26 Nov 2024Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information on Fee for Intervention invoices relating to Employment Tribunals. HSE refused the request on the basis of section 14(1) – vexatious requests. The Commissioner’s decision is that HSE is entitled to rely on section 14(1) of FOIA in this case because the request is vexatious. However the Commissioner does find that HSE failed to rely on section 14 within 20 working days and therefore breached section 17(5) FOIA. The Commissioner does not require any further action to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14; FOI 17
View Health and Safety Executive
26 Nov 2024Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested data relating to specific wastewater treatment works (‘wwtw’) and pumping stations (‘ps’). United Utilities (“the public authority”) refused to comply with two parts of the request, on the grounds that it wasn’t environmental information being requested or by citing regulation 12(4)(b) (manifestly unreasonable). The Commissioner’s decision is that the information being requested is environmental in accordance with regulation 2(1) and the public authority has inappropriately applied regulation 12(4)(b). In failing to disclose all non-exempt information within the statutory timeframe, the public authority has breached regulation 5(2) of the EIR. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: disclose the requested information.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(b); EIR 2(1); EIR 5(2)
View United Utilities
26 Nov 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to a Debt Management Vulnerability Framework from the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP). DWP refused to provide the requested information as to do so would exceed the appropriate limit at section 12(1) (cost of compliance exceeds appropriate limit) of FOIA.The Commissioner’s decision is that DWP was entitled to rely on section 12(1) to refuse to comply with the request. The Commissioner also finds that DWP complied with its section 16(1) obligation to offer advice and assistance in relation to the request. No further steps are therefore required.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12(1); FOI 16
View Department for Work and Pensions
26 Nov 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information about a broken roundabout in a playing field. The Council relied on section 14(1) of FOIA (vexatious) to refuse the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the request was vexatious and therefore the Council was entitled to rely upon section 14(1) of FOIA to refuse it. The Commissioner does not require any steps. Information Tribunal FT/EA/2025/0036 under appeal.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14(1)
26 Nov 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested document, guidelines, policies and procedures relevant to the Emerging Needs Pathway (ENP) from London Borough of Wandsworth (the Council). The Council provided some information in response to the request but said that it did not hold information to some parts of the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities the Council does not hold information within the scope of the request and has therefore complied with section 1(1) of FOIA. The Commissioner does not require the Council to take any further steps in relation to this complaint.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View London Borough of Wandsworth
25 Nov 2024Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has asked Surrey Police for information on incidents, crimes and reports which mention sodium nitrite. Surrey Police disclosed some figures, but the complainant believed that it held further information. The Commissioner’s decision is that Surrey Police’s interpretation of the request as only being for information on “incidents” was unreasonably restrictive and that it wrongly defined its scope. In doing so, Surrey Police failed to comply with the provisions of section 1(1)(a) (General right of access) of FOIA. He also finds it breached sections 1 and 10 of FOIA by failing to respond to the request within the statutory 20 working day time for compliance. The Commissioner requires Surrey Police to Issue a fresh response, having carried out further searches to identify all information held which falls within the scope of Request 1, in accordance with the meaning clarified in paragraphs 21 and 22 of this notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10
View Surrey Police
25 Nov 2024Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from the Ministry of Justice (MoJ), relating to the use of Bromine or other drugs given to children whilst in a detention centre during 1960 to 1980. The MoJ relied on section 12(2) of FOIA (cost of compliance) to refuse the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that: The MoJ was entitled to rely on section 12(2) of FOIA to refuse the request. The MoJ complied with its section 16 obligation to offer advice and assistance. The MoJ breached section 10(1) by failing to respond to the request within 20 working days. The Commissioner does not require further steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10(1); FOI 12(2); FOI 16
View Ministry of Justice
25 Nov 2024Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested TNA to disclose information relating the reclosure of case files MEPO 3/1875 and MEPO 3/870. TNA disclosed some information but withheld the remainder citing section 36(2)(b) and (c) and 40 of FOIA. No complaint was raised in relation to the application of section 40 of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that while section 36(2)(b) is engaged the public interest in maintaining the exemption is outweighed by the public interest in favour of disclosure. He therefore requires TNA to disclose the remaining withheld information to the complainant. The Commissioner also found TNA in breach of section 10 of FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 36(2)(b)
View The National Archives
25 Nov 2024Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested a copy of a contract with Serco for waste management services. The London Borough of Lambeth (LBL) initially treated this as a request made in the normal course of business. After internal review, it disclosed a Schedule from the contract but argued that EIR regulation 12(5)(e) provided an exception from its duty to disclose the remainder of the contract. The Commissioner’s decision is that LBL is only entitled to rely on regulation 12(5)(e) in respect of information identified in a Confidential Annex to this Notice. The Commissioner requires LBL to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: Disclose that information in the requested contract which is not identified as excepted from the EIR duty to disclose in the Confidential Annex to this Notice. The public authority must take these steps within 30 calendar days of the date of this decision notice. Failure to comply may result in the Commissioner making written certification of t
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(e)
View London Borough of Lambeth
25 Nov 2024Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to a working group. West Mersea Town Council’s “(the public authority”) final position is that information is exempt under section 21 (information reasonably accessible to the applicant via other means) or, in accordance with section 1 (general right of access), it isn’t held. The Commissioner’s decision is that section 21 has been correctly applied. He’s also satisfied that, on the balance of probabilities, the public authority has identified all relevant information it holds. However, the Commissioner has recorded a breach of section 17 (refusal notice). The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 17; FOI 21
25 Nov 2024Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information relating to their planning complaint. Guildford Borough Council (the “Council”) disclosed information but the complainant considers that it failed to provide all information held within the scope of the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council failed to provide all the requested information in time and breached regulation 5(1) and regulation 5(2); that it correctly withheld third party personal information under regulation 13 and, wrongly handled parts of the request which identify the complainant’s own personal information under the EIR and that regulation 5(3) applies to this information. The Commissioner requires the Council to disclose the information identified in paragraph 26. Information Tribunal FT/EA/2025/0029 under appeal.
Exemptions cited: EIR 13; EIR 5(1); EIR 5(2); EIR 5(3)
View Guildford Borough Council
25 Nov 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information about a specific planning complaint. Elmbridge Borough Council (the “Council”) disclosed some information and withheld other information under the exception for internal communications (regulation 12(4)(e)). At the internal review stage the Council withdrew its reliance on this exception and confirmed that the information was not actually held. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the Council does not hold the requested records of the internal decision making process and that regulation 12(4)(a) of the EIR applies. 3. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(a)
View Elmbridge Borough Council
25 Nov 2024Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant submitted two requests for a range of information relating to specific planning matters. Guildford Borough Council (the “Council”) disclosed some information, confirmed that further information was not held and withheld other information under the exception for personal information (regulation 13). The Commissioner’s decision is that, in relation to Request 1, the Council disclosed all the relevant information it holds and complied with regulation 5(1), and that it was entitled to withhold some personal information under regulation 13. In relation to Request 2 he has decided that it disclosed all the relevant information it holds and that, in relation to the requested personal information, regulation 13(5)(a) of the EIR, and section 40(5B)(a)(i) of the FOIA provides that the duty to confirm or deny does not apply. In relation to both requests the Commissioner finds that the Council disclosed information outside the time for compliance and breached regulation 5(2). The C
Exemptions cited: EIR 13(1); EIR 13(5a); EIR 5(1); EIR 5(2); FOI 40(5)(b)(a)(i)
View Guildford Borough Council
22 Nov 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested from Companies House (CH) information regarding “H M Residential Limited” – registered company. CH applied section 21 (information accessible to the applicant by other means) of FOIA to the request.The Commissioner’s decision is that the information is reasonably accessible to the applicant by other means, and CH was entitled to rely on section 21 of FOIA in response to this request. The Commissioner does not require CH to take any steps as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: FOI 21
View Companies House
22 Nov 2024Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested a copy of the minutes of a particular meeting. The above public authority disclosed a heavily redacted version of the minutes and relied on section 36 (prejudice to the effective conduct of public affairs) 40 (personal information) and 41 of FOIA (breach of confidence) to withhold the remainder. The Commissioner’s decision is that section 36 of FOIA is engaged but the balance of the public interest favours disclosure. Neither section 41 nor section 40(2) of FOIA is engaged. The public authority also breached section 17 of FOIA because it failed to issue a refusal notice within 20 working days. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: Disclose an unredacted copy of the minutes.
Exemptions cited: FOI 17; FOI 36; FOI 40; FOI 41
View Department for Education
22 Nov 2024Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from Newton on the Moor & Swarland Parish Council (the Council), relating to correspondence linked to a particular meeting. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council failed to disclose the requested information within 20 working days and therefore breached section 10(1) of FOIA. The Commissioner requires the Council to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation - Issue a response to the new request of 15 May 2024
Exemptions cited: FOI 10(1)
22 Nov 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request for information regarding Councillor’s appointments to outside bodies. Rhondda Cynon Taf County Borough Council (the Council) provided some information within the scope of the request. At internal review, the Council stated that the request exceeds the “appropriate limit” citing section 12 of FOIA and gave general guidance around refining the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council is entitled to rely on section 12(1) (cost of compliance) of FOIA to refuse to provide the requested information. No steps are required as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12(1)
View Rhondda Cynon Taf County Borough Council
22 Nov 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from Cleveland Police regarding data breaches for a specific period. Cleveland Police relied on section 12 of FOIA (cost of compliance) to refuse the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that Cleveland Police was entitled to rely on section 12(1) of FOIA to refuse the request. The Commissioner also finds that Cleveland Police did comply with its section 16 obligation to offer advice and assistance. The Commissioner does not require further steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12; FOI 16
View Cleveland Police
22 Nov 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about the legal cost of dealing with a protest during a specified period. The above public authority denied holding any information. The Commissioner’s decision is that the public authority did not hold the requested information at the time of the request and therefore complied with its duty under section 1 of FOIA. The Commissioner does not require further steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Queen Mary University of London
22 Nov 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested submitted a multi-part request to the Ministry of Defence (MOD) seeking information about its targeting lists. The MOD refused one part of the request on the basis of section 12(1) (cost limit), explained that information in relation to another part of the request was not held, confirmed that other parts of the requested information were held but were exempt on the basis of sections 23(1) (security bodies), 24(1) (national security), 26(1) (defence) and 27(1) (international relations), and also refused to confirm or deny whether it held any information in relation a particular part of the request on the basis of sections 23(5), 24(2) 26(3) and 27(4) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that: the information falling within the scope of parts 1-3 of the request is exempt from disclosure on the basis of sections 26(1)(a) and (b) of FOIA; the MOD is entitled to refuse to comply with part 5 of the request on the basis of section 12(1) of FOIA; and, the MOD i
Exemptions cited: FOI 12; FOI 26
View Ministry of Defence
22 Nov 2024Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The public authority has failed to respond to this request within 20 working days, as specified in the EIR. The Commissioner requires it to provide the complainant with a response to this request within 30 calendar days in accordance with its obligations under the EIR.
Exemptions cited: EIR 5(2)
View Powys County Council
21 Nov 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information held by Welland and Deepings Internal Drainage Board (the Board) about the maintenance of the water and drainage system in Fosdyke. The Board initially refused the complainant’s request as vexatious, citing section 14 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA). However, during the Commissioner’s investigation, the Board revised its position, and issued a fresh response to the complainant which stated that the requested information was not held. The Commissioner considers that the request is for environmental information and the EIR is the correct information access regime. However, he is satisfied that, on the balance of probabilities, the Board does not hold information that falls within scope of the complainant’s request.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(a)
21 Nov 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information regarding property valuation details. The Valuation Office Agency (VOA) said it not hold some of the information requested it also said that some of the information constituted the complainants own personal information. It withheld the remainder of the information under section 44(1)(a) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the VOA is correct to refuse the information under section 44(1)(a) of the FOIA.The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 44(1)(a)
View Valuation Office Agency
21 Nov 2024Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about reported network and information system incidents. The Department for Transport (‘the DfT’) provided some of the requested information but relied on section 24 of FOIA (national security) and section 31 of FOIA (law enforcement) to withhold the remainder of the requested information. The Commissioner’s decision is that the DfT was not entitled to rely on section 24 nor section 31 of FOIA to withhold the remainder of the requested information.
Exemptions cited: FOI 24; FOI 31
View Department for Transport
21 Nov 2024Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested copies of two documents sent from DIT to Border Force. 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
21 Nov 2024Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested specific data relating to the 2023–2024 Bradford on Avon Traffic Study. Wiltshire Council stated that the information was held but already publicly available for the purposes of regulation 6(1)(b) (Information already publicly available) of the EIR, on the basis that it could be provided for a charge. During the course of the Commissioner’s investigation the Council stated that it was now relying on regulation 12(4)(b) (manifestly unreasonable requests) of the EIR on the grounds that to comply with the request would incur an unreasonable burden on its resources. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council is entitled to rely on regulation 12(4)(b) of the EIR to refuse to comply with the request. However, the Council has not complied with its duty under regulation 9(1) of the EIR to provide advice and assistance to the complainant. The Commissioner requires the Council to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: Provide the co
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(b); EIR 9(1)
View Wiltshire Council
21 Nov 2024Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information associated with Governing Board meetings. Hillmead Primary School (‘the School’) disclosed a lot of information but withheld some under sections 36, 40, 41 and 43 of FOIA. These exemptions concern prejudice to the effective conduct of public affairs, personal data, information provided in confidence and commercial interests respectively. As a result of the Commissioner’s investigation, the School identified further information it considers it can disclose but it is continuing to withhold the remainder. The Commissioner’s decision is as follows: The School correctly applied section 36(2)(b)(ii) of FOIA to the information to which it has applied this exemption. The small amount of information to which the School has applied sections 41(1) and 43(2) doesn’t engage these exemptions. The School hasn’t complied with sections 1(1) and 10(1) of FOIA as it hasn’t communicated all the non-exempt information within the statutory time frame. The School’s r
Exemptions cited: FOI 1(1); FOI 10(1); FOI 17; FOI 36(2)(b)(ii); FOI 41(1); FOI 43(2)
View HILLSTONE PRIMARY SCHOOL
21 Nov 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has made a series of requests relating to particular court orders, as well as the identity of, and oaths taken by, judges who sit in Courts in the North East of England. The Ministry of Justice (“MOJ”) relied on section 14(1) (vexatious requests) of FOIA to refuse the requests. The Commissioner’s decision is that the requests were vexatious and therefore the MOJ was entitled to rely upon section 14(1) of FOIA to refuse them. The Commissioner does not require the MOJ to take any further steps. Information Tribunal FT/EA/2024/0458 under appeal.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14(1)
View Ministry of Justice
21 Nov 2024Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
1. The complainant has requested information from Breda Academy in relation to the Year 8 curriculum. Breda Academy relied on section 12(1) of FOIA (cost of compliance) to refuse the request.
2. 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.3. The Commissioner does not require further steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12(1)
21 Nov 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested copies of any letters held by Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead (the council) which it received from residential care providers requesting 16, 17 and 18% increases in their fee rates for 2024-25. The council refused the request, citing section 43(2) (commercial interests) of FOIA. During the Commissioner’s investigation, the complainant confirmed that they were content for information that identified any care provider to be redacted before disclosure of the requested information. The Commissioner has decided that the council has failed to demonstrate that section 43(2) of FOIA is engaged in respect of the information held which falls within scope of the request that would not, if disclosed, identify any care provider. The Commissioner requires the council to disclose the information highlighted in yellow which has been provided separately to this decision notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 43(2)
View Windsor and Maidenhead Council
20 Nov 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested from the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) information relating to Oaths of Office. The MoJ refused a part of the request and cited section 14(2) (repeated requests) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the MoJ was entitled to refuse part 3 of the request under section 14(2) of FOIA, as it is a repeated request. The Commissioner does not require the MoJ to take any steps as a result of this decision. First-tier tribunal (General Regulatory chamber) information rights appeal FT/EA/2025/0110 under appeal.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14(2)
View Ministry of Justice
20 Nov 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from Tees Valley Combined Authority (TVCA) relating to meetings the Mayor attended in London during specific time periods. TVCA advised that it has provided all the information it holds. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, TVCA does not hold any additional information within the scope of the request. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Tees Valley Combined Authority
20 Nov 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The Commissioner’s decision is that the requested information about a named centre’s pilot training is exempt from disclosure under section 43(2) of FOIA, which concerns commercial interests. It’s not necessary for the Civil Aviation Authority to take any corrective steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 43(2)
View Civil Aviation Authority
20 Nov 2024Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to measures to help protect health case staff against Covid-19. UK Health Security Agency 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 UK Health Security Agency
20 Nov 2024Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to a claim they made to NHS Resolution. NHS Resolution has refused to disclose the requested information under section 40(1) of FOIA on the basis that it is the complainant’s own personal data. The Commissioner’s decision is that NHS Resolution was entitled to rely on section 40(1) of FOIA. However, he has recorded a procedural breach of section 17(1) of FOIA. The Commissioner does not require NHS Resolution to take any steps as a result of this decision notice. First-tier tribunal (General Regulatory chamber) information rights appeal FT/EA/2024/0468 appeal struck out.
Exemptions cited: FOI 17; FOI 40(1)
View NHS Resolution
19 Nov 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information regarding Operation Magnolia, specifically, how victims reported abuse to Cleveland Police. Cleveland Police relied on section 14(1) of FOIA (vexatious) to refuse the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the request was vexatious and therefore Cleveland Police was entitled to rely upon section 14(1) of FOIA to refuse it. The Commissioner does not require any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14(1)
View Cleveland Police
19 Nov 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to a settlement agreement made between the former CEO and Liverpool City Council (“the council”). The council provided a redacted copy of the agreement but said that it does not hold any other information falling within the scope of the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council does not hold any further information for the purposes of section 1 of FOIA. The Commissioner does not require the council to take any further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Liverpool City Council
19 Nov 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information concerning the life peerage which was granted to former Prime Minister David Cameron in November 2023.The Cabinet Office confirmed that they held information falling within scope of the request but they considered this information to be exempt in its entirety under section 37(1)(b)(information relating to the awarding of honours and dignities by the Crown). In addition to section 37(1)(b), the Cabinet Office advised that some of the withheld information was exempt under section 40(2)(third party personal data) and section 21 (information reasonably accessible to the applicant by other means).The Commissioner’s decision is that the Cabinet Office correctly applied section 37(1)(b) to the information held within scope of the request and that the balance of the public interest favours maintaining the exemption.The Commissioner does not require the Cabinet Office to take any steps in this matter. Information Tribunal FT/EA/2024/0454 under appeal.
Exemptions cited: FOI 37
View Cabinet Office
19 Nov 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information on the parties lobbying for and against proposed legislation regarding audit and corporate governance after the publication of a particular draft of the statutory instrument. DBT provided information with redactions withheld in reliance on FOIA section 36 – Prejudice to the effective conduct of public affairs; section 43 – Commercial interests; section 41 – Information provided in confidence and section 40 – Personal information. The Commissioner’s decision is that DBT has appropriately relied on FOIA exemption 36(2)(b)(ii) – Prejudice to the effective conduct of public affairs and section 40(2) – Personal information. The Commissioner finds that DBT has breached FOIA section 10(1) (time for compliance) by failing to provide the complainant with the information it subsequently disclosed, within 20 working days. It has also breached FOIA section 17(1)by failing to provide a refusal notice within 20 working days. The Commissioner does not require
Exemptions cited: FOI 36(2)(b); FOI 40(2)
View Department for Business and Trade
19 Nov 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested costing information about an appeal from the Metropolitan Police Service (the “MPS”). The MPS advised that some information was not held and it refused to provide the remainder citing sections 40(2) (Personal information) and 43(2) (Commercial interests) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the MPS does not hold some of the requested information. He also finds that, in respect of what is held, that section 40(2) is properly engaged. No steps are required.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 40
View Metropolitan Police Service
19 Nov 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested all internal flooding investigations and reports following flooding at a named property from Rhondda Cynon Taff County Borough Council (the Council). The Council originally considered the request under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the FOIA) and cited section 21 (information accessible to the applicant by other means). However, during the course of the Commissioner’s investigation, the Council reconsidered the request under the EIR and cited regulation 12(5)(b) (the course of justice) to refuse the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the information held relevant to this request is the complainant’s own personal data and that regulation 5(3) therefore applies. Information Tribunal FT/EA/2025/0007 under appeal.
Exemptions cited: EIR 5(3)
View Rhondda Cynon Taf County Borough Council
19 Nov 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested from the Teaching Regulation Agency (TRA) its operating expenditure for the services of legal firms regarding investigation and panel meetings or hearings. They also requested information about the protected characteristics of referred teachers, equality impact assessments, equal opportunity guidance/advice, and information related to prohibition orders. The TRA is an executive agency of (and therefore part of) the Department for Education (“DfE”). For the purposes of this notice the DfE will be referenced as the public authority. The TRA corresponded with the complainant but, in the circumstances, the Commissioner is satisfied that the complainant’s correspondence was, in effect, with the DfE and it is the DfE that has dealt with the complaint to the Commissioner. The DFE refused to provide the requested information, citing section 12(1) of FOIA - cost limit. The Commissioner’s decision is that the DfE is entitled to rely on section 12(1) of FOIA to refus
Exemptions cited: FOI 12(1); FOI 16
View Teaching Regulation Agency
19 Nov 2024Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested from Lambeth City Council (the Council) information about its leisure centres. The Council said it did not hold some information and refused to provide the remainder under section 43 (commercial interests) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has failed to comply with section 1 and section 10(1) of FOIA in that it has failed to answer the part of the request relating to usage data. It has also failed to demonstrate that the exemption at section 43(2) is engaged with respect to the revenue data.The Commissioner requires the Council to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation.• Disclose the requested usage data and revenue data as described in the 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 a
Exemptions cited: FOI 1(1)(a); FOI 10(1); FOI 43(2)
View London Borough of Lambeth
19 Nov 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about fraud losses incurred from accepting contactless payments. Transport for London (‘TfL’) relied on section 12 of FOIA to refuse the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that TfL was entitled to rely on section 12(1) of FOIA to refuse the request. The Commissioner also finds that TfL 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; FOI 16
View Transport for London
19 Nov 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about triaging data protection complaint cases. The Information Commissioner’s Office (‘the ICO’) provided links to the requested information and advised that some information was intended for future publication. The complainant expressed dissatisfaction with the ICO’s response and stated that further information was held. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, no further information is held within scope of the request. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Information Commissioner
19 Nov 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested various information about CCTV cameras. Warwick District Council disclosed information in response. The Commissioner’s decision is that no further information is held. The Commissioner does not require further steps but refers the Council to the observations contained in ‘Other matters’.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Warwick District Council
18 Nov 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
View London Borough of Lambeth
18 Nov 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from Yarl’s Wood Immigration Removal Centre Independent Monitoring Board (the IMB), namely guidance and other information available in the members’ section of the Independent Monitoring Boards website. During the course of the Commissioner’s investigation, the IMB stated that it does not hold the requested information for the purposes of FOIA,under the provisions of section 3(2)(a) (public authorities). The Commissioner’s decision is that the requested information is not held by the IMB for the purposes of FOIA. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: FOI 3
View Independent Monitoring Board
18 Nov 2024Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested the number of complaints received by Wakefield Council (the council) about noise nuisance at a particular property. The complainant also asked for the number of objections made by local residents to a planning application for the same property which had included concerns about noise. The council provided the complainant with the relevant number of local objections made in relation to the planning application, but refused to provide the number of complaints it had received about noise nuisance, citing regulation 13 (personal data) of the EIR. The Commissioner’s decision is that regulation 13 of the EIR is not engaged in respect of the withheld information. The Commissioner requires the council to disclose the number of complaints received (at the time of the receipt of the request) about noise nuisance for the property.
Exemptions cited: EIR 13
View Wakefield Council
18 Nov 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information about a specified facial recognition tool. Kent Police would neither confirm nor deny holding the requested information, citing sections 24(2) (national security) and 31(3) (law enforcement) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that Kent Police was entitled to rely on section 24(2) of FOIA. As he has found section 24(2) of FOIA to be engaged, the Commissioner has not deemed it necessary to consider Kent Police’s reliance on section 31(3) of FOIA. No steps are required as a result of this notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 24
View Kent Police