11 May 2021Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested specimen certificates for each register maintained by the General Register Office. The Home Office agreed to disclose electronic specimen certificates, but to date it has not done so. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Home Office has breached section 1 and section 10 of the FOIA by failing to disclose the requested information within the statutory time for compliance. The Commissioner requires the Home Office to disclose the electronic specimen certificates. The complainant has confirmed she requires copies of all long and short certificates, but not bilingual or certificates relating to translations. The disclosure should be made to the ‘What Do They Know’ web page through which the request was made.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10
View Home Office
11 May 2021Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant, acting on behalf of a client, has requested information pertaining to a complaint submitted against its client by a particular individual. The Financial Services Ombudsman (“the FOS”) initially relied on sections 40 (personal data), 41 (breach of confidence), 21 (reasonably accessible) and 31 (prejudice to a law enforcement function) of the FOIA to withhold information. The Commissioner’s decision is that any information the FOS held would be the personal data of a third party and, as there is no lawful basis for the personal data to be disclosed, the FOS is entitled to rely on section 40(2) of the FOIA to withhold it. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40(2)
11 May 2021Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested the testimonies which formed the basis of an independent report (the Robin Holden report) commissioned by Betsi Cadwaladwr University Health Board in 2013. Betsi Cadwaladwr University Health Board refused the request relying on sections 36(2)(b)(ii) and 36(2)(c), section 40(2) and section 41 of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that Betsi Cadwaladwr University Health Board was entitled to rely on section 41 to withhold the requested information. As she has concluded that section 41 is engaged, she has not gone on to consider the other exemptions cited. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps. First-tier tribunal (General Regulatory chamber) information rights appeal EA/2021/0159 appeal dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 41
View Betsi Cadwaladr University Health Board
11 May 2021Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to a project about how to support prisoners’ contact with family and loved ones. Initially, only one presentation (‘P1’) was identified in scope by the Ministry of Justice (the ‘MOJ’), which was withheld on the basis of sections 35(1)(a) (formulation of government policy) and 43(2) (commercial interests) of the FOIA. The MOJ also said it did not hold the remaining requested information. During the Commissioner’s investigation, the MOJ partly disclosed some of the background detail within P1. It also located another presentation (‘P2’), which it said was exempt in its entirety under sections 35(1)(a), 40(2) (personal information) and 43(2) of the FOIA. (The complainant confirmed he did not want the Commissioner to consider the information redacted under section 40(2), so she has not considered this exemption any further). During the latter stage of the Commissioner’s investigation, the MOJ said that it considered all of P1, including that i
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 35
View Ministry of Justice
10 May 2021Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information on the income loss of London boroughs due to the Covid 19 pandemic. The Commissioner’s decision is that London Councils has appropriately applied the exemption at FOIA section 36(2)(c) to withhold the requested information. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps to ensure compliance with the legislation.
Exemptions cited: FOI 36
10 May 2021Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information about a ‘clean up’ after travellers vacated a location from Swindon Borough Council (‘the Council’). The Council provided some information and stated that it held no further information falling within the scope of the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council should have dealt with the request under the EIR, but that it did not hold any further relevant information beyond that which it had already provided. The Commissioner is therefore satisfied that the Council complied with its duty under Regulation 5(1) of the EIR by virtue of the exception at regulation 12(4)(a) (information not held). However, the Council responded to the request outside of statutory timescales and therefore breached regulation 5(2) of the EIR. It also provided outdated contact details for the Commissioner’s office therefore breaching section 14(5) of the EIR. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(a); EIR 14(5); EIR 5(2)
View Swindon Borough Council
7 May 2021Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information from Three Rivers District Council (“the Council”) on correspondence and consultations between the Council and the Environmental Agency in relation to planning applications. 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, under the EIR, to the request.
Exemptions cited: EIR 5(2)
View Three Rivers District Council
7 May 2021Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to Westminster City Council (the Council) seeking information about the funding arrangements for a building repair project in relation to a number of residential locations. The Council provided the complainant with a response to his request and disclosed further information to him during the course of the Commissioner’s investigation. The complainant maintained that the Council had failed to fulfil his requests for information. The Commissioner is satisfied that the Council has provided the complainant with the recorded information it holds falling within the scope of his request and thus has fulfilled its obligations under FOIA. However, the Commissioner has concluded that the Council breached section 10(1) of FOIA by failing to provide the complainant with all of the information falling within the scope of his request within 20 working days.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10
View Westminster Council
7 May 2021Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to outstanding audit information. Holme Parish Council refused the request in reliance on the exemption at section 40(2) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has correctly applied section 40(2) of FOIA to withhold the information. No steps are required.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
6 May 2021Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information about two housing developments. The Commissioner’s decision is that Fareham Borough Council failed to respond to either request within 20 working days and has therefore breached Regulation 5(2) of the Environmental Information Regulations (“the EIR”) in respect of both requests. As responses have now been issued, no further steps are required.
Exemptions cited: EIR 5(2)
View Fareham Borough Council
6 May 2021Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information about two housing developments. The Commissioner’s decision is that Fareham Borough Council failed to respond to either request within 20 working days and has therefore breached Regulation 5(2) of the Environmental Information Regulations (“the EIR”) in respect of both requests. As responses have now been issued, no further steps are required.
Exemptions cited: EIR 5(2)
View Fareham Borough Council
6 May 2021Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested an organogram and job descriptions. The Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman provided some information but relied on section 22 (intended for future publication) to withhold some information and section 12 of the FOIA (cost of compliance) to refuse part of the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the PHSO breached section 16 of the FOIA by failing to ensure that it had obtained the correct objective reading of the original request. It did not breach section 16 of the FOIA in respect of the clarified request because its interpretation was the only objective reading. Finally, the Commissioner finds that the PHSO failed to identify all the information it held within the scope of the request within 20 working days and therefore breached section 10 of the FOIA. The Commissioner does not require further steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 16
View The Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman
4 May 2021Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information from the Department for Infrastructure (“the Department”) regarding work in relation to weed control and Japanese Knotweed. The Department provided the complainant with some information, refused to disclose some information citing regulation 12(5)(e) of the EIR as a basis for non-disclosure, and applied regulation 12(4)(b) to the remaining requested information. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Department has correctly applied the above sections of the EIR to the complainant’s request. Therefore the Commissioner requires no steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(b); EIR 12(5)(e)
View Department for Infrastructure (Northern Ireland)
4 May 2021Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested planning information from Three Rivers District Council. Three Rivers District Council failed to respond within 20 working days, as specified in the EIR. The Commissioner requires Three Rivers District Council to provide the complainant with a response to this request in accordance with its obligations under the EIR within 35 calendar days of the date of this decision notice.
Exemptions cited: EIR 5(2)
View Three Rivers District Council
4 May 2021Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from Witherley Parish Council (“the Council”) relating to the Council’s Neighbourhood Development Plan. By the date of this notice the Council had not provided a substantive response to the request.
The Commissioner’s decision is that 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
30 Apr 2021Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested details of meetings with Thomas Cook Group. The Department for Transport originally relied on section 22 of the FOIA (intended for publication) to withhold the requested information, before later relying on section 43 (commercial interests) and section 35 (formulation of government policy) or section 36 (effective conduct of public affairs) “in the alternative” to withhold information. The Commissioner’s decision is that the DfT has not demonstrated that section 43(2) of the FOIA is engaged and is therefore not entitled to rely on that exemption. Section 35 of the FOIA is engaged, but the public interest favours disclosure. As the withheld information engages section 35, the section 36 arguments fall away. Finally, as the DfT failed to respond to the request within 20 working days, it also breached section 10 of the FOIA. The Commissioner requires the DfT to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: disclose the withheld information i
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 35; FOI 36; FOI 43
View Department for Transport
30 Apr 2021Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested 11-plus test results and information associated with researchers seeking access to the National Pupil Database. The University of Cambridge (‘the University’) withheld the raw test result data under section 43(2) of the FOIA (commercial interests), released standardised test result data and advised it does not hold the information associated with researchers. The Commissioner’s decision is as follows: On the balance of probabilities, the University does not hold the information the complainant has requested about researchers and complied with section 1(1)(a) in respect of this part of the request. The raw 11-plus test result data that the complainant has requested is exempt information under section 43(2) of the FOIA and the balance of the public interest favours maintaining this exemption. The Commissioner does not require the University to take any remedial steps. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2021/0127 appeal dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 43
View The University of Cambridge
28 Apr 2021Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
In a multi-part request, the complainant requested information relating to a safeguarding investigation unit (SIU). Sussex Police initially advised that it would exceed the appropriate limit to comply with the request in its entirety, citing section 12 (cost of compliance) of the FOIA. During the course of the Commissioner’s investigation, Sussex Police revisited its handling of parts of the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that Sussex Police failed to fully consider and respond to the request in accordance with section 1(1) (general right of access to information) of the FOIA. She also finds procedural breaches of section 10 (time for compliance) and section 16 (advice and assistance).The Commissioner requires Sussex Police to take the following step to ensure compliance with the legislation: disclose the information identified in paragraphs 30 and 31 below as falling within the scope of parts 1, 2, 3, 4 and 8 of the request and provided to the Commissioner during the course of
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10; FOI 16
View Sussex Police
28 Apr 2021Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information relating to a planning application. Somerset County Council, (the Council), provided some information within the scope of the request but denied holding further information. The complainant considered that the Council held further information within the scope of his request. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the Council is correct when it says that it holds no further information within the scope of the request. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken as a result of this decision
Exemptions cited: EIR 5(1)
View Somerset Council
27 Apr 2021Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information about how Staffordshire Police recorded an incident of theft that he had reported. Staffordshire Police refused to disclose the information under the FOIA, citing the non disclosure exemption at section 40(2) (personal information). However, it disclosed most of the complainant’s own personal data to him under the subject access provisions of the Data Protection Act 2018. The Commissioner’s decision is that the request was for the complainant’s own personal data, and that, as such, Staffordshire Police should have neither confirmed nor denied holding any information by virtue of section 40(5A) of the FOIA. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2021/0123 appeal allowed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View Staffordshire Police
27 Apr 2021Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested various costs and fees paid associated with an apprenticeship campaign overseen by the Department for Education (DfE). The DfE provided some of the information but refused to provide the specific fees paid to a number of individuals as it considered they were third party personal data and therefore exempt from disclosure under section 40(2) and 41 of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the DfE was entitled to withhold the information under section 40(2), by way of section 40(3A)(a) of the FOIA. She has therefore not gone on to consider the application of section 41 of the FOIA and she requires no steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View Department for Education
27 Apr 2021Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested from the London Borough of Sutton (“the Council”) information regarding payments to service providers during the pandemic. The Council refused the request as it considered that compliance with it would exceed the cost limit under section 12 of the FOIA.
The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council was entitled to rely on section 12(1) of the FOIA to refuse to comply with this request. However the Commissioner also finds that the Council did not comply with its duty to provide advice and assistance under section 16 (advice and assistance) of the FOIA.
The Commissioner requires the Council to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation.
Provide advice and assistance to the complainant on refining his 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
Exemptions cited: FOI 12(1); FOI 16
View London Borough of Sutton
27 Apr 2021Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested from the Royal Borough of Kingston Upon Thames (“the Council”) information regarding payments to service providers during the pandemic. The Council refused the request as it considered that compliance with it would exceed the cost limit under section 12(1) of the FOIA.
The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council was entitled to rely on section 12(1) of the FOIA to refuse to comply with this request. However the Commissioner also finds that the Council did not comply with its duty to provide advice and assistance under section 16 (advice and assistance) of the FOIA.
The Commissioner requires the Council to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation.
Provide advice and assistance to the complainant on refining his 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
Exemptions cited: FOI 12(1); FOI 16
View Kingston upon Thames Council
27 Apr 2021Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from Northumbria Police about its application a legal test. Northumbria Police failed to respond to this request within the 20 working day time scale of the FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Northumbria Police
27 Apr 2021Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested an advice note relating to a planning matter. Armagh City, Banbridge and Craigavon Borough Council (the ‘Council’) initially refused to provide the advice note, citing Regulation 12(5)(b), (the course of justice and inquiries), of the EIR. Following its internal review, the Council revised its position and instead relied upon Regulation 12(5)(f) (interests of the information provider) and said that the public interest favoured withholding the requested advice note. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council was correct to handle this request under the EIR. She finds that Regulation 12(5)(f) of the EIR is engaged and that the balance of the public interest favours maintaining the exception. By failing to carry out its internal review within the statutory 40 working days’ limit, the Council has breached Regulations 11(4) and 11(5) of the EIR. No steps are required as a result of this notice.
Exemptions cited: EIR 11(4); EIR 11(5); EIR 12(5)(f)
27 Apr 2021Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from Northumbria Police about the status of staff. Northumbria Police failed to respond to this request within the 20 working day time scale of the FOIA. No steps are required.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Northumbria Police
27 Apr 2021Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from the Council of the University of Sheffield (“the University”) relating to the grading of Medical students at the University. By the date of this notice the University had not provided a substantive response to the requests.
The Commissioner’s decision is that the University has failed to respond to the requests within 20 working days and has therefore breached section 10 of the FOIA. The Commissioner requires the University to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. Issue a substantive response to the requests in accordance with its obligations under the FOIA. The University must take these steps within 35 calendar days of the date of this decision notice. Failure to comply may result in the Commissioner making written certification of this fact to the High Court pursuant to section 54 of the Act and may be dealt with as a contempt of court.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View The University of Sheffield
26 Apr 2021Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from the Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC) concerning an agreement between the DHSC and Amazon Digital Services LLC (Amazon). The DHSC explained that it did not hold some of the requested information but it did provide a master content agreement between itself and Amazon that had been redacted. Some of the agreement was withheld under section 43(2) FOIA (commercial interests) and section 40(2) FOIA (personal information). The Commissioner’s decision is that the DHSC was entitled to withhold most of the redacted information from the agreement and that the public interest favours maintaining the exemption. However, she does not agree that one part of the statement of work from the agreement has been correctly withheld as it does not engage the section 43(2) exemption. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. Disclose the specified clause in the confidential ann
Exemptions cited: FOI 43(2)
View Department of Health and Social Care
26 Apr 2021Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has submitted six requests to Highways England (HE) about emails, email addresses and pension contributions. HE has categorised the requests as vexatious requests under section 14(1) of the FOIA and has refused to comply with them. The Commissioner’s decision is as follows: The complainant’s six requests can be categorised as vexatious requests under section 14(1) of the FOIA and HE is not obliged to comply with them. The Commissioner does not require HE to take any remedial steps. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2021/0133 appeal withdrawn.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14
View National Highways
26 Apr 2021Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
In three requests the complainant has requested information associated with the 1995 BBC Panorama interview with Diana, The Princess of Wales. The BBC refused to comply with the requests as it considered that the requested information was held for the purposes of journalism and was therefore derogated information and outside the scope of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is as follows: At the time of the requests, the information the complainant has requested was derogated and did not fall within the scope of the FOIA. The Commissioner does not require the BBC to take any remedial steps. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2021/0139 dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View BBC
26 Apr 2021Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested from Eden District Council (“the Council”) the monthly counts of fly-tipping data. The Council stated that it would require a fee of £100.00 in order to provide the requested information, in accordance with regulation 8 of the EIR.
The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council breached regulation 8(3) by seeking to levy an unreasonable charge for the provision of environmental information.
The Commissioner requires the Council to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation.
Issue a fresh response to the complainant that does not seek to apply a charge under regulation 8.
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 8
23 Apr 2021Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested all coronavirus risk assessments from the Governing Body of St. Mary’s University (the University) as well as the date that staff were instructed to work from home by the University. The University had failed to provide a substantive response by the date of this notice. The Commissioner’s decision is that the University failed to respond to the request within 20 working days and has therefore breached section 10 of the FOIA. The Commissioner requires the University to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. Issue a substantive response, in accordance with its obligations under the FOIA, to the request. The University must take these steps within 35 calendar days of the date of this decision notice. Failure to comply may result in the Commissioner making written certification of this fact to the High Court pursuant to section 54 of the FOIA and may be dealt with as a contempt of court.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
23 Apr 2021Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested the Governing Body of St. Mary’s University (the University)’s health and safety policy. The University had failed to provide a substantive response by the date of this notice. The Commissioner’s decision is that the University failed to respond to the request within 20 working days and has therefore breached section 10 of the FOIA. The Commissioner requires the University to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. Issue a substantive response, in accordance with its obligations under the FOIA, to the request. The University must take these steps within 35 calendar days of the date of this decision notice. Failure to comply may result in the Commissioner making written certification of this fact to the High Court pursuant to section 54 of the FOIA and may be dealt with as a contempt of court.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
22 Apr 2021Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from Tyne and Wear Fire and Rescue Service about fire station names. Tyne and Wear Fire and Rescue Service has failed to respond to this request. The Commissioner requires Tyne and Wear Fire and Rescue Service to provide the complainant with a response to this request in accordance with its obligations under FOIA. Tyne and Wear Fire and Rescue Service must take these steps within 35 calendar days of the date of this decision notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Tyne and Wear Fire and Rescue Service
22 Apr 2021Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from West Yorkshire Police relating to master audio tapes held at Halifax Police Station. The Commissioner’s decision is that West Yorkshire Police failed to respond to the request within 20 working days and therefore breached Section 10(1) (time for compliance with request) of the FOIA. As the response has been provided, the Commissioner does not require West Yorkshire Police to take any steps in relation to this decision notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View West Yorkshire Police
22 Apr 2021Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested a Data Protection Impact Assessment (DPIA) relating to UK Border Force’s collection and processing of the personal data of incoming travellers to reduce the spread of Covid-19. The Home Office initially relied on section 31 of the FOIA (law enforcement) to withhold the information. It subsequently also relied upon section 42 (legal professional privilege) to withhold part of the document and section 28 (relations within the UK) to withhold the entire document. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Home Office has not adequately explained why either section 31 or section 28 is engaged in respect of the withheld information and is therefore not entitled to rely on either exemption. However, she considers that the Home Office has correctly cited section 42 and that the balance of the public interest favours maintaining the exemption. As the Home Office failed to issue a refusal notice, citing all of the exemptions on which it later came to rely, within 20 worki
Exemptions cited: FOI 17; FOI 28; FOI 31; FOI 42
View Home Office
22 Apr 2021Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from Bristol City Council (“the Council”) regarding a report relating to the treatment of their Father, whilst he was in the care of a nursing home. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council was entitled to withhold the requested information under section 40(2) of the FOIA. The Commissioner does not require the Council to take any steps as a result of this decision notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40(2)
View Bristol City Council
21 Apr 2021Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from Sussex Police about a Specialist Enforcement Unit. Sussex Police has failed to complete its public interest test considerations within a reasonable time in accordance with its obligations under the FOIA. Sussex Police must provide a substantive response to the request within 35 calendar days of the date of this decision notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 17
View Sussex Police
21 Apr 2021Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information the BBC holds that sets out when staff can volunteer information in response to an FOI request in cases where the request is for information that is derogated from the FOIA. The BBC has advised that it does not hold information within the scope of the request. The Commissioner’s decision is as follows: On the balance of probabilities, the BBC 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 the BBC to take any remedial steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View BBC
21 Apr 2021Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested a copy of the council’s Business Continuity Plan (BCP) as regards its waste functions. The council refused the request on the basis that Regulation 12(5)(a) applied (international relations, defence, national security, or public safety). On review it upheld its decision but did disclose some sections of the BCP. The complainant argues that the council should have disclosed the document in its entirety. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council was correct to withhold the information under Regulation 12(5)(a). She has however decided that the council’s response did not comply with the requirements of Regulation 5(2) in that the disclosed information was not provided within 20 working days. The Commissioner does not require the council to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(a); EIR 5(2)
View York City Council
21 Apr 2021Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about night watches and buildings insurance in the wake of the Grenfell Tower Fire. The Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG) initial said it did not hold any information falling within the scope of the request, and on review withheld all information citing section 12 of the FOIA – costs of compliance exceeds the appropriate limit. The Commissioner’s decision is that MHCLG has breached section 16 of the FOIA by failing to provide help and assistance to the complainant to enable him to bring the request within the costs limit. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: Engage with the complainant to explore what information of relevance / interest can be provided to him within the costs limit.
Exemptions cited: FOI 16
View Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government
21 Apr 2021Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to Trans Awareness Training delivered to Tribunal judges. The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) stated that the requested information was not held for the purposes of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the requested information is not held by the MoJ for the purposes of the FOIA. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken as a result of this decision. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2021/0129 allowed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 3
View Ministry of Justice
21 Apr 2021Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested numbers of insurance fraud investigations undertaken in relation to vehicle crime from West Midlands Police (WMP). WMP advised that to provide the requested information would exceed the cost limit at section 12(1) (Cost of compliance exceeds appropriate limit) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that WMP was entitled to rely on section 12(1) of the FOIA. She also finds that it complied with its duties under section 16(1) (Advice and assistance) of the FOIA. No steps are required.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12
View West Midlands Police
20 Apr 2021Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested from the Royal Borough of Greenwich information related to destinations for leavers from the schools within the borough. The Royal Borough stated that it did not hold information falling within the scope of the request and advised the complainant to contact the DfE or individual schools.
The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the Royal Borough was correct when it said that it did not hold information within the scope of the request.
The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Royal Borough of Greenwich
20 Apr 2021Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to Houses of Multiple Occupancy (HMOs). The Commissioner’s decision is that Hull City Council breached sections 1 (general right of access) and 10 (time for compliance) of the FOIA, by failing to disclose to the complainant information to which he is entitled within 20 working days of his request. The Commissioner requires the City Council to take the following step to ensure compliance with the legislation. The City Council must provide a substantive response to the request in accordance with its obligations under the FOIA. The City Council must take this step within 35 calendar days of the date of this decision notice. Failure to comply may result in the Commissioner making written certification of this fact to the High Court pursuant to section 54 of the Act and may be dealt with as a contempt of court.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Kingston upon Hull City Council
20 Apr 2021Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
In a multi-part request, the complainant has requested information about Highways England’s contract with one of its sub-contractors, Kier. Highways England (HE) addressed three parts of the request, withheld information relevant to two parts under section 42(1) of the FOIA (legal professional privilege) and advised that it does not hold the remaining information. In the course of the Commissioner’s investigation HE advised that it intended to release the information it had withheld under section 42(1). The complainant considers that HE holds further information that he has requested, and that it has not addressed parts of his request. The Commissioner’s decision is as follows: On the balance of probabilities HE does not hold information within the scope of parts 3, 6, 7 and 8 of the request. With regard to parts 1 and 4 of the request HE has not complied with section 10(1) of the FOIA as it has not communicated the relevant information it holds within the required timescale of 20
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10; FOI 16
View National Highways
20 Apr 2021Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from the BBC about taxi bookings which were made through the BBC's central booking system and their overall costs. The Commissioner’s decision is that the BBC 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 BBC to respond to the complainant’s request in accordance with the FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View BBC
20 Apr 2021Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from the NHS Commissioning Board (NHS England) regarding Individual Funding Request applications determined by NHS England from 1 January 2013 to the date of the request. NHS England had failed to provide a substantive response by the date of this notice. The Commissioner’s decision is that NHS England failed to respond to the request within 20 working days and has therefore breached section 10 of the FOIA. The Commissioner requires NHS England 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. NHS England 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 NHS England
20 Apr 2021Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from The NHS Commissioning Board (NHS England) relating to a number of letters that the National Data Guardian had advised would be sent from NHSX to organisations to highlight data protection concerns. NHS England had failed to provide a substantive response by the date of this notice. The Commissioner’s decision is that NHS England failed to respond to the request within 20 working days and has therefore breached section 10 of the FOIA. The Commissioner requires NHS England 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. NHS England 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 NHS England
20 Apr 2021Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has submitted an information request to the General Medical Council (the GMC) that refers to three investigation cases. The GMC has refused to confirm or deny it holds information within the scope of the request, under section 40(5B)(a)(i) of the FOIA (personal data), as to do so would disclose individuals’ personal data. The Commissioner’s decision is as follows: The GMC can rely on section 40(5B)(a)(i) of the FOIA to refuse to confirm or deny it holds the requested information as to do so would contravene data protection legislation. Confirmation or denial would release the personal data of particular doctors. The Commissioner does not require the GMC to take any remedial steps. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2021/0131 appeal withdrawn.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View GMC