14 Mar 2025Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from Betsi Cadwaladr University Health Board relating to costs for the Halo call management system.
The Commissioner’s decision is that section 43(2) of FOIA – commercial interests is engaged, however, the balance of the public interest favours disclosing the information in this case.
The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following step to ensure compliance with the legislation:
• To disclose the withheld information.
The public authority must take this step within 30 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 43(2)
View Betsi Cadwaladr University Health Board
14 Mar 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information regarding the use of counterfeit anti-choking devices. The Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (“the public authority”) relied on section 12 of FOIA (cost of compliance) to refuse the request.
The Commissioner’s decision is that the MHRA was entitled to rely on section 12(1) of FOIA to refuse the request.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12(1)
View Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency
14 Mar 2025Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
A public authority will breach section 10 of FOIA if it fails to respond to a request within 20 working days. Based on evidence available to the Commissioner, by the date of this notice the public authority has not issued a substantive response to this request. Therefore the Commissioner finds a breach of section 10. The public authority must provide a substantive response to the request in accordance with its obligations under FOIA. The public authority must take this step within 30 calendar days of the date of this decision notice. Failure to comply may result in the Commissioner making written certification of this fact to the High Court pursuant to section 54 of FOIA and may be dealt with as a contempt of court.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Flintshire County Council
14 Mar 2025Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
A public authority will breach section 10 of FOIA if it fails to respond to a request within 20 working days. Based on evidence available to the Commissioner, by the date of this notice the public authority has not issued a substantive response to this request. Therefore the Commissioner finds a breach of section 10. The public authority must provide a substantive response to the request in accordance with its obligations under FOIA. The public authority must take this step within 30 calendar days of the date of this decision notice. Failure to comply may result in the Commissioner making written certification of this fact to the High Court pursuant to section 54 of FOIA and may be dealt with as a contempt of court.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Cumberland Council
14 Mar 2025Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The Commissioner’s decision is that the public authority breached section 10(1) of FOIA by failing to provide a response within 20 working days.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Metropolitan Police Service
13 Mar 2025Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The public authority has failed to respond to this request within 20 working days, as specified under FOIA. The Commissioner requires it to provide the complainant with a response to this request within 30 calendar days in accordance with its obligations under FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Health and Safety Executive
13 Mar 2025Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted an information request to the Chief Constable of Greater Manchester Police (GMP) for copies of named Information Sharing Agreements.
The Commissioner’s decision is that GMP was not entitled to rely upon sections 31(1)(a) and (b)(law enforcement) of FOIA as the exemptions had been applied ‘blanket fashion’ to the requested information.
The Commissioner requires GMP to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation.
• Disclose the requested information, with any personal data redacted in accordance with his guidance.
GMP must take these steps within 30 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 31(1)(a); FOI 31(1)(b)
View Greater Manchester Police
13 Mar 2025Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about 138 Final Decisions that were excluded from publication in the last five years. The Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS) initially refused to provide the requested information, citing sections 31 and 40(2) of FOIA. These exemptions concern investigations and third party personal information respectively. In its internal review, FOS accepted that these exemptions did not apply and provided the requested information. The Commissioner’s decision is that FOS breached section 1(1)(b) and 10(1) of FOIA by providing information to which the complainant was entitled outside the statutory timeframe. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1(1)(b); FOI 10(1)
13 Mar 2025Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested copies of minutes of the board of governors. The above public authority initially withheld some of the information, but later disclosed most of it. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the public authority holds more information than it has disclosed and has therefore not complied with section 1(1) of FOIA. As the public authority has disclosed information outside the 20 working day timeframe, it also breached section 10 of FOIA. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: confirm or deny whether any Part II minutes are held for the finance and personnel subcommittee meeting of 25 January 2024; and if these minutes are held, either disclose them or issue a refusal notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10
13 Mar 2025Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested the following information from the Ministry of Justice about prisoners. The Commissioner’s decision is that the public authority failed to respond to the request within 20 working days and has therefore breached section 10 of FOIA. The public authority must provide a substantive response to the request in accordance with its obligations under FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Ministry of Justice
13 Mar 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested the guidance manual issued to sensitivity reviewers by the public authority. The Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (“the FCDO”) refused the request under section 14(1) (vexatious). The Commissioner’s decision is that the FCDO are entitled to rely on section 14(1) to refuse the request. The Commissioner does not require further steps. Information Tribunal FT/EA/2025/0159 under appeal.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14(1)
13 Mar 2025Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The National Archives has failed to respond to this request within 20 working days, as specified under FOIA. The Commissioner requires it to provide the complainant with a response to this request within 30 calendar days in accordance with its obligations under FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10(1)
View The National Archives
13 Mar 2025Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from the Ministry of Justice about category of prison population. The Commissioner’s decision is that the public authority failed to respond to the request within 20 working days and has therefore breached section 10 of FOIA. The public authority must provide a substantive response to the request in accordance with its obligations under FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Ministry of Justice
13 Mar 2025Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information on incidents on fairground rides reported to the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) over a ten year period. HSE refused the request initially under section 14 and later under section 12 FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that HSE was entitled to rely on section 12(1) of FOIA to refuse the request. The Commissioner also finds that HSE did not comply with its section 16 obligation to offer advice and assistance. The Commissioner requires HSE to provide advice and assistance to the complainant as required by section 16(1) of FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12; FOI 16
View Health and Safety Executive
13 Mar 2025Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from Causeway Coast & Glens Borough Council (“the Council”) about the re-numbering of specific properties.
2.
The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the Council does not hold any further information within the scope of the complainant’s request.
3.
The Commissioner also finds that the Council has breached sections 1 and 10 of FOIA as it did not provide a response to the complainant’s original request within 20 working days.
4.
The Commissioner does not require the Council to take any steps as a result of this decision notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10
13 Mar 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested from the Cabinet Office a copy of any Propriety and Ethics Team assessments or guidance relating to Peter Bone’s appointment as Deputy Leader of the House of Commons. The Cabinet Office relied on section 36(2)(c) FOIA (effective conduct of public affairs) and section 40(2) FOIA (third party personal information) to withhold the information. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Cabinet Office was entitled to rely on section 36(2)(c) FOIA to withhold the information. The Commissioner does not require the Cabinet Office to take any steps to ensure compliance with the legislation.
Exemptions cited: FOI 36(2)(c)
View Cabinet Office
13 Mar 2025Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested correspondence relating to the establishment of the Creative Industries Independent Standards Authority. The above public authority relied on sections 36 (prejudice to the effective conduct of public affairs), 41 (breach of confidence) and 43 (commercial interests) of FOIA to withhold the requested information. The Commissioner’s decision is that section 36 of FOIA is engaged, but that the balance of the public interest favours disclosure. Neither section 41 nor section 43 of FOIA is engaged. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: disclose the information it has relied on sections 36, 41 or 43 of FOIA to withhold. The public authority may make appropriate redactions to comply with its data protection obligations.
Keywords: CIISA
Exemptions cited: FOI 36; FOI 41; FOI 43
View Channel 4
13 Mar 2025Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The public authority has failed to respond to this request within 20 working days, as specified under FOIA. The Commissioner requires it to provide the complainant with a response to this request within 30 calendar days in accordance with its obligations under FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Ministry of Justice
13 Mar 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested a copy of a particular investigation report from the Health and Safety Executive for Northern Ireland (HSENI). HSENI withheld the requested information under sections 30(1)(b) (Investigations and proceedings) and 44(1)(a) (Prohibitions on disclosure) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that HSENI was entitled to rely on section 30(1)(b) (Investigations and proceedings) to refuse to disclose the requested information.
Exemptions cited: FOI 30
12 Mar 2025Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested details of staff who serve as magistrates. The above public authority relied on section 12 of FOIA (cost of compliance) to refuse the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that complying with the request would exceed the cost limit. The public authority was therefore entitled to refuse it. The public authority did not comply with its duty under section 16 of FOIA as it did not provide reasonable advice and assistance to help the complainant refine her request. The Commissioner does not require further steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12; FOI 16
View The University of East London
12 Mar 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested a particular report referred to in a Cabinet Meeting relating to a project at South Quay. Pembrokeshire County Council refused to comply with the request on the basis that it was vexatious and cited regulation 12(4)(b) of the EIR (manifestly unreasonable). The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council was entitled to rely on regulation 12(4)(b) to refuse the request. The Commissioner does not require any steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(b)
View Pembrokeshire County Council
12 Mar 2025Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested all internal AFBI (Agri-Food & Biosciences Institute) communications with DAERA (Department for Agriculture and Rual Affairs of Northern Ireland) concerning the move of projects from AWP (Assigned Work Programme) to the E& I (Evidence and Innovation) funding programme. The AFBI refused the request citing section 36 (prejudice to the effective conduct of public affairs) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the requested information is environmental information within the definition at regulation 2(1)(c) of the EIR. AFBI should therefore have considered the request under the EIR. The Commissioner requires AFBI to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. Reconsider the request under the provisions of the EIR and issue a fresh response to the complainant.
Exemptions cited: EIR 2(1)(c)
View Agri-Food and Biosciences Institute (Northern Ireland)
12 Mar 2025Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested from Durham University (the University) the income and expenses for all Junior and Middle Common Rooms for each college classed as a Durham Student Organisation broken down into categories during a specified timeframe. The University cited section 12(2) of FOIA in its refusal notice, later changing this to section 12(1) of FOIA – cost limit. The Commissioner’s decision is that the University has not demonstrated that section 12(1) is engaged. The University also breached section 10(1) of FOIA because it failed to confirm whether or not it held information within 20 working days. 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 12(1) of FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10(1); FOI 12(1)
View University of Durham
12 Mar 2025Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The Commissioner’s decision is that the British Film Institute (BFI) is entitled to neither confirm nor deny it holds the requested information about a complaint under section 40(5B) of FOIA, which concerns personal data. BFI breached section 17(1) as it cited an incorrect exemption in its refusal notice. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40(5)(b); FOI 17(1)
View British Film Institute
12 Mar 2025Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information about accommodation for council staff. The public authority has failed to respond to this request within 20 working days, as specified under FOIA. The Commissioner requires it to provide the complainant with a response to this request within 30 calendar days in accordance with its obligations under FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Enfield Council
12 Mar 2025Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The Commissioner’s decision is that Gloucestershire County Council (“GCC”) should have considered the request in this case under the EIR rather than FOIA.
The Commissioner requires the Council to take the following step to ensure compliance with the legislation:
• Issue the complainant with a fresh response to their request that complies with the EIR.
The public authority must take these steps within 30 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 2
View Gloucestershire County Council
12 Mar 2025Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from the Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office (the public authority). By the date of this notice the public authority had not issued a substantive response to this request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the public authority has failed to complete its deliberations on the balance of the public interest within a reasonable time and has therefore breached section 17(3) of FOIA. The Commissioner requires the public authority to provide a substantive response to the request in accordance with its obligations under FOIA. The public authority must take this step within 30 calendar days of the date of this decision notice. Failure to comply may result in the Commissioner making written certification of this fact to the High Court pursuant to section 54 of FOIA and may be dealt with as a contempt of court.
Exemptions cited: FOI 17(3)
12 Mar 2025Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from the Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office (the public authority). By the date of this notice the public authority had not issued a substantive response to this request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the public authority has failed to complete its deliberations on the balance of the public interest within a reasonable time and has therefore breached section 17(3) of FOIA. The Commissioner requires the public authority to provide a substantive response to the request in accordance with its obligations under FOIA. The public authority must take this step within 30 calendar days of the date of this decision notice. Failure to comply may result in the Commissioner making written certification of this fact to the High Court pursuant to section 54 of FOIA and may be dealt with as a contempt of court.
Exemptions cited: FOI 17(3)
12 Mar 2025Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information from Kent County Council (“the Council”) relating to the Council’s ecological advice service. The Commissioner’s decision is that if held, the requested information is held by the Council for the purposes of the EIR. The Commissioner requires the Council to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. The Council must issue a fresh response to the request on the basis that if held, the requested information is held by the Council for the purposes of the EIR. The Council must take these steps within 30 calendar days of the date of this decision notice. Failure to comply may result in the Commissioner making written certification of this fact to the High Court pursuant to section 54 of the Act and may be dealt with as a contempt of court.
Exemptions cited: EIR 3(2)
View Kent County Council
12 Mar 2025Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The public authority has failed to respond to this request within 20 working days, as specified under FOIA. The Commissioner requires it to provide the complainant with a response to this request within 30 calendar days in accordance with its obligations under FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Ministry of Justice
12 Mar 2025Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to communications with the Council’s external auditor. Potto Parish Council (“the council”) stated it did not hold the requested information. The Commissioner’s decision is that on the balance of probabilities, the Council does not hold any further recorded information falling within the scope of the request. The Commissioner also finds the Council breached section 10 by failing to respond to the request within twenty working days. The Commissioner does not require further steps. Information Tribunal FT/EA/2025/0154 appeal allowed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10
12 Mar 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about instructions reportedly given by the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) to Cheshire Constabulary regarding the Lucy Letby murder investigation. The CPS disclosed some information but it cited section 42(1) (Legal professional privilege) and section 21 (Information accessible to the applicant by other means) of FOIA to refuse the remainder of the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that sections 42(1) and 21 were cited correctly.
Exemptions cited: FOI 21; FOI 42
View Crown Prosecution Service
12 Mar 2025Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information associated with particular meetings. The University of Oxford (‘the University’) disclosed some information and withheld the remainder under sections 31(1), 36(2)(b), 40(2) and 43(2) of FOIA. These exemptions concern law enforcement, prejudice to the effective conduct of public affairs, personal data, and commercial interests respectively. The Commissioner’s decision is as follows: The University is entitled to rely on sections 36(2)(b)(i) and 36(2)(b)(ii) to withhold information within scope of the complainant’s request. Section 40(2) isn’t engaged in respect of the information redacted from material that the University disclosed. The University hasn’t disclosed all the relevant, non-exempt information within FOIA’s 20 working day requirement and so has breached sections 1(1) and 10(1).The Commissioner requires the University to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: Regarding the papers that the University has rel
Exemptions cited: FOI 1(1); FOI 10(1); FOI 36(2)(b)(i); FOI 36(2)(b)(ii); FOI 40(2)
View The University of Oxford
11 Mar 2025Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to complaints received by Vale of White Horse District Council (Vale) about a specific vehicle that was granted taxi license. Vale refused to comply with the complainant’s request citing section 14(2) of FOIA as its basis for doing so. The Commissioner’s decision is that Vale was not entitled to rely on sections 14 of FOIA to refuse to comply with the complainant’s request. He also considers that Vale has breached section 17 of FOIA as it has failed to issue an appropriate refusal notice to the complainant. The Commissioner requires Vale to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation.
• Disclose the requested information Or
• Issue a proper refusal notice that does not rely on the complainant’s engagement with another public authority.
The public authority must take these steps within 30 calendar days of the date of this decision notice. Failure to comply may result in the Commissioner making written certificatio
Exemptions cited: FOI 14(2); FOI 17
View Vale of White Horse District Council
11 Mar 2025Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
A public authority will breach section 10 of FOIA if it fails to respond to a request within 20 working days. Based on evidence available to the Commissioner, by the date of this notice the public authority has not issued a substantive response to this request. Therefore the Commissioner finds a breach of section 10.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Ministry of Justice
11 Mar 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about false civil complaints about transphobia made against the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) and/or Baroness Kishwer Faulkner. The EHRC stated that it did not hold the requested information. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the EHRC does not hold the requested information. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Equality and Human Rights Commission
11 Mar 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information about mail which is routed through Malta. The Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) stated that it did not hold any further recorded information relevant to the request. The complainant was unhappy with this response. The Commissioner’s decision is that DWP does not hold any further information falling within the scope of the request. The Commissioner does not require any steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Department for Work and Pensions
11 Mar 2025Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
A public authority will breach section 10 of FOIA if it fails to respond to a request within 20 working days. Based on evidence available to the Commissioner, by the date of this notice the public authority has not issued a substantive response to this request. Therefore the Commissioner finds a breach of section 10.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Ministry of Justice
11 Mar 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information regarding the date a registration offer was received for a specific property. Birmingham City Council (the Council) relied on section 40(2) of FOIA (third party personal information) to withhold the information. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has correctly relied on section 40(2) of FOIA to withhold the information. The Commissioner does not require further steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40(2)
View Birmingham City Council
10 Mar 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested any monitoring or assessments regarding actions planned by the Summertown & St. Margaret’s Neighbourhood Forum (the Forum), which relate to Equality Act 2010 protected characteristics and Public Sector Equality Duty. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Forum is not a public authority for the purposes of EIR. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 2(2)
10 Mar 2025Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested a copy of a contract held by Bristol City Council (the council) which sets out details of an agreement it has made with Constellia to conduct Care Act assessment reviews on its behalf. The council initially issued a refusal notice, citing the exemption at section 43(2) (commercial interests) of FOIA. At the internal review stage, the council released some of the requested information to the complainant. During the Commissioner’s investigation, the council disclosed some additional information but continued to rely on section 43(2) as its basis for withholding some financial information. The council also advised that it was withholding the names of individuals contained within the contract under section 40 (personal information) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council is entitled to rely on section 43(2), and section 40, of FOIA as its basis for refusing to provide the remaining withheld information contained within the contract. However, as th
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 40(2); FOI 43(2)
View Bristol City Council
10 Mar 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested the report from an investigation into a death in custody. The Independent Office for Police Conduct (“IOPC”) withheld the requested information, citing section 30(1) (investigations and proceedings) and section 40(2) (personal information) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the IOPC was entitled to rely on section 30(1)(a)(i) to withhold the information in its entirety. The Commissioner does not require further steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 30
View Independent Office for Police Conduct
10 Mar 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested copies of all correspondence between Buckinghamshire, Oxfordshire and Berkshire West Integrated Care Board (‘BOB ICB’) and the Windrush Surgery in Banbury over a twelve month period. BOB ICB sought clarification of the request which the complainant declined to provide. BOB ICB said it may hold some of the requested information but, without clarification, could not provide it on the grounds of cost, citing section 12(1) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that BOB ICB has properly relied on section 12(1) of FOIA for the reasons set out in this notice. He also finds that BOB ICB complied with its advice and assistance obligations in accordance with section 16 of FOIA. No steps are required as a result of this notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12; FOI 16
View NHS Buckinghamshire, Oxfordshire and Berkshire West ICB
10 Mar 2025Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested email address of senior staff from Cleveland Police. Cleveland Police initially provided some details of an automated service which did not satisfy the request. It subsequently cited section 40(2) (Personal information) of FOIA, then added reliance on sections 31(1)(a) & (b) (Law enforcement) during the Commissioner’s investigation.
The Commissioner’s decision is that Cleveland Police was entitled to rely on sections 31(1)(a) & (b) of FOIA. He did however find procedural breaches under sections 1(1)(a) (General right of access) and 10(1) (Time for compliance) of FOIA. No steps are required. Information Tribunal FT/EA/2025/0149 under appeal.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10; FOI 31
View Cleveland Police
10 Mar 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information regarding parking and parking restrictions at a specific location. Tonbridge & Malling Borough Council (the Council) provided information in scope of the request and stated that all information held had been provided in its response.
The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the Council did not hold further information in scope of the request and has complied with section 1(1)(a) of FOIA.
The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken as a result of this decision. Information Tribunal FT/EA/2025/0134 under appeal.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1(1)
View Tonbridge and Malling Borough Council
10 Mar 2025Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested copies of all correspondence between Buckinghamshire, Oxfordshire and Berkshire West Integrated Care Board (‘BOB ICB’) and the Hightown Surgery in Banbury over a twelve month period. BOB ICB sought clarification of the request which the complainant declined to provide. BOB ICB said it may hold some of the requested information but, without clarification, could not provide it on the grounds of cost, citing section 12(1) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that BOB ICB has properly relied on section 12(1) of FOIA for the reasons set out in this notice. He also finds that BOB ICB complied with its advice and assistance obligations in accordance with section 16 of FOIA. However, by failing to provide its substantive response within the statutory 20 working days’ timescale, BOB ICB has breached section 10(1) of FOIA. No steps are required as a result of this notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 12; FOI 16
View NHS Buckinghamshire, Oxfordshire and Berkshire West ICB
10 Mar 2025Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The Commissioner’s decision is that the information the complainant has requested about East West Rail’s car park proposal is environmental information. Bedfordshire Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust (‘the Trust’) should therefore have handled the request under the EIR and it breached regulation 14(3) of the EIR by incorrectly issuing its refusal notice under FOIA. The Commissioner requires the Trust to take the following step to ensure compliance with the legislation: Issue the complainant with a fresh response to their request under the EIR, in accordance with its obligations under that legislation.
Exemptions cited: EIR 14(3)
View Bedfordshire Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust
10 Mar 2025Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested copies of annexes referred to in 'Operation Yvonne - Draft Closing Report' from the Independent Office for the Police Conduct (the IOPC). The Commissioner’s decision is that the IOPC has correctly relied on section 40(2) of FOIA to withhold the information. The Commissioner also finds that the IOPC breached section 10(1) by failing to respond to the request within 20 working days. The Commissioner does not require further steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10(1); FOI 40(2)
View Independent Office for Police Conduct
10 Mar 2025Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested the following information from the Department of Health and Social Care (“DHSC”) on 5 December 2024 about the Infected Blood Inquiry and the DHSC allocated reference FOI-1551354 to it.. The Commissioner’s decision is that the public authority failed to respond to the request reference FOI-155134 within 20 working days and has therefore breached section 10 of FOIA. The public authority must provide a substantive response to the request in accordance with its obligations under FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Department of Health and Social Care
10 Mar 2025Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information associated with diagnosis and procedure codes. The Christie NHS Foundation Trust (‘the Trust’) relied on section 21(1) of FOIA to refuse the request, advising that the information they’ve requested was already reasonably accessible to the complainant. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Trust was entitled to refuse the request under section 21(1) of FOIA. The Trust breached section 17(1) however, as it didn’t provide a refusal notice within the required timescale. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 17(1); FOI 21(1)
View The Christie NHS Foundation Trust