10 Feb 2021Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request for information about an alleged criminal offence. West Midlands Police (WMP) would neither confirm nor deny whether it held the requested information, citing sections 30(3) (investigations and proceedings) and 40(5) (personal information) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that WMP was entitled to rely on section 30(3) of the FOIA to neither confirm nor deny whether it held the requested information
Exemptions cited: FOI 30
View West Midlands Police
10 Feb 2021Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information, across two requests for information, relating to four topics. Sewards End Parish Council (the Parish Council) refused to provide the requested information, relying on section 14(1) (vexatious request) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Parish Council was entitled to cite section 14 of the FOIA to refuse to comply with the requests. However, she finds a procedural breach in that the Parish Council’s refusal notice did not comply with section 17 of the FOIA. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken as a result of this decision. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2021/0059 Appeal Allowed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14; FOI 17
10 Feb 2021Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested from Beths Grammar School (“the school”) information regarding exam grades. The school disclosed the information in an anonymised format. The complainant requested the information be provided in a different format. The school refused that request under section 40(2) of the FOIA (personal data) as it considered that disclosure would identify individual students. The Commissioner’s decision is that the school correctly applied section 40(2). The Commissioner does not require the school to take any steps. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2021/0078 Appeal Dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40(2)
View BETHS GRAMMAR SCHOOL
10 Feb 2021Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from Oxford University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust (the Trust) about medication errors between 2014 and 2020. The Trust had failed to provide a substantive response by the date of this notice. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Trust 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, under the FOIA, to the request. 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 FOIA and may be dealt with as a contempt of court.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Oxford University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust
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
9 Feb 2021Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information in relation to an alleged complaint made regarding a property at which its client operates a business. The Council has relied upon regulation 13(5) of the EIR as a basis for refusing to confirm or deny that it holds the requested information. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has correctly relied upon the above exception and therefore she orders no steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: EIR 13
9 Feb 2021Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from the City of London (“CoL”) relating to a proposed development of the City of London School for Girls (“CLSG”). CoL has explained that it is not a public authority for the purposes of the FOIA in respect of the information described in the request. It has therefore refused to respond to this request under the FOIA although it has corresponded with the complainant and other local residents on this matter outside of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that CoL is not a public authority for the purposes of the FOIA in respect of the information described in the request. She therefore upholds CoL’s position and requires no steps to be taken in this case.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View City of London Corporation
9 Feb 2021Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from Sussex Police about assessments. 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
9 Feb 2021Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from the NHS Commissioning Board (NHS England) about instructions to NHS England staff on how to behave during the Covid-19 pandemic. 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. The Commissioner requires NHS England to respond to the complainant’s request in accordance with the FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View NHS England
9 Feb 2021Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested from London North West University Healthcare NHS Trust (the Trust) equality impact assessments conducted into the impact of COVID restrictions on visitors and companions attending maternity services and the risk assessments that led to these restrictions. By the date of this notice the Trust had failed to provide a substantive response to this request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Trust has breached section 10(1) of the FOIA in that it failed to provide a valid response to the request within the statutory time frame of 20 working days. The Commissioner requires the Trust to respond to the complainant’s request in accordance with the FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10(1)
View London North West University Healthcare NHS Trust
8 Feb 2021Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested copies of internal correspondence relating to Ofcom’s Notice to Broadcasters of 23 March 2020. The British Broadcasting Corporation explained that the information was covered by the derogation and excluded from FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that this information was held by the BBC for the purposes of ‘journalism, art or literature’ and did not fall inside the FOIA. The Commissioner does not require any further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View BBC
8 Feb 2021Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested planning information from the London Borough of Hackney about a traffic management order. The London Borough of Hackney failed to respond within 20 working days, as specified in the EIR. The Commissioner requires the London Borough of Hackney to provide the complainant with a response to this request in accordance with its obligations under the EIR within 35 calendar days of the date of this decision notice.
Exemptions cited: EIR 5(2)
View London Borough of Hackney
5 Feb 2021Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from West Suffolk Council (“the Council”) regarding meeting minutes and emails between Councillors, Councillors and staff members and submissions from the public in relation to the West Suffolk Parking Review Group. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has correctly relied upon section 40(2) of the FOIA to withhold the requested information. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40(2)
View West Suffolk Council
5 Feb 2021Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested an anonymised list of the caseworkers who had dealt with specific FOIA complaints. The ICO initially said that it did not hold the requested information, before later refusing the request as vexatious. The Commissioner’s decision is that the request was vexatious and therefore the ICO was entitled to rely on section 14(1) of the FOIA to refuse it. However, as it failed to issue its refusal notice, citing section 14 of the FOIA, within 20 working days, the ICO breached section 17(5) of the FOIA in responding to the request. The Commissioner does not require any further steps to be taken. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2021/0064 appeal dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14; FOI 17
View Information Commissioner
5 Feb 2021Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to the London Borough of Waltham Forest (the Council) seeking information about previous FOI requests made to it about Ascham Homes. The Council responded to the request by directing the complainant to the What Do Know website and explained that it did not hold any further information about the previous requests. The complainant contacted the Commissioner about the Council’s handling of her request.
Having considered this complaint the Commissioner has concluded that the Council breached section 11 of FOIA by initially failing to provide the complainant with the requested information in hard copy.
Exemptions cited: FOI 11
View Waltham Forest Council
5 Feb 2021Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested communications between the ICO and NHS Improvement about a FOI complaint the ICO considered under reference FS50800552. The ICO released some information and withheld some under section 40(2) of the FOIA (personal data) and section 44(1)(prohibitions on disclosure). The Commissioner’s decision is as follows: The ICO is entitled to withhold some information the complainant has requested under section 40(2) and section 44(1) of the FOIA. The Commissioner does not require the ICO to take any remedial steps. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2021/0055 appeal allowed in part.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40; FOI 44
View Information Commissioner
5 Feb 2021Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested the addresses of two “orphaned” onshore oil and gas wellbores. The Environment Agency relied on Regulation 13(1) of the EIR to withhold the information. The Commissioner’s decision is that Regulation 13(1) of the EIR is not engaged in respect of this information. The Commissioner requires the EA to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: disclose the two addresses to the complainant.
Exemptions cited: FOI 13
View Environment Agency
5 Feb 2021Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested the Department for Digital, Media and Sport (DCMS) to disclose information relating to the government’s announcement on 16th October 2019 to not commence Part 3 of the Digital Economy Act 2017 (DEA). DCMS refused to disclose the requested information citing section 35(1)(a) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that DCMS 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
View Department for Culture, Media and Sport
5 Feb 2021Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to the London Borough of Waltham Forest (the Council) which included a number of questions mainly focused on water collection arrangements. The Council provided the complainant with information in response to her request. The complainant questioned whether the Council had provided her with all of the information falling within the scope of her request and also raised a number of further concerns about the Council’s handling of her request.
The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council does not hold any further information falling within the scope of the complainant’s request. However, she has also concluded that the Council breached section 11 of FOIA because it did not initially provide the complainant with a response in hard copy albeit it subsequently did so. Furthermore, the Commissioner has concluded that the Council breached section 10(1) of FOIA by failing to respond to two new requests for information which were included in the complai
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10; FOI 11
View Waltham Forest Council
5 Feb 2021Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about death rates. The position of Barking, Havering and Redbridge University Hospitals NHS Trust (‘the Trust’) is that it does not hold the requested information. The Commissioner’s decision is as follows: On the balance of probabilities, the Trust does not hold the information the complainant has requested and has complied with section 1(1)(a) of the FOIA. The Commissioner does not require the Trust to take any remedial steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Barking, Havering and Redbridge University Hospitals NHS Trust
5 Feb 2021Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from the NHS Commissioning Board (NHS England) about the postponing and cancelling of operations by NHS England during the Covid-19 pandemic. 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
4 Feb 2021Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information relating to a specific planning application. Mid Suffolk District Council withheld the requested information under the exceptions for internal communications (regulation 12(4)(e)) and the course of justice (regulation 12(5)(b). The Commissioner’s decision is that Mid Suffolk District Council has correctly applied regulation 12(5)(b) to all the requested information. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(b)
View Mid Suffolk District Council
4 Feb 2021Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested planning information from the London Borough of Southwark. The London Borough of Southwark failed to respond within 20 working days, as specified in the EIR. The Commissioner requires the London Borough of Southwark to provide the complainant with a response to this request in accordance with its obligations under the EIR within 35 calendar days of the date of this decision notice.
Exemptions cited: EIR 5(2)
View Southwark Council
4 Feb 2021Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has asked Epping Forest District Council for information which concerns Planning Application - EPF/2503/19. The Council responded to the complainant’s request by refusing to disclose the legal advice it had obtained from its lawyer in reliance on Regulation 12(5)(b) of the EIR, and by informing the complainant that it did not hold any further information other than that which it has disclosed to him. The Commissioner’s decision is that Epping Forest District Council has complied with the provision of Regulation 5(1) of the EIR in respect of the information which the complainant has asked for, with the exception of legal advice which was obtained by the Council and which is relevant to the complainant’s question 1. The Council is entitled to withhold the legal advice it holds on the grounds that it subject to the Council’s correct application of Regulation 12(5)(b).
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(b); EIR 5(1)
View Epping Forest District Council
4 Feb 2021Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested from Penketh Parish Council (“the Council”) information relating to the closure of Penketh swimming pool and the AGAR tax audit report. 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 has failed to respond to the request within 20 working days and has therefore breached section 10 of the FOIA.
The Commissioner requires the Council to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation.
• Issue a substantive response to the request in accordance with its obligations under the FOIA.
The Council must take these steps within 35 calendar days of the date of this decision notice. Failure to comply may result in the Commissioner making written certification of this fact to the High Court pursuant to section 54 of the Act and may be dealt with as a contempt of court.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
4 Feb 2021Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about the cause of a fire at Liverpool Echo Car Park on 31 December 2017. Merseyside Police refused the request on the grounds that some of the information was accessible to the complainant under the civil disclosure process, and was therefore exempt under section 21. It said the remaining information was exempt under sections 40(2) (personal information) and 30 (investigations and proceedings) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that Merseyside Police was entitled to rely on sections 21 and 40(2) of the FOIA to refuse the request. However, she found that Merseyside Police breached section 1(1)(a) of the FOIA by failing to confirm to the complainant that it held some of the information described in the request.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 21; FOI 40
View Merseyside Police
4 Feb 2021Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to support for children during Covid-19 and for information relating to the senior leadership at the School. The School failed to respond to this request within the statutory time for compliance. The Commissioner considers that the School has breached section 10(1) FOIA in the handling of this request.
The Commissioner requires the public authority to provide the complainant with a response in accordance with FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
4 Feb 2021Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information from the London Borough of Hackney (“the Council”) relating to a planning application to redevelop a specified location. 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 London Borough of Hackney
4 Feb 2021Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from Sussex Police about injury awards. 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
4 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 role of Chief Dental Officer and the committees or bodies that advise the Office of the Chief Dental Officer. 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
3 Feb 2021Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from the NHS Commissioning Board (NHS England) about face covering requirements during the Covid-19 pandemic. 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
3 Feb 2021Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested from Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council (“the Council”) a Counter Fraud Unit report regarding the allocation of a tenancy. The Council refused to provide the report in reliance on section 40(2) of the FOIA as it considered it to be the personal data of the tenant and Council officers involved in the process.
The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has correctly cited section 40(2) of the FOIA.
The Commissioner does not require the Council to take any steps. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2021/0068 appeal withdrawn.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40(2)
View Sandwell Council
3 Feb 2021Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to an investigation carried out by the Health and Safety Executive (the HSE) into a construction site. The HSE withheld the requested information under section 30(1)(b) (power to investigate offences and conduct proceedings) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the requested information is exempt from disclosure under section 30(1)(b) of the FOIA and the public interest favours maintaining the exemption. The Commissioner does not require any steps to be taken as a result of the decision notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 30
View Health and Safety Executive
3 Feb 2021Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about a near miss incident alleged to have happened at a school whilst undergoing construction works. The Council supplied some information falling within the scope of the request, but the complainant considered it had not disclosed all the information it held. The Commissioner’s decision is that on the balance of probability, the Council holds no further information. She also finds that the Council breached section 10 of the FOIA by failing to respond to the request within 20 working days.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10
View Lincolnshire County Council
3 Feb 2021Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information from the Rural Payments Agency (RPA) regarding the rules relating to beneficiaries of a payment scheme. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Rural Payments Agency (RPA) has failed to carry out a reconsideration (internal review) of a response it provided, under the EIR, within 40 working days and has therefore breached Regulation 11 of the EIR. The Commissioner requires the RPA 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 RPA 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 Rural Payments Agency
2 Feb 2021Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested from Bristol City Council (“the Council”) information relating to the Council’s legal basis for applying to the court for permission to collect council tax debt. The Council refused the request under section 14(1) (vexatious requests) of the FOIA.
The Commissioner’s decision is that the request was vexatious and the Council was therefore entitled to rely on section 14(1) of the FOIA to refuse to comply with this request.
The Commissioner does not require the Council to take any steps as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14(1)
View Bristol City Council
2 Feb 2021Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested a copy of the legal advice held by Kirklees Council (the council) which formed the basis of an email sent to local residents about the repair of a collapsed churchyard wall. The council initially refused the request, citing regulation 12(5)(b). Following the intervention of the Commissioner, the council then provided some information to the complainant. However, the Commissioner has identified one further set of information that is relevant to the request which was not released by the council. It is her decision that the council is not entitled to rely on regulation 12(5)(b) in respect of this information. Furthermore, as the council failed to provide its internal review response within the statutory time period of 40 working days, it has breached regulation 11(4) of the EIR. The Commissioner requires the council to release the highlighted information set out within the Confidential Annex attached to this decision notice.
Exemptions cited: EIR 11(4); EIR 12(5)(b)
View Kirklees Metropolitan Council
2 Feb 2021Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from St Mary's University, Twickenham (“the University”) about student meal numbers from the canteen facilities and other related information. By the date of this notice the University had failed to provide a substantive response to this request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the University has breached section 10(1) of the FOIA in that it failed to provide a valid response to the request within the statutory time frame of 20 working days. The Commissioner requires the University to respond to the complainant’s request in accordance with the FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
2 Feb 2021Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from Harris Manchester College (“the College”) about Trainee Clinical Psychologists, their terms and conditions as members of the College and other related information. By the date of this notice the College had failed to provide a substantive response to this request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the College has breached section 10(1) of the FOIA in that it failed to provide a valid response to the request within the statutory time frame of 20 working days. The Commissioner requires the College to respond to the complainant’s request in accordance with the FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
2 Feb 2021Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information concerning a structural review at the Pubs Code Adjudicator’s office (“PCA”). The Commissioner’s decision is that BEIS has appropriately relied on FOIA section 36(2)(b)(i)& (ii) - prejudice to effective conduct of public affairs – to withhold the requested information. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. Please note the date of the request is incorrect in the decision notice, the request was made on 3 March 2020 and an initial response was sent on 31 March 2020 with a substantive response sent on 29 April 2020. Therefore the Commissioner does not find a breach of section 17(1) in respect of the time taken to issue the initial response.
Exemptions cited: FOI 36(2)
View Department for Business and Trade
2 Feb 2021Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested various information in respect of a review of a number of care plans relating to the City and County of Swansea Council’s Social Services department. The City and County of Swansea Council stated that it held no written information falling within the scope of the request. The complainant was not satisfied that the Council had failed to identify any records relevant to his request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the City and County of Swansea Council has complied with its obligations under section 1(1) of the FOIA. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
2 Feb 2021Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to the timing of freedom of information requests processed by West Yorkshire Police during a specified timeframe. The Commissioner’s decision is that West Yorkshire Police failed to respond to the request within 20 working days and therefore breached section 10(1) (time for compliance with request) of the FOIA. As the response has been provided, the Commissioner does not require West Yorkshire Police to take any steps in relation to this decision notice. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2021/0062 allowed in part.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View West Yorkshire Police
1 Feb 2021Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information relating to the relocation of a farm in Nunthorpe. Middlesbrough Council disclosed some information and withheld other information under the exceptions for commercial confidentiality (regulation 12(5)(e)) and personal data (regulation 13(1)).
The Commissioner’s decision is that Middlesbrough Council has correctly withheld the information in part 4 of the request under regulation 13(1). The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 13(1)
View Middlesbrough Council
1 Feb 2021Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information regarding safety inspections in relation to a specific road. Birmingham City Council disclosed some information and withheld other information under the exception for the course of justice – regulation 12(5)(b) of the EIR. The Commissioner’s decision is that Birmingham City Council has correctly withheld the information in part 1 of the request under regulation 12(5)(b). The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(b)
View Birmingham City Council
29 Jan 2021Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from Highways England about one of its contractors: Kier Highways Ltd. Highways England has categorised the request as a vexatious request under section 14(1) of the FOIA and has refused to comply with it. The Commissioner’s decision is as follows: The complainant’s request is a vexatious request under section 14(1) 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
29 Jan 2021Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from Avon and Somerset Metropolitan Police (“the Police”) regarding crime reference numbers/incident numbers made by a missing person, in the year leading up to them going missing. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Police are entitled to rely on section 40(5) to refuse to confirm or deny that it holds the information. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any further action in this matter. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2021/0063 appeal dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View Avon and Somerset Police
29 Jan 2021Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested from the Department for Education (DfE) information about whether Dominic Cummings had had any complaints made about him whilst working as a special adviser for Michael Gove at the DfE. The DfE refused to confirm or deny whether there had been any complaints as to do so would in itself breach data protection principles. The Commissioner’s decision is that the DfE was entitled to rely on section 40(5B)(a)(i) of the FOIA to neither confirm or deny holding any information falling within the scope of the request. The Commissioner does not require any further steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View Department for Education
29 Jan 2021Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested from Northumberland County Council (“the Council”) information for the specific constituencies relating to the Electoral Commission. The Council considered that it does not hold this information for the purposes of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the requested information is not held by the Council for the purposes of the FOIA, and that the Council is entitled to rely on section 3(2)(a) of the FOIA. Therefore, the Commissioner does not require the Council to take any steps as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: FOI 3
View Northumberland County Council
29 Jan 2021Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information on Covid-19 recovery rates. The British Broadcasting Corporation (“the BBC”) explained that the information was covered by the derogation and excluded from FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that this information was held by the BBC for the purposes of ‘journalism, art or literature’ and did not fall inside the FOIA. The Commissioner does not require any further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View BBC