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)
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
2 Mar 2021Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about LLB law degree examinations from the University of London (‘the University’). The University has refused the request under section 43(2) of the FOIA (commercial interests) and considers that the public interest favours maintaining this exemption. The Commissioner’s decision is as follows: The University is entitled to withhold the requested information under section 43(2) of the FOIA and the public interest favours maintaining this exemption. The Commissioner does not require the University to take any remedial steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 43
View London
2 Mar 2021Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested reports prepared for the Chief Medical Officer (CMO) relating to NHS surge capacity and population triage / social care in the event of a pandemic. He has also requested correspondence between NHS England and the CMO and the Department of Health and Social Care. By the date of this notice NHS England had failed to provide a substantive response to this request. The Commissioner’s decision is that NHS England has breached section 10(1) of the FOIA in that it failed to provide a valid response to the request within the statutory time frame of 20 working days. NHS England is now required to respond to the request in accordance with the FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10(1)
View NHS England
2 Mar 2021Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested copies of monitoring reports from Torbay Council, relating to sites receiving Land Release Funding. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (‘MHCLG’) is entitled to rely upon regulation 12(5)(g) to withhold information. The MHCLG is entitled to rely upon regulation 13 to redact some council officer names however the name of the Senior Responsible Owner (‘SRO’) should be disclosed. The MHCLG responded outside of statutory timescales and therefore breached regulations 11 and 5(2) of the EIR. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: disclose the name of the SRO in the monitoring reports.
Exemptions cited: EIR 11; EIR 12(5)(g); EIR 13; EIR 5(2)
View Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government
1 Mar 2021Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from the NHS Commissioning Board (NHS England) about funding relating to the Pharmacy Integration Fund from 2019 to the present. 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
1 Mar 2021Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information relating to minutes of meetings within the Department for Infrastructure (‘the Department’) held in certain years relating to contracts regarding weed control and grass-cutting. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Department has disclosed all the information it holds within the scope of the complainant’s request and that, on the balance of probabilities, it does not hold any further information falling within the scope of the request. Therefore the Commissioner requires no steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: EIR 5
View Department for Infrastructure (Northern Ireland)
1 Mar 2021Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman (PHSO) to provide all documents of any kind which contain any mention of the term ‘functus officio’ for the period 1 August 2016 to 1 February 2018. The PHSO refused to disclose the requested information, citing sections 40, 42 and 44(1)(a) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the PHSO is entitled to refuse to disclose the requested information in accordance with one or more of the exemptions cited; sections 40, 42 and 44(1)(a) of the FOIA. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2021/0087 appeal dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40; FOI 42; FOI 44(1)(a)
View The Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman
1 Mar 2021Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to the London Borough of Waltham Forest (the Council) seeking information about a gas purchasing consortium of which it was a member. The Council provided the complainant with some of information falling within the scope of her request but explained that it did not hold information about who the other local councils were in the consortium. The complainant disputed this position and argued that the Council was likely to hold this information. The Commissioner has concluded that on the balance of probabilities the Council does not hold details of who the other consortium members are.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Waltham Forest Council
26 Feb 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 Business, Energy & Industrial Strategy 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 Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) provided a neither confirm nor deny (NCND) response to the request under sections 40(5)(third party personal data) and 37(2)(communications with Her Majesty and other members of the Royal Family). The Commissioner’s decision is that BEIS were entitled to rely on section 40(5B) of the FOIA to neither confirm or deny holding any information within the scope of the request.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40(5)(b)
View Department for Business and Trade
25 Feb 2021Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from Sussex Police about specified communications. 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
25 Feb 2021Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to Electro Convulsive Therapy (ECT). The Commissioner’s decision is that Hertfordshire Partnership University NHS Foundation Trust (the Trust) has correctly cited section 12(1) – cost of compliance, in response to the request. However, she also finds the Trust has breached section 10 (time for compliance) and section 16 (advice and assistance). The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps as a result of this decision notice. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2021/0051 struck out.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 12; FOI 16
View Hertfordshire Partnership University NHS Foundation Trust
25 Feb 2021Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested copies of notifications provided to the Financial Conduct Authority. The Financial Ombudsman Service refused the request as it estimated that the cost of complying would exceed the appropriate limit. The Commissioner’s decision is that the FOS has reasonably estimated that the cost of complying with the request would exceed the appropriate limit and it was therefore entitled to rely on section 12(1) of the FOIA to refuse the request. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12
24 Feb 2021Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from Research England, part of UK Research and Innovation (“UKRI”), about a successful application for funding for a University Enterprise Zone. UKRI disclosed part of the application, but withheld some information under the following exemptions of the FOIA: section 41(1) – information provided in confidence, section 43(1) – trade secrets, and/or section 43(2) – prejudicial to commercial interests. It also withheld other, discrete information under section 40(2) – third party personal data. The Commissioner’s decision is that the information was correctly withheld under section 41(1) and section 40(2) respectively. It has not been necessary for her to consider section 43(1) or section 43(2).
Exemptions cited: FOI 40; FOI 41
View UK Research and Innovation
24 Feb 2021Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested from Hounslow and Richmond Community Healthcare Trust (“the Trust”), information regarding the names of doctors who left comments in medical notes. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Trust was entitled to withhold the requested information under section 40(2) of the FOIA. The Commissioner does not require the Trust to take any steps as a result of this decision notice. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2021/0060 appeal dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40(2)
View Hounslow and Richmond Community Healthcare NHS Trust
24 Feb 2021Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to the BBC’s spend on the World Service. 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
24 Feb 2021Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from Highways England about damage to crown property (DCP) rates and related matters. Highways England provided some limited information to the complainant but mostly stated that it did not hold the information the complainant requested. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probability, Highways England does not hold information about DCP rates or information relating to Highways England’s attempts to secure information from Balfour Beatty. Highways England has therefore complied with its obligations under section 1(1) of the FOIA and the Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any further steps. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2021/0082 dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Highway Insurance Company Limited
23 Feb 2021Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested copies of correspondence between the former Chancellor of the Exchequer, The RT Hon Lord Hammond of Runnymede Philip Hammond and Treasury officials on the cost of reducing greenhouse gas emissions to Net Zero in the UK. The public authority withheld the information held within the scope of the request relying on the exception in regulation 12(4)(e) EIR. The Commissioner concluded that the public authority was entitled to rely on the exception in regulation 12(4)(e) EIR. The Commissioner however finds the public authority in breach of 11(4) EIR for failing to complete its internal review within 40 working days.
Exemptions cited: EIR 11(4); EIR 12(4)(e)
View HM Treasury
23 Feb 2021Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information held by Bristol City Council (the Council) relating to the main entrance area of Bristol City Council House between 2014 to 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, 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
23 Feb 2021Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested from Felton Parish Council (“the Council”) information relating to a printer bought by the Council in 2013 and disposed of in 2019. The Council subsequently located some information which related to part 2 of the request and provided this to the complainant. With regard to the remaining parts of the request, the Council stated that information was not held. The Commissioner’s decision is that on the balance of probabilities, the Council does not hold any recorded information falling within parts 1 and 3 of the request. Therefore, the Commissioner does not require the Council to take any steps as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
23 Feb 2021Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from NHS Improvement (NHSI) relating to an independent review published in 2020. NHSI had failed to provide a substantive response by the date of this notice. The Commissioner’s decision is that NHSI failed to respond to the request within 20 working days and has therefore breached section 10 of the FOIA. The Commissioner requires NHSI to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. Issue a substantive response, under the FOIA, to the request. NHSI 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
22 Feb 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
22 Feb 2021Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from Bicester Town Council (“the Council”) relating to allotment tenancy agreements.
The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council responded to the request within 20 working days as required by section 10 of the FOIA.
No steps are required. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2021/0115 appeal allowed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
22 Feb 2021Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested the employment dates of specified Directors within the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP). The Commissioner’s decision is that DWP is entitled to rely on section 14(1) to refuse to comply with the request. The finds, however, that DWP has breached section 17(5) by failing to issue a refusal notice stating section 14(1) within the statutory time for compliance. No steps are required.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14; FOI 17
View Department for Work and Pensions
18 Feb 2021Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested from the London Borough of Sutton (“the Council”) information in two parts regarding criminal records relating to individuals residing at particular properties. The Council withheld the information as it considered to be the personal data of the individuals concerned and exempt under section 40(2) of the FOIA.
The Commissioner’s decision is that the information requested at part one of the request does not fall within the definition of personal data. The Council was therefore not entitled to withhold this information under section 40(2).
The Commissioner’s decision is also that the Council should have sought clarification of the second part of the request as it had no single objective reading. The Council has therefore breached section 16 of the FOIA (advice and assistance).
The Commissioner requires the Council to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation.
Disclose to the complainant the information requested at p
Exemptions cited: FOI 16; FOI 40(2)
View London Borough of Sutton
18 Feb 2021Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
Summary wording for website: The complainant requested information relating to complaints received by the BBC about four programmes. 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. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2021/0065 appeal dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View BBC
18 Feb 2021Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
In a multi-part series of requests, the complainant has requested information from Highways England on a variety of matters broadly associated with the National Schedule of Repair Costs scheme. Highways England has refused to comply with the requests under section 12(1) of the FOIA as it considers 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 exceeds the appropriate limit under section 12(1) of the FOIA and Highways England is not obliged to comply with it. Highways England met its obligation under section 16(1) and offered the complainant adequate advice and assistance. Highways England breached section 17(5) of the FOIA as it did not provide the complainant with a clear section 12 refusal notice within the required timescale. The Commissioner does not require Highways England to take any remedial steps. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2021/0056 appeal dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12; FOI 16; FOI 17
View National Highways
18 Feb 2021Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to the Mathematical Computation Progamme at University College London (UCL). UCL provided information in response to the first thirteen questions of the request but withheld the information requested in the final unnumbered part of the request – documentation relating to applications - citing section 43(2)(commercial interests). The Commissioner’s decision is that UCL has correctly cited section 43(2) of the FOIA to withhold the requested information. However, UCL has breached section 10(1) of the FOIA by failing to respond to the information request within the statutory timeframe. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any further steps. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2021/0071 appeal withdrawn.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 43
View University College London
18 Feb 2021Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested from Three Rivers District Council (“the Council”) information relating to the granting of planning permission. By the date of this notice the Council had yet to respond substantively to this request.
The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has failed to respond to the request within 20 working days and has therefore breached regulation 5(2) of the 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 Three Rivers District Council
17 Feb 2021Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council (“the Council”) relating to the collection of garden waste.
The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council failed to respond to the requests within 20 working days and therefore breached section 10 of the FOIA.
No steps are required.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council
17 Feb 2021Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested details relating to the Bristol City Council’s (the Council) expenditure related to a playing field. By the date of this notice the Council had not provided a substantive response to this request.
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 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 Bristol City Council
17 Feb 2021Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information a proof of ownership certificate on a piece of land relating to a planning application made to the council. The council provided details which it holds on the planning application and argue that it has disclosed the certificate it holds, however the complainant disputes that this is a valid ownership certificate. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on a balance of probabilities, the council has disclosed the information which it holds to the complainant. She therefore considers that the council complied with the requirements of Regulation 5. She has however decided that the council did not comply with Regulation 5(2) in that it did not disclose some of the information which fell within the scope of the request within 20 working days.The Commissioner does not require the council to take any steps. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2021/0050 under appeal.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(a)
View Huntingdonshire District Council
17 Feb 2021Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information relating to the proof which the council had of the ownership of a piece of land subject to a planning application in 2000. The council provided details of the planning application however it redacted the name provided in the declaration of the ownership of the property on the basis that that information was personal data. It confirmed that it does not hold any further information falling within the scope of the complainant's request for information. During the course of the Commissioner's investigation, the council disclosed the name of the individual on the basis that, following its review, it recognised that the person is deceased. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council did not comply with the requirements of Regulation 5(2) of the EIR in that it did not provide the relevant information to the complainant within 20 working days of receiving his request for information. She has also decided that, on a balance of probabilities, the council
Exemptions cited: EIR 5(1); EIR 5(2)
View Huntingdonshire District Council
16 Feb 2021Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information about communications between the Prince of Wales and senior members of the Prison Service regarding Dartmoor Prison. The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) refused to confirm or deny whether it held any information on the basis of section 37(2) by virtue of section 37(1)(aa) (communications with the heir to the Throne). To the extent that any of the requested information, if held, would be environmental information, the MoJ refused to confirm or deny whether it held such information on the basis of regulation 13(5)(a) (personal data) of the EIR. The Commissioner’s decision is that the MoJ was entitled to rely on section 37(2) and regulation 13(5)(a). The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken as a result of this decision. First-tier Tribunal (General Regulatory Chamber) Information Rights appeal EA/2021/0054 dismissed.
Exemptions cited: EIR 13(5); FOI 37
View Ministry of Justice
15 Feb 2021Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information about police collar numbers. West Yorkshire Police (‘WYP’) provided some of the requested information but refused to provide the remainder, citing section 40(2) of the FOIA, the exemption for personal information. The Commissioner’s decision is that WYP was correct to rely on section 40(2) to withhold the remaining information for the reasons set out in this notice. The Commissioner does not require WYP to take any steps to ensure compliance with the legislation.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View West Yorkshire Police
15 Feb 2021Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested from the University of Winchester (“the University”) information relating to the purchase of a plot of land on Lommedal, Milnthorpe Lane, Winchester. The University withheld the information and applied regulations 12(4)(e) (internal communications and 12(5)(e) (commercial confidentiality) of the EIR. The Commissioner’s decision is that the University correctly applied regulations 12(4)(e) and 12(5)(e) to the withheld information. Therefore, the Commissioner does not require the University to take any steps to ensure compliance with the legislation.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(e); EIR 12(5)(e)
View The University of Winchester
15 Feb 2021Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested expense information relating to Carrie Symonds. The Cabinet Office denied holding any information within the scope of the request and upheld this at internal review. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Cabinet Office does not hold any information within the scope of the request. No steps are required.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Cabinet Office
15 Feb 2021Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested from the NHS Commissioning Board (“NHS England”) information relating to the finances and accountability of NHSX. 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 has 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
15 Feb 2021Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested from the Chief Constable of Sussex Police (“Sussex Police”) information relating to Sussex Police’s implementation of schedule 7 of the Terrorism Act 2000. By the date of this notice Sussex Police had not provided a substantive response to this request.
The Commissioner’s decision is that Sussex Police has failed to respond to the request within 20 working days and has therefore breached section 10 of the FOIA.
The Commissioner requires Sussex Police 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.
Sussex Police 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 Sussex Police
15 Feb 2021Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested from Highways England (HE) the rates used to calculate the National Schedule of Repair Costs (NSoRC) and related matters. HE provided some information but withheld part of the information under section 43(2)(commercial interests). After the Commissioner began her investigation and the complainant provided further clarification of his complaint, it became clear that he was seeking information that HE stated it did not hold. The Commissioner’s decision is that HE has correctly cited section 43(2) and that, on the balance of probability, it does not hold part of the requested information. However, she has found HE to be in breach of section 10(1) by failing to respond to the complainant’s request within the statutory timeframe. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any further steps. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2021/0048 appeal dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10; FOI 43(2)
View National Highways
15 Feb 2021Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested a copy of a central database of outstanding prison repair or maintenance work. The Ministry of Justice (the ‘MOJ’) initially refused to provide any of the requested information citing section 31(1)(f), the exemption for law enforcement, specifically the maintenance and security of good order in prisons. Following an internal review, the MOJ reconsidered and provided the complainant with some of the requested information, but it maintained section 31(1)(f) applied to the detail of the actual work orders. Ultimately, during the course of the Commissioner’s investigation, the MOJ disclosed further information to the complainant with redactions citing section 31, section 38 (health and safety) and section 40 (personal information). The MOJ also said that to carry out any further work on the remaining withheld information would engage section 14(1) (vexatious request) due to the oppressive burden this would place on it. The complainant confirmed he was not interest
Exemptions cited: FOI 14; FOI 31; FOI 38
View Ministry of Justice
15 Feb 2021Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested from Sheffield City Council (“the Council”) information relating to the Gleadless Valley masterplan.
The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has failed to carry out a reconsideration (internal review) of a response it provided, under the Environmental Information Regulations (“the EIR”), within 40 working days and has therefore breached Regulation 11 of the EIR.
The Commissioner requires the Council to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation.
Reconsider how it responded to the original request and inform the complainant of the outcome of that reconsideration in accordance with Regulation 11 of 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 11
View Sheffield City Council
12 Feb 2021Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from Birmingham Metropolitan College (“the College”) on payments made to external management and training companies within a specified time period. The College stated it could not comply with the request without exceeding the appropriate cost limit under section 12 of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the College correctly refused to comply with the request under section 12 of the FOIA. She also finds the College has complied with its obligations under section 16 of the FOIA and no steps are required.
Exemptions cited: FOI 16
12 Feb 2021Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to a meeting between the council and the Yorkshire Local Council’s Association (the YLCA). The council provided a copy of a report, however, the complainant requested the attachments that were submitted along with the report. The council did not respond to this until 26 January 2021. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council’s response did not comply with the requirements of section 10(1) of the Act. The Commissioner does not require the council to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10(1)
12 Feb 2021Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from the BBC about how much it had spent in defending an equal pay claim brought by the journalist Samira Ahmed. The BBC withheld the information, citing the exemption at section 43(2) of the FOIA: prejudicial to commercial interests. Belatedly, it stated that it also considered that part of the requested information comprised the personal data of external legal counsel and was additionally exempt under section 40(2) of the FOIA: third party personal data. The Commissioner’s decision is that, while the exemption at section 43(2) of the FOIA is narrowly engaged, the public interest favours disclosure of the information. She has also decided that the exemption at section 40(2) is not engaged in respect of Counsel’s fees, since it would be lawful, fair and transparent to disclose it. The Commissioner requires the BBC to take the following step to ensure compliance with the legislation: disclose the requested information to the complainant.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40; FOI 43
View BBC
11 Feb 2021Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information associated with the HS2 high speed rail project. High Speed 2 Ltd (‘HS2 Ltd’) released some information and has advised it does not hold other information the complainant has requested. The complainant is not satisfied with HS2 Ltd’s response to two parts of his request. The Commissioner’s decision is as follows: On the balance of probabilities, HS2 Ltd does not hold information falling within the scope pf Q3 and Q4(ii) of the complainant’s request and its response to those parts complied with section 1(1)(a) of the FOIA. To the degree that any of the information within scope of the above two parts of the request can be categorised as environmental information, the Commissioner is satisfied that regulation 12(4)(a) of the EIR is engaged because HS2 Ltd did not hold that information at the time of the request. The Commissioner does not require HS2 Ltd to take any remedial steps. First-tier Tribunal (General Regulatory Chamber) Information Rights
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View High Speed Two (HS2) Limited
11 Feb 2021Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested the Department for Transport (DfT) to disclose the details of any meetings between ministers and/or senior officials and Carnival UK between 1 January and 1 March 2019. The DfT disclosed some information but withheld the remainder citing sections 35(1)(a), 35(1)(d) and 40 of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the DfT is entitled to rely on section 35(1)(a) and 35(1)(d) of the FOIA in this case and the public interest rests in maintaining these exemptions. The Commissioner does not require any further action to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 35(1)(a); FOI 35(1)(d)
View Department for Transport
11 Feb 2021Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from the NHS Commissioning Board (NHS England) about NHS England patient mental health guidelines issued during the Covid-19 pandemic and related information. By the date of this notice the NHS England had failed to provide a substantive response to this request. The Commissioner’s decision is that NHS England has breached section 10(1) of the FOIA in that it failed to provide a valid response to the request within the statutory time frame of 20 working days. The Commissioner requires NHS England to respond to the complainant’s request in accordance with the FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View NHS England
10 Feb 2021Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested from the Department of Health and Social Care (“DHSC”) information related to the polling on public opinion regarding the Covid-19 pandemic. The DHSC refused to provide the information requested, citing section 22(1) of FOIA as it stated that it intended to publish this information in the future. The Commissioner’s decision is that DHSC has incorrectly relied on section 22(1) on this occasion. The Commissioner requires DHSC to disclose the requested information to the complainant. 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 Act and may be dealt with as a contempt of court.
Exemptions cited: FOI 22
View Department of Health and Social Care
10 Feb 2021Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from Sussex Police about drone/UAV related calls received by Sussex Police between January and June 2020 as well as fines issued to drone operators in the same period. Sussex Police had failed to provide a substantive response by the date of this notice. The Commissioner’s decision is that Sussex Police failed to respond to the request within 20 working days and has therefore breached section 10 of the FOIA. The Commissioner requires Sussex Police to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. Issue a substantive response, under the FOIA, to the request. Sussex Police 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 Sussex Police