28 Jan 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(1)
View North East London NHS Foundation Trust
28 Jan 2025Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to the Private Sector Leasing Scheme operated by the London Borough of Havering (the council). The council disclosed information to the complainant in a redacted format. The Commissioner’s decision is that on the balance of probabilities, the council has disclosed all the information falling within the scope of the complainant’s request. However, he finds that the public authority breached section 10 of FOIA because it failed to provide all of the information within 20 working days. He does not require the council to take any steps. Information Tribunal FT/EA/2025/0114 under appeal.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10
View London Borough of Havering
28 Jan 2025Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from the College of Policing on 12 May 2024 about the strategic command course (SCC) with the executive leadership programme (ELP).
Commissioner’s Decision:
Section 10(1) of FOIA states that a public authority must respond to a request within 20 working days. 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 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.
3.
Exemptions cited: FOI 17
View College of Policing
28 Jan 2025Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about the Help To Buy: Equity Loan scheme. Homes England (HE) disclosed some information and has withheld the remainder under sections 40(2) and 43(2) of FOIA, which concern personal data and commercial interests, respectively. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, HE holds no further relevant information but breached section 1(1) and 10(1) because it didn’t communicate all the non-exempt information it holds within the statutory period. The Commissioner has also decided that HE correctly applied section 43(2) to information it has withheld. Finally, HE has complied with its obligations under section 11(1) and 16(1) of FOIA, which concern the means of communication and advice and assistance. It’s not necessary for HE to take any further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1(1); FOI 10(1); FOI 11; FOI 16(1); FOI 43(2)
24 Jan 2025Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about investigations into officers who had allegedly committed criminal offences. Avon and Somerset Police (“ASP”) advised it did not hold the requested information. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, ASP conducted adequate searches for the requested information and no information within the scope of the request is held. The Commissioner also finds that ASP breached section 10(1) by failing to respond to the request within 20 working days. The Commissioner does not require further steps. Information Tribunal FT/EA/2025/0199 appeal struck out.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10(1)
24 Jan 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to their property, including that deriving from a named councillor. Kent County Council disclosed some information, and withheld some on the basis that it represented the personal data of third parties and was therefore exempt from disclosure under section 40(2) (Personal information) of FOIA. It also stated that any correspondence deriving from the named councillor was not held for the purposes of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has correctly withheld the information under section 40(2) and has otherwise disclosed all information that is held for the purposes of FOIA. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 3; FOI 40(2)
View Kent County Council
24 Jan 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The Commissioner’s decision is that the information that the applicant has requested about a specific planning application is their own personal data. Wiltshire Council is therefore correct not to make this information available under the EIR, in line with regulation 5(3). It’s not necessary for Wiltshire Council to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 5(3)
View Wiltshire Council
24 Jan 2025Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information from Antrim and Newtownabbey Borough Council (the council) regarding noise complaints. The council refused to provide the information because disclosing the information would prejudice the outcome of ongoing investigations. It refused to provide the information citing regulation 12(4)(b) of the EIR.The Commissioner’s decision is that the council was entitled to rely on regulation 12(4)(b) of the EIR (manifestly unreasonable) to refuse to comply with the request. He also finds that the council failed to provide reasonable advice and assistance and therefore failed to meet its obligations under regulation 9 of the EIR to offer advice and assistance.The Commissioner requires the council to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation.• Provide the complainant with advice and assistance for each part of their request to help them submit a less burdensome request.The Council must take these steps within 30 calendar days of the
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(b); EIR 9
24 Jan 2025Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested from HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) information regarding ‘current response dates on ‘Where’s My Reply’ tool’. The Commissioner’s decision is that HMRC breached section 10(1) of FOIA by exceeding time for the substantive response to the requested information.The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
24 Jan 2025Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from Merseyside Police on 12 August 2024 about a major incident in Southport on 29 July 2024.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 Merseyside Police
23 Jan 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from the Department for Transport (the DfT) regarding a contract between Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency (DVLA) and Euro Car Parks (ECP) which allowed requests for vehicle keeper details. The DfT disclosed information in scope of the request but explained that some of the information requested was redacted as it related to third party individuals under section 40(2) – personal information. The Commissioner’s decision is that the DfT was entitled to rely on section 40(2) of FOIA to withhold information in this case.The Commissioner does not require any steps as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40(2)
View Department for Transport
23 Jan 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested various policies from Kent Police and also requested that Kent Police provide explanations on events described within the requests. Kent Police relied on section 14(1) of FOIA (vexatious) to refuse the requests. The Commissioner’s decision is that the requests were vexatious and therefore Kent Police was entitled to rely upon section 14(1) of FOIA to refuse them. The Commissioner does not require any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14
View Kent Police
23 Jan 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 East West Railway Company Limited
23 Jan 2025Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from The Queen Elizabeth Hospital King's Lynn NHS Foundation Trust about diagnosis discharge codes and data. 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 The Queen Elizabeth Hospital, King's Lynn, NHS Foundation Trust
23 Jan 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 delay of more than four 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
23 Jan 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information relating to a planning application for a proposed Gasification plant submitted to Cumberland Council, but they believed to be hosted by Westmorland and Furness Council (the Council). The Council provided guidance as to where publicly available information could be accessed and stated that regulation 13 and 12(4)(e) of the EIR applied to information withheld from the requester. However, after the Commissioners intervention, the Council overturned its reliance on regulation 12(4)(e) at internal review disclosing information in scope of the request.The complainant raised further concerns about the Councils response, and after several months of correspondence between the requester and the Council, during the Commissioners investigation, the Council eventually relied on regulation 3(2) of the EIR as its final response.The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council did not hold information falling within the scope of the request at the time the request
Exemptions cited: EIR 3(2)
View Westmorland and Furness Council
23 Jan 2025Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested from London Borough of Hillingdon (the Council) information relating to quotes provided for tarmacking works and copies of letters sent to local residents. The Council treated the request as a Subject Access Request (SAR). It then provided a response as part of the internal review which provided some information. The Commissioner’s decision is that the public authority has failed to provide a substantive response to the request for information under FOIA. A public authority will breach section 10 of FOIA if it fails to respond to a request within 20 working days, which the Council failed to do in this case.The Commissioner requires the Council to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation.The public authority must provide a substantive response to the request in accordance with its obligations under FOIA. In this response the Council should disclose any information falling within the scope of the request it does not consider to be e
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Hillingdon Council
23 Jan 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information relating to a cladding remediation programme at the Kingsland Wharves complex from the Ministry for Housing, Communities and Local Government (“the MHCLG”). The MHCLG refused the request on the basis that Regulation 12(5)(e) (commercial confidentiality), and Regulation 12(5)(b) (course of justice) of the EIR applied. The Commissioner’s decision is that the MHCLG was correct to withhold the requested information under the exceptions in Regulation 12(5)(e) and Regulation 12(5)(b). The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(b); EIR 12(5)(e)
View Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government
23 Jan 2025Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information held by the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (DLUHC), now the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG), about its meetings with the Property Redress Scheme (PRS). The MHCLG initially refused the request, citing the exemption at section 43(2) (commercial interests) of FOIA. At the internal review stage, the MHCLG confirmed that it was also relying upon the exemption at section 40(2) (third party personal information) of FOIA to withhold the requested information. During the Commissioner’s investigation the MHCLG revised its position, stating that it was now relying on the exemption at section 14 (vexatious requests), on the basis that compliance would cause an unreasonable burden. The Commissioner’s decision is that the terms set out within the complainant’s request do not meet the criteria of 8(1)(c) (request for information) of FOIA, and as a result, it is not a valid request. Whilst the MHCLG is therefore
Exemptions cited: FOI 16; FOI 8
View Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government
23 Jan 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested from the London Borough of Hackney (the ‘Council’) information about an architectural design competition for a housing development project. The Council disclosed some information to the complainant but the complainant considers more is held. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the Council has disclosed all the information it holds falling within the scope of the request and it holds no further information. However, as the public authority failed to provide all this information within 20 working days, it breached section 10 of FOIA. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View London Borough of Hackney
23 Jan 2025Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested legal advice relating to housing land supply. East Devon District Council (the “Council”) withheld the information under the exemption for legal professional privilege (section 42 of the FOIA). During the Commissioner’s investigation the Council reconsidered the request under the EIR and confirmed that it was withholding the information under the exception for the course of justice (regulation 12(5)(b)). The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council correctly withheld the information under regulation 12(5)(b) but that it failed to issue a refusal notice under the EIR in time and breached regulation 14(1). The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(b); EIR 14(1)
View East Devon District Council
22 Jan 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to changes to free repeat prescriptions of Amorolfine 5% Medicated Nail Lacquer. NHS Cheshire and Merseyside Integrated Care Board (‘the ICB’) stated that it did not hold the requested information. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the ICB does not hold the requested information. The Commissioner does not require further steps. Information Tribunal FT/EA/2025/0086 under appeal.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View NHS Cheshire and Merseyside ICB
22 Jan 2025Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested consultation documents relating to the proposed Argos market in Birkenhead. Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council (the “Council”) confirmed that the information was not held. The complainant disputes this. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the Council did not hold the information at the time of the request and complied with section 1(1) but that in failing to confirm this in time it breached section 10(1). The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1(1); FOI 10(1)
View Wirral Council
22 Jan 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The Commissioner’s decision is that the Department for Education (DfE) correctly applied the exemption under section 35(1)(a) of FOIA to the request for information about the “levelling up premium” for teachers. This exemption concerns the formulation or development of government policy. It’s not necessary for DfE to take any corrective steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 35(1)(a)
View Department for Education
22 Jan 2025Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from Essex Police about a report of criminal damage. 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 Essex Police
21 Jan 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to Companies House for a copy of an email it had received from a named party. Companies House withheld the information on the basis of sections 40(2) (third party personal data) and 41(1) (information provided in confidence) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the requested information is exempt from disclosure on the basis of section 41(1) of FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 41
View Companies House
21 Jan 2025Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information from Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council (“the Council”) about work carried out on two properties. The Council withheld the requested information under section 40(2) (personal information) and section 36 (prejudice to effective conduct of public affairs) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that: The Council failed to consider the first request under the correct access regime as the information requested is environmental information; With respect to the second request, the Council failed to clarify the request, which does not have a single objective reading, and therefore failed to comply with the requirement under section 16 of FOIA to provide reasonable advice and assistance. The Commissioner requires the Council to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: Reconsider the first request under the EIR and issue a fresh response to the complainant, having first established what information is held within the scope of
Exemptions cited: EIR 2(1); FOI 16(1)
View Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council
21 Jan 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant made a request to the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (DESNZ) for information about the Redcar Hydrogen Village Trial. DESNZ refused to provide the information on the grounds that it engaged regulation 12(4)(b) (manifestly unreasonable) of the EIR. The Commissioner’s decision is that DESNZ was entitled to rely on regulation 12(4)(b) of the EIR to refuse the request. He also finds that DESNZ complied with regulation 9(1) of the EIR (advice and assistance). However, DESNZ breached regulations 5(2) and 14(2) of the EIR by failing to respond to the request within 20 working days. The Commissioner does not require DESNZ to take any steps to ensure compliance with the legislation.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(b); EIR 9
View Department for Energy Security and Net Zero
21 Jan 2025Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information about the YTL Arena Project. Bristol City Council (the “Council”) disclosed some information and withheld other information under the exceptions for personal information (regulation 13) and commercial confidentiality (regulation 12(5)(e)). The complainant disputes the Council’s application of regulation 12(5)(e). 2. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council was correct to apply Regulation 12(5)(e) to withhold the information but that it failed to respond to the request in time and breached regulation 5(2). The Commissioner does not require the Council to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(e); EIR 5(2)
View Bristol City Council
21 Jan 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested a copy of a Next of Kin policy and a Safeguarding Adults policy. University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust (‘the Trust’) provided a copy of its Safeguarding Adults policy and a range of policies relating to data protection and information governance. It stated that it did not hold a Next of Kin policy. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the Trust does not hold further information within scope of the request. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust
20 Jan 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested from the ICO information regarding the creation of Data Protection Impact Assessments related to its processing of data under Part 3 of the Data Protection Act 2018 using Microsoft Cloud Services. The request was also for information disclosed to the ICO by DESC (Digital Evidence Sharing Capability) partners and any guidance provided to those partners regarding their processing of personal data for law enforcement purpose. The ICO provided some information but relied on section 42(1) of FOIA – legal professional privilege and section 44(1) of FOIA – prohibitions on disclosure to withhold some of the information. The Commissioner’s decision is that the ICO has correctly applied section 42(1) and that the public interest favours not disclosing the information. He has also concluded that section 44(1) has been correctly cited. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 42(1); FOI 44(1)
View Information Commissioner
19 Jan 2025Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has made eight separate requests for various information. The Canal and River Trust (the Trust) refused all eight requests as vexatious (section 14(1) of FOIA) and, to the extent that they sought environmental information, manifestly unreasonable (regulation 12(4)(b) of the EIR). The Commissioner’s decision is that the requests were vexatious and that the Trust was entitled to rely on section 14(1) of FOIA and regulation 12(4)(b) of the EIR to refuse them. However, he has recorded a procedural breach of section 10(1) of FOIA and regulation 5(2) of the EIR. The Commissioner does not require the Trust to take any steps as a result of this decision notice.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(b); EIR 5(2); FOI 10; FOI 14(1)
View Canal and River Trust
17 Jan 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested a copy of a report. The above public authority relied on sections 36 (prejudice to the effective conduct of public affairs) and 40(2) of FOIA (third party personal information) to withhold the information. The Commissioner’s decision is that the requested information relates to the complainant’s own personal information and would be exempt under section 40(1) of FOIA. He has therefore applied this exemption himself, proactively, to prevent disclosure of the information. The Commissioner does not require further steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40(1)
View The University of Bradford
17 Jan 2025Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information from Warwick District Council (“the Council”) relating to planning applications and paragraph 84 of the National Planning Policy Framework. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council is entitled to rely on regulation 12(4)(b) to refuse to provide the requested information. However, he finds that the Council failed to provide reasonable advice and assistance and therefore failed to meet its obligations under regulation 9 of the EIR. The Commissioner requires the Council to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. Provide the complainant with advice and assistance to help them submit a less burdensome request. 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 12(4)(b); EIR 9
View Warwick District Council
17 Jan 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from the Health and Care Professions Council (the Council), regarding a registered practitioner’s home address. The Council refused the request and explained that the information requested related to a third party under section 40(2) – personal information.The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council was entitled to withhold the information under section 40(2) of FOIA.The Commissioner does not require any steps as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40(2)
View Health and Care Professions Council
17 Jan 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about the United Kingdom’s decision to leave the European Union. The Cabinet Office refused to comply with the request, citing section 12(1) (cost limits) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Cabinet Office is entitled to rely on section 12(1) of the FOIA to refuse the request. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12(1)
View Cabinet Office
17 Jan 2025Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from Middlewich Town Council about Chester Road Cemetery. 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
17 Jan 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested from Cleveland Police, information relating to Operation Magnolia . Cleveland Police disclosed some information but refused the remaining parts of the request under sections 31(a) and (b) (Law enforcement) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that Cleveland Police was entitled to rely on sections 31(1)(a) and (b) of FOIA to refuse to provide the withheld information. The Commissioner does not require Cleveland Police to take any steps as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: FOI 31(1)(a); FOI 31(1)(b)
View Cleveland Police
17 Jan 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested a copy of a draft report commissioned by Westmorland and Furness Council (the council) which contains strategic advice on the annual Appleby Horse Fair event. The council issued a refusal notice, citing section 22 (information intended for future publication) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council is entitled to rely on section 22 as its basis for refusing the complainant’s request.
Exemptions cited: FOI 22
View Westmorland and Furness Council
16 Jan 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from the BBC about a whistleblowing report. The BBC responded that the requested information was covered by the derogation and hence excluded from FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that this information is held by the BBC for the purposes of journalism, art or literature and so is not covered by FOIA. He therefore upholds the BBC’s position and requires no steps to be taken in this case.
Exemptions cited: FOI 3
View BBC
16 Jan 2025Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about internal investigations, including a request for information about fraud investigations. The Commissioner’s decision is that Nottingham and Nottinghamshire Integrated Care Board (‘the ICB’) incorrectly withheld information under section 40(2) of FOIA, which concerns personal data. The ICB complied with section 16(1), which concerns advice and assistance. The Commissioner requires the ICB to take the following step to ensure compliance with the legislation: Disclose to the complainant the information they requested in part 1 of their request.
Exemptions cited: FOI 16(1); FOI 40(2)
View NHS Nottingham and Nottinghamshire ICB
16 Jan 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information regarding the provision of services and support for individuals with mental health conditions in relation to the Care, Health, and Wellbeing Strategy 2022-2027 "Healthy Minds". Leicester City Council (the Council) provided some information and guidance in scope of the request and cited sections 21 and 12 of FOIA to withhold the remaining information.The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council was entitled to rely on sections 21 and 12 of FOIA for information in scope of the request.The Commissioner does not require any steps to be taken as a result of this decision.
Keywords: ADHD provisions
Exemptions cited: FOI 12; FOI 21
View Leicester City Council
16 Jan 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about the decision to leave the EU. The Cabinet Office relied on section 12 of FOIA (cost of compliance) to refuse the request.The Commissioner’s decision is that the public authority was entitled to rely on section 12(1) of FOIA to refuse the request. The Commissioner also finds that the public authority complied with its section 16 obligation to offer advice and assistance.The Commissioner’s decision is that the public authority failed to provide a response within 20 working days. By failing to provide such a response within the statutory time for compliance, the Commissioner finds that the Cabinet Office breached section 10(1) of FOIA.The Commissioner does not require further steps to be taken. Information Tribunal FT/EA/2025/0160 under appeal.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10(1)
View Cabinet Office
16 Jan 2025Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested the dates of the most recent exercises carried out in line with the NHS England Emergency Preparedness, Resilience and Response (EPRR) Framework. Royal Free London NHS Foundation Trust (‘the Trust’) relied on section 31(1)(a) of FOIA to refuse the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Trust was not entitled to rely on section 31(1)(a) to withhold the requested information. The Commissioner requires the Trust to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: Disclose the requested information.
Exemptions cited: FOI 31
View Royal Free London NHS Foundation Trust
16 Jan 2025Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to Collateral UK Limited. The Financial Conduct Authority (“the FCA”) disclosed information in response to the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the FCA has fully complied with its obligations according to section 1 (general right of access to information) of FOIA. However, it breached section 10 (timescale for compliance). The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10
View Financial Conduct Authority
16 Jan 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information regarding the processes and provisions related to the Needs Assessment under the Care Act 2014. Leicester City Council (the Council) provided some information and guidance in scope of the request and cited sections 21 and 12 of FOIA to withhold the remaining information.The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council was entitled to rely on sections 21 and 12 of FOIA for information in scope of the request.The Commissioner does not require any steps to be taken as a result of this decision.
Keywords: ADHD provision
Exemptions cited: FOI 12; FOI 21
View Leicester City Council
16 Jan 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about the departure of the former headteacher. Stelling Minnis Church of England Primary School (‘the School’) stated that it did not hold the requested information. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the School does not hold the requested information. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
15 Jan 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from Nafferton Parish Council (“the Council”) relating to a financial action plan. The Commissioner’s decision is that on the balance of probabilities, the Council does not hold information within the scope of the request. The Commissioner does not require the Council to take further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
15 Jan 2025Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The public authority has failed to complete its public interest test considerations within a reasonable time in accordance with its obligations under FOIA. The Commissioner requires it to provide a substantive response to the request within 30 calendar days in accordance with its obligations under FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View HM Treasury
15 Jan 2025Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
1. The complainant requested information from the Department for Communities (DfC) regarding the Sub Regional Stadia programme in Northern Ireland. DfC provided some information but refused to provide the remainder (“the withheld information”) citing section 35(1)(a) (formulation and development of government policy) of FOIA. 2. The Commissioner’s decision is that DfC has correctly relied on section 35(1)(a) of FOIA to withhold some of the withheld information, however he does not accept that section 35(1) applies to the entirety of the PEDU report. The Commissioner considers that the Terms of Reference section of the report should have been disclosed with appropriate redactions as section 35(1)(a) does not apply to all of it.3. The Commissioner does not require any steps to be taken as DfC has subsequently disclosed a redacted version of the Terms of Reference in response to another FOIA request by the same complainant.
Exemptions cited: FOI 35