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
18 Feb 2025Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about withdrawn asylum claims between 7 August 2023 to 9 August 2023. The Home Office relied on section 12(1) of FOIA (cost of compliance) to refuse the request.
The Commissioner’s decision is that the Home Office (HO) was entitled to rely on section 12(1) of FOIA to refuse the request and that it complied with its section 16 obligation to offer advice and assistance. However, the Commissioner also finds that the HO breached section 10 of FOIA as it failed to issue its response within 20 working days.
The Commissioner does not require the Home Office to take any remedial steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10(1); FOI 12(1); FOI 16
View Home Office
18 Feb 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 Greater Manchester Mental Health NHS Foundation Trust
17 Feb 2025Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested for a list of unadopted estate developments/sites held by Northern Ireland Water (NI Water). NI Water refused to disclose the information citing regulation 12(5)(e) of the EIR as its basis for doing so. The Commissioner’s decision is that NI Water is not entitled to rely on regulation 12(5)(e) of the EIR to withhold the requested information. The Commissioner requires NI Water to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. Disclose the withheld information. The Commissioner notes that some of the information may contain personal data, and this should be redacted in accordance with his guidance. NI Water 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: EIR 12(5)(e)
View Northern Ireland Tourist Board
17 Feb 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested from the Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC) information related to care providers that had had their sponsorship licences revoked or suspended by the Home Office. The DHSC refused to provide this information citing section 21 of FOIA (information accessible to the applicant by other means), section 31(1) (law enforcement), section 40(2) (personal information) and section 43(2) (commercial interests). It later withdrew section 21 and provided some information without identifying sponsors making section 40(2) no longer relevant. The Commissioner’s decision is that the DHSC has correctly cited sections 31(1) and 43(2) of FOIA and that the public interest favours non-disclosure. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 31(1); FOI 43(2)
View Department of Health and Social Care
14 Feb 2025Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The Commissioner’s decision is that the information about disciplinary cases requested in three parts of the complainant’s request is exempt information under section 40(2) of FOIA. That information can be categorised as personal data and it would be unlawful to disclose it. University Hospitals Bristol and Weston NHS Foundation Trust (‘the Trust’) breached sections 1(1) and 10(1) of FOIA in respect of the remaining three parts of the request. The Commissioner requires the Trust to take the following step to ensure compliance with the legislation: Provide the complainant with a fresh response to parts 4, 5 and 6 of their request that doesn’t rely on section 40(2) of FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1(1); FOI 10(1); FOI 40(2)
View University Hospitals Bristol and Weston NHS Foundation Trust
14 Feb 2025Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested a 19th century file relating to Venezuela. The above public authority relied on section 27 of FOIA to withhold the information. The Commissioner’s decision is that section 27 is not engaged. The public authority also breached section 10(3) of FOIA as it failed to complete its public interest considerations within a reasonable timeframe. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. Disclose the information it has relied on section 27 of FOIA to withhold.
Exemptions cited: FOI 27; FOI 10(3)
View The National Archives
14 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
14 Feb 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The Commissioner’s decision is that the requested information about a specific Independent Distribution Network Operator licence application is exempt information under section 43(2) and section 44(1)(a) of FOIA. These exemptions concern commercial interests and prohibitions on disclosure, respectively. It’s not necessary for Ofgem to take any corrective steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 43(2); FOI 44(1)(a)
View Office of Gas and Electricity Markets
14 Feb 2025Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested correspondence between the then Secretary of State, Lord Cameron, and the Permanent Secretary to the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (FCDO) regarding potential conflicts of interest. The FCDO refused to confirm or deny that it held information in scope of the request on the basis of sections 40(5B) (third party personal data) and 41(2) (information provided in confidence) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the FCDO was not entitled to refuse to confirm or deny that it held the requested information. The Commissioner requires the FCDO to confirm or deny whether the requested information is held.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 17; FOI 40
13 Feb 2025Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to the Education Authority (EA) for information and correspondence in relation to the Brookeborough Shared Education Campus.
The Commissioner’s decision is that sections 36(2)(b)(i) and (ii) (prejudice to the effective conduct of public affairs) of FOIA are not engaged.
The Commissioner requires the EA 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.
The EA 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 contempt of court.
Exemptions cited: FOI 36(2)(b)(i); FOI 36(2)(b)(ii)
13 Feb 2025Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to their late mother’s pension support. When doing so, they identified themselves as executors of their late mother’s will. The Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) initially failed to respond to the request for several months despite the complainant resubmitting it. When it eventually replied it refused to provide the information citing section 44 (statutory bar) and section 41 (information provided in confidence). It upheld this position at internal review. The Commissioner’s decision is that although DWP is entitled to rely on section 44 as its basis for refusing to provide the requested information it failed in its FOIA obligations under section 10 (timeliness) and section 16 (advice and assistance). No further steps under FOIA are required.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 16; FOI 44
View Department for Work and Pensions
13 Feb 2025Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to the HAE service closure at University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust (the Trust). The Trust 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 University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust
13 Feb 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested planning information relating to traffic calming measures. Stroud District Council (‘SDC’) provided links to where some published planning information was publicly available for part 1 of the request, disclosed a file containing redacted emails and other correspondence but stated that it did not hold any further information falling within scope for parts 2 and 3 of the request.
The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, at the time of the request, SDC did not hold further information and that it complied with its duty under regulation 5(1) to make the environmental information it did hold, available.
The Commissioner does not require further steps as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: EIR 5(1)
View Stroud District Council
13 Feb 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested the name and contact details of a specific member of staff. Wrightington, Wigan and Leigh NHS Foundation Trust (‘the public authority’) disclosed information but also withheld other information under section 40(2) (personal information). The Commissioner’s decision is that section 40(2) has been applied appropriately. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40(2)
View Wrightington, Wigan and Leigh Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust
13 Feb 2025Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
Trust (‘BCT’). NHS Greater Manchester Integrated Care Board (‘the ICB’) relied on section 21 of FOIA and section 36 of FOIA to withhold the requested information. The Commissioner’s decision is that the ICB was entitled to rely on section 21 of FOIA to withhold part of the requested information. The ICB was also entitled to rely on sections 36(2)(b)(i), 36(2)(b)(ii), and 36(2)(c), however the public interest only favours maintaining the exemption for some of the information. For the remaining information, the public interest favours disclosure. The Commissioner requires the ICB to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: With the exception of the attachments containing the draft action plan and draft memorandum of understanding, disclose the information it has relied on section 36 of FOIA to withhold, with personal data redacted as appropriate.
Exemptions cited: FOI 21; FOI 36
View NHS Greater Manchester ICB
13 Feb 2025Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information held by the London Borough of Brent (the council) about the management of traffic flow within a certain area. The council considered the request under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA), and provided the complainant with some information in response. The Commissioner considers that the EIR is the correct information access regime in this instance. The Commissioner has found that, on the balance of probabilities, the council did not provide all of the information held falling within scope of the complainant’s request. Where information was provided, this was also not done within the statutory 20 working days. Furthermore, the Commissioner considers that the council has failed to identify and respond to a new request for information set out within the complainant’s internal review request. The Commissioner has therefore found a breach of regulation 5(1) and regulation 5(2) of the EIR. As the council failed to conduct an internal review within
Exemptions cited: EIR 11(4); EIR 5(1); EIR 5(2)
View London Borough of Brent
13 Feb 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested unredacted copies of two published reports concerning unacceptable behaviour within the Royal Airforce Aerobatic Team (RAFAT) from the MoD.
The MoD has refused to provide the requested information citing section 40(2) (Personal information) and section 38 (Endangering health and safety)
The Commissioner’s decision is that the MoD was entitled to rely on section 40(2) to withhold the requested information. He has not considered section 38.
The Commissioner does not require the MoD to take any steps in relation to this complaint.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40(2)
View Ministry of Defence
12 Feb 2025Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The public authority has failed to respond to this request within 20 working days, as specified in the EIR. The Commissioner requires it to provide the complainant with a response to this request within 30 calendar days in accordance with its obligations under the EIR.
Exemptions cited: EIR 5(2)
View Wolverhampton City Council
12 Feb 2025Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from the Attorney General’s Office on 20 October 2024 about official visits to Israel. 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 Attorney General's Office
12 Feb 2025Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about a specific member of staff. Pensby High School (“the public authority”) disclosed some information but then refused to confirm or deny whether the remainder was held, citing section 40(5B) (personal information.) The Commissioner’s decision is that the public authority is not entitled to refuse to confirm or deny the requested information is held. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: issue a fresh response to part 2 of the request that confirms or denies that the requested information is held and, if held, either discloses it, or provides a valid refusal notice according to section 17. Information Tribunal FT/EA/2025/0127 under appeal.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40(5)
View AYLESBURY HIGH SCHOOL
12 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, the public authority failed to issue a substantive response to this request within 20 working days in accordance with its obligations under FOIA, and only responded after the Commissioners intervention. Therefore, the Commissioner finds a breach of section 10.
No steps are required as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10(1)
12 Feb 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about the Crown Prosecution Service’s (CPS) decision not to prosecute a named individual. The CPS would neither confirm nor deny whether it held the requested information, citing section 40(5) (Personal information) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the CPS was entitled to apply section 40(5B)(a)(i) of FOIA to neither confirm nor deny whether it held the requested information.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View Crown Prosecution Service
12 Feb 2025Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information relating to traffic concerns for Red Deer Road, Shrewsbury. Shropshire Council (the Council) provided some information, and stated that no further information was held.
The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council does not hold any further information falling within the scope of the request.
However, the Commissioner finds that the Council breached regulation 11(4) of the EIR by failing to provide an internal review within 40 working days.
The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 11(4); EIR 5(1)
View Shropshire Council
12 Feb 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
12 Feb 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information about the Council’s consideration of a specific budget proposal relating to primary schools infrastructure. Ceredigion County Council (the Council) provided a link to the relevant agendas and minutes of the committee meeting in question. The complainant was not satisfied that the Council had answered their request. 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 does not require any steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Ceredigion County Council
12 Feb 2025Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested specific files relating to Libya. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Cabinet Office is entitled to withhold the requested information on the basis of section 23(1), information supplied by, or relating to, bodies dealing with security matters, or section 24(1), national security, in the alternative, section 26(1), defence, sections 27(1)(a), (b), (c) and (d), international relations, section 40(2), personal data. The Commissioner does however find that the Cabinet Office failed to comply with section 17(3) by not completing the public interest consideration within a reasonable timeframe.
Exemptions cited: FOI 17; FOI 23; FOI 24; FOI 26; FOI 27; FOI 40
View Cabinet Office
11 Feb 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested the outcome of an incident from the Metropolitan Police Service (the “MPS”). The MPS refused to provide the requested information citing sections 30(1) (Investigations and proceedings) and 40(2) (Personal information) of FOIA. During the Commissioner’s investigation, the MPS responded to the request. The complainant remained dissatisfied as he considered the response to be inadequate. The Commissioner’s decision is that the MPS has complied with the request. No steps are required.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Metropolitan Police Service
11 Feb 2025Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information about flooding in a particular area.
Based on evidence available to the Commissioner, Flintshire County Council did not provide an appropriate response within the statutory time frame. Therefore the Commissioner finds a breach of regulation 5(2) of the EIR.
Exemptions cited: EIR 5(2)
View Flintshire County Council
11 Feb 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant made two requests for information about the Legal Aid Agency (LAA)’s management of payments on account. The LAA is an executive agency of the above public authority (the “public authority”) therefore the public authority is the appropriate public authority for the purposes of FOIA.
The public authority relied on section 14(1) of FOIA (vexatious) to refuse both of the requests.
The Commissioner’s decision is that the requests were vexatious and therefore the public authority was entitled to rely upon section 14(1) of FOIA to refuse them.
The Commissioner does not require any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14(1)
View Ministry of Justice
11 Feb 2025Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested from Liverpool City Council information relating to a case and complaint. 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 Liverpool City Council
11 Feb 2025Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to the annual accounts of Poundstock Parish Council (the Council). The Council provided all the information except that falling under part A1 of the request.
During the course of the Commissioner’s investigation the Council confirmed that the information falling within part A1 of the request would be disclosed. To date the Council has not provided the outstanding information to the complainant.
The Commissioner’s decision is therefore, that the Council failed to disclose the requested information within 20 working days and therefore breached section 10(1) of FOIA.
The Commissioner requires the Council to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation.
• Disclose the information falling within the scope of A1 of the request, with any personal data redacted under section 40(2) (personal information) as appropriate
Exemptions cited: FOI 10(1)
11 Feb 2025Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from Essex Police on 10 December 2024 about drug driving testing. 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 Essex Police
11 Feb 2025Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about two nurses. The Nursing and Midwifery Council (‘the NMC’) originally stated that it may hold the requested information but it would be withheld under section 40 of FOIA (third party personal information). It then changed its position, withdrew its reliance on section 40 and provided some information. It stated that it did not hold any further information within scope of the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the NMC does not hold any further information within scope of the request. However, the Commissioner also finds that the NMC breached sections 1(1)(a) and 10(1) of FOIA as it didn’t confirm whether or not it held the requested information, or provide the information it did hold, within 20 working days. The Commissioner does not require further steps. Information Tribunal FT/EA/2025/0091 under appeal.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 1(1)(a); FOI 10(1)
View NMC
11 Feb 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information concerning cultivation notices and Notice to Quit letters issued by London Borough of Merton (the Council) to plot holders of the Cannizaro Allotments during 2023. The Council originally processed the request under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA). They disclosed the number and dates of non-cultivation notices and Notice to Quit letters which had been issued during 2023. The Council withheld the respective individual plot numbers and the reasons given by the plot holders for non-cultivation under section 40(2)(third party personal data) of FOIA, and in addition withheld the reasons given under section 41(1)(information provided in confidence by a third party). The Council upheld their response at internal review. During the Commissioner’s subsequent investigation, the Council provided the complainant with a revised response to his request under the provisions of the Environmental Information Regulations 2004 (EIR). The Council w
Exemptions cited: EIR 13(1)
View Merton Council
10 Feb 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 of the date of this decision notice.
Post decision notice clarification: The public authority failed to respond to this request within 20 working days, as specified under FOIA. After the complainant complained to the Commissioner, he asked the public authority to respond to this request within 10 working days. While the response was sent to the complainant in this timeframe, the response was not received by the Commissioner until after the decision notice was served. The step set out in the decision notice for the public authority is therefore no longer required by the Commissioner.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Government Property Agency
7 Feb 2025Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from The Royal Borough of Woolwich about insurance costs and premiums. 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 Royal Borough of Greenwich
7 Feb 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to an Upper Tribunal case. The above public authority refused the request as vexatious. The Commissioner’s decision is that the request was vexatious and the public authority was entitled to refuse it. The Commissioner does not require further steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14
View Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission
7 Feb 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The Commissioner’s decision is that the British Council doesn’t hold the requested information associated with the functionality of an exam marking system and it complied with section 1(1)(a) of FOIA when it confirmed it didn't. It’s not necessary for the British Council to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1(1)(a)
View British Council
7 Feb 2025Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information about a proposed Battery Energy Storage scheme. Burnley Borough Council (the “Council”) disclosed some information but withheld the majority of the information under the
exception for the interests of the information provider (regulation 12(5)(f)). The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council correctly applied regulation 12(5)(f) to the request but that it disclosed some information outside the time for compliance and breached regulation 5(2) . No steps are required.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(f); EIR 5(2)
View Burnley Borough Council
7 Feb 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested copies of minutes of the Police Performance Oversight Group. The above public authority relied on section 33 of FOIA (audit) to withhold the requested information. The Commissioner’s decision is that the public authority is entitled to rely on section 33 of FOIA and that the public interest favours maintaining the exemption. The Commissioner does not require further steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 33
View HMICFRS
7 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)
7 Feb 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from Gloucestershire County Council (“the Council”) relating to councillors who have had code of conduct complaints made against them. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council is entitled to rely on section 40(2) (personal information) of FOIA to refuse to provide the requested information. The Commissioner does not require the Council to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40(2)
View Gloucestershire County Council
6 Feb 2025Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information related to a Planning Application. Carmarthenshire County Council (“CCC”) relied on regulation 13 of the EIR (third party personal information) to withhold the information.
The Commissioner’s decision is that the CCC has correctly relied on regulation 13 of the EIR to withhold the information but that it failed to respond to the request in time and breached regulation 5(2) and regulation 14 of EIR.
The Commissioner does not require further steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: EIR 13; EIR 14; EIR 5(2)
View Carmarthenshire County Council
6 Feb 2025Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested copies of briefings and readouts from specific meetings with water companies. The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (‘Defra’) provided redacted copies of the briefings, and relied on regulations 12(4)(e), 12(4)(d) and 12(5)(f) of the EIR to withhold the redacted information in the briefings and the readouts in their entirety. The Commissioner’s decision is that Defra was entitled to rely on regulations 12(4)(e) and 12(4)(d) of the EIR. However, he finds that the public interest favours disclosure of the requested information with the exception of all redactions in Annex F and two redactions in Annex D. He also finds that Defra was not entitled to rely on regulation 12(5)(f) of the EIR. The Commissioner requires Defra to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: Disclose the requested information with the exception of the redactions in Annex F and the first two redactions in Annex D.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(d); EIR 12(4)(e); EIR 12(5)(f)
6 Feb 2025Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to funding for pupils with special educational needs and disabilities (SEND) for Kent County Council (the Council). The Council refused part one of the request under section 36 (prejudice to the effective conduct of public affairs) of FOIA but provided information in response to the rest of the request.
The Commissioner’s decision is that section 36(2)(b) and (c) of FOIA are engaged for part one of the request, but that the balance of the public interest lies in disclosing the information.
Regarding the time taken to respond to the request, the Council breached section 10 of FOIA as it did not respond to the request within 20 working days.
The Commissioner requires the Council to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation - Disclose the withheld information, with any personal data redacted under section 40(2) (personal information) as appropriate.
The Council must take these steps within 30 calendar days of the
Exemptions cited: FOI 36(2)
View Kent County Council
6 Feb 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to the departure of senior staff, changes to senior officer planning positions and authorisation of a named member of staff to a role within Tendring District Council (‘the Council’). The Council withheld two documents in relation to part one and two of the request under section 40(2) of FOIA and provided information in relation to part three of the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council was entitled to rely on section 40(2) of FOIA to withhold the two documents in response to parts one and two of the request and that, on the balance of probabilities, the Council has disclosed all the information it holds falling within the scope of part three of the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council breached section 1(1)(b) of FOIA as it did not communicate all the information held within scope of part two of the complainant’s request or issue a refusal notice stating why it could not be disclosed. The Council
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 40(2)
View Tendring District Council
6 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
6 Feb 2025Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information relating to 5G infrastructure in the City of York region. The City of York Council (the council) stated that it did not hold the information.
The Commissioner’s decision is that the council does not hold the requested information. He also finds that the council breached regulation 11 of the EIR by failing to provide the internal review within 40 working days. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 11; EIR 3
View York City Council