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
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 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
14 Jan 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The Commissioner’s decision is that Stockton-on-Tees Borough Council (‘the Council’) doesn’t hold the requested information about a ‘set aside’ decision. As such, regulation 12(4)(a) of the EIR is engaged, which concerns information that isn’t held. The Commissioner doesn’t require the Council to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(a)
View Stockton-on-Tees Council
14 Jan 2025Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested copies of legal agreements connected to the production of the 'Fresh Cops' TV programme from Leicestershire Police. Leicestershire Police provided some information but withheld the remainder citing sections 43(2) (Commercial interests) and 40(2) (Personal information) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that Leicestershire Police was entitled to rely on section 43(2) of FOIA to withhold the remaining information. However, he does find a breach of section 17(3) of FOIA in view of the time taken to undertake a public interest test. No steps are required.
Exemptions cited: FOI 17; FOI 43
View Leicestershire Police
14 Jan 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested various information regarding complaints received against a named individual and any members of the governing bodies of three named schools covering the period between 1979-2024. North Wales Police (NWP) withheld some information on the basis of section 40(2) (personal information) of the FOIA. NWP also refused to confirm or deny whether it held relevant information in respect of the remainder of the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that North Wales Police was entitled to refuse item one of the request on the basis of section 40(2) of the FOIA. Additionally, it was not obliged to confirm or deny whether it held the remainder of the information by virtue of section 40(5).
Exemptions cited: FOI 40(2); FOI 40(5)
View North Wales Police
14 Jan 2025Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information received about soliciting money and the allegations forwarded to the police following a press statement released by Slough Borough Council (the ‘Council’) on 30 April 2024. Ultimately, the Council relied on the FOIA exemptions in sections 31(1)(a) (the prevention or detection of crime), 31(1)(b) (the apprehension or prosecution of offenders), 40(2) (personal information), 41(1) (information provided in confidence) and 43(2) of FOIA (commercial interests) to withhold the letter in its entirety. The Commissioner’s decision is that Council has properly relied on section 40(2) for the personal information within the withheld letter. However, he finds that sections 31(1)(a) and (b), 41(1) and 43(2) of FOIA are not engaged for the reasons set out in this notice. Within 30 calendar days of the date of this decision notice, the Commissioner requires the Council to disclose the letter with any third party details redacted. Details of the Council’s own staff
Exemptions cited: FOI 31; FOI 40; FOI 41; FOI 43
View Slough Borough Council
14 Jan 2025Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information related to the 'Rwanda' policy and Northern Ireland. The Executive Office Northern Ireland (“the public authority”) relied upon, amongst another, the exemptions at section 28(1) FOIA and s35(1)(a) to withhold the requested information.The Commissioner’s decision is that the section 28(1) exemption was engaged for the majority of the withheld information and that the public interest favoured maintaining the exemption. Where the minority of the withheld information did not engage section 28(1), it did engage section 35(1)(a), however the public interest did not favour maintaining the exemption.
After the decision notice was issued, the public authority informed the Commissioner that the information identified in the confidential annex (ordered to be released to the complainant) had been previously disclosed to him. That is, it was not information withheld from the complainant. The Commissioner accepts this assertion and acknowledges a misappre
Exemptions cited: FOI 28; FOI 35(1)(a)
View The Executive Office (Northern Ireland)
14 Jan 2025Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about evacuation plans. The above public authority provided some of the information but relied on sections 24 (national security) and 38 (health and safety) to redact some information. It also claimed not to hold some of the requested information. The Commissioner’s decision is that the public authority is not entitled to rely on either section 24 or 38 of FOIA to withhold the majority of the information. Sections 24 and 38 are engaged in respect of one piece of information and, where this is the case, the public interest favours maintaining the exemptions. The public authority does not hold any information within the scope of part 2 of the request. The public authority’s handling of the request breached sections 10 and 17 of FOIA. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. Disclose all the information it has relied on sections 24 and 38 to withhold with the exception of
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10; FOI 17; FOI 24; FOI 38
View NHS England
14 Jan 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested supporting documentation related to three specified prison models, following publication of a bulletin detailing prison population projections for England and Wales 2023 to 2028. The Ministry of Justice (the ‘MOJ’) initially relied on a number of FOIA exemptions to refuse the request. However, during the course of the Commissioner’s investigation, the MOJ revised its position and said it was no longer relying on any of the previously cited exemptions. It provided the information held in full, namely a document “CJS [Criminal Justice System] Demand Modelling Documentation”. The MOJ subsequently provided further information outside the scope of FOIA by way of advice and assistance. The complainant remained dissatisfied. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the MOJ does not hold any further requested information than has already been provided to the complainant. No steps are required as a result of this notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Ministry of Justice
14 Jan 2025Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about the processing of complaints. The BBC initially said that the information was derogated and therefore outside the scope of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the requested information would not be derogated information and so the BBC has not complied with section 1(1) of FOIA. The Commissioner requires the BBC to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: issue a fresh response, to the request, on the basis that any information held would fall within the scope of FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View BBC
14 Jan 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from Birmingham City Council (“the council”) relating to its decision that a previous request made by the complainant was vexatious under section 14(1) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council was correct to apply section 14(1) of FOIA to refuse to respond to the complainant's request further. The Commissioner does not require the council to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14(1)
View Birmingham City Council
14 Jan 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested from Havant Borough Council (the council), information with regards to fly tipping in a specific location. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the council has provided all the information it holds falling within the scope of the request. The Commissioner does not require any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Havant Borough Council
14 Jan 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from West Suffolk Council (“the Council”) about a wide range of subjects including food hygiene inspection reports, information about waste vehicles and information about Council buildings. The Council refused the request under section 14(1) of FOIA (vexatious requests). The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council is entitled to refuse the request under section 14(1) of FOIA. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14(1)
View West Suffolk Council
14 Jan 2025Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information about Durham Police’s archiving of historic information. Based on evidence available to the Commissioner, Durham Police did not provide an appropriate response within the statutory time frame. Therefore the Commissioner finds a breach of section 10.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
14 Jan 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about the installation of broadband to a specific location. The Welsh Government stated it did not hold information relating to some parts of the request, explained that other information was publicly available, and therefore exempt under section 21 (information available to the applicant by other means) of the FOIA, and withheld some information under section 43 (commercial interests) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Welsh Government was entitled to rely on section 43(2) of FOIA to withhold the information requested. He does not require any steps to be taken. Information Tribunal FT/EA/2025/0063 appeal withdrawn.
Exemptions cited: FOI 43
View Welsh Government
10 Jan 2025Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to the Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office (FCDO) seeking a) copies of “DipTels”, ie diplomatic telegrams, from the British Embassy in Caracas to the FCDO in London relating to Boris Johnson's 2024 visit to Venezuela and b) communications between David Cameron and Boris Johnson about this visit. The FCDO stated that it did not hold any “DipTels”, and initially withheld two text messages falling within the second part the request on the basis of section 27(1)(a) (international relations) of FOIA. It subsequently, disclosed the two text messages with redactions on the basis of sections 27(1)(a) and 40(2) (personal data) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that on the balance of probabilities the FCDO does not hold information falling within the scope of part 1 of the request. In relation to the part 2 of the request, the information redacted on the basis of section 27(1)(a) is exempt from disclosure on the basis of that exemption; the in
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 27; FOI 40
View Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office
10 Jan 2025Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested from Newry, Mourne and Down District Council (the Council) information regarding Forest Park Car Park Charges report. The Council withheld information to part 1 of the request and cited regulation 12(5)(e) (commercial or industrial information) of the EIR.The Commissioner’s decision is that regulation 12(5)(e) of the EIR is engaged, but the public interest in maintaining the exception is not sufficiently strong to overcome the presumption in favour of disclosure at regulation 12(2) of the EIR. The Commissioner also finds that the Council breached regulation 11(4) of the EIR by failing to provide the internal review within 40 working days. The Commissioner requires the Council to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. • Disclose the withheld information.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 f
Exemptions cited: EIR 11(4); EIR 12(5)(e)
10 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 BRIDGWATER & TAUNTON COLLEGE TRUST
10 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
10 Jan 2025Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The Commissioner’s decision is that the complainant’s request for records for glyphosate use on farms in the Carmarthen area is not manifestly unreasonable under regulation 12(4)(b) of the EIR. The Commissioner requires the Health and Safety Executive to take the following step to ensure compliance with the legislation: Provide the complainant with a fresh response to their request that complies with the EIR and that doesn’t rely on regulation 12(4)(b). First-tier tribunal (General Regulatory chamber) information rights appeal FT/EA/2025/0093 under appeal.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(b)
View Health and Safety Executive
10 Jan 2025Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from Middlewich Town Council about a stolen laptop. 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
10 Jan 2025Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested from the University of Essex (the University) information about its BSc Speech and Language Therapy course. The University disclosed the age of students at the time of enrolment on to the course but applied section 43 of FOIA (commercial interests) to withhold the number of applicants and the number of places on the course. The Commissioner’s decision is that section 43(2) is not engaged regarding the withheld information. He also finds that in failing to disclose the correct information relating to the age of students at the time of enrolment within the required timeframe the University has breached section 1 and 10 of FOIA. The Commissioner requires the University to disclose the withheld information.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10; FOI 43
View The University of Essex
10 Jan 2025Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to a cyber attack. The Pensions Ombudsman (“the public authority”) disclosed some information but withheld other information, citing section 36 (prejudice to the effective conduct of public affairs), section 31 (law enforcement) and section 21 (information reasonably accessible to applicant via other means). The Commissioner’s decision is that the public authority was correct to withhold the information that it did under section 36 and section 31. It wasn’t correct to withhold information under section 21 but this information is exempt under section 40(1) (personal information). The Commissioner has recorded procedural breaches of section 10 (time for compliance with the request) and section 17 (refusal notice).The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 17; FOI 31(1)(g); FOI 36(2)(c)
View The Pensions Ombudsman
10 Jan 2025Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to the Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office (FCDO) seeking a copy of a text message Boris Johnson sent to David Cameron about his (Mr Johnson’s) visit to Venezuela in 2024. The FCDO initially withheld the text message on the basis of sections 27(1)(a) (international relations) of FOIA. It subsequently disclosed the message with one part redacted on the basis of section 27(1)(a). The Commissioner’s decision is that the redacted information is exempt from disclosure on the basis of section 27(1)(a) of FOIA but that the FCDO breached section 10(1) of FOIA by failing to respond to the request within 20 working days.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 27
View Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office
10 Jan 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information about particular funding applications. The British Film Institute (BFI) disclosed relevant information, withholding some under sections 40(2), 41(1) and 43(2) of FOIA. These exemptions concern personal data, information provided in confidence and commercially sensitive information, respectively. The Commissioner’s decision is that BFI complied with section 1(1) of FOIA and holds no other information within scope of the complainant’s request. BFI was also entitled to withhold personal data from information it disclosed, under section 40(2). The Commissioner does not require further steps. Information Tribunal FT/EA/2025/0049 under appeal.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1(1); FOI 40(2)
View British Film Institute
9 Jan 2025Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested from Bangor University (the University), information relating to the landowner consultations for the Definitive Map Modification Order (DMMO) application for an alleged footpath. The University refused the request and cited regulations 12(3) and 13 of the EIR. The Commissioner’s decision is that regulation 12(3) and 13 are engaged, but only in respect of some of the withheld information. He also finds the exception at regulation 5(3) of the EIR applies, as some of the information is the complainant’s own personal data. The Commissioner requires the University to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation:• To disclose the withheld information, subject to redactions for some personal data as identified in the confidential annex.The University 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 pursua
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(3); EIR 13
View Bangor University
9 Jan 2025Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested, from Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council (“the council”), correspondence between councillors and officers relating to Hoylake Neighbourhood Forum (“Hoylake Vision”). The council refused the request on the basis that section 36(2) of FOIA applied (prejudice to the effective conduct of public affairs). The Commissioner’s decision is that the council was not correct to apply section 36(2) to withhold the information, however, he has decided that some information should be redacted from disclosure under section 40(2) (personal information) of FOIA. He has also decided that the council’s response did not comply with section 10(1) of FOIA. The Commissioner requires the council to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. To disclose the withheld information, subject to the redactions outlined in the Annex to this notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 36(2)(b)
View Wirral Council
9 Jan 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The Commissioner’s decision is that Transport for London is entitled to refuse to disclose the requested information about costs associated with ULEZ camera hardware under regulations 12(5)(a) and 12(5)(b) of the EIR. These exceptions concern public safety and the course of justice respectively. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(a); EIR 12(5)(b)
View Transport for London
9 Jan 2025Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested from City St George’s, University of London (the University) all internal email exchanges between named individuals discussing the complainant, delegates, team members and the City Doctoral Researchers’ Association. They also requested a specific email. The University refused to provide the requested information, citing section 40(2) of FOIA – personal information. At internal review it provided some information but additionally refused to provide information that it considered to be the complainant’s own personal data (section 40(1) of FOIA). The University also cited section 21 – information accessible to the applicant by other means.The Commissioner’s decision is that the University incorrectly cited section 21 and that the exemption is not engaged. However, the Commissioner has concluded that sections 40(1) and (2) of FOIA (personal information) apply to the requested information and have been appropriately cited. Additionally, the Commissioner has fou
Exemptions cited: FOI 1(1); FOI 10(1); FOI 17; FOI 21; FOI 40(1); FOI 40(2)
View City of London
9 Jan 2025Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about the handling of SARs. The above public authority provided some information and stated that the remainder was not held. The Commissioner’s decision is that the request was unclear and therefore the public authority had an obligation to seek clarification. As it failed to do so, it failed to comply with section 16 of FOIA. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. Contact the complainant to seek clarification of the request. Information Tribunal FT/EA/2025/0051 under appeal.
Exemptions cited: FOI 16
View Channel 4
9 Jan 2025Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information relating to a planning appeal. Somerset Council (‘the Council’) disclosed some information, but withheld the remainder, citing regulations 12(4)(a) (Information not held), 12(5)(b) (Course of justice etc) and 13(1) (Third party personal data). The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the Council does not hold some of the requested information and was entitled to rely on regulation 12(4)(a). He finds that personal data was properly withheld under regulation 12(3) by way of regulation 13(1). He finds that the Council was entitled to rely on regulation 12(5)(b) to withhold information which attracted Legal Professional Privilege (LPP). However, the Council failed to show how some information which did not attract LPP engaged the exception, and so the Commissioner’s decision is that it was not entitled to rely on regulation 12(5)(b) to withhold that information. The Commissioner requires the Council to disclose the info
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(a); EIR 12(5)(b); EIR 13(1)
View Somerset Council
9 Jan 2025Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to the Cabinet Office seeking information about the decision by Permanent Secretaries to impose minimum hours on office attendance. The Cabinet Office refused the request on the basis of section 12(1) (cost limit) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Cabinet Office is entitled to refuse this request on the basis of section 12(1) of FOIA. However, it breached section 17(5) of FOIA by failing to issue its refusal notice within 20 working days and also breached section 16(1) as it did not provide the complainant with adequate advice and assistance to allow her to submit a refined request. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12; FOI 16; FOI 17
View Cabinet Office
9 Jan 2025Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested a trade effluent consent register and trade effluent sampling results. Southern Water disclosed some information and has relied on regulation 12(5)(d) and regulation 12(5)(e) of the EIR to withhold the remainder. These exceptions concern the confidentiality of proceedings and commercial or industrial information, respectively. Southern Water also indicated that the request was manifestly unreasonable under regulation 12(4)(b). The Commissioner’s decision is that the request isn’t manifestly unreasonable and so Southern Water can’t rely on regulation 12(4)(b) to refuse it. Southern Water also can’t rely on regulations 12(5)(d) and 12(5)(e) to withhold the requested information as the information is on emissions for the purposes of regulation 12(9) of the EIR. Regulation 12(9) prevents such information from being withheld under these regulations. The Commissioner requires Southern Water to take the following step to ensure compliance with the legislation: Di
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(b); EIR 12(5)(d); EIR 12(5)(e)
View Southern Water
9 Jan 2025Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about service level agreements. The above public authority relied on section 12 of FOIA (costs) to refuse the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the public authority has failed to demonstrate why section 12(1) of FOIA applies. Consequently, it is not entitled to withhold the information. The public authority also breached section 10 of FOIA by failing to respond to the request within 20 working days. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. Issue a fresh response, to the request, that does not rely on section 12(1) of FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 12
9 Jan 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information relating to Stroud District Council’s local plan. Stroud District Council (‘SDC’) referred the complainant to published information in its online Local Plan Examination Library and said that it did not hold any further information falling within the request’s scope. The complainant believed that it held further information regarding a specific point. 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. He is therefore satisfied that it was entitled to rely on regulation 12(5)(a) of the EIR.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(a)
View Stroud District Council
9 Jan 2025Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The Commissioner’s decision is that the public authority breached section 10(1) of FOIA by failing to provide a response within 20 working days.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Cleveland Police
8 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)
8 Jan 2025Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from Liverpool City Council about the provisions for homelessness. The Council 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 Liverpool City Council
8 Jan 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to warrants of control. The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) denied holding the requested information. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the MoJ does not hold the requested information 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
View Ministry of Justice
7 Jan 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about service provision for Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (‘ADHD’). NHS Leicester, Leicestershire and Rutland Integrated Care Board (‘the ICB’) provided some information and advised 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 ICB does not hold any further information within scope of the request. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View NHS Leicester, Leicestershire and Rutland ICB
7 Jan 2025Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information in a file held by the National Archives (TNA) about the unsolved murder of Kelso Cochrane. TNA disclosed some of the information and withheld the remainder under sections 38(1)(a), 40(2) and 41(1) of FOIA. These exemptions concern endangerment to mental health, personal data and information provided in confidence, respectively. The Commissioner’s decision is that TNA correctly applied sections 40(2) and 41(1) of FOIA to information that it’s withholding but incorrectly applied section 38(1)(a) to the remaining information. The Commissioner requires TNA to take the following step to ensure compliance with the legislation: Disclose to the complainant the information to which it applied section 38(1)(a) of FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 38(1)(a); FOI 40(2); FOI 41(1)
View The National Archives
7 Jan 2025Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested correspondence between the BBC and the Royal Family. The BBC refused to provide the requested information, citing section 37(1)(a) (communications with His Majesty and the awarding of honours). The Commissioner’s decision is that the requested information is exempt under section 37(1)(a) and, on the balance of probabilities, no further information is held. The Commissioner has recorded procedural breaches of section 10 (timescales for compliance) and section 17 (refusal notice) of FOIA. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 17; FOI 37
View BBC
7 Jan 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested correspondence connected with compensation payments for infected blood. The Ministry of Justice (the ‘MOJ’) provided some information with redactions under section 40(2) of FOIA – the exemption for personal information. It withheld the remaining information in scope citing the FOIA exemptions in sections 35(1)(a) – the formulation or development of government policy, 35(1)(b) – Ministerial communications and 42(1) – legal professional privilege. The complainant said he was not concerned with the redacted personal information within the disclosed information, so the Commissioner has not further considered the MOJ’s reliance on section 40(2) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the MOJ was entitled to rely on sections 35(1)(a) and (b) and 42(1) of FOIA in relation to the remaining withheld information for the reasons set out in this notice. No steps are required as a result of this notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 35; FOI 42
View Ministry of Justice
7 Jan 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information about CCTV cameras at a specific location. Brighton & Hove City Council (the Council) stated that it did not hold the information requested. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities the Council does not hold any recorded information falling within the scope of the request. The Commissioner does not require any steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Brighton and Hove City Council
7 Jan 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested digitised copies of death records for a 70-year period. The Home Office said that as this information was already publicly accessible it was exempt from disclosure under FOIA section 21(2)(b) (information reasonably accessible to the applicant).The Commissioner’s considers that the Home Office correctly applied section 21(2)(b) in this case. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 21
View Home Office
7 Jan 2025Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information, in a two-part request, relating to a planning application. Shropshire Council (the Council) neither confirmed nor denied holding information in scope of part 2 of the request, citing section 41(2) (information provided in confidence) of FOIA. The Commissioner has considered the Council’s handling of part 2 of the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that any information in scope of that part of the request, if held, would be environmental information within the definition at regulation 2(1)(c) of the EIR. The request should, therefore, have been handled under the EIR rather than FOIA. The Commissioner requires the Council to take the following step to ensure compliance with the legislation: reconsider part 2 of the request under the provisions of the EIR and issue a fresh response to the complainant.
Exemptions cited: EIR 2
View Shropshire Council
7 Jan 2025Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested copies of board papers. The above public authority relied on section 22 of FOIA (future publication) to withhold the information. The Commissioner’s decision is that the public authority was not entitled to rely on section 22 of FOIA to withhold the information. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. Disclose copies of the agenda, minutes and supporting papers for each board meeting that took place in the 2021-22, 2022-23 and 2023-24 financial years. The public authority may make appropriate redactions to comply with its obligations under data protection legislation. It may also redact any information that it considers commercially sensitive.Keywords: publication scheme
Exemptions cited: FOI 22
View Harrogate and District NHS Foundation Trust
6 Jan 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested, from The Executive Office (Northern Ireland) (TEO), information relating to the King’s Birthday Honours List 2023. TEO confirmed holding relevant recorded information, but refused to disclose it, on the basis of section 37(1)(b) of FOIA (the conferring by the Crown of any honour or dignity). The Commissioner’s decision is that TEO was correct to refuse to disclose the withheld information, on the basis of section 37(1)(b). The Commissioner doesn’t require any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 37(1)(b)
View The Executive Office (Northern Ireland)
6 Jan 2025Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested a trade effluent consent register and trade effluent sampling results. Northern Ireland Water (NIW) disclosed some information and relied on regulation 12(5)(e) of the EIR to withhold the sampling data. Regulation 12(5)(e) concerns the confidentiality of commercial or industrial information. NIW has advised the Commissioner that it’s also now relying on regulation 12(5)(b) to withhold the sampling data. This exception concerns the course of justice. The Commissioner’s decision is as follows: NIW can’t rely on regulation 12(5)(e) to withhold the sampling data as this information is on emissions for the purposes of regulation 12(9) of the EIR. Regulation 12(9) prevents such information from being withheld under regulation 12(5)(e). The sampling data also doesn’t engage regulation 12(5)(b) of the EIR. The Commissioner requires NIW to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: Disclose the information to which it has applied regulation 12(
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(b); EIR 12(5)(e)
View Northern Ireland Tourist Board