26 Feb 2025Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to transgender Shared Care Agreements and Bridging Prescriptions. 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
26 Feb 2025Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested minutes of six meetings. The above public authority provided minutes of three meetings and noted that minutes of a fourth meeting had already been provided via another request. However it denied holding the remaining two sets of minutes. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the public authority has provided all the information that it holds. It was therefore entitled to rely on regulation 12(4)(a) to refuse this part of the request. The public authority breached regulation 14 of the EIR as its refusal notice was both late and inadequate. The Commissioner does not require further steps to be taken. Information Tribunal FT/EA/2025/0124 appeal withdrawn.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(a); EIR 14
View The University of Exeter
26 Feb 2025Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to transgender Shared Care Agreements and Bridging Prescriptions. 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
26 Feb 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.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Ministry of Justice
26 Feb 2025Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about an alleged misconduct investigation. The above public authority relied on section 31 of FOIA (law enforcement) in order to withhold the requested information. The Commissioner’s decision is that: the public authority should have relied upon section 40(5B) of FOIA to refuse to confirm or deny whether it held information within the scope of part [1] of the request. He now applies this exemption himself, proactively, to prevent any further disclosure of personal information; and on the balance of probabilities, the public authority holds more information within the scope of part [2] of the request than it has identified to the Commissioner; and of the information that the public authority has identified as falling within the scope of part [2] of the request, the public authority is not entitled to rely on section 31 of FOIA to withhold it; and the Commissioner considers that some of that information is the personal information of either the
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 31; FOI 40(1); FOI 40(2); FOI 40(5)(b)
View The University of Surrey
26 Feb 2025Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to transgender Shared Care Agreements and Bridging Prescriptions. 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
26 Feb 2025Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about breaches of the Regulatory Powers Act. The above public authority confirmed that some information was already reasonably accessible. The Commissioner’s decision is that the public authority has failed to comply with section 1(1) of FOIA, because it has failed to confirm explicitly whether it holds any further information within the scope of the request that is not exempt under section 21, nor has it explicitly relied upon a valid exemption to refuse to confirm or deny that further such information is held. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take one of the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. Either: provide the complainant with a refusal notice stating the exemption being relied upon to refuse to confirm or deny that any further information (not already exempt under section 21) is held; or provide explicit confirmation or denial that further information (not already exempt under section 21) is held an
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Cleveland Police
26 Feb 2025Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested a copy of a data protection impact assessment. The above public authority provided the information late. The Commissioner’s decision is that the public authority breached section 10 of FOIA by failing to provide the requested information within 20 working days.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View EMBRACE MULTI ACADEMY TRUST
26 Feb 2025Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from Portsmouth Hospitals University NHS Trust about Long Covid clinics. 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 Portsmouth Hospitals NHS Trust
26 Feb 2025Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to transgender Shared Care Agreements and Bridging Prescriptions. 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 Kirby Road Surgery
26 Feb 2025Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from Portsmouth Hospitals University NHS Trust about Long Covid clinics. 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 Portsmouth Hospitals NHS Trust
25 Feb 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information from Thanet District Council (the Council) in relation to actions set by the Planning Inspectorate being completed within a 6 month time scale.
The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the Council does not hold any further information within scope of the request.
The Commissioner does not require the Council to take any steps as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: EIR 5(1)
View Thanet District Council
25 Feb 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information regarding ICD10 first diagnosis discharge codes and cases. University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust (the Trust) cited sections 12 and 40 of FOIA to withhold the requested information.
The Commissioner’s decision is that the Trust was entitled to rely on section 12 of FOIA to withhold information in scope of the request.
The Commissioner does not require any steps to be taken as a result of this decision. Information Tribunal FT/EA/2025/0094 under appeal.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12(1)
View University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust
25 Feb 2025Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested copies of communications sent by Plymouth City Council (the council) to Devon and Cornwall Police that contained “intel packages” about individuals that the council considered to be affiliated to the campaign group STRAW (Save the Trees Of Armada Way). The complainant has contested the council’s decision to withhold information contained within one specific email. The council provided the complainant with some of the content of the email, advising that it considered the remainder to be exempt from disclosure under section 40(2) (third party personal information) of FOIA. During the Commissioner’s investigation, the council confirmed that it is now willing to release the names of certain individuals, but maintained its position that the exemption at section 40(2) was applicable to the remaining withheld content from the email. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council is entitled to rely on the exemption at section 40(2) of FOIA in respect of only part of
Exemptions cited: FOI 40(2)
View Plymouth City Council
25 Feb 2025Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
Section 17(3) of FOIA states that where a public authority is relying on a qualified exemption, it can have a “reasonable” extension of time to consider the public interest in maintaining the exemption or disclosing the information. The section 45 Code of Practice states that usually this should be no more than a further 20 working days. This means that the total time spent responding to a request should not exceed 40 working days unless there are exceptional circumstances. The Commissioner does not consider there to be any exceptional circumstances to warrant a failure to respond for over 6 months and finds that, by failing to respond to the request within a reasonable time frame, the public authority has breached section 17(3) of FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 17
View Home Office
25 Feb 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has asked Northumbria Police questions about the information it might hold in a hypothetical situation. Northumbria Police did not answer the questions. The Commissioner’s decision is that the questions did not sufficiently describe any recorded information which was being sought and so they were not valid requests for information as defined under section 8(1)(c) of FOIA. It follows that Northumbria Police was not under the duty at section 1(1) of FOIA to confirm or deny whether it held information falling within scope, or to issue a formal refusal notice under section 17. However, Northumbria Police did not meet the obligation under section 16 of FOIA to offer reasonable advice and assistance to the complainant, by explaining to him that the request was invalid. As an explanation is contained in this decision notice, the Commissioner does not require further steps as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: FOI 8
View Northumbria Police
25 Feb 2025Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested a particular report commissioned by Thurrock Council (the ‘Council’) into one of its financial investigation services. The Council initially refused to provide the report in its entirety citing sections 41 of FOIA – the exemption for information provided in confidence, and 43 – the exemption for commercial interests. During the course of the Commissioner’s investigation, the Council additionally cited sections 31(1)(a) of FOIA – the prevention or detection of crime and 40(2) – personal information. It also revised its position and disclosed the requested report, with redactions under all the above cited FOIA exemptions. The Commissioner’s decision is that section 40(2) is engaged. He also finds that sections 31, 41, and 43 of FOIA are not engaged for the reasons set out in this notice. The Commissioner requires the Council to disclose the remainder of the requested report in full minus the information withheld under section 40(2) of FOIA within 30 calendar day
Exemptions cited: FOI 31; FOI 40; FOI 41; FOI 43
View Thurrock Council
25 Feb 2025Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested from Rutland County Council (the Council) information relating to a planning application. The Council provided some information and stated that some information was not held. The complainant maintains that the Council holds more information than it has provided. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the public authority does hold further information. He has also decided that the public authority breached regulation 5(2) of the EIR as it failed to make some environmental information available within 20 working days and breached regulation 11(4) of the EIR by failing to provide an internal review within 40 working days. The Commissioner requires the Council to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation.
• Issue a fresh response to the request, having carried out fresh searches for information within the scope of the request. In the event further information is identified, that information should either
Exemptions cited: EIR 11(4); EIR 5(1); EIR 5(2)
View Rutland County Council
25 Feb 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from Stevenage Borough Council (SBC), relating to the repossession and clearance in 2015/2016 of (address redacted) where (Name redacted) was the registered tenant.
SBC relied on section 14(1) of FOIA (vexatious) to refuse the requests.
The Commissioner’s decision is that the requests were vexatious and therefore SBC was entitled to rely upon section 14(1) of FOIA to refuse it.
The Commissioner does not require any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14(1)
View Stevenage Borough Council
21 Feb 2025Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information from Oxfordshire County Council (“the Council”) relating to a proposed development. The Commissioner’s decision is that on the balance of probabilities, the Council holds further information within the scope of the request. The Commissioner requires the Council to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. The Council is required to carry out further searches aimed at identifying all the information it holds falling within the scope of the request, as based on the reading of the request specified at paragraphs 17 to 20 below, and to issue the complainant with a fresh response that complies with 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 5(1)
View Oxfordshire County Council
21 Feb 2025Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham about a blue badge application. 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 Hammersmith and Fulham Council
21 Feb 2025Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from Warwick District Council about parking permits. 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 Warwick District Council
21 Feb 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information from Exeter City Council (“the council”) relating to the Exeter Canal & Quay Trust. The council withheld some information under Regulations 12(5)(e) (commercial confidentiality), 12(5)(f) (interests of the person who provided the information), and 13 (personal data of third parties) of the EIR. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council was correct to apply Regulation 12(5)(f) to withhold the information from disclosure. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(f)
View Exeter City Council
21 Feb 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested from Aston Community Education Trust (ACET) information about letters sent to parents and carers of pupils and ex-pupils of Aston Academy that had been issued by Irwin Mitchell. ACET refused to provide the requested information, applying section 40(2) of FOIA – personal information - to one part of the request and section 14(1) of FOIA – vexatious request - to the remainder. The Commissioner’s decision is that the request is vexatious and ACET cited section 14(1) correctly. He has also decided that section 40(2) has been cited appropriately. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14(1); FOI 40(2)
View ASTON COMMUNITY EDUCATION TRUST
21 Feb 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(1)
View Leeds City Council
20 Feb 2025Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested copies of correspondence relating to a proposed maintenance tax or charging people to use the “the Downs” and any other parks or green spaces. Bristol City Council (the Council) stated it did not hold the information requested. In its internal review response the Council maintained it did not hold some of the information requested and as such it was relying on regulation 12(4)(a) (information not held) of the EIR. 2. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the Council has not conducted adequate searches for the requested information. The Commissioner requires the Council to conduct a further search of its records and issue a fresh response to the complainant and either disclose the information located or issue an appropriate refusal notice under EIR.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(a); EIR 5
View Bristol City Council
20 Feb 2025Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information relating to building control checks. The London Borough of Redbridge (the Council).
The Commissioner’s decision is that the public authority failed to provide a substantive response to the request within 20 working days in accordance with its obligations under the EIR.
Exemptions cited: EIR 5(2)
View Redbridge Council
20 Feb 2025Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to building works carried out on a specific property.
The Commissioner’s decision is that the public authority has failed to provide a substantive response to the request in accordance with its obligations under FOIA.
The Commissioner requires the Council to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation.
• provide a substantive response to the request in accordance with its obligations under FOIA.
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 10
View London Borough of Lambeth
20 Feb 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to a skate park proposal from Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole Council (“the council”). The council initially refused the request under section 43(2) of FOIA. Following an internal review the council refused the request on the basis that section 14(1) of FOIA applied (vexatious request). The Commissioner’s decision is that the council was correct to apply section 14(1) of FOIA to refuse the request for information. The Commissioner does not require the council to take any further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14(1)
View BCP Council
20 Feb 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information relating to a particular section of road. Buckinghamshire Council (“the council”), said that it does not hold that information. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council does not hold the requested information. The Commissioner does not require the council to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 5(1)
View Buckinghamshire Council
20 Feb 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested “unpublished Transgender Guidance for schools”. EHRC refused to disclose the requested information, on the basis of section 36(2)(c) of FOIA (prejudice to effective conduct of public affairs). The Commissioner’s decision is that EHRC was entitled to refuse disclosure on the basis of section 36(2)(c). The Commissioner doesn’t require any steps in response to this decision notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 36(2)(c)
View Equality and Human Rights Commission
20 Feb 2025Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to the Housing Improvement Board. The London Borough of Haringey (“LBH”) denied holding some of the information described in the request (meeting minutes) and withheld the remainder under section 36 of the FOIA (prejudice to the effective conduct of public affairs). It failed to conduct an internal review despite receiving a request for one. The Commissioner’s decision is that LBH does not hold meeting minutes and is entitled to rely on section 36(2)(b)(ii) as its basis for withholding most of what it does hold within the scope of the request. However, the Commissioner has concluded that a small amount of the requested information is not exempt under section 36. Within that small amount of information, there is some personal data which is exempt under section 40. That personal data can be withheld. Full details are in a Confidential Annex to this Notice. The Commissioner requires LBH to take the following steps to ensure compliance wit
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 36; FOI 40
View Haringey Council
20 Feb 2025Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested the meta data of the handling of a previous request. Leeds and York Partnership NHS Foundation Trust (‘the Trust’) relied on section 36 of FOIA to withhold the requested information. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Trust was not entitled to rely on sections 36(2)(b)(i), 36(2)(b)(ii), and 36(2)(c) of FOIA. The Commissioner requires the Trust to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: Disclose the information it has relied on section 36 of FOIA to withhold, making the necessary redactions to remove personal data.
Exemptions cited: FOI 36
View Leeds and York Partnership NHS Foundation Trust
20 Feb 2025Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information about correspondence between Babergh and Mid Suffolk District Council and another public authority on a specific matter. The Council withheld the information under regulation 12(5)(f) (Interests of the information provider) of the EIR. The Commissioner’s decision is that regulation 12(5)(f) is engaged and that the balance of the public interest favours maintaining the exception. However, the Council’s handling of the request breached regulation 14 (Refusal to disclose information) of the EIR. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(f); EIR 14
View Mid Suffolk District Council
20 Feb 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information in respect of communications between Cherwell District Council (the Council) and a third party in relation to asylum seekers. The Council refused the request citing section 38 (health and safety), section 40(2) (personal information) and section 41 (information provided in confidence) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council was entitled to refuse the information on the basis of section 41 of the FOIA. The Commissioner does not require any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 41
View Cherwell District Council
20 Feb 2025Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information about asbestos at Birkenhead Market. Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council (‘the Council’) provided a copy of an asbestos register from 2019 and associated drawings. It stated that it did not hold any further information within scope of the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has failed to satisfy him that it has disclosed all the information it holds falling within scope of the request, on the balance of probabilities. The Commissioner also finds that the Council breached regulations 5(2) and 11(4) of the EIR in its handling of the request. The Commissioner requires the Council to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: Conduct a fresh search for the requested information and either disclose any further information located or issue an appropriate refusal notice under the EIR.
Exemptions cited: EIR 14; EIR 5(1); EIR 5(2)
View Wirral Council
20 Feb 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from Ards and North Down Borough Council (“the Council”), namely a document relating to the flying of the Union flag. The Council relied on sections 41 and 40(2) of FOIA (third party personal information) to withhold the information. The Council has since withdrawn its reliance on section 41 of FOIA, however it continues to rely upon section 40(2) to withhold part of the requested information.
The Commissioner’s decision is that the public authority has correctly relied on section 40(2) of FOIA to withhold that information.
The Commissioner does not require further steps to be taken. Information Tribunal FT/EA/2025/0088 under appeal.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
20 Feb 2025Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
1. The complainant has requested information from the Home Office. The Home Office states that it does not hold information within the scope of the complainant’s request.
2. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the Home Office does not hold information within the scope of the complainant’s request.
3. The Commissioner’s decision is also that the Home Office has breached sections 1 and 10 of FOIA by not stating at the outset in response to the complainant’s request that it did not hold the requested information.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10
View Home Office
20 Feb 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information regarding the Core Eligibility Criteria for access to specific NHS services. The NHS North West London Integrated Care Board (ICB) provided information in scope of the request but denied holding any further information specified.
The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the ICB did not hold any further information at the time 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.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1(1)
View NHS North West London ICB
19 Feb 2025Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to transgender Shared Care Agreements and Bridging Prescriptions. 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
19 Feb 2025Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to transgender Shared Care Agreements and Bridging Prescriptions. 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
19 Feb 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested internal communications regarding a media article about the then Attorney General. The Attorney General’s Office (AGO) disclosed some information, but with redactions made under sections 36 (Prejudice to effective conduct of public affairs) and 40 (Personal information) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the AGO was entitled to apply section 36 of FOIA to the withheld information. Information Tribunal FT/EA/2025/0120 under appeal.
Exemptions cited: FOI 36
View Attorney General's Office
19 Feb 2025Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to transgender Shared Care Agreements and Bridging Prescriptions. 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
19 Feb 2025Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to transgender Shared Care Agreements and Bridging Prescriptions. 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
19 Feb 2025Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to transgender Shared Care Agreements and Bridging Prescriptions. 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
19 Feb 2025Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested the register of interests and the diaries for a number of elected officials for May 2024. Bristol City Council (the Council) confirmed that the register of interests was published on its website and withheld the diary entries under section 36(2)(c) (prejudice to the effective conduct of public affairs) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has failed to demonstrate that the exemption is engaged. The Commissioner also finds that the Council breached section 10(1) by failing to respond to the request within 20 working days. The Commissioner requires the Council to issue a fresh response to the request which does not cite section 36(2)(c) of the FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 36
View Bristol City Council
19 Feb 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested the results of drug tests carried out on two third party individuals. Derbyshire County 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 Derbyshire County Council
19 Feb 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The Commissioner’s decision is that Thanet District Council (the Council) is entitled to withhold the requested information associated with the Berth 4/5 project at Ramsgate Port under regulation 12(4)(d) - Material in the course of completion, unfinished documents, and incomplete data of the EIR as it relates to material in the course of completion. It is not necessary for the Council to take any steps as a result of this decision. Information Tribunal FT/EA/2025/0119 under appeal.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(d)
View Thanet District Council
19 Feb 2025Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to transgender Shared Care Agreements and Bridging Prescriptions. 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
19 Feb 2025Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from South East Coast Ambulance Service NHS Foundation Trust (“the Ambulance Trust”) regarding Emergency Care Assistant and Emergency Medical Technician roles. The Ambulance Trust has now disclosed the information requested, however due to a very long delay in carrying out an internal review, there was a significant delay in providing all of the information held within the scope of the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Ambulance Trust breached section 10(1) of FOIA by failing to disclose all of the information it held within scope of the request within 20 working days. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10(1)
View South East Coast Ambulance Service NHS Foundation Trust