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
18 Mar 2021Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested “copies of Herefordshire CCG and NHS Continuing Healthcare Funded Care Reports for the last five years”. NHS Herefordshire and Worcestershire Clinical Commissioning Group (the CCG) provided the complainant with some information falling within the scope of the request. During the course of the Commissioner’s investigation, the CCG provided the complainant with further 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
18 Mar 2021Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant made a six-part request for information relating to NHS Herefordshire and Worcestershire Clinical Commissioning Group’s (the CCG) procedures and policies of the Continuing Healthcare (CHC) programme. The CCG provided the complainant with some information falling within the scope of 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)
17 Mar 2021Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested the Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC) to disclose any written correspondence or advice Matthew Hancock received about his plans to introduce genome sequencing for all new-born babies in the UK. The DHSC refused to disclose the requested information citing section 35(1)(a) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the DHSC is entitled to refuse to disclose the requested information in accordance with section 35(1)(a) of the FOIA. She does not require any further action to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 35(1)(a)
View Department of Health and Social Care
17 Mar 2021Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested from Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust (“the Trust”) information relating to the Trust’s plans to increase hospital capacity to accommodate increased admissions as a result of the Covid-19 pandemic.
The Commissioner’s decision is that the Trust has failed to respond to the request within 20 working days and has therefore breached section 10 of the FOIA.
The Commissioner requires the Trust 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 Trust 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 Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust
17 Mar 2021Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested from the NHS Commissioning Board (NHS England) information relating to the employees within NHS England’s and NHS Improvement’s pharmacy teams. By the date of this notice NHS England had not provided a substantive response to this request.
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 to the request in accordance with its obligations under the FOIA.
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 Act and may be dealt with as a contempt of court.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View NHS England
17 Mar 2021Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested a full copy of an investigation report from Bedfordshire Police (BP). BP directed him to information published about the investigation but refused to provide a copy of the full report citing section 40(2) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that section 40(2) is properly engaged. No steps are required.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View Bedfordshire Police
16 Mar 2021Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to the movement of audio interview tapes. West Yorkshire Police denied holding the requested information. The Commissioner’s decision is that West Yorkshire Police does not hold information within the scope of the request. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken as a result of this decision. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2021/0096 Appeal Dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View West Yorkshire Police
16 Mar 2021Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information and correspondence from Caerphilly County Borough Council (the Council) relating to its decision to close an office. 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 Caerphilly County Borough Council
16 Mar 2021Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested from Doncaster Metropolitan Borough Council (“the Council”) information relating to the cancellation of Penalty Charge Notices (“PCNs”). The Council withheld some of the requested information under section 31(1)(a) of the FOIA (prejudice to the prevention or detection of crime). The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council was not entitled to withhold the requested information under section 31(1)(a). The Commissioner also finds that the Council did not comply with its obligations under section 17(1)(c). The Commissioner requires the Council to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation.
• Disclose the requested information.
The Council must take these steps within 35 calendar days of the date of this decision notice. Failure to comply may result in the Commissioner making written certification of this fact to the High Court pursuant to section 54 of the Act and may be dealt with as a contempt of court.
Exemptions cited: FOI 17; FOI 31(1)(a)
View Doncaster Council
15 Mar 2021Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested details of complaints and responses made about a specified officer of Caerphilly County Borough Council (the ‘Council’) in relation to a specific issue. The Council refused to confirm or deny whether there had been any complaints, on the basis that to do so would in itself breach data protection principles, citing section 40(5B)(a)(i) (personal information) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has was entitled to rely on section 40(5B)(a)(i) of FOIA to neither confirm or deny holding any information falling within the scope of the request. The Commissioner does not require the Council to take any steps as a result of this notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View Caerphilly County Borough Council
15 Mar 2021Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant submitted a request to the London Borough of Tower Hamlets (the Council) containing a number of questions about the ‘Liveable Streets’ project in Bethnal Green. The Council provided some information in response to the request, explained that some information was not held, and refused part of the request on the basis of section 12(1) (cost limit) of FOIA. The complainant raised a number of grounds of complainant with the Commissioner. In the Commissioner’s view the Council should have considered the request under the EIR rather than FOIA. However, the Commissioner is satisfied that, following the provision of further information to the complainant during the course of her investigation, that the Council has identified and disclosed all of the information it holds which the complainant is entitled to under the EIR. The Commissioner has also concluded that the Council is entitled to refuse to comply with part of the request on the basis of regulation 12(4)(b) (manifestly u
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(b); EIR 12(4)(b); EIR 13(1)
View London Borough of Tower Hamlets
15 Mar 2021Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information exchanged between officers of the Powys Teaching Health Board with each other and with officers of the Betsi Cadwalladr University Health Board about the care and treatment of his late mother and their later reviews of that treatment. The Commissioner’s decision is that Powys Teaching Health Board does not hold information within the scope of the request and has complied with section 1(1) FOIA (right of access to information). The Commissioner does not require Powys Teaching Health Board to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Powys Teaching Health Board
15 Mar 2021Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to the Insolvency Service seeking information about its process for considering applications for Debt Relief Orders (DRO). The complainant also sought information about a specific DRO awarded to a named third party. The Insolvency Service provided the complainant with some information about the process of DROs. It sought to withhold the information specific to named third party’s application on the basis of section 40(2) (personal data) of FOIA. The Commissioner decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the Insolvency Service does not hold any further information falling within the scope of the complainant’s request about the process of DROs beyond that previously provided to him. The Commissioner has also concluded that the Insolvency Service is entitled to rely on section 40(2) to withhold information specific to named third party’s application. Information Tribunal UT UA-2022-000871-GIA appeal dismissed
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 40
15 Mar 2021Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from the London Borough of Waltham Forest (“the Council”) about the history of the poor state of repair of her property. The Council initially refused to provide the information, considering that it comprised the personal data of previous occupants. Subsequently, it provided some information, which it extracted from a spreadsheet. However, it withheld some information under section 40(2) of the FOIA – third party personal data. During the course of the Commissioner’s investigation, the Council located some further information which it considered to fall outside the scope of the request. This comprised technicians’ comments on faults and issues that had been investigated or repaired. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council correctly withheld some information under section 40(2) of the FOIA. However, having considered the scope of the request, she has determined that the technicians’ comments fell within its scope. The Commissioner orders the
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 40
View Waltham Forest Council
15 Mar 2021Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
St Thomas More Catholic High School (‘the School’) is a member of the South Cheshire Catholic Multi-Academy Trust, which is the responsible public authority for the purposes of this decision. The complainant submitted a request to the School for information associated with a disability discrimination claim. The School released relevant information it holds but the complainant considers that the School holds further relevant information within the scope of one part of her request. The Commissioner’s decision is as follows: On the balance of probabilities, the School holds no further information that falls within the scope of the complainant’s request for the amount paid to a barrister. The Commissioner therefore finds that the School complied with section 1(1) of the FOIA. The School breached section 10(1) of the FOIA as it did not comply with section 1(1) within 20 working days following the date of receipt of the request. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to ta
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10
View THE SOUTH CHESHIRE CATHOLIC MULTI-ACADEMY TRUST
12 Mar 2021Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested from Nottingham College (“the college”) information regarding the amount spent on external consultants.
The Commissioner’s decision is that the college was entitled to withhold the requested information under section 43(2) of the FOIA (commercial interests). The Commissioner also finds that the college did not comply with its obligations under section 17 of the FOIA (time for compliance).
The Commissioner does not require the college to take any steps as a result of this notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 17; FOI 43(2)
View Nottinghamshire Police
12 Mar 2021Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested copies of any correspondence and communications to the Prime Minister from The Duke and Duchess of York concerning the late Jeffrey Epstein or his business and charitable organisations made between the period 1 January 1998 to 1 June 1998. The Cabinet Office refused to confirm or deny whether it held the requested information and cited sections 40(5) (third party personal data) and 41(2) (information provided in confidence) as its basis for doing so. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Cabinet Office is entitled to rely on section 40(5B) of the FOIA to neither confirm or deny holding whether it holds the requested information.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View Cabinet Office
12 Mar 2021Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested copies of any correspondence and communications to the Secretary of State for International Trade from The Duke and Duchess of York concerning the late Jeffrey Epstein or his business and charitable organisations made between the period 1 January 2003 to 1 June 2003. The Department for International Trade (DIT) refused to confirm or deny whether it held the requested information and cited sections 40(5) (third party personal data) and 41(2) (information provided in confidence) as its basis for doing so. The Commissioner’s decision is that DIT is entitled to rely on section 40(5B) of the FOIA to neither confirm or deny holding whether it holds the requested information.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View Department for International Trade
12 Mar 2021Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted two requests to the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman (PHSO) for its “report into complaints against government departments for 2018/19.” The PHSO refused to provide the information as it considered it to be exempt from disclosure under section 22(1) of the FOIA (information intended for future publication). The Commissioner is satisfied that the PHSO is entitled to rely on section 22(1) of the FOIA to refuse to disclose the information and that, at the time of each request, the balance of the public interest favoured maintaining the exemption. However, the Commissioner has recorded a procedural breach of section 10 of the FOIA as the PHSO failed to respond to the complainant’s second request within the statutory time limits. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps as a result of this decision notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 22
View The Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman
11 Mar 2021Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested the University of Essex (the university) to disclose information relating to the cancellation of a Criminology event. The university refused to disclose the requested information citing sections 22, 31, 36, 41 and 40 of the FOIA.
The Commissioner’s decision is that the university is entitled to refuse to disclose the requested information in accordance with section 36(2)(b)(i) and (ii) of the FOIA. She has however recorded a breach of section 10 of the FOIA, as the university failed to respond to the complainant’s request within 20 working days of receipt. The Commissioner does not require any further action to be taken. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2021/0195 appeal withdrawn.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 36
View The University of Essex
11 Mar 2021Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested copies of any correspondence and communications to the Foreign Secretary from The Duke and Duchess of York concerning the late Jeffrey Epstein or his business and charitable organisations made between the period 1 January 2002 to 1 June 2002. The Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (the Foreign Office) refused to confirm or deny whether it held the requested information and cited sections 40(5) (third party personal data) and 41(2) (information provided in confidence) as its basis for doing so. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Foreign Office is entitled to rely on section 40(5B) of the FOIA to neither confirm or deny holding whether it holds the requested information.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office
11 Mar 2021Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested any invoices and receipts relating to works undertaken in a block of apartments. Milton Keynes Council denied that such information was held. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on balance of probabilities, such information is not held. The Commissioner does not require the Council to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Milton Keynes Council
11 Mar 2021Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested documents relating to a shooting club. The Home Office refused the request under section 12(2) of the FOIA – as it would take it over the appropriate cost limit to determine if the information is held. The Commissioner’s decision is that section 12(2) of the FOIA was cited correctly and so the Home Office was not required to confirm or deny whether the requested information was held. The Commissioner does not require the Home Office to take any steps. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2021/0094 appeal dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12
View Home Office
11 Mar 2021Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested the research information referred to in the Black Lives Matter message from the Dean of the Faculty of Brain Science in June 2020. The Council of University College London (UCL) initially stated that it did not hold the requested information. However, following the intervention of the Commissioner, UCL confirmed that it did hold information relevant to the request, but was withholding it under the exemption provided by section 22(A) of the FOIA (research). The Commissioner’s decision is that UCL has not complied with its obligations under section 1(1), section 10(1), section 16(1) or section 17(1) of the FOIA. The Commissioner has not gone on to consider UCL’s reliance on section 22(A) in this decision, as this does not form part of the complainant’s complaint. The Commissioner does not require UCL to take any steps as a result of this decision notice. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2021/0073 under appeal.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1(1); FOI 10(1); FOI 16; FOI 17
11 Mar 2021Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested all minutes relating to meetings involving the ‘East Yorkshire Parent Carer Forum’ and East Riding of Yorkshire Council from a period of over two years. The Council stated that the entirety of this information was withheld under the exemption provided by section 36(2)(c) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000. The Council subsequently confirmed to the Commissioner that the withheld information was contained across 91 individual documents, and that it considered these 91 documents to fall within the parameters of the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has failed to undertake appropriate searches to comply with the duty imposed by section 1. In respect of that information so far identified which falls within the parameters of the request, the Council has failed to demonstrate that the exemption provided by section 36(2)(c) is engaged. The Council also breached section 17 by issuing a refusal notice outside the time for compliance. The
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 17; FOI 36(2)(c)
View East Riding of Yorkshire Council
11 Mar 2021Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from the London Borough of Tower Hamlets about payments. The London Borough of Tower Hamlets has failed to respond to this request. The Commissioner requires the London Borough of Tower Hamlets to provide the complainant with a response to this request in accordance with its obligations under FOIA. The London Borough of Tower Hamlets must take these steps within 35 calendar days of the date of this decision notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View London Borough of Tower Hamlets
10 Mar 2021Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information on FOIA requests received relating to 11+ tests used in Buckinghamshire, Birmingham, Warwickshire and any other area using the tests for a period of five years. The University of Cambridge refused the request as vexatious under section 14(1) of the FOIA and section 12(1) due to the cost of compliance. The Commissioner’s decision is that the University has correctly categorised the request was vexatious and was entitled to rely on section 14(1) of the FOIA to refuse it. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2021/0075 appeal dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14
10 Mar 2021Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relied on to grant an Honour to a named person . The Cabinet Office relies on section 37(1)(b) to withhold that requested information The Commissioner’s decision is that Cabinet Office’s reliance on section 37(1)(b) was correct . The Commissioner requires the public authority to take no steps to ensure compliance with the legislation.
Exemptions cited: FOI 37
View Cabinet Office
9 Mar 2021Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested an unredacted copy of a report into complaints about a councillor and council officers. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead has correctly applied section 41(1) and section 40(2) to the withheld information. However, it breached section 10(1) in providing the final response to the complainant outside of the statutory time periods. The Commissioner does not require any steps. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2021/0110 under appeal. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2021/0092 allowed in part.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10(1); FOI 40(2); FOI 41(1)
View Windsor and Maidenhead Council
9 Mar 2021Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested copies of correspondence exchanged between the Leader of the Council and its Chief Executive. The London Borough of Enfield initially withheld some information before informing the complainant that it held no relevant information. The Commissioner’s decision is that the London Borough did not disclose all the information to which the complainant was entitled within 20 working days and therefore breached Regulation 5(2) of the EIR. However, she considers that it has disclosed all the information it holds in recorded form. The London Borough also breached Regulation 11(4) of the EIR because it failed to complete its internal review (reconsideration) within 40 working days. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 11(4); EIR 5(1); EIR 5(2)
View Enfield Council
9 Mar 2021Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested copies of any correspondence and communications to the Chancellor from The Duke and Duchess of York concerning the late Jeffrey Epstein or his business and charitable organisations made between the period 1 January 2000 to 1 January 2001. Her Majesty’s Treasury (the Treasury) refused to confirm or deny whether it held the requested information and cited sections 40(5) (third party personal data) and 37(2) (communications with Her Majesty and other members of the Royal Family) as its basis for doing so.
The Commissioner’s decision is that the Treasury is entitled to rely on section 40(5B) of the FOIA to neither confirm or deny holding whether it holds the requested information.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View HM Treasury
9 Mar 2021Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested copies of any correspondence and communications to the Secretary of State for International Trade from The Duke and Duchess of York concerning the late Jeffrey Epstein or his business and charitable organisations made between the period 1 January 2000 to 1 January 2001. The Department for International Trade (DIT) refused to confirm or deny whether it held the requested information and cited sections 40(5) (third party personal data) and 37(2) (communications with Her Majesty and other members of the Royal Family) as its basis for doing so.The Commissioner’s decision is that DIT is entitled to rely on section 40(5B) of the FOIA to neither confirm or deny holding whether it holds the requested information.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View Department for International Trade
8 Mar 2021Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested copies of any correspondence and communications to the Prime Minister from The Duke and Duchess of York concerning the late Jeffrey Epstein or his business and charitable organisations made between the period 1 January 2000 to 1 January 2001. The Cabinet Office refused to confirm or deny whether it held the requested information and cited sections 40(5) (third party personal data) and 37(2) (communications with Her Majesty and other members of the Royal Family) as its basis for doing so.The Commissioner’s decision is that the Cabinet Office is entitled to rely on section 40(5B) of the FOIA to neither confirm or deny holding whether it holds the requested information.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View Cabinet Office
8 Mar 2021Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested copies of any correspondence and communications to the Foreign Secretary from the Duke and Duchess of York concerning the late Jeffrey Epstein or his business and charitable organisations made between the period 1 January 2000 and 1 January 2001. The Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (the Foreign Office) refused to confirm or deny whether it held the requested information and cited sections 37(2) and 40(5) as its basis for doing so.
The Commissioner’s decision is that the Foreign Office is entitled to rely on section 40(5B) of the FOIA to neither confirm nor deny whether it holds information falling within the scope of the request.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office
8 Mar 2021Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested from the Police Federation of England and Wales (the Federation) information about negotiations between its representatives and Surrey Police, on the issue of over-claimed rest days in lieu (RDIL). The Federation withheld some information, which included meeting minutes and legal advice, under sections 36 (Prejudice to effective conduct of public affairs) and 42 (Legal professional privilege) of the FOIA. It also refused to confirm or deny whether it held some information, citing section 40(5B) (Personal information), and it said that it did not hold some information. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Federation was entitled to apply sections 36 and 42 to withhold information. However, she found that it was not entitled to rely on section 40(5B) to refuse to confirm or deny whether it held information in respect of part (6) of the request. She also found that it did hold some information in respect of part (7) of the request, which it had said that i
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10; FOI 36; FOI 40; FOI 42
8 Mar 2021Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information regarding the cost of a claim against the public authority. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, Doncaster Children’s Services Trust is not withholding any information in scope the request. The Commissioner does not require any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
5 Mar 2021Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to the second generation of the council website, as well as copies of timesheets for the proper officer.
The Commissioner’s decision is that Morecambe Town 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
5 Mar 2021Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted to Rotherham, Doncaster and South Humber 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. However, in issuing its refusal notice outside the statutory time limit the Trust breached section 17(5) of FOIA.
The Commissioner does not require the Trust to take any step as a result of this decision notice. Informational Tribunal appeal EA/2021/0001 struck out.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12; FOI 16; FOI 17
View Rotherham Doncaster and South Humber NHS Foundation Trust
5 Mar 2021Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested from the BBC the number of reports on the news and / or digital platforms covering the Infected Bloody Inquiry. The BBC responded 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
4 Mar 2021Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested Information regarding planning permission relating to a specific house.
The Commissioner’s decision is that Fareham Borough Council (“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”).
As a response has now been provided to the complainant, the Commissioner does not require Fareham Borough Council to take any further steps in relation to this request
Exemptions cited: EIR 5(2)
View Fareham Borough Council
4 Mar 2021Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information from Cherwell District Council (“the Council”) in the form of Building Control Plans regarding a neighbouring property. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council was correct to apply Regulation 13(1) of the EIR to the requested information. The Commissioner does not require the Council to take any further action in this matter. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2021/0083 appeal dismissed.
Exemptions cited: EIR 13(1)
View Cherwell District Council
4 Mar 2021Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant made an identical request for information to one that another individual had already made. The Council of the University of Durham refused this new request as vexatious. The Commissioner’s decision is that the University has not demonstrated that the request was vexatious and was therefore not entitled to rely on section 14(1) of the FOIA to refuse it. The Commissioner requires the University to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: issue a fresh response to the request that does not rely on section 14(1) of the FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14
4 Mar 2021Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to the Council’s duties under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS) Operating Guidance. The Council refused the two requests because it said they were not valid requests for recorded information. The Commissioner’s decision is that both requests were valid under section 8 of FOIA. Consequently the Commissioner finds that the Council has failed to comply with section 10(1) of FOIA in failing to issue a substantive response. The Commissioner requires the Council to respond to the requests.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 8
View Northumberland County Council
4 Mar 2021Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information regarding the number of Russian nationals that were applicants and those that were offered a place on the mathematical computation course in the academic year 2020/21 at University College London (UCL) and other related matters. UCL disclosed some information but withheld the exact number of Russian applicants/offerees for the course, restricting its response to “five or less”. UCL considered that providing the exact number would disclose personal information and breach section 40(2) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that UCL has incorrectly cited section 40(2) as she considers that the withheld information is not personal data. UCL has also breached section 10(1) of the FOIA in failing to respond to the request within the statutory timeframe. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation.
Disclose the exact numbers that have been withheld under section 40(2)
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 40
4 Mar 2021Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant submitted a request to the Cabinet Office seeking correspondence between the then Prime Minister, Tony Blair, and HRH The Prince of Wales concerning hunting during the period January 2003 to January 2004. Under FOIA the Cabinet Office refused to confirm or deny whether it held any such information on the basis of section 37(2) of FOIA, by virtue of section 37(1)(aa) (communications with the heir to the Throne). Under the EIR, the Cabinet Office explained that it did not hold any environmental information. The complainant challenged the Cabinet Office’s position that it did not hold any environmental information falling within the scope of the request. The Commissioner has concluded that on the balance of probabilities the Cabinet Office does not hold any environmental information falling within the scope of the request.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(a)
View Cabinet Office
4 Mar 2021Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested the raw data used to compile performance figures for Cardiff Bus’ customer charter. Cardiff Bus withheld the information requested under section 43 of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that Cardiff Bus has incorrectly applied the provisions of section 43 and the exemption is not engaged. The Commissioner requires Cardiff Bus to disclose the withheld information.
Exemptions cited: FOI 43
3 Mar 2021Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information about local sports pitch drainage. Leicestershire County Council responded to the request, issuing a refusal notice under section 14 of the FOIA, as it considered it be vexatious. Upon review the Council complied with request, correctly responding under the EIR. However the Commissioner finds that the Council breached regulation 5(2) of the EIR by failing to respond to the request within 20 working days.
Exemptions cited: EIR 5(2)
View Leicestershire County Council
3 Mar 2021Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to a review of the Charity Commission for Northern Ireland. The Department for Communities NI (the DfC) claimed that the request was not valid as the requestor had not used his real name. It therefore refused to comply with the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the DfC has failed to demonstrate that the request was not valid and, on the balance of probabilities, she considers that it is valid. As the DfC has failed to respond to a valid request within 20 working days it has therefore breached section 10 of the FOIA. The Commissioner requires the DfC to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: issue a substantive response, under the FOIA, to the request.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 8
View Department for Communities (Northern Ireland)