May 2021Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information relating to a planning application. The council initially disclosed some information however it redacted the names of some individuals under Regulation 13(1). On review the council continued to rely upon Regulation 13(1), applied Regulation 12(4)(e) to a small section of information, and also said that it was applying Regulation 12(4)(b) on the basis that the request was vexatious and part of a campaign. The Commissioner has not found it necessary to consider the application of Regulation 12(4)(b) as the council responded to the complainant's request. She has decided that the council was not correct to apply Regulation 12(4)(e) to withhold information. She has however decided it was correct to apply Regulation 13(1) to redact the personal data from the disclosed information. She has also decided that, on a balance of probabilities, the council does not hold any further information falling within the scope of the request. Finally, she has decided th
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(a); EIR 12(4)(e); EIR 13(1); EIR 5(2)
View West Lindsey District Council
24 May 2021Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from Kent County Council (the Council) regarding payments made by the Council to individuals with significant control of each of the Council’s wholly owned trading vehicles. The Council had failed to provide a substantive response by the date of this notice. 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. The Commissioner requires the Council to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. Issue a substantive response, in accordance with its obligations 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
View Kent County Council
24 May 2021Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to the London Borough of Waltham Forest (the Council) seeking information about personal data breaches. It provided some of the information sought, explained that it did not hold other parts of the information and relied on section 12(1) (cost limit) of FOIA to refuse parts of the request. The complainant disputed the Council’s position that it did not hold some parts of the requested information and also challenged its reliance on section 12(1) of FOIA. She was also unhappy with the Council’s delay in responding to her request and its failure to take into account, in line with section 11 of FOIA, her preference for the information to be disclosed in hard copy. The Commissioner is satisfied that the Council does not hold parts of the requested information, has concluded that it can rely on section 12(1) to refuse to comply with parts of the request and is satisfied that it would not have been reasonable for the Council to disclose information in hard
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10; FOI 11; FOI 12
View Waltham Forest Council
24 May 2021Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from the Information Commissioner’s Office (“the ICO”) in relation to the registration of IG Compliance Limited. 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. 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
24 May 2021Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to the mandatory requirement to wear face coverings. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC) has correctly cited section 35(1)(a) in response to the request. The Commissioner does not require DHSC to take any steps as a result of this decision notice. First-tier tribunal (General Regulatory chamber) information rights appeal EA/2022/0051 appeal allowed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 35
View Department of Health and Social Care