18 Nov 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information on a particular supplier of Skills Bootcamps, including the number of enrolments and successes. The Department for Education (DfE) refused the request under section 43 and 36 FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the DfE has correctly engaged the section 43(2) exemption and the balance of the public interest favours withholding the information. He requires no steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 43
View Department for Education
18 Nov 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about action taken against a particular awarding organisation. Ofqual relied on section 31(3) of FOIA to neither confirm nor deny whether it held the requested information. The Commissioner’s decision is that Ofqual was entitled to rely on section 31(3) to neither confirm nor deny whether it held the requested information. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 31(3)
View Ofqual
18 Nov 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about any misconduct proceedings brough about a named party during his time as a Police officer for Nottinghamshire Police (the Police). The Commissioner proactively applied section 40(5B) of FOIA (third party personal information) to the request, which allows the Police to refuse to confirm or deny whether the requested information is held. The Commissioner’s decision is that section 40(5B) of FOIA does apply to the requested information. He does not require steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40(5)(b)
View Nottinghamshire Police
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
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 partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information associated with a BBC ‘Panorama’ programme about the Blackmore Bonds collapse. The Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) has disclosed some of the information and withheld the remainder under sections 31, 36, 40, 42, 43 and 44 of FOIA. These exemptions concern law enforcement, effective conduct of public affairs, personal data, legal privilege, commercial interests and prohibitions on disclosure respectively. As a result of the Commissioner’s investigation, FCA identified further information it considered could be disclosed but it is continuing to withhold the remainder.The Commissioner’s decision is that FCA is entitled to rely on section 36(2)(b)(ii) to withhold some of the information within scope of the complainant’s request. FCA hasn’t complied with section 1(1) and section 10(1) of FOIA as it hasn’t communicated all the non-exempt information it holds within the required timescale. The Commissioner requires FCA to take the following step to e
Exemptions cited: FOI 1(1); FOI 10(1); FOI 36(2)(b)(ii)
View Financial Conduct Authority
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
15 Nov 2024Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested all policies and procedures relating to “unsatisfactory delivery” of duties from Humberside Police (the Police). The Police advised that it did not hold any information within the scope of the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that, the Police failed to seek clarification of the request under section 1(3) of FOIA and has therefore breached section 16(1) of FOIA. The Commissioner also finds that the Police breached section 10(1) and section 1(1)(a). The Commissioner requires the Police to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. Comply with section 16 of the FOIA by seeking clarification of the complainant’s request. Once clarification has been received, the Police must respond to the complainant in accordance with the FOIA. The Police 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
Exemptions cited: FOI 1(1)(a); FOI 10; FOI 16
View Humberside Police
15 Nov 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about Home Office policies and procedures for dealing with complaints about the police. The Home Office stated it did not hold the information. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the Home Office was correct to say that no information is held by it for the purposes of section 1 of FOIA. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Home Office
15 Nov 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested a range of information from the Ministry of Defence (MOD) about the Army Officer Selection Board. The MOD initially withheld all of the information falling within the scope of the request on the basis of section 26(1)(b) (defence) of FOIA. At the internal review it upheld this position with the exception of one piece information which it disclosed (albeit, the MOD noted that, at the time of the request this should have been withheld on the basis of section 22 of FOIA (information intended for future publication)). The Commissioner’s decision is that information which the MOD continues to withhold is exempt from disclosure on the basis of section 26(1)(b) of FOIA and that in all the circumstances of the request the public interest favours maintaining the exemption.
Exemptions cited: FOI 26
View Ministry of Defence
15 Nov 2024Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested a copy of the Council’s SEND good practice guide. Suffolk County Council (“the Council”) refused the request, citing section 12 of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council are not entitled to rely on section 12 of the FOIA to refuse the request. The Commissioner requires the Council to issue a fresh response to the request that does not rely on section 12. He refers the Council to the observations contained in ‘Other matters’ in issuing this fresh response.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12
View Suffolk County Council
15 Nov 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from the BBC about programme commissioning. The BBC responded that the requested information was covered by the derogation and hence excluded from FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that this information, if held at all, is held by the BBC for the purposes of journalism, art or literature and so is not covered by FOIA. He therefore upholds the BBC’s position and requires no steps to be taken in this case.
Exemptions cited: FOI 3
View BBC
15 Nov 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested from HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) information contained in 37 email chains sent and / or received by its General Counsel with specified key words and related to HMRC’s Loan Charge policy. HMRC provided some information but withheld the remainder relying on sections 40(2) (Personal information), 42(1) (Legal professional privilege) and 44(1)(a) (Prohibition on disclosure).During the course of the Commissioner’s investigation, HMRC provided further information within the scope of the request but withheld the remainder by virtue of section 42.The Commissioner’s decision is that HMRC was entitled to rely on section 42 to withhold the remaining requested information.The Commissioner does not require HMRC to take any steps as a result of this decision notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 42(1)
14 Nov 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested LGSCO to disclose information relating to a complaint they brought to it concerning a local authority and property address information. LGSCO confirmed that it does not hold information relating to questions one and two of the request. In relation to question three, it disclosed the recorded information it holds. The Commissioner’s decision is that on the balance of probabilities LGSCO does not hold any further recorded information to that already disclosed and that it has met its obligations under FOIA in relation to each element of the request. The Commissioner does not require any further steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman
14 Nov 2024Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information about meetings between Thames Water and the Labour Party. Thames Water’s position was that none of the information was environmental information and so it wasn’t obliged to comply with the request. It subsequently acknowledged that some information was environmental information and disclosed this. Thames Water’s position remains unchanged regarding the remaining information. The Commissioner’s decision is that the remaining information that falls within scope of the complainant’s request isn’t environmental information under regulation 2(1) of the EIR. In respect of the environmental information it disclosed, Thames Water didn’t comply with regulation 5(2), which concerns timeliness. It’s not necessary for Thames Water to take any further steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 2(1); EIR 5(2)
14 Nov 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(1)
View University of Bedfordshire
14 Nov 2024Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information on the findings of an independent review into operational concerns and the conduct of Trust Board members. Bradford Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust (‘the Trust’) relied on section 31(1)(g) of FOIA (law enforcement) and section 40(2) of FOIA (third party personal information) to withhold the requested information. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Trust was entitled to rely on section 31(1)(g) of FOIA to withhold the independent review report. However, he finds that while section 31(1)(g) is engaged, the public interest favours disclosing some of the information caught by this exemption. The Commissioner requires the Trust to disclose the contents of part one and part two of the ‘Recommendations’ section outlined in the report. Information Tribunal FT/EA/2025/0004 under appeal.
Exemptions cited: FOI 31(1)(g)
View Bradford Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust
14 Nov 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 35 calendar days in accordance with its obligations under FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Post Office Ltd
14 Nov 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request for information regarding a named employee’s attendance at tribunals for the department.
The MOD initially responded citing section 14(1) (vexatious) of FOIA to withhold the requested information. However, at internal review, it changed its reliance to section 12(1) (cost of compliance) of FOIA to refuse the request.
The Commissioner’s decision is that the MOD 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 Ministry of Defence
14 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 Homes England has not provided the complainant with a substantive response to part 2 of the request. Therefore the Commissioner finds a breach of section 10. Homes England must provide a substantive response to part 2 of the request in accordance with its obligations under FOIA. Homes England must take this step within 30 calendar days of the date of this decision notice. Failure to comply may result in the Commissioner making written certification of this fact to the High Court pursuant to section 54 of FOIA and may be dealt with as a contempt of court.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Homes England
13 Nov 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information about the support provide to the victims of the crimes which Operation Magnolia focuses on. 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
13 Nov 2024Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested legal advice relating to decisions about the Green Belt. Epsom & Ewell Borough Council (the “Council”) disclosed some information and withheld other information under the exemption for legal professional privilege (section 42 of the FOIA). During the Commissioner’s investigation the Council reconsidered the request under the EIR, confirming that some information was not held and that some information was being withheld under the exception for the course of justice (regulation 12(5)(b)).The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council correctly withheld the requested legal advice under regulation 12(5)(b) but failed to provide a response and a refusal notice in time and breached regulation 5(2) and regulation 14(2). The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(b); EIR 14(2)(1); EIR 5(2)
View Epsom and Ewell Borough Council
13 Nov 2024Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information from Transport for London (TfL) about ULEZ cameras. TfL provided explanation as to the technology it uses and ultimately confirmed that it did not hold the information. Though not specified by TfL, this falls under regulation 12(4)(a) of the EIR – information not held. The Commissioner’s decision is that TfL, on the balance of probabilities, does not hold the requested information. However, the Commissioner finds that TfL breached regulation 14(2) of the EIR by failing to issue a refusal notice within the statutory timescale. The Commissioner does not require further steps. Information Tribunal FT/EA/2024/0459 under appeal.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(a); EIR 14(2)
View Transport for London
13 Nov 2024Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information from the London Borough of Hackney (the council). By the date of this notice the council had not issued a substantive response to this request.The Commissioner’s decision is that the council has failed to respond to the request within 20 working days and has therefore breached regulation 5(2) of the EIR.The Commissioner requires the council to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation.• Issue a substantive response to the request in accordance with its obligations 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 Freedom of Information Act 2000 and may be dealt with as a contempt of court.
Exemptions cited: EIR 5(2)
View London Borough of Hackney
13 Nov 2024Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant made a request for information relating to the number of speeding fines issued between junctions 24 and 25 near Bredbury from 2014 to 2023. Greater Manchester Police (GMP) refused to confirm nor deny whether the requested information was held citing section 31(3) (law enforcement) and section 38(2) (health and safety) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that GMP was not entitled to rely on section 31(3) or section 38(2) of FOIA to neither confirm nor deny whether it holds the requested information. The Commissioner therefore requires issue a fresh response to the request which confirms or denies that the requested information is held. If the requested information is held, it should either be disclosed or GMP should issue refusal notice explaining why it is exempt from disclosure.
Exemptions cited: FOI 31(3); FOI 38
View Greater Manchester Police
13 Nov 2024Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to unpublished economic impact assessments from the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (DESNZ). DESNZ 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 DESNZ was entitled to rely on section 12(1) to refuse to comply with the request. However, the Commissioner finds that DESNZ did not comply with its section 16(1) obligation to offer advice and assistance in relation to the request but, as it has now provided advice to assist in narrowing the request, no further steps are therefore required.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12(1); FOI 16
View Department for Energy Security and Net Zero
13 Nov 2024Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to the National Business Crime Solution (‘NBCS’). The Home Office agreed to disclose a transcript of a speech, but it said a meeting note was exempt under section 35(1)(a) (Formulation of government policy) of FOIA. In the event that the Commissioner disagreed, its reserve position was that sections 36(2)(b)(i) and (ii) (Prejudice to conduct of public affairs) applied to the information. The Commissioner’s decision is that sections 35(1)(a) and 36(2)(b)(i) are not engaged. As regards section 36(2)(b)(ii), the Commissioner’s decision is that the exemption is engaged, but that in view of related information in the public domain at the time of the request, the public interest favours disclosure. The Commissioner requires the Home Office to disclose the ‘readout’ requested in the second bullet point. Personal data of junior civil servants and private sector attendees who are not already identified in the published summary of the meeting, m
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10; FOI 35; FOI 36
View Home Office
12 Nov 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested survey sheets for a number of specific properties. The Valuation Office Agency (the VOA) refused the request under section 44(1)(a) of the 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 any steps. Information Tribunal FT/EA/2024/0467 appeal withdrawn.
Exemptions cited: FOI 44
View Valuation Office Agency
12 Nov 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested details of three valuations. The above public authority relied on section 44 of FOIA (statutory prohibition) to refuse to confirm or deny that the information was held. The Commissioner’s decision is that the public authority was entitled to rely on section 44 of FOIA to refuse to confirm or deny that the information was held. The Commissioner does not require further steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 44
View Valuation Office Agency
12 Nov 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested copies of legal agreements connected to “The Met: Policing London” TV programme from the Metropolitan Police Service (the “MPS”). The MPS 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 the MPS was entitled to rely on section 43(2) of FOIA to withhold the remaining information. He does not require any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 43
View Metropolitan Police Service
12 Nov 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information in respect of motoring offences in Halifax and Wakefield. The above public authority (“WYP”) relied on section 12(1) of FOIA (cost of compliance) to refuse the request.The Commissioner’s decision is that WYP was entitled to rely on section 12(1) of FOIA to refuse the request. The Commissioner also finds that WYP complied with its section 16 obligation to offer advice and assistance. Information Tribunal FT/EA/2024/0452 appeal struck out.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12(1); FOI 16
View West Yorkshire Police
12 Nov 2024Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested records relating to the use of specific chemicals in the Wrexham area. The above public authority stated that it did not hold the information. The Commissioner’s decision is that the requested information is held on behalf of the public authority. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. Issue a fresh response, to the request, on the basis that the information is held for the purposes of the EIR.Keywords: held on behalf of, Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009
Exemptions cited: EIR 3(2)
View Health and Safety Executive
12 Nov 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information from Northumberland County Council (“the Council”) relating to a planning application. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council is entitled to rely on regulation 12(4)(b) (manifestly unreasonable) to withhold the information requested in parts 1 and 3 of the request. He also finds that the Council complied with its obligations under regulation 9 of the EIR to offer advice and assistance. The Commissioner does not require the Council to take any steps. Information Tribunal FT/EA/2024/0449 under appeal.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(b); EIR 9
View Northumberland County Council
12 Nov 2024Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested NHSE to disclose a copy of one page of a 1939 Transcript Book. NHSE refused to comply with the request citing section 14 of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that NHSE is not entitled to rely on section 14 of FOIA. He has also recorded a breach of section 10 of FOIA for failing to respond to the request within 20 working days of receipt. The Commissioner requires NHSE to issue a fresh response to the complainant which does not rely on section 14 of FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 14
View NHS England
12 Nov 2024Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested copies of the noise and traffic model files used by Shropshire Council in its planning application for the North West Relief Road. Shropshire Council (‘the Council’) provided some of the requested information, and relied on regulation 12(5)(c) (intellectual property rights) to withhold information relating to instructional noise and traffic model files. In follow-up correspondence to its internal review response, the Council stated that it did not hold the noise and traffic model files. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council does not hold the requested information, nor is it held on the Council’s behalf. He also finds that the Council breached regulations 5(2) and 14 of the EIR by failing to disclose the requested information or issue a refusal notice within the statutory time limit. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 14; EIR 5(1); EIR 5(2)
View Shropshire Council
12 Nov 2024Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information relating to a planning application. London Borough of Croydon (the Council) provided information falling within the scope of the request but the complainant argued that it would hold additional recorded information. The Commissioner has investigated whether the Council holds further information within the scope of the request (regulation 5 (duty to make available environmental information on request) of the EIR). The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council does not hold further information within the scope of the request and therefore complied with regulation 5(1) of the EIR. However, he finds a procedural breach of regulation 5(2). The Commissioner requires no steps as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: EIR 5
View London Borough of Croydon
12 Nov 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about ‘New Burdens’ funding for two public authorities. The Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government denied that the information was held. The Commissioner’s decision is that no information is held. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government
12 Nov 2024Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant submitted an information request to Hertford Heath Parish Council (the council) for correspondence and findings in relation to a site assessment and process. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council was correct in applying regulation 12(4)(b) (manifestly unreasonable) of the EIR to the request. However, he finds that the public interest in maintaining the exception does not outweigh the public interest in disclosure. He also finds that the council did not comply with the requirements of regulation 5(2) (time for compliance), regulation 14 (refusal to disclose information) and regulation 11(4)(time for review) of the EIR. The Commissioner requires the council to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation.• Issue a fresh response to the request that does not rely on regulation 12(4)(b). • In relation to the Aecom site assessment report, conduct fresh searches to see if any third parties, working on the council’s behalf holds the first draft
Exemptions cited: EIR 11(4); EIR 12(4)(b); EIR 14(1); EIR 5(2)
12 Nov 2024Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested the number of listed procedures carried out by a named surgeon. The Northern Health and Social Care Trust (the Trust) refused the request under section 40(2) of FOIA (third party personal data). The Commissioner’s decision is that the Trust was not entitled to rely on section 40(2) to refuse the request. The Commissioner requires the Trust to disclose the requested information to the complainant.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View Northern Health and Social Care Trust
12 Nov 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 35 calendar days in accordance with its obligations under FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View London Borough of Croydon
12 Nov 2024Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from Dorset County Hospital NHS Foundation Trust. The Commissioner’s decision is that the public authority has failed to respond to the request within 20 working days and has therefore breached section 1 of FOIA. The public authority must provide a substantive response to the request in accordance with its obligations under FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Dorset County Hospital NHS Foundation Trust
11 Nov 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, Girton College, University of Cambridge (‘the College’) doesn’t hold the requested information about A-level raw scores and TMUA scores. The College has complied with sections 1(1)(a) of FOIA, and no corrective steps are necessary.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1(1)(a)
11 Nov 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about an officer conduct investigation from West Yorkshire Police (“WYP”). WYP denied holding some of the information and refused to provide the remainder citing sections 30(1)(a) (Investigations and proceedings), 31(1)(g)(2)(a)(b) (Law Enforcement) and 40(2) (Personal information) of FOIA; it subsequently removed reliance on section 31. During the Commissioner’s investigation, WYP disclosed further information but maintained reliance on sections 30(1) and 40(2) of FOIA for the remainder. The Commissioner’s decision is that WYP handled the request appropriately. He does not require any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 30; FOI 40
View West Yorkshire Police
11 Nov 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about flights chartered for the purposes of deporting or administratively removing people from the UK. The Home Office relied on section 12(1) of FOIA (cost of compliance) to refuse the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Home Office was entitled to rely on section 12(1) of FOIA to refuse the request. The Commissioner also finds that the public authority complied with its section 16 obligation to offer advice and assistance. The Commissioner does not require the Home Office to take any remedial steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12; FOI 16
View Home Office
11 Nov 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested copies of correspondence from a specific complaint. The Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman (“the public authority”) refused to provide the requested information, citing section 44(1)(a) (prohibitions on disclosure). The Commissioner’s decision is section 44 has been correctly applied and the information is exempt. The Commissioner does not require further steps. Information Tribunal FT/EA/2024/0443 under appeal.
Exemptions cited: FOI 44(1)(a)
View The Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman
11 Nov 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information concerning the Home Office’s Identify and Prioritise Immigration Cases Business Rules. Ultimately, the Home Office responded to all parts of the request. It also provided some of the requested information with redactions under section 31(1)(e), (the FOIA exemption for the operation of immigration controls) and section 40(2) (personal information) of FOIA. The complainant confirmed that he was not concerned with the personal information withheld under section 40(2) of FOIA, so the Commissioner has disregarded this aspect. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Home Office correctly relied on section 31(1)(e) of FOIA to withhold the remaining redactions within the disclosed material. No steps are required as a result of this notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 31
View Home Office
11 Nov 2024Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
1. The complainant requested information from Essex Police (the public authority). By the date of this notice the public authority had not issued a substantive response to this request. 2. The Commissioner’s decision is that the public authority has failed to complete its deliberations on the balance of the public interest within a reasonable time and has therefore breached section 17(3) of FOIA. 3. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following step to ensure compliance with the legislation. • Having confirmed whether or not information is held within the scope of the request: either disclose the requested information or, to the extent that information is to be withheld, issue a refusal notice in accordance with the requirements of section 17 of the FOIA.1 4. 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 Co
Exemptions cited: FOI 17(3)
View Essex Police
11 Nov 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to an allegation about a specific charity. The Charity Commission for England and Wales (the Charity Commission) refused to confirm or deny whether the requested information was held, citing section 31(3) (law enforcement) and section 41(2) (information provided in confidence) of FOIA. It later withdrew its reliance on section 41(2), citing section 40(5A) (personal information) instead to neither confirm or deny whether this information is held. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Charity Commission was correct to rely on section 31(3) of FOIA to neither confirm nor deny whether it held the requested information. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 31(3)
View The Charity Commission
11 Nov 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to HMRC’s use of Large Language Models and generative AI [Artificial Intelligence]. HMRC refused to confirm or deny that it held the requested information, citing section 31(3) in conjunction with section 31(1)(d) (prejudice to the assessment or collection of tax or duty). The Commissioner’s decision is that HMRC was entitled to refuse to confirm or deny that it holds the requested information. No steps are required. Information Tribunal FT/EA/2024/0472 appeal allowed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 31
11 Nov 2024Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested Hampshire County Council (the council) to disclose information relating to Shared Lives Agreements. The council responded to each element of the request, providing its response under FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council has now handled the complainant’s request in accordance with FOIA. He therefore does not require any further action to be taken. It was however noted that the council disclosed information to which the complainant was entitled late. The Commissioner has therefore recorded a breach of section 1 and 10 of FOIA. Information Tribunal FT/EA/2024/0477 appeal dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10; FOI 40
View Hampshire County Council