30 Mar 2021Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested copies of parish council meeting minutes. The Commissioner’s decision is that Ditchling Parish Council is entitled to rely on the exemption at section 21, However, it breached section 10(1) in responding to the complainant outside of statutory time periods. The Commissioner does not require any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10(1); FOI 21
30 Mar 2021Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from the Welsh Government about the 2016 Exercise Cygnus pandemic drill and connected issues relating to: widespread infection and disease; PPE equipment; care homes; coronavirus assistance offered by the EU; testing and quarantine at Welsh ports and airports; and, border control. The Commissioner decided that the cost to the Welsh Government of providing the requested information would far exceed the appropriate cost limit and that its refusal had therefore complied with the section 12(1) (cost of compliance) FOIA exemption. The Commissioner also decided that, in the actions taken to provide advice and assistance, the Welsh Government had complied with its duties under section 16(1) FOIA. The Commissioner does not require the Welsh Government to take any steps to comply with the legislation.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12; FOI 16
View Welsh Government
30 Mar 2021Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to the Cabinet Office seeking a schedule of information falling within the scope of two previous FOI requests he had submitted to it. The Cabinet Office refused to comply with the request on the basis of sections 14(1) (vexatious) and 14(2) (repeated request) of FOIA. The Commissioner concluded that the request is neither vexatious nor repeated and therefore the Cabinet Office is not entitled to rely on section 14(1) or section 14(2) to refuse to comply with the request.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14
View Cabinet Office
30 Mar 2021Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested copies of governing bodies and head teachers’ responses to a consultation run by the council relating to its ‘Schools for the Future’ project. The council provided some information but refused to provide the majority on the basis that section 41 of the Act applied (information provided in confidence). In the internal review, the council withdrew its reliance upon section 41 and relied upon section 21 (information available to the applicant by other means), and section 43(2) (commercial interests). The Commissioner’s decision is that the council was not correct to apply section 43(2) to withhold information. She has however decided that it was correct to withhold other information under section 21. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. To disclose the information withheld under section 43 to the complainant.
Exemptions cited: FOI 21; FOI 43(2)
View Central Bedfordshire Council
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
30 Mar 2021Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information relating to the development of Princes Parade, Hythe. The council provided some information however the complainant argued that further information must be held. During the course of the Commissioner's investigation the council located further information and did not apply any exceptions. It did not, however, respond to the Commissioner when asked to either specify whether it was relying up on an exception, or to disclose the information to the requestor. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council has failed to comply with the requirements of Regulation 5(1) in that it has not provided information falling within the scope of the request to the complainant. She has also decided that it has failed to comply with the requirements of Regulation 5(2) in that it has not provided that information within 20 workings days, as required. She has also decided that the council did not comply with the requirements of Regulation 11(4) in that it did not
Exemptions cited: EIR 11(4); EIR 5(1); EIR 5(2)
View Folkestone and Hythe District Council
30 Mar 2021Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information in relation to the construction of a road near their property. The Commissioner’s decision is that Lancashire County Council is entitled to rely upon regulation 12(4)(b) and that the public interest rests in maintaining this exception. However, the Commissioner finds that the council breached regulation 14 in its handling of the request. The Commissioner does not require any steps. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2021/0106 appeal allowed.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(b); EIR 14
View Lancashire County Council
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
29 Mar 2021Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested details of charges brought in respect of mountain fires in Rhondda. South Wales Police failed to respond to the request within the statutory time for compliance. Accordingly the Commissioner’s decision is that South Wales Police failed to comply with section 17(1) of FOIA. Since South Wales Police has now issued a response the Commissioner does not require any steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 17
View South Wales Police
29 Mar 2021Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to a meeting between the UK Prime Minister and the Dalai Lama in May 2008. The Cabinet Office refused the request, citing section 27 (prejudice to international relations), section 40 (third party personal data) and section 41 (information provided in confidence). The Commissioner’s decision is that the exemption at section 27 is engaged in respect of the withheld information, and the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosing the information. No steps are required.
Exemptions cited: FOI 17; FOI 27
View Cabinet Office
29 Mar 2021Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested the training, experience and technical education of an inspector of the Health and Safety Executive (the HSE). The HSE provided a generic list of training for inspectors but it stated that it did not hold training information about the named HSE inspector. The HSE has also refused to provide the experience and qualifications of the named HSE inspector under section 40(2) of the FOIA (third party personal data). The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the HSE does not hold any training information in relation to the named HSE inspector. The Commissioner has also decided that the HSE is entitled to rely on section 40(2) of the FOIA to withhold the experience and qualifications of the named HSE inspector. However, the Commissioner has recorded a procedural breach of section 1 and section 10 of the FOIA as the HSE failed to advise the complainant that it did not hold the training information of the named HSE inspector within the s
Exemptions cited: FOI 1(1); FOI 10(1); FOI 40(2)
View Health and Safety Executive
29 Mar 2021Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from Cormac Solutions Limited (“Cormac”), a wholly-owned company serving Cornwall Council, about employees’ bonuses for 2017/2018. Cormac provided some information, but withheld the total amount of the bonuses under section 43(2) of the FOIA – commercial interests. Subsequently, Cormac additionally asserted that the information comprised third party personal data and was exempt under section 40(2). The Commissioner’s decision is that the requested information comprises the personal data of individuals and disclosure would not be lawful, and therefore Cormac correctly withheld the information under section 40(2) of the FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
29 Mar 2021Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested communications from the ICO about its investigation into the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency’s release of keeper data. The ICO has withheld the information under section 31(1)(g) of the FOIA (law enforcement) and considers the public interest favours maintaining this exemption. The Commissioner’s decision is as follows: At the time of the request for it, the information was exempt information under section 31(1)(g) of the FOIA and the public interest favoured maintaining that exemption. The Commissioner does not require the ICO to take any remedial steps. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2021/0086 appeal dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 31
View Information Commissioner
29 Mar 2021Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested from Sheffield City Council (“the Council”) information relating to the Council’s use of a specific email header. The Council refused the request under section 14(1) of the FOIA as it considered it to be vexatious.
The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council was not entitled to rely upon section 14(1) of the FOIA to refuse to comply with this request.
The Commissioner requires the Council to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation.
Issue a fresh response to the request in which it does not cite section 14(1) of 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 14(1)
View Sheffield City Council
29 Mar 2021Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about a licence to operate as a consumer enforcement body, provided by Central Government to the Advertising Standards Authority (‘ASA’). The Commissioner’s decision is that BEIS does not hold the requested information and has complied with section 1 FOIA by informing the complainant that it does not hold the requested information. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps to ensure compliance with the legislation.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Department for Business and Trade
29 Mar 2021Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested copies of correspondence sent by a particular parish councillor. Steyning Parish Council initially refused the request as manifestly unreasonable before stating that it had disclosed the information voluntarily. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Parish Council did not in fact hold any relevant information for the purposes of the EIR. However, the Parish Council failed to issue a refusal notice stating that it did not hold the information within 20 working days and therefore breached Regulation 14(2) of the EIR. The Parish Council also failed to carry out a reconsideration (internal review) of its response and therefore breached Regulation 11 of the EIR. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 11(4); EIR 14(2)(1); EIR 5(1)
29 Mar 2021Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information from Lee Valley Regional Park Authority (LVRPA) about its disposal of parcels of land. LVRPA has refused to disclose the information it holds that is relevant to part 1 of the request under regulation 12(4)(e) of the EIR (internal communications) and considers the public interest favours maintaining this exception. The complainant disputes LVRPA’s reliance on regulation 12(4)(e) and considers that LVRPA holds further information within the scope of the second part of his request. The Commissioner’s decision is as follows: On the civil standard of the balance of probabilities, LVRPA does not hold information within the scope of part 2 of the request and therefore regulation 12(4)(a) can be applied to that information. The information that LVRPA holds that falls within the scope of part 1 of the request can be categorised as an internal communication under regulation 12(4)(e) of the EIR and the public interest favours maintaining this exception
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(a); EIR 12(4)(e)
26 Mar 2021Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) regarding cases of occupational exposures to Covid-19 and work-related deaths due to exposure to Covid-19 which have been reported to the HSE under the RIDDOR. The HSE had failed to provide a substantive response by the date of this notice. The Commissioner’s decision is that the HSE failed to respond to the request within 20 working days and has therefore breached section 10 of the FOIA. The Commissioner requires the HSE to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. Issue a substantive response, under the FOIA, to the request. The HSE 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 Health and Safety Executive
26 Mar 2021Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested copies of correspondence sent between Hastings Borough Council (the council) and East Sussex County Council (ESCC) about footpath closures, landslips and land stability within a local country park since 2011. The council provided the complainant with some information in response to his request; however, it advised that certain information had been withheld under regulation 12(5)(b) and 12(5)(e) of the EIR. In addition, the council confirmed that redactions had been made to the copies of correspondence that had been released where the information did not fall within the scope of the request. During the course of the Commissioner’s investigation, the council released some additional information to the complainant. It advised that it still regarded some information to be exempt from disclosure on the basis that it was the personal data of third parties, or was subject to legal professional privilege. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of prob
Exemptions cited: EIR 11(4); EIR 12(5)(b); EIR 13; EIR 14(2)(1); EIR 5(2)
View Hastings Borough Council
26 Mar 2021Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant submitted a two-part request to Hastings Borough Council (the council) for certain information which it had received from a particular geotechnical company. The council confirmed that it did not hold information relevant to part 1 of the complainant’s request. It then went on to refuse part 2 of the request, referring to a letter which had previously been sent to the complainant by its legal department. At the internal review stage, the council maintained its previous position in relation to part 1 of the request. Whilst it now referred to section 12 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 as its basis for refusing part 2 of the request, it then went on to release the details of two reports to the complainant. During the course of the Commissioner’s investigation, the council then confirmed that it wished to rely on regulation 12(4)(b) when refusing to comply with part 2 of the request. The Commissioner is satisfied that, on the balance of probabilities, the council was
Exemptions cited: EIR 11(4); EIR 12(4)(b); EIR 14(3); EIR 5
View Hastings Borough Council
26 Mar 2021Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested copies of emails from Liverpool City Council (the Council) between the then Mayor and others on the subject of Tarmacademy Limited and plans to use taxpayer money to purchase land for a number of third parties. 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 Liverpool City Council
26 Mar 2021Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from The NHS Commissioning Board (NHS England) about the Royal Voluntary Service and the NHS Volunteer scheme. 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
25 Mar 2021Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information relating to a stove and flue installation at a specified property address. The Council has provided her with some information in response to her request, however it has stated that it does not hold the remaining requested information.
The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the Council does not hold any further information within the scope of the complainant’s request.
The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: EIR 5
View South Holland District Council
25 Mar 2021Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested various information in respect of dog breeders licenses from Pembrokeshire County Council. The Council cited section 21 for part of the request and refused the remainder on the basis of section 31(1)(a) of the FOIA. Following the Commissioner’s investigation, the Council provided redacted copies of the requested documents but continued to rely on section 31(1)(a) in respect of a small amount of information. It also informed the Commissioner that it was now relying on section 40(2) to redact the personal information within the documents. The Commissioner’s decision is that Pembrokeshire County Council has correctly relied on section 31(1)(a) and section 40(2) to refuse the remainder of the information. However, the Council has also breached section 10(1) of the FOIA in failing to provide the information to the complainant within the time specified by the FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 31; FOI 40
View Pembrokeshire County Council
25 Mar 2021Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant submitted five information requests to Cheshire Constabulary regarding different matters related to hunting. The Constabulary refused to comply with the requests, considering them to be vexatious.
The Commissioner’s decision is that the Constabulary incorrectly handled the requests under FOIA instead of the EIR and failed to demonstrate that the exception provided under regulation 12(4)(b) is engaged and is therefore not entitled to rely on this exception.
The Commissioner requires the Constabulary to issue a fresh response that does not rely on regulation 12(4)(b) of the EIR, for each of the five requests.
The Constabulary 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 FOIA and may be dealt with as a contempt of court.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(b)
25 Mar 2021Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested Information relating to the appointment of a PR consultant at the council.
The Commissioner’s decision is that the 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 Council to take the following step to ensure compliance with the legislation.
The Council must provide a substantive response to the request in accordance with its obligations under the FOIA.
The 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 Middlesbrough Council
25 Mar 2021Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information in respect of care plans from Swansea Council’s Social Services department. Swansea Council refused the request on the basis of section 12 of the FOIA and during the Commissioner’s investigation, questioned the validity of the request as defined by section 8 of the FOIA and also cited section 14(1). The Commissioner’s decision is that the request fulfils the requirements of section 8 of the FOIA, and that Swansea Council was not entitled to rely on either section 12 or section 14(1) of the FOIA
Exemptions cited: FOI 12; FOI 14; FOI 8
View Swansea Council
25 Mar 2021Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant submitted five information requests to Cheshire Constabulary regarding different matters related to hunting. The Constabulary refused to comply with the requests, considering them to be vexatious.
The Commissioner’s decision is that the Constabulary incorrectly handled the requests under FOIA instead of the EIR and failed to demonstrate that the exception provided under regulation 12(4)(b) is engaged and is therefore not entitled to rely on this exception.
The Commissioner requires the Constabulary to issue a fresh response that does not rely on regulation 12(4)(b) of the EIR, for each of the five requests.
The Constabulary 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 FOIA and may be dealt with as a contempt of court.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(b)
24 Mar 2021Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to late responses to subject access requests (SARs).The Commissioner’s decision is that Northumbria Police has correctly cited section 12(1) – cost of compliance, in response to the request. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps as a result of this decision notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12
View Northumbria Police
24 Mar 2021Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested the minutes of the government’s Windrush Commemorative Committee (WCC) and evidence of settlers’ arrival from the Caribbean in the 1950s/60s at Waterloo Station. The Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG) withheld the minutes citing section 35(1)a – information relating to the formulation of government policy. It said it did not hold information concerning settlers’ arrivals at Waterloo Station. The Commissioner’s decision is that the MHCLG correctly engaged section 35(1)a for the minutes of WCC meetings held between June 2018 and June 2019. However, the public interest in disclosure outweighs the public interest in maintaining the exemption. For the minutes from meetings after 22 June 2019 until the time of the request, the exemption is not engaged. She also finds that on the balance of probability, the Ministry does not hold information about settlers arrivals at London Waterloo Station. The Commissioner requires the public authori
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 35(1)(a)
View Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government
24 Mar 2021Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from the General Medical Council (“the GMC”) regarding complaints made about a specific doctor. The Commissioner’s decision is that the GMC is entitled to rely on section 40(5) to reuse to confirm or deny that it holds the information. The Commissioner does not require the GMC to take any further action in this matter. Information Tribunal appeal UA-2022-000410-GIA PTA refused.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40(5)
View GMC
24 Mar 2021Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information about two different types of statutory notices issued by Hampshire County Council (the council) under the Highways Act 1980. The council issued a refusal notice to the complainant, initially citing section 12(1) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA). During the Commissioner’s investigation the council revised its position, confirming that it now wished to rely on regulation 12(4)(b) of the EIR when refusing to comply with the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council is entitled to rely on regulation 12(4)(b) of the EIR. Furthermore, as it has offered reasonable advice and assistance to the complainant, it has complied with regulation 9(1). However, by failing to initially deal with request under the EIR, the Commissioner has found that the council has breached regulation 14(3). The Commissioner does not require the council to take any steps as a result of this decision notice.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(b); EIR 14(3); EIR 9(1)
View Hampshire County Council
24 Mar 2021Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information from Ribble Valley Borough Council (“the Council”) about land at Chapel Hill, Longridge, in Lancashire. After initially considering the request under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA), the Council provided some information, but withheld the majority of the requested information under section 31(1)(g) of the FOIA – Prejudicial to law enforcement functions. After reconsidering the request under the EIR, the Council still considered the withheld information to be exempt from disclosure under regulation 12(5)(b) – Adversely affect the course of justice – and/or regulation 12(4)(e) – Internal communications. The Commissioner’s decision is that the exception at regulation 12(5)(b) is not engaged with respect to the information. With respect to the information which was additionally withheld under regulation 12(4)(e), the Commissioner finds that the exception is engaged, but that the balance of the public interest favours disclosure of the inform
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(e); EIR 12(5)(b)
View Ribble Valley Borough Council
24 Mar 2021Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to the reason police attended at a specified location at a given date and time. West Midlands Police refused to provide the requested information, citing sections 40(2) (personal information) and 30(1) (investigations and proceedings conducted by public authorities) of the FOIA. The Commissioner investigated its application of section 30(1) and considered whether there was a procedural breach of section 17 (refusal of request). The Commissioner’s decision is that West Midlands Police was entitled to rely on section 30(1) of the FOIA to withhold the requested information. She is also satisfied that it complied with its obligations under section 17. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: FOI 17; FOI 30
View West Midlands Police
24 Mar 2021Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to a long-standing complaint about a family grave. Sunderland City Council (the Council) refused to comply with the request under the criteria for section 17(6) of the FOIA (refusal of request). The Commissioner’s decision is that the request was vexatious and the Council was entitled to apply section 14(1) of the FOIA (vexatious request) to refuse the request. She also considers that the Council was not obliged to issue a refusal notice in respect of the request, in accordance with section 17(6) of the FOIA. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14; FOI 17
View Sunderland City Council
23 Mar 2021Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from Cambourne Town Council (“the Council”) about salary band allocation for staff members and public money spent on several different areas. 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 further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40(2)
23 Mar 2021Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested from the London Borough of Ealing (“the Council”) information relating to a specific planning application.
The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council failed to respond to the request within 20 working days and has therefore breached regulation 5(2) of the EIR.
The Commissioner requires the Council to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation.
• Issue a substantive response to the request in accordance with its obligations under the EIR.
The Council must take these steps within 35 calendar days of the date of this decision notice. Failure to comply may result in the Commissioner making written certification of this fact to the High Court pursuant to section 54 of the Freedom of Information Act and may be dealt with as a contempt of court.
Exemptions cited: EIR 5(2)
View Ealing Council
23 Mar 2021Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested Highways England (HE) to provide a breakdown of the number of emails or communications sent between certain email addresses and any Highways England/Agency email address over a four year period. HE refused to comply with the request, citing section 12 of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that HE is entitled to refuse to comply with the request in accordance with section 12 of the FOIA. She has however found HE in breach of section 16 of the FOIA. HE is required to provide advice and assistance to the complainant so far as this is reasonable and practicable.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12; FOI 16
View National Highways
23 Mar 2021Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information regarding a planning application. The Commissioner’s decision is that Milton Keynes Council does not hold any information in scope of the request. However, the council responded to part of the request outside of statutory timescales and therefore breached regulation 5(2) of the EIR. The Commissioner does not require any steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 5(1); EIR 5(2)
View Milton Keynes Council
22 Mar 2021Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested correspondence relating to a land sale. The Crown Estate provided some information and stated that it held no further information within the scope of the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Crown Estate 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 Crown Estate complied with its duty under Regulation 5(1) of the EIR. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 5(1)
View The Crown Estate
22 Mar 2021Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested financial information about major events over a three year period. Swansea Council (‘the Council’) provided some information but withheld other information under section 43 of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has correctly applied section 43 to the withheld information. She does not require any steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 43
View Swansea Council
22 Mar 2021Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to a review of safeguarding procedures. The Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) asserted that the requested information is not held. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, DWP does hold the requested information and has failed to fully consider and respond to the request in accordance with section 1(1). In failing to comply with section 1(1), DWP has breached section 10(1). The Commissioner requires the public authority to issue a fresh response to the request that does not deny that the information is held (ie DWP needs to comply with section 1(1)(a) by confirming that the information is held) AND then either disclose the information or issue a refusal notice citing a reason to withhold the information. The public authority must take these steps within 35 calendar days of the date of this decision notice. Failure to comply may result in the Commissioner making written certification of this fact to the Hig
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10
View Department for Work and Pensions
22 Mar 2021Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
Summary wording for website: The complainant has requested information held by the National Resilience Capabilities Programme or the National Security Council: Ministerial SubCommittee on Resilience. The Cabinet Office response to this was considerably delayed but, following service of a decision notice by the Commissioner, it refused to confirm or deny whether it held the requested information citing FOIA Casework created date: (From E088 report) 31.1.20 section 24(2) (national security) and its equivalent in EIR (regulation 12(5)(a)) as its basis for doing so. It upheld this at internal review. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Cabinet Office is entitled to rely on FOIA section 24(2) and EIR regulation 12(5)(a) as its basis for refusing to confirm or deny whether it holds the requested information. No steps are required.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(a); FOI 24(2)
View Cabinet Office
22 Mar 2021Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from The National Archives (TNA) held in a closed file ‘PREM 16/1840 ROYAL FAMILY. Prince of Wales’. TNA withheld the requested information citing sections 37(1)(a) which relates to communication with or on behalf of the sovereign and section 37(1)(aa) which exempts information relating to communications with the heir and second in line to the Throne. TNA also cited section 40(2) and section 41 regarding the withheld information. The Commissioner’s decision is that TNA was correct in withholding the information on the basis of the exemptions at section 37(1)(a) and 37(1)(aa). However, TNA breached section 10(1) of the FOIA by not responding within the statutory timeframe. The Commissioner does not require any further steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10(1); FOI 37(1)(a); FOI 37(1)(aa)
View The National Archives
22 Mar 2021Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from Highways England about costs associated with pricing third party claims. Highways England has categorised the request as a repeat request under section 14(2) of the FOIA and has refused to comply with it. The Commissioner’s decision is as follows: The complainant’s request is a repeat request under section 14(2) of the FOIA and Highways England is not obliged to comply with it. The Commissioner does not require Highways England to take any remedial steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14
View National Highways
22 Mar 2021Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested copies of engineering reports related to Hammersmith Bridge from the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham (the “Council”). The Council initially handled the request under FOIA and refused to provide the information under FOIA sections 24 and 38 (national security and health and safety respectively). At internal review, it revised its position and Casework created date: (From E088 report)cited the equivalent EIR exception for national security (regulation 12(5)(a) but also inferred that it could refuse the request under regulation 12(4)(b) – manifestly unreasonable on the grounds of cost. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council can rely on regulation 12(4)(b) as its basis for refusing to provide the requested information. It breached the requirements of regulation 11 by failing to conduct an internal review within 40 working days. No steps are required.
Exemptions cited: EIR 11; EIR 12(4)(b)
View Hammersmith and Fulham Council
22 Mar 2021Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to a police officer found guilty of using racist language. The Chief Constable of Greater Manchester Police relied upon sections 30 (investigations), 38 (health and safety) and 40(2) of the FOIA (third party personal data) to withhold the requested information. The Commissioner’s decision is that GMP has correctly relied upon section 40(2) of the FOIA to withhold the requested information. However, in failing to respond to the request within 20 working days, GMP breached sections 10(1) and 17(1) of the FOIA. The Commissioner does not require further steps to be taken. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2021/0077 appeal allowed in part.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 17; FOI 40(2)
View Greater Manchester Police
18 Mar 2021Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information concerning a meeting on 29 October 2018 between the Secretary of State for International Trade and BAE Systems, to discuss the UK Government response to the killing of Jamal Khashoggi and BAE Saudi interests. Department for International Trade (DIT) provided the complainant with a heavily redacted copy of the minutes of the meeting, with some information withheld under sections 27(1)(international relations), 35(1)(a)(formulation or development of government policy), 43(2)(commercial interests) and 40(2)(third party personal data). DIT also withheld a briefing relating to the meeting in its entirety under section 36(2)(a) and (b)(prejudice to the effective conduct of public affairs). During the early stage of the Commissioner’s investigation DIT withdrew reliance on section 36 and provided the complainant with a redacted copy of the briefing document, with information withheld under sections 27(1), 43(2), 41(1)(information provided in confidenc
Exemptions cited: FOI 27
View Department for International Trade
18 Mar 2021Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant made a nine-part request to NHS Herefordshire and Worcestershire Clinical Commissioning Group (the CCG) for information relating to its health care system. The CCG provided the complainant with some information in response to her request. During the course of the Commissioner’s investigation, the CCG provided the complainant with further information and explained that it does not hold other information falling within the scope of the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the CCG has not complied with its obligations under section 1(1) and section 10(1) of the FOIA. Since the request has now been responded to, the Commissioner does not require the CCG to take any steps as a result of this decision notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1(1); FOI 10(1)
18 Mar 2021Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information relating to water charges from the Council. The Council initially refused disclosure under the FOIA, however later revised its position to refuse on the basis of regulation 12(4)(b) of the EIR. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has incorrectly applied regulation 12(4)(b) of the EIR to the complainant’s request. The Commissioner also finds that the Council has breached regulation 14(1) in that it issued an incorrect refusal notice to the complainant under the FOIA rather than the EIR.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(b); EIR 14
View London Borough of Brent