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 Information Tribunal appeal EA/2021/0131 appeal withdrawn.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
19 Apr 2021Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from Bassetlaw District Council (the Council) relating to cycle and walking audits of Retford and for information relating to a Green Flag award for Kings Park, Retford. 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, 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 Bassetlaw District Council
19 Apr 2021Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from the Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC) about a 2 year contract awarded to Palantir Technologies. The DHSC had failed to provide a substantive response by the date of this notice. The Commissioner’s decision is that the DHSC failed to respond to the request within 20 working days and has therefore breached section 10 of the FOIA. The Commissioner requires the DHSC to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. Issue a substantive response, in accordance with its obligations under the FOIA, to the request. The DHSC must take these steps within 35 calendar days of the date of this decision notice. Failure to comply may result in the Commissioner making written certification of this fact to the High Court pursuant to section 54 of the FOIA and may be dealt with as a contempt of court.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Department of Health and Social Care
19 Apr 2021Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information concerning a particular development. Swansea Council (‘the Council’) refused to comply with the request, citing regulation 12(4)(b) of the EIR as it considered the request to be manifestly unreasonable. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council was entitled to refuse the request under regulation 12(4)(b) of the EIR and that the public interest favours maintaining the exception. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken as a result of this decision notice.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(b)
View Swansea Council
19 Apr 2021Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information about Universal Credit payments received by landlords. The Department for Work and Pensions provided some information, but withheld the remainder – relying on section 40(2) of the FOIA to do so. The Commissioner’s decision is that the DWP does not in fact hold the information within the scope of element [1] of the request and was therefore not obliged to provide it. In relation to element [4], the DWP was entitled to rely on section 40(2) of the FOIA in the manner that it did. However, the Commissioner also finds that the DWP failed to comply with its section 16 duty to provide reasonable advice and assistance. The DWP also failed to respond to elements [3] and [4] within 20 working days and therefore breached section 10 of the FOIA. For reasons that will be explained, the Commissioner does not require further steps in respect of this particular complaint. However, she has made some general comments under “Other Matters” that the DWP would be advis
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10; FOI 16; FOI 40(2)
View Department for Work and Pensions
19 Apr 2021Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from Knowsley Council (“the Council”) relating to Non-Domestic Rates Liability Orders. The Council stated that any such disclosure regarding the Liability Orders granted by the Court is a matter for Merseyside Magistrates’ Courts, it considered the request to be exempt information and cited section 21 (information reasonably accessible by other means) of the FOIA. The Council subsequently provided the complainant with some information relating to the request but withheld the names of the ratepayers (part 1 of the request) and also applied sections 41 (information provided in confidence) and 40(2) (personal data) to this information.
The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council was not entitled to rely on sections 21 and 41 of the FOIA to refuse the request. However, the Commissioner considered that part 1 of the request (ratepayer name where it constitutes a personal name) was correctly withheld under section 40(2) of the FOIA.
The Commi
Exemptions cited: FOI 21; FOI 40(2); FOI 41
View Knowsley Council
19 Apr 2021Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from Witherley Parish Council (the Council) regarding the consultants considered by the Council as part of the Neighbourhood Development Plan process. The Council had failed to provide a substantive response to the 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 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
19 Apr 2021Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from Bristol City Council (the Council) about how the Council had calculated the cost of the damages caused to the statue of Edward Colston on 7 June 2020. 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 Bristol City Council
19 Apr 2021Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from The NHS Commissioning Board (NHS England) about any services provided to the NHS Executive Group by an external organisation between 1 January 2020 and 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, 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
19 Apr 2021Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from The NHS Commissioning Board (NHS England) regarding the NHS Nightingale hospitals. 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
16 Apr 2021Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested a full unredacted copy of an ICO audit report into the DVLAs data protection practices. The ICO refused the request on the basis of section 31, 40 and 44 of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the section 31(1)(g) exemption with section 31(2)(a) and (c) is engaged and the public interest favours maintaining the exemption and withholding the requested information. The Commissioner therefore requires no steps to be taken. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2021/0110 appeal dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 31
View Information Commissioner
15 Apr 2021Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to the Cabinet Office seeking correspondence between it and the University of Southampton about the Broadlands Archive for the period 2016 to 2018. The Cabinet Office provided the complainant with some information but sought to withhold further information on the basis of the following sections of FOIA: 21(1) (information reasonably accessible to the applicant), 35(1)(a) (formulation and development of government policy), 40(2) (personal data) and 41(1) (information provided in confidence). The Commissioner’s decision is that sections 21(1) and 35(1)(a) do not provide a basis to withhold any of the information in the scope of the request. She has also concluded that sections 40(2) and 41(1) provide a basis to withhold some, but not all, of the information to which the Cabinet Office has applied those exemptions. Furthermore, the Commissioner has concluded that the Cabinet Office breached section 17(3) of FOIA by failing to issue its public interest t
Exemptions cited: FOI 17; FOI 21; FOI 35; FOI 40; FOI 41
View Cabinet Office
15 Apr 2021Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has submitted six items of correspondence (each containing multiple information requests) relating to various subject matters including child sexual exploitation, officers’ registers of interest, the sale of public land, and General Election voting. Oldham Council refused to comply with the information requests under section 14(1). The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council is entitled to apply section 14(1). However, the Council breached section 17 by failing to issue a refusal notice within the time for compliance. The Commissioner does not require the Council to take any steps. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2021/0126 appeal allowed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14(1); FOI 17
View Oldham Council
14 Apr 2021Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested planning application and enforcement information about four specific properties. Cheshire West and Chester Council refused the request as manifestly unreasonable on vexatious grounds under regulation 12(4)(b). The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council is entitled to refuse the request under regulation 12(4)(b). The Commissioner does not require the Council to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(b)
View Cheshire West and Chester Council
13 Apr 2021Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to why the council has not sought to recover a sum of money from him following a court judgement for costs placed against him. The Council has previously supplied the complainant with information, however, it has applied section 14(1) to this particular request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council has correctly applied section 14(1) in this instance. The Commissioner does not require the council to take any steps. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2021/0122 appeal dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14
View Wiltshire Council
13 Apr 2021Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about what constituted a “reasonable excuse” for leaving home during the first Covid-19 lockdown. The Crown Prosecution Service relied on section 31(1)(c), section 21, section 40(2) and, later, section 42 of the FOIA to withhold all the information it held. The Commissioner’s decision is that the CPS is not entitled to rely on section 31(1)(c) of the FOIA in respect of any of the withheld information. Section 42 of the FOIA is engaged, but only in respect of some of the requested information. Where the exemption is engaged, the balance of the public interest favours maintaining the exemption. The Commissioner also finds that the CPS has not discharged its duty under section 1(1) of the FOIA properly as the Commissioner’s investigation has identified a further document which falls partially within the scope of the request. As the CPS failed to confirm what information it held and failed to issue a refusal notice, citing all the exemptions on whi
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10; FOI 17; FOI 31; FOI 42
View Crown Prosecution Service
13 Apr 2021Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested a copy of a handbook, manual and other material related to a course from the University of Hull (the university). The university refused to provide the requested information citing sections 21, 40(2), 43(1) and 43(2). The Commissioner’s decision is that the requested information has been correctly withheld under section 43(2) of the FOIA (commercial interests) but that the university breached section 10(1) by failing to respond to the complainant within the legislative timeframe. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10(1); FOI 43(2)
13 Apr 2021Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information about local overbridge works in Helsby. The Commissioner’s decision is that Cheshire West and Chester Council has breached regulations 5(2) and 11(4) by failing to respond to the request within 20 working days, and a review of response within 40 working days. As the Council has now responded to the request and undertaken a review, no steps are required.
Exemptions cited: EIR 11(4); EIR 5(2)
View Cheshire West and Chester Council
12 Apr 2021Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has submitted a series of multi-part requests for information to Northamptonshire Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust (‘the Trust’). The Trust addressed some of the complainant’s questions and has refused to comply with the remainder of the requests under section 12(1) of the FOIA as it says the cost of doing so would exceed the appropriate limit. The Commissioner’s decision is as follows: The cost of complying with the remainder of the complainant’s requests would exceed the appropriate limit under section 12(1) of the FOIA and the Trust is not obliged to do so. The Trust could not have reasonably been expected to provide advice and assistance and no breach of section 16(1) of the FOIA occurred. The Commissioner does not require the Trust to take any remedial steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12; FOI 16
View Northamptonshire Healthcare NHS Trust
12 Apr 2021Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information regarding a planning application viability appraisal. The Commissioner’s decision is that Northumberland County Council incorrectly withheld the viability appraisal document on the basis of regulation 12(5)(e); however it correctly engaged regulation 12(4)(e) to withhold some other information relating to the viability appraisal. The Commissioner does not consider that the council holds any further information in scope of the request. However, she finds that in responding outside of statutory timescales, it failed to comply with the requirements of regulation 5(2). The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: disclose the viability appraisal. First-tier Tribunal (General Regulatory Chamber) Information Rights appeal EA/2021/0116 appeal allowed.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(e); EIR 12(5)(e); EIR 5(1); EIR 5(2)
View Northumberland County Council
9 Apr 2021Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has submitted a series of multi-part requests for information to South West Yorkshire Partnership NHS Foundation Trust (‘the Trust’). The Trust has refused to comply with them under section 12(1) of the FOIA as it says the cost of doing so would exceed the appropriate limit. The Commissioner’s decision is as follows: The cost of complying with the complainant’s requests would exceed the appropriate limit under section 12(1) of the FOIA and the Trust is not obliged to do so. The Trust offered the complainant adequate advice and assistance and no breach of section 16(1) of the FOIA occurred. The Commissioner does not require the Trust to take any remedial steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12; FOI 16
View South West Yorkshire Partnership NHS Foundation Trust
9 Apr 2021Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested from Norwich City Council (“the Council”) information relating to the amount it has spent on a tennis court project.
The Commissioner’s view is that the request should have been handled under the Environmental Information Regulations (“the EIR”) as opposed to the Freedom of Information Act (“the Act”).
The Commissioner requires the Council to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation.
Issue a fresh response to the request 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
View Norwich City Council
8 Apr 2021Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested a Data Compliance Report from Trowbridge Town Council.
Trowbridge Town Council refused the request under Section 14 of the FOIA. However, during the Commissioner’s investigation it disclosed the requested information on an informal basis. The Commissioner’s decision is that Trowbridge Town Council has breached Section 10 of the FOIA by not disclosing the requested information within 20 working day. However, as the information has since been disclosed she does not require any steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
8 Apr 2021Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information from Trowbridge Town Council on the financial spend on a particular development project. Trowbridge Town Council eventually disclosed the requested information but took in excess of twenty working days in which to do so. The Commissioner’s decision is that Trowbridge Town Council has failed to comply with Regulation 5(2) of the EIR. However, as the requested information has been disclosed she does not require any steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: EIR 5(2)
8 Apr 2021Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information on restrictive covenants relating to a land transfer from Trowbridge Town Council. Trowbridge Town Council refused the request under Section 14 of the FOIA. However, during the Commissioner’s investigation it disclosed the requested information on an informal basis. The Commissioner’s decision is that the request is covered by the EIR and Trowbridge Town Council has failed to comply with Regulation 5(2) by not disclosing the information within 20 working days. However, as the requested information has been disclosed she does not require any steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: EIR 5(2)
8 Apr 2021Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about Area 9 and Area 10 of the Strategic Road Network from Highways England (HE). HE stated that it did not hold the information relating to Area 10 and refused under section 41(2) to confirm or deny whether it held the information relating to Area 9.
The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probability, HE does not hold the requested information relating to Area 10. She has also decided that HE was entitled to rely on neither confirming or denying whether it holds the requested information relating to Area 9. However, HE 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 the public authority to take any further steps. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2021/0101 allowed in part.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10(1); FOI 41
View National Highways
8 Apr 2021Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about the School of Oriental and African Studies’ Southeast Asian Art Academic Programme. The School of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS) released some information, advised that it does not hold other information and withheld the remaining information under sections 36(2)(b)(ii) and 36(2)(c) of the FOIA (prejudice to the effective conduct of public affairs), section 41(1) (information provided in confidence) and section 43(commercial interests). The complainant disputes that SOAS does not hold particular information and its application of the above exemptions to some of the information she has requested. The Commissioner’s decision is as follows: On the balance of probabilities, SOAS does not hold information within the scope of part 5 of the request and holds no further information within the scope of part 6. SOAS has complied with section 1(1) of the FOIA in respect of those two parts. SOAS is entitled to rely on section 36(2)(c) of the
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10; FOI 17; FOI 36
8 Apr 2021Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to offenders over the age of 25 who, whilst on licence committed a serious further offence of murder, manslaughter or rape in 2018 and 2019. The Ministry of Justice (the ‘MOJ’) ultimately refused to provide the information for the remaining nine months of 2019. The Commissioner’s decision is that the MOJ has correctly applied section 44(1)(a) of the FOIA to the information for the remaining nine months of 2019. The Commissioner does not require the MOJ to take any steps as a result of this notice. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2021/0119 appeal dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12(1)
View Ministry of Justice
8 Apr 2021Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from the London Borough of Hackney about specified communications. The London Borough of Hackney has failed to respond to this request. The Commissioner requires the London Borough of Hackney to provide the complainant with a response to this request in accordance with its obligations under FOIA. The London Borough of Hackney must take these steps within 35 calendar days of the date of this decision notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View London Borough of Hackney
8 Apr 2021Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from Sussex Police about specified emails. Sussex Police has failed to respond to this request. The Commissioner requires Sussex Police to provide the complainant with a response to this request in accordance with its obligations under FOIA. Sussex Police must take these steps within 35 calendar days of the date of this decision notice
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Sussex Police
7 Apr 2021Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has submitted a seven part information request to Transport for Greater Manchester in relation electric charging points for vehicles in various locations in Greater Manchester. TfGM provided part of the information requested and stated that it did not hold the remainder.
The Commissioner’s decision is that on the balance of probabilities, TfGM does not hold any recorded information falling within part 5 and it disclosed all the information it held within the scope of the remaining parts of the request.
Therefore, the Commissioner does not require TfGM to take any steps as a result of this decision. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2021/0099 under appeal.
Exemptions cited: EIR 5(1)
View Mayor of Greater Manchester
7 Apr 2021Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted to Camden and Islington NHS Foundation Trust a 110 part request for information relating to electroconvulsive therapy (ECT), serious incidents, restraints, seclusion and medication errors. The Trust refused to comply with the requests as it said it would exceed the cost limit under section 12(1) FOIA to do so.
The Commissioner’s decision is that the Trust was correct to apply section 12(1) of FOIA and that it was not therefore obliged to comply with the requests. The Commissioner also considers that the Trust provided the complainant with advice and assistance in accordance with its obligations under section 16 of FOIA.
The Commissioner does not require the Trust to take any step as a result of this decision notice. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2021/0038 struck out.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12; FOI 16; FOI 17
View North London NHS Foundation Trust
7 Apr 2021Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested the contact details of an indemnity insurer. Following its internal review, the Financial Conduct Authority (the FCA) took the position that the information was not held. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the requested information is not held. The Commissioner does not require any steps to be taken. First-tier tribunal (General Regulatory chamber) information rights appeal EA/2021/0121 Appeal Dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Financial Conduct Authority
7 Apr 2021Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested details of payments made to a particular GP practice for student placements. The Council of Imperial College relied on section 40(2) of the FOIA to withhold information. The Commissioner’s decision is that the College has not correctly applied section 40(2) of the FOIA to any part of the request. In respect of elements 1, 3 and 4 of the request, it has not demonstrated that the information would be personal data. In respect of element 2, any information the College held would be personal data and therefore the Commissioner is proactively applying section 40(5B) of the FOIA to prevent the College from confirming or denying whether it holds relevant information. The Commissioner requires the College to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: disclose the information that it holds within the scope of elements 1, 3 and 4 of the request.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
7 Apr 2021Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested documents related to the rollout of Universal Credit. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Department for Work and Pensions is not entitled to rely on sections 22, 35 or 36 to withhold the requested information.
The Commissioner requires the public authority to disclose the requested information with the agreed redactions under section 40(2). 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. First-tier tribunal (General Regulatory chamber) information rights appeal EA/2021/0118 consent order.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 22; FOI 35; FOI 36
View Department for Work and Pensions
7 Apr 2021Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to advice and requests for approvals to Ministers following the collapse of Thomas Cook. The public authority withheld the information held within the scope of the request (the disputed information) on the basis of the exemptions at sections 35(1)(a), 35(1)(b), 40(2) and 43(2) FOIA. The Commissioner concluded that the public authority was entitled to rely on the exemption at section 35(1)(a) as the basis for withholding the disputed information. First-tier Tribunal (General Regulatory Chamber) Information Rights appeal EA/2021/0120 dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 35(1)(a)
View HM Treasury
7 Apr 2021Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information relating to work done on his property and attached buildings. The council initially applied section 12 after estimating that providing the information would exceed the appropriate limit. During the Commissioner's investigation it reconsidered the request and said that, on reflection, no information is held falling within the scope of the complainant's request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the request was for environmental information and should have been considered under the EIR. She has also decided, however, that the council was correct to state that no information is held falling within the scope of the complainant's request for information; Regulation 12(4)(a) was therefore applicable. She has also decided that the council did not comply with the requirements of Regulation 5(2) in that it did not tell the complainant that no information was held within 20 working days. The Commissioner does not require the council to take any steps
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(a); EIR 5(2)
View Warrington Council
6 Apr 2021Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from the closed file MEPO 3/341. The National Archives (TNA) has withheld the information under section 40(2) of the FOIA because it says it is the personal data of a third person. The Commissioner’s decision is as follows: The requested information is exempt from disclosure under section 40(2) of the FOIA as it is the special category personal data of a third person and disclosure would be unlawful. The Commissioner does not require TNA to take any remedial steps. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2021/0107 allowed in part.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View The National Archives
6 Apr 2021Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested particular meeting minutes from Peterlee Town Council (‘the Council’) and the Council has released the relevant information it holds. The Commissioner’s decision is as follows: The Council breached section 10(1) of the FOIA as it did not comply with section 1(1) within the statutory timeframe of 20 working days following the date of receipt of the request. The Council has now complied with section 1(1) and the Commissioner does require it to take any further remedial steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
6 Apr 2021Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information from High Speed Two (HS2) Limited (“HS2”) about properties it had purchased since its inception. HS2 initially considered the request under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA). It disclosed some randomised information, but said that it could not provide the information as requested (in the form of a spreadsheet with full address details and accompanying prices) since this would be exempt under section 31(1)(a) – law enforcement (Prevention of crime) and/or section 40(2) – personal information. After reconsidering the request under the EIR, HS2 continued to withhold the information, relying on the exceptions at regulation 12(5)(a) – adversely affect public safety, regulation 12(5)(b) – adversely affect the course of justice, and/or regulation 13 – personal data. The Commissioner’s decision is that the exception at regulation 12(5)(a) is engaged, and that the balance of the public interest favours maintaining the exception. The Commissioner do
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(a)
View High Speed Two (HS2) Limited
6 Apr 2021Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information regarding a planning application. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead were correct to withhold information on the basis of regulations 12(5)(b) and 13(1). She also finds that on the balance of probabilities, the council does not hold any further information in scope of the request. However, the council responded outside of statutory timescales and therefore breached regulation 5(2) of the EIR. The Commissioner does not require any steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(b); EIR 13(1); EIR 5(2)
View Windsor and Maidenhead Council
1 Apr 2021Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to the Cabinet Office asking whether their Propriety and Ethics team held any information about non-disclosure agreements (NDAs) between Mr Dominic Raab, Secretary of State for Foreign Commonwealth and Development Affairs and First Secretary of State, and members of the civil service. The complainant was not seeking the details or contents of any such NDAs but rather whether such information was held and the number of such NDAs if held. The Cabinet Office relied on section 40(5) (personal data) of the FOIA 2000 to refuse to confirm or deny whether they held any information falling within scope of the request.
The Commissioner has concluded that the Cabinet Office was entitled to rely on section 40(5) to refuse to confirm or deny whether they held any information falling within scope of the request. However, the Commissioner also finds that, in failing to issue a refusal notice within 20 working days, the Cabinet Office breached section 17(1) o
Exemptions cited: FOI 40(5)
View Cabinet Office
1 Apr 2021Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested from the Ministry of Justice (“the MOJ”) information relating to the First-Tier Information Rights Tribunal.
The Commissioner’s decision is that the MOJ failed to respond to the request within 20 working days and therefore breached section 10 of the FOIA.
No steps are required.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Ministry of Justice
31 Mar 2021Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested demographic information about successful applicants to a clinical psychology traineeship. The Council of the University of Exeter provided some information but withheld the remainder relying on section 40(2) of the FOIA (third party personal data) in order to do so. The Commissioner’s decision is that the University holds no further information within the scope of the first three elements of the request. In respect of the fourth element, it was not entitled to rely on section 40(2) to withhold information, although it does not hold some of the information which has been requested. In failing to inform the complainant, within 20 working days, that it did not hold some of the requested information, the University also breached section 10(1) of the FOIA. Finally, the University failed to comply with its section 16 obligation to provide advice and assistance. The Commissioner requires the University to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the leg
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10; FOI 16; FOI 40(2)
View The University of Exeter
31 Mar 2021Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested the number of complaints the BBC received about the daily broadcast of Scotland’s First Minister’s COVID-19 briefings. The BBC responded to the complainant saying that the requested information was covered by the derogation and hence excluded from the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that this information was held by the BBC for the purposes of journalism, art or literature and so was not covered by the FOIA. She therefore upholds the BBC’s position and requires no remedial steps to be taken in this case.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View BBC
31 Mar 2021Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested demographic information about successful applicants to a clinical psychology traineeship. The Council of the University of Bath provided some information but withheld the remainder relying on section 40(2) of the FOIA (third party personal data) in order to do so. The Commissioner’s decision is that the University holds no further information within the scope of the first three elements of the request. In respect of the fourth element, it was not entitled to rely on section 40(2) to withhold information, although it does not hold some of the information which has been requested. In failing to respond within 20 working days, the University also breached section 10(1) of the FOIA. Finally, the University failed to comply with its section 16 obligation to provide advice and assistance. The Commissioner requires the University to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: disclose the information it holds in respect of elements (4.1),
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10; FOI 16; FOI 40(2)
31 Mar 2021Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from the Tavistock and Portman NHS Foundation Trust (“the Trust”), regarding written communications between it and the Health Research Authority (“HRA”) in relation to a specific investigation carried out by the HRA. The Commissioner’s decision is that on the balance of probabilities, the Trust does not hold information in relation to the request. The Commissioner does not require the Trust to take any steps as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Tavistock and Portman NHS Foundation Trust
31 Mar 2021Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has asked to know the outcome of a complaint he submitted to Operation Snap about an alleged offence committed by another driver. South Wales Police (SWP) would neither confirm nor deny whether it held the requested information, citing the exemption at section 40(5) (Personal information) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the requested information, if held, would be the complainant’s own personal data and therefore that SWP was entitled to rely on section 40(5A) of the FOIA to refuse to confirm or deny whether it held it.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View South Wales Police
30 Mar 2021Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant submitted two requests, seeking the same information, to HM Treasury (HMT) asking for a list of communications and documents held by it relating to Lydian International’s Amulsar gold mining project in Armenia. HMT sought to withhold the information on the basis of regulation 12(5)(a) (international relations) of the EIR. It subsequently withdrew its reliance on this exception during the course of the Commissioner’s investigation and provided the complainant with the information he had requested. The Commissioner has concluded that HMT has breached regulation 5(2) of the EIR by failing to provide the complainant with the requested information within 20 working days of either request.
Exemptions cited: EIR 5(2)
View HM Treasury
30 Mar 2021Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to the Cabinet Office seeking information about the Broadlands Archive dating from 1987 to 1989. The Cabinet Office located one document falling within the scope of the request but sought to withhold this on the basis of section 21(1) (information reasonably accessible to the requester), albeit that it subsequently voluntarily provided the complainant with a copy of this. The complainant argued that the Cabinet Office was likely to hold more information falling within the scope of his request and disputed the Cabinet Office’s reliance on section 21(1) of FOIA. The Commissioner has concluded that on the balance of probabilities the Cabinet Office does not hold any further information falling within the scope of the request. She has also concluded that the Cabinet Office cannot rely on section 21(1) of FOIA however she has not ordered it provide the complainant with a copy of the information withheld on the basis of this exemption as it has already vol
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 21
View Cabinet Office