3 Jan 2025Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information about a specific tree. Malvern Hills District Council (the “Council”) disclosed some information and withheld other information under the exceptions for internal communications (regulation 12(4)(e)) and commercial confidentiality (regulation 12(5)(e)). During the Commissioner’s investigation the Council revised its position, disclosing the information previously withheld under regulation 12(5)(e) and confirming that the information withheld under regulation 12(4)(e) fell outside the scope of the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council disclosed all the information falling within the scope of the request and complied with regulation 5(1) but that it disclosed the information previously withheld under regulation 12(5)(e) outside the time for compliance and breached regulation 5(2). The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 5(1); EIR 5(2)
View Malvern Hills District Council
3 Jan 2025Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested correspondence mentioning a specific organisation. The above public authority relied on section 36 of FOIA (prejudice to the effective conduct of public affairs) to withhold the information. The Commissioner has applied section 40(2) of FOIA himself proactively, to prevent disclosure of one document containing special category data. The Commissioner’s decision is that section 36(2)(c) is not engaged at all. Sections 36(2)(b)(i) and 36(2)(b)(ii) are engaged in respect of all the remaining information, but the public interest only favours maintaining the exemption in respect of some of it. For the remaining information, the public interest favours disclosure. 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 section 36 of FOIA to withhold, with the exception of the email chains titled “referral form” and “north west”, along with their respective
Exemptions cited: FOI 36; FOI 40(2)
View Leeds and York Partnership NHS Foundation Trust
3 Jan 2025Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information relating to Project Detroit. The above public authority relied on regulation 12(5)(d) of the EIR to withhold the information. The Commissioner’s decision is that regulation 12(5)(d) of the EIR is engaged and that the balance of the public interest favours maintaining the exception. The public authority’s handling of the request breached regulations 11 and 14 of the EIR. The Commissioner does not require further steps to be taken.Keywords/themes: road user charging. Information Tribunal FT/EA/2025/0041 under appeal.
Exemptions cited: EIR 11; EIR 12(5)(d); EIR 14
View Transport for London
24 Dec 2024Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to London Borough of Havering (the Council) for information relating to the grade evaluation scores for a named post under the GLPC valuation scheme.The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council was not entitled to rely on section 43(2) of FOIA to withhold the requested information. The Council also breached section 1(1) and 10(1) of FOIA by failing to respond to the request within the statutory timeframe of 20 working days. The Commissioner requires the Council to take the following step to ensure compliance with the legislation.• Disclose the withheld information (with any personal data suitably redacted in accordance with his guidance).The public authority must take this step within 30 calendar days of the date of this decision notice. Failure to comply may result in the Commissioner making written certification of this fact to the High Court pursuant to section 54 of the Act and may be dealt with as a contempt of court. Information Tribunal FT/
Exemptions cited: FOI 43(2)
View London Borough of Havering
24 Dec 2024Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The public authority has failed to respond to this request within 20 working days, as specified under FOIA. The Commissioner requires it to provide the complainant with a response to this request within 30 calendar days in accordance with its obligations under FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Ministry of Justice
24 Dec 2024Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The public authority has failed to respond to this request within 20 working days, as specified under FOIA. The Commissioner requires it to provide the complainant with a response to this request within 30 calendar days in accordance with its obligations under FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Ministry of Justice
24 Dec 2024Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested, from the London Borough of Waltham Forest (the council), information about a proposal to build a secure children’s home. The council has refused the request on the basis of regulation 12(4)(c) of the EIR (request for information is formulated in too general a manner). However, it has also confirmed holding relevant information, and refused to disclose it, on the basis of regulations 12(4)(d) (material still in the course of completion, unfinished documents or incomplete data), 12(5)(d) (confidentiality of proceedings) and 12(5)(f) (interests of the person who provided the information). The Commissioner’s decision is that the council wasn’t entitled to cite regulation 12(4)(c); however regulation 12(5)(d) is engaged, and the public interest favours maintaining that exception. The Commissioner finds breaches of regulations 7(3) (extension of time) and 14(2) (refusal to disclose information). The Commissioner doesn’t require any steps. Information Tribunal FT/EA
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(c); EIR 12(5)(d); EIR 14(2)(1); EIR 7
View Waltham Forest Council
24 Dec 2024Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The public authority has failed to respond to this request within 20 working days, as specified under FOIA. The Commissioner requires it to provide the complainant with a response to this request within 30 calendar days in accordance with its obligations under FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Ministry of Justice
24 Dec 2024Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
A public authority will breach section 10 of FOIA if it fails to respond to a request within 20 working days. Based on evidence available to the Commissioner, by the date of this notice the public authority has not issued a substantive response to this request. Therefore, the Commissioner finds a breach of section 10.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
23 Dec 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested the email addresses for the managers and Universal Credit Teams of Jobcentres in London. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) is entitled to rely on section 40(2), personal data of a third-party, to withhold the requested information falling within part 1 of the request. He also finds that DWP was correct to request clarification of part 2 of the request. The Commissioner does not require DWP to take any steps in relation to this request.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 40
View Department for Work and Pensions
23 Dec 2024Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested, from the London Borough of Richmond upon Thames (LBRUT), information about estimated costs of renovating a health suite at Pools on the Park, a Grade II listed building. LBRUT originally denied holding some information, and refused to disclose other information on the basis of section 43(2) of FOIA (commercial interests); LBRUT also disclosed other information, at internal review stage. During the Commissioner’s investigation, LBRUT retrospectively applied section 14(1) of FOIA (vexatious requests) to the request; in the alternative, LBRUT maintained its original and internal review positions. The Commissioner’s decision is that LBRUT is entitled to refuse to comply with the request, on the basis of section 14(1). However, he also finds that LBRUT breached section 17(5) of FOIA, due to its late reliance on section 14(1). The Commissioner doesn’t require any steps. Information Tribunal FT/EA/2025/0064 under appeal.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14(1); FOI 17(5)
View Richmond upon Thames Council
20 Dec 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested, from London Councils (LC), information regarding a proposed new secure children’s home in London. LC provided some explanatory comments and a link to published information, but refused to disclose other information, citing regulation 12(4)(d) of the EIR (material still in the course of completion, unfinished documents or incomplete data) as its basis for doing so. During the Commissioner’s investigation, LC relied on two additional exceptions – namely regulation 12(5)(d) (confidentiality of proceedings) and 12(4)(b) (manifestly unreasonable). The Commissioner’s decision is that regulation 12(4)(d) is engaged, and that the public interest favours maintaining the exception. The Commissioner doesn’t require any steps. Information Tribunal FT/EA/2025/0057under appeal.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(d)
20 Dec 2024Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about statutory legislation. Stanion Parish Council (“the Council”) refused the request, citing section 14(1) (vexatious) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council are not entitled to rely on section 14(1) to refuse the request. However, as the Council also confirmed it does not hold the information, no steps are required.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14(1)
20 Dec 2024Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information relating to Safer Roads Group (SRG) reports. Ruyton-XI-Towns Parish Council (the Council) provided information falling within the scope of the request; however, the complainant believes additional information is held by the Council. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the Council does not hold any additional information relevant to the request.However, as the Council failed to provide the information that it did hold within 20 working days, the Commissioner has found a breach of regulation 5(2) of the EIR. The Commissioner does not require the Council to take any steps as a result of this decision notice.
Exemptions cited: EIR 5(1); EIR 5(2)
20 Dec 2024Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from Birmingham City Council (the council) relating to care packages. 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 Birmingham City Council
20 Dec 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has submitted a request to NHS North West London Integrated Care Board (the ICB) relating to a subcontractor’s Medical Device Management Policy. The ICB stated that it does not hold the requested information. The Commissioner’s decision is that the ICB does not hold the requested information, nor is such information held on the ICB’s behalf by the third-party contractor the purposes of section 3(2)(b) of FOIA. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: FOI 3
View NHS North West London ICB
20 Dec 2024Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (“DLUHC”) relating to the setting of council tax rates and its duties under the Equalities Act 2010. The DLUHC’s name was changed to The Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (“the MHCLG”) in July 2024, and is therefore referred to as the MHCLG in this decision notice. The MHCLG said that it does not hold the requested information. A subsequent email from the complainant was refused as a repeated request under section 14(2) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the MHCLG was not correct to refuse the request on the basis that section 14(2) applied. He has, however, decided that, on the balance of probabilities, the MHCLG does not hold the requested information for the purposes of section 1 of FOIA. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 14(2)
View Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government
20 Dec 2024Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information from the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham about Wandsworth Bridge Road layout. The Commissioner’s decision is that the public authority failed to respond to the request within 20 working days and has therefore breached regulation 5(2) of the EIR. The public authority must provide a substantive response to the request in accordance with its obligations under EIR.
Exemptions cited: EIR 5(2)
View Hammersmith and Fulham Council
20 Dec 2024Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from the Department for Culture, Media and Sport about meetings between former ministers Lucy Frazer and Stuart Andrew. 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 the FOIA. The public authority must provide a substantive response to the request in accordance with its obligations under FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Department for Culture, Media and Sport
20 Dec 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested a breakdown of complaints submitted to another organisation. The Financial Conduct Authority (“the public authority”) refused to provide the requested information, citing section 44(1)(a) (prohibitions on disclosure) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the requested information is exempt under section 44(1)(a). The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 44(1)(a)
View Financial Conduct Authority
20 Dec 2024Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the Department for Education (DfE) doesn’t hold the information the complainant has requested about the money made from the interest rate margin between the government cost of borrowing and the interest rate charged on student loans. However, because DfE didn’t confirm that it doesn’t hold the information within 20 working days of the request, it didn’t comply with section 1(1)(a) and 10(1) of FOIA. It’s not necessary for DfE to take any corrective steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1(1)(a); FOI 10(1)
View Department for Education
20 Dec 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information held regarding an investigation into buildings works. London Borough of Redbridge (the Council) has advised it does not hold information within the scope of the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council should have considered the request under the EIR, rather than FOIA. However, he is satisfied that on the balance of probabilities, the Council holds no further recorded information relevant to the complainant’s request. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(a)
View Redbridge Council
20 Dec 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from the London Ambulance Service NHS Trust (the Trust) for information relating to 999 and 111 calls. The Trust deemed the request vexatious under section 14(1) of FOIA. It also refused to provide a response to the complainant, relying on section 17(6) as the basis for doing so. The Commissioner’s decision is that the request was vexatious under section 14(1), and that the Trust was entitled to rely on section 17(6) of FOIA to refuse to issue a refusal notice in response to the request. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14(1); FOI 17(6)
View London Ambulance Service NHS Trust
20 Dec 2024Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant made a two-part request to West Leigh Junior School (the school) for information about “Primary School Catchment Changes in 2017”. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the school does not hold any further information falling within the scope of part one of the request. In addition, the school was entitled to rely on section 40(1) of FOIA to withhold the information requested in part two of the request. However, he has recorded a procedural breach of section 17(1) of FOIA. The Commissioner does not require the school to take any steps as a result of this decision notice. Information Tribunal FT/EA/2025/0053 appeal withdrawn.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 17; FOI 40(1)
19 Dec 2024Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested from the Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC) information relating to companies that were given access to the high priority lane to provide PPE during the Covid pandemic. The DHSC refused to provide the requested information, citing section 43(2) of FOIA (commercial interests) to all parts of the request. Later, the DHSC additionally cited sections 31 (law enforcement) and 41 of FOIA (information provided in confidence) to parts one, two and four of the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that sections 43(2), 31 and 41 of FOIA are not engaged. The DHSC breached section 17(1)(b) of FOIA by relying at investigation stage on exemptions it had not cited within the time for compliance with section 1(1) of FOIA. The Commissioner requires the DHSC to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. • Disclose the information requested in all four parts of the request.
Exemptions cited: FOI 17; FOI 31; FOI 41; FOI 43(2)
View Department of Health and Social Care
19 Dec 2024Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has made a number of requests relating to a specific land development. The Tendering District Council (“the Council”) refused the request under regulation 12(4)(b). The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council was entitled to refuse the request under regulation 12(4)(b). He also finds that the Council breached regulation 5(2), by failing to respond to multiple requests within 20 working days. The Commissioner does not require further steps. Information Tribunal FT/EA/2025/0048 under appeal.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(b); EIR 5(2)
View Tendring District Council
19 Dec 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to the Governing Body of Belfast Royal Academy (the academy) for financial information relating to the academy and Ben Madigan Preparatory School.The Commissioner’s decision is that section 36(2)(c)(prejudice to the effective conduct of public affairs) of FOIA is engaged and the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosure.The Commissioner does not require further steps as a result of this decision notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 32(2)
19 Dec 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information concerning changes in role titles and whether there would be any impact on terms, conditions and pension rights. The Cabinet Office (“CO”) disclosed some information within scope and relied on section 40(2) of FOIA (third party personal information) to withhold the remaining information.The Commissioner’s decision is that the CO has correctly relied on section 40(2) of FOIA to withhold the remaining information.The Commissioner does not require further steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40(2)
View Cabinet Office
19 Dec 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to the London Borough of Tower Hamlets (the Council) seeking advice its Chief Executive had provided to the Mayor prior to the latter’s decision to remove Palestinian flags from Council infrastructure. The complainant also sought copies of any information that the Chief Executive had himself considered in formulating his advice. The Council withheld the Chief Executive’s advice on the basis of section 36(2)(b)(i) (effective conduct of public affairs) and information considered by him on the basis of section 42(1) (legal professional privilege). The Commissioner’s decision is that the requested information is exempt from disclosure on the basis of each of the exemptions cited by the Council and that for each exemption the public interest favours withholding the information.
Exemptions cited: FOI 36; FOI 42
View London Borough of Tower Hamlets
19 Dec 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information about market stalls in Birkenhead. Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council (the “Council”) confirmed that it did not hold the requested information. The complainant disputes this. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council correctly confirmed that it did not hold the requested information and complied with section 1. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1(1)
View Wirral Council
19 Dec 2024Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information regarding a plot of land from the Isle of Anglesey County Council (the Council). The Council refused to provide the requested information citing section 21 of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that: The request should have been handled under the Environmental Information Regulations 2004 (EIR) rather than the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA). The Council breached 5(2) by failing to provide a response to the requests within 20 working days. The Council also breached regulation 11 by failing to issue an internal review within 40 working days. The Commissioner requires the Council to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. Issue a fresh response to the request under the EIR. The Council must take these steps within 30 calendar days of the date of this decision notice. Failure to comply may result in the Commissioner making written certification of this fact to the High Court pursuant to section 54 of the Act an
Exemptions cited: EIR 11; EIR 2(1); EIR 5(2)
View Isle of Anglesey County Council
19 Dec 2024Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from Yorkshire Ambulance Service NHS Trust (“the public authority”) staff annual leave. The public authority relied on section 12 of FOIA (cost of compliance) to refuse the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the public authority was not entitled to rely on section 12(1) of FOIA to refuse the request. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take issue a fresh response that does not rely on section 12 of FOIA to ensure compliance with the legislation.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12
View Yorkshire Ambulance Service NHS Trust
19 Dec 2024Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to the London Borough of Haringey seeking list of individuals/companies it used to carry out independent stage 2 complaints. The Council refused to comply with the request on the basis of section 14(1) of FOIA as it considered it to be vexatious. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council is not entitled to refuse to comply with the request on the basis of section 14(1) of FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14
View Haringey Council
19 Dec 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to the Royal Mint seeking the specific quantities of each coin design and denominations currently held in its ‘long store’. The Royal Mint withheld this information on the basis of sections 31(1)(a) (law enforcement) and 43(2) (commercial interests) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the requested information is exempt from disclosure on the basis of section 31(1)(a) of FOIA and that public interest favours withholding this information. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 31
19 Dec 2024Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested all correspondence between Cherwell District Council (“the council”) and the ICO, for the previous calendar year. The council refused to provide the information, relying upon section 14(1) (vexatious requests) on the grounds of burden, and section 12 (appropriate limit). The Commissioner’s decision is that the council is entitled to refuse to comply with the request under section 12. The Commissioner requires the council to provide additional advice and assistance to the complainant as required by section 16(1) of FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12; FOI 16
View Cherwell District Council
19 Dec 2024Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about a proposal to merge two schools. The above public authority provided some information, but the complainant believes more is held. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the public authority has disclosed all the information it holds. However, as the public authority failed to provide all this information within 20 school days, it breached section 10 of FOIA. The Commissioner does not require further steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10
View THE GOOD SHEPHERD TRUST
19 Dec 2024Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested the following information from Banbury Cross Health Centre on 27 July 2024: ‘A moratorium on patient transfers between GP practices in the Banbury area ended on 06 November 2023. 1. Please provide copies of all documents and communication you hold between Banbury Cross Health Centre and Buckinghamshire, Oxfordshire and Berkshire West Integrated Care Board (BOB ICB) concerning the moratorium. 2. Please provide copies of all documents and communication you hold between Banbury Cross Health Centre and any other GP Practice concerning the moratorium.’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 obligati
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
19 Dec 2024Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from the Police Service of Northern Ireland (the PSNI) regarding a specific murder case. The PSNI refused the request citing section 14(2). The Commissioner’s decision is that the PSNI was entitled to rely on section 14(2) when refusing part of the request, but was not entitled to rely on section 14(2) for the remaining parts of the requests. The Commissioner also finds that PSNI breached section 10(1) by failing to respond to request one within 20 working days. The Commissioner requires the PSNI to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. Either disclose the requested information, or issue an appropriate refusal notice which does not rely on section 14(2) as outlined in paragraph 34. The PSNI 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 an
Exemptions cited: FOI 10(1); FOI 14(2)
View Police Service of Northern Ireland
19 Dec 2024Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from the Home Office about UK Visa and Citizenship Application Services. The Home Office 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 Home Office
19 Dec 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to their business. East Hampshire District Council disclosed some information (being the number of formal complaints made to it) but withheld the remainder 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. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has disclosed the number of formal complaints, and has correctly withheld the remaining information under section 40(2). The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 40(2)
View East Hampshire District Council
19 Dec 2024Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The Commissioner’s decision is that the public authority breached section 10(1) of FOIA by failing to provide a response within 20 working days.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10(1)
View London Ambulance Service NHS Trust
19 Dec 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from Cheshire East Council (the Council) regarding capital investments made in specific locations. The Council provided some information in scope of the request, and outlined information previously provided to the complainant. It cited section 22 (information intended for future publication) of FOIA for the years 2023/24.The Council later confirmed that it did not hold any further information in scope of the request, other than that previously provided and subsequently published on its website.The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the Council does not hold any further information within scope of the request.The Commissioner does not require any steps as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Cheshire East Council
18 Dec 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested a copy of a resignation letter from a former Parish Councillor. Wanborough Parish Council (the Council) withheld the information under section 40(2) (personal information) of FOIA.The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council was correct to apply section 40(2) of FOIA to withhold the resignation letter. The Commissioner does not require further steps. Information Tribunal FT/EA/2025/0021 under appeal.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40(2)
18 Dec 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information about an assessment relating to the accommodation of an individual. The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) refused to confirm or deny whether it holds information within the scope of the request, citing section 40(5B)(a)(i) (personal information) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the MoJ was entitled to rely on section 40(5B)(a)(i) to refuse to confirm or deny whether it holds any information falling within the scope of the request. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View Ministry of Justice
18 Dec 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
1. The complainant has requested information about the handling of a complaint made to a particular court, and associated procedural information. The Ministry of Justice (“MoJ”) said that it did not hold the requested information. The Commissioner’s decision regarding the first part of the request is that the MoJ does not hold the requested information for the purposes of FOIA, in accordance with the definition at section 3(2) of FOIA. For the second part of the request, he has decided that, on the balance of probabilities, the MoJ does not hold the requested information.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Ministry of Justice
18 Dec 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about cybersecurity breaches. Tees Valley Combined Authority (“the Council”) refused to confirm or deny if it held the information, citing section 31(3) in conjunction with section 31(1)(a) (prejudice to the prevention or detection of crime). The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council is to entitled to refuse to confirm or deny that it holds the requested information. No further steps are required.
Exemptions cited: FOI 31
View Tees Valley Combined Authority
18 Dec 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from the Department of Finance Northern Ireland (DoF) in relation to internal audits. DOF refused to disclose some of the requested information (“the withheld information”), citing sections 43(2) and 40(2) of FOIA as a basis for non-disclosure.The Commissioner’s decision is that DOF has correctly applied sections 40(2) and 43(2) to the withheld information.The Commissioner does not require any steps to be taken by DOF.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40; FOI 43
View Department of Finance
18 Dec 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about timescales of security clearance applications. The Cabinet Office (“the CO”) relied on section 12 of FOIA (cost of compliance) to refuse the request.The Commissioner’s decision is that the CO was entitled to rely on section 12(1) of FOIA to refuse the request. The Commissioner also considers that the CO complied with its section 16 obligation to offer advice and assistance. The Commissioner does not require further steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12(1)
View Cabinet Office
18 Dec 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested the three most recent invoices for taxi/mini-cabs for transporting migrants/asylum seekers to/from a specific UK address. The Home Office neither confirmed nor denied holding the requested information, citing section 38(2) (health and safety) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Home Office was entitled to rely on section 38(2) to refuse to confirm or deny whether it holds any information falling within the scope of the request. No steps are required as a result of this decision. Information Tribunal FT/EA/2025/0024 under appeal.
Exemptions cited: FOI 38(2)
View Home Office
18 Dec 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested from Cowbridge and Llanblethian Town Council (the Council) information regarding an investigation report that was written and sent to the Council. The request was refused and the Council relied on sections 40(2) (personal information) and 41 (information provided in confidence) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is the Council was entitled to rely on section 41(1) of FOIA to refuse to provide the information requested. Therefore, the Commissioner does not require the Council to take any steps as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: FOI 41(1)