31 Oct 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from Mid Suffolk District Council (the Council) regarding a decision made in a complaint they submitted. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the Council does not hold any additional information within the scope of the request. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Mid Suffolk District Council
31 Oct 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about the Drew Report and the public authority’s handling of recent investigations into child sexual exploitation. The Chief Constable for South Yorkshire Police (“SYP”) refused parts of the request under section 41 (information provided in confidence) and stated other information was not held. The Commissioner’s decision is that SYP was entitled to rely on section 41 to refuse parts of the request. The Commissioner also finds some of the information requested represents the complainant’s own personal data, and therefore section 40(1) of the FOIA is engaged. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40(1); FOI 41
31 Oct 2024Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information from United Utilities Water Limited about Calgarth Pumping Station and Broomhill Pumping Station. 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. As the public authority has now responded, the Commissioner does not require further steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: EIR 5(2)
View United Utilities
31 Oct 2024Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested a copy of invoices paid for legal advice and the details of pledges paid in regards to two planning applications. The Ticehurst Parish Council (“the Council”) provided some information within the scope of the request, but denied holding anything further. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the Council has failed to conduct adequate searches for the requested information and has now confirmed further information is held. The Commissioner requires the Council to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. Conduct a fresh search for the requested information and either disclose the information located or issue an appropriate refusal notice under 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 and may be dealt w
Exemptions cited: EIR 5
30 Oct 2024Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to the Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office (FCDO) seeking correspondence between the FCDO in London and the British High Commission in Sri Lanka concerning David Cameron's involvement with the Colombo Port City. The FCDO disclosed some information in response to the request but sought to withhold further information on the basis of sections 27(1)(a), (c) and (d) (international relations) and 40(2) (personal data) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that these exemptions provide a basis upon which the FCDO can withhold the undisclosed information falling within the scope of the request. However, the Commissioner has concluded that the FCDO breached sections 10(1) and 17(1) of FOIA by failing to respond to the request within 20 working days. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 17; FOI 27; FOI 40
View Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office
30 Oct 2024Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from the University of Liverpool (the University) on requests for flexible working arrangements. The Commissioner’s decision is that the University is not entitled to rely on section 12(1) (cost limit) FOIA to refuse to comply with the request. The Commissioner requires the University issue a fresh response to the request which does not rely on section 12 FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12
View The University of Liverpool
30 Oct 2024Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested the entire contents of each of his complaint files. The above public authority’s final position was to rely on section 14 of FOIA (vexatious) to refuse the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the request was vexatious and therefore section 14(1) of FOIA was engaged. The public authority breached section 17 of FOIA as it failed to confirm, within 20 working days, that it was relying on section 14 to refuse the request. The Commissioner does not require further steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14; FOI 17
View Information Commissioner
30 Oct 2024Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested anonymised candidate interview information for a vacant position of a Visitor Services Manager. Queen’s University Belfast (QUB) relied on section 40(2) of FOIA (third party personal information) to withhold the information.The Commissioner’s decision is that the QUB has correctly relied on section 40(2) of FOIA to withhold the information. However, in failing to provide its refusal within the statutory timeframe QUB breached section 17 (refusal notice) of FOIA.The Commissioner does not require further steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 17; FOI 40(2)
View Queen's University Belfast
30 Oct 2024Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information from the London Borough of Waltham Forest (the Council) relating to a specific planning application. The Council disclosed the information which it held. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the Council does not hold any additional information within the scope of the request. The Commissioner also finds that the Council breached regulation 11 of the EIR by failing to conduct an internal review. The Commissioner does not require further steps. Information Tribunal FT/EA/2024/0462 appeal dismissed.
Exemptions cited: EIR 11; EIR 5
View Waltham Forest Council
30 Oct 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested a range of information relating to a specific councillor. Guildford Borough Council (the “Council”) relied on section 12 of FOIA (cost of compliance) to refuse the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has properly relied on section 12(1) of FOIA for the reasons set out in this notice. He also finds that the Council complied with its advice and assistance obligations in accordance with section 16 of FOIA. No steps are required as a result of this notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12; FOI 16
View Guildford Borough Council
30 Oct 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested from the Department of Justice (Northern Ireland) (‘the DoJ’) information about the Public Prosecution Service for Northern Ireland (‘the PPSNI’), a separate public body. The DoJ said that it did not hold the information specified in the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the DoJ does not hold the requested information.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Department of Justice (Northern Ireland)
30 Oct 2024Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested a copy of an investigation report and electronic communications concerning the investigation between UK Research and Innovation (‘UKRI’) and the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology (‘DSIT’). UKRI provided redacted copies of the requested information and relied on section 41 of FOIA and section 40(2) of FOIA to withhold the redacted information. It also relied on section 22 of FOIA to withhold draft social media guidance attached to one of the redacted copies of correspondence. The Commissioner’s decision is that UKRI was entitled to rely on sections 41 and 40(2) to withhold the redacted information. He also finds that UKRI was entitled to rely on section 22 to withhold the draft social media guidance. The Commissioner also finds that UKRI breached sections 10(1) and 17(1) of FOIA by failing to provide the requested information and to provide a refusal notice for withholding some of the requested information within 20 working days. The Commiss
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 17; FOI 22; FOI 40(2); FOI 41
View UK Research and Innovation
30 Oct 2024Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The Commissioner’s decision is that Goldsmiths’ College, (‘the College’) is entitled to rely on section 12(1) of FOIA to refuse the complainant’s request for information about contracts. This is because complying with the request would exceed the appropriate cost limit. However, the College should have offered the complainant advice and assistance to help them submit a refined request, and therefore it didn’t comply with its obligation under section 16(1) of FOIA.The Commissioner requires the College to take the following step to ensure compliance with the legislation: Provide the complainant with appropriate advice and assistance to help them formulate a request that is likely to fall within the appropriate cost limit.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12(1); FOI 16(1)
30 Oct 2024Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information from Cheshire West and Chester Council (“the Council”) regarding road closures. The Council has refused the request under regulation 12(4)(b) of the EIR (manifestly unreasonable) on the grounds that to comply with the request would incur unreasonable costs. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has failed to demonstrate that the exception at regulation 12(4)(b) is engaged. The Commissioner requires the Council to take the following step to ensure compliance with the legislation: issue a fresh response that does not rely on regulation 12(4)(b).
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(b)
View Cheshire West and Chester Council
30 Oct 2024Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information associated with two meetings about the Deposit Return Scheme (DRS), and one meeting with the Net Zero Technology Centre (NZTC). Scotland Office disclosed some information and withheld the remainder under regulations 12(4)(e), 12(5)(f) and 13 of the EIR, which concern internal communications, the interests of the information provider and personal data, respectively. During the Commissioner’s investigation Scotland Office decided that the majority of the information wasn’t environmental information and applied various FOIA exemptions, though it also cited regulation 12(5)(e) of the EIR at this point. This exception concerns commercial confidentiality. However, Scotland Office’s final position is now that the majority of the information is environmental information, to which the above EIR exceptions apply. It considers section 35 of FOIA applies to the remainder. The Commissioner’s decision is as follows: Scotland Office correctly applied regulation 1
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(e); EIR 12(5)(e); EIR 12(5)(f); FOI 35(1)(a)
View Scotland Office
30 Oct 2024Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from Mid Devon District Council relating to a report produced by a working group into the lessons learned from 3 Rivers Developments. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the Council holds information within the scope of part 2 of the request and further information within the scope of part 3 of the request, beyond the list in the working group report. The Commissioner requires the Council to take the following step to ensure compliance with the legislation: issue a fresh response to the request to the complainant, having carried out further searches to identify any information held within the scope of parts 2 and 3 of the request. These searches should not be limited to identifying existing lists, but should be designed to identify any information held within the scope of these two parts of the request including “building blocks” of information.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1(1)
View Mid Devon District Council
30 Oct 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The Commissioner’s decision is that the information the complainant has requested about the Report Packaging Data (RPD) service is excepted from disclosure under regulation 12(5)(e) of the EIR, which concerns commercial interests. It’s not necessary for Defra to take any corrective steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(e)
29 Oct 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The Commissioner’s decision is that the ICO is entitled to refuse the complainant’s request for information about its work because the request is vexatious under section 14(1) of FOIA. It’s not necessary for the ICO to take any corrective steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14(1)
View Information Commissioner
29 Oct 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information regarding a safeguarding complaint he made about an incident at a school. Norfolk County Council (‘the Council’) disclosed some information. It withheld a small amount of information under section 40 (Personal information) of FOIA. It also confirmed to the complainant that it did not hold any further information falling within the scope of the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council was entitled to withhold the name and email address of an Ofsted staff member under section 40(2) of FOIA. He finds that, on the balance of probabilities, the Council does not hold any further information falling within the scope of the request. The Commissioner does not require further steps as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 40
View Norfolk County Council
29 Oct 2024Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information about riverbank restoration work. The Environment Agency (‘EA’) initially relied on regulation 12 (4)(b) of the EIR to refuse the whole request but later disclosed some of the requested information and only relied on regulation 12(4)(b) of the EIR to refuse point seven of the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that EA was entitled to relying on regulation 12(4)(b) to refuse point seven of the request. The Commissioner also finds that EA complied with its duty to provide advice and assistance under regulation 9 of the EIR. However, EA breached regulations 5, 14 and 11 of the EIR by failing to provide a response, a relevant refusal notice and a reconsideration within the required timescales. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 11; EIR 12(4)(b); EIR 14; EIR 5(2)
View Environment Agency
29 Oct 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information relating to an enforcement case from the Peak District National Park Authority (“the authority”). The authority disclosed some information however it withheld other information under Regulation 12(4)(e) (internal communications) and Regulation 12(5)(b) (course of justice). The Commissioner’s decision is that the authority was correct to apply Regulation 12(4)(e), and Regulation 12(5)(b) to withhold the information from disclosure. The Commissioner does not require the authority to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(e); EIR 12(5)(b)
View Peak District National Park Authority
29 Oct 2024Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information held by Oxford City Council (the council) about complaints it has received relating to alleged misconduct of staff employed by Oxford Direct Services Ltd (ODSL). Whilst the council originally refused the request under section 40(2) (third party personal information) of FOIA, during the Commissioner’s investigation, it revised its position and provided the complainant with some of the requested information. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council is entitled to rely on section 40(2) as its basis for refusing to provide the remaining withheld information. However, as the council failed to provide the information that it did disclose to the complainant within the statutory timescales specified under FOIA, the Commissioner has recorded a breach of section 10(1) (time for compliance).
Exemptions cited: FOI 10(1); FOI 40(2)
View Oxford City Council
29 Oct 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from the BBC about the selection of audience members for the television programme Question Time. 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
29 Oct 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about M2C forms and the procedure to make licensing decisions from information about medical conditions. The Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency (‘the DVLA’) provided a redacted copy of the M2C decision process map but relied on section 31(1)(a) of FOIA to withhold the redacted information. The Commissioner’s decision is that the DVLA was entitled to rely on section 31(1)(a) of FOIA to withhold the redacted information. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 31
View Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency
28 Oct 2024Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested a copy of a report assessing the risks associated with ‘volumetric’ modular construction. The Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (the MHCLG) refused the request citing regulation 12(4)(d) (material which is still in the course of completion). The Commissioner’s decision is that the MHCLG was not entitled to rely on regulation 12(4)(d) to withhold the requested information. The Commissioner requires the MHCLG to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. Disclose a copy of the requested report to the complainant.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(d)
View Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government
28 Oct 2024Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information relating to meetings on carbon capture from the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (DESNZ). DESNZ has failed to respond to this request within 20 working days, as specified under regulation 5(2) of 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 Department for Energy Security and Net Zero
28 Oct 2024Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested target dates for completion of work to address safety issues on a specific building. The Ministry Of Housing, Communities and Local Government (“MHCLG”) initially refused the request under the exemption for information provided in confidence (section 41). During the Commissioner’s investigation it revised its position to rely on the exemption for health and safety (section 38). The Commissioner’s decision is that the exemption in section 38(1)(b) is engaged but that the public interest favours disclosing the information. The Commissioner requires MHCLG to disclose the requested target dates to the complainant.
Exemptions cited: FOI 38
View Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government
28 Oct 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested training material about Operation Sommen. The Home Office refused to provide the requested information, citing both sections 31(1)(a) (the prevention or detection of crime) and 31(1)(e) (the operation of immigration controls) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Home Office was entitled to rely on sections 31(1)(a) and (e) of FOIA to refuse this request for the reasons set out in this notice. No steps are required as a result of this decision. Information Tribunal FT/EA/2024/0427 under appeal.
Keywords: small boat crossings, migrants
Exemptions cited: FOI 31
View Home Office
28 Oct 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested pre-application information relating to a specific site. Uttlesford District Council (the “Council”) withheld the requested information under the exception which relates to the interests of the information provider (regulation 12(5)(f)). The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council correctly applied regulation 12(5)(f) to the request. He does not require any steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(f)
View Uttlesford District Council
28 Oct 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to UAPs (Unidentified Aerial or Anomalous Phenomena) and/or UFOs (Unidentified Flying Objects). The Ministry of Defence (MOD) refused to confirm or deny that it held the requested information, citing sections 23 (security bodies), 24 (national security), 26 (defence) and 27 (international relations) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the MOD was entitled to rely on section 23(5) and section 27(4) to refuse to confirm or deny that it holds the requested information. No steps are required. Information Tribunal FT/EA/2024/0442 under appeal.
Exemptions cited: FOI 23; FOI 27
View Ministry of Defence
28 Oct 2024Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from NHS England (NHSE) related to a protected disclosure that had been made in October 2020 by several members of staff at the Christie NHS Foundation Trust. NHSE refused to provide the requested information citing section 31(1)(g) – law enforcement, section 41(1) – information provided in confidence, and section 40(2) – personal information. NHSE later cited section 14(1) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that NHSE has correctly cited section 14(1). However, the Commissioner has found that NHSE failed to rely on section 14 within 20 working days, and therefore breached section 17(5) of FOIA. The Commissioner does not require further steps. Information Tribunal FT/EA/2024/0457 under appeal.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14(1); FOI 17(5)
View NHS England
25 Oct 2024Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information relating to street lighting. Flintshire County Council (the council) refused the request under regulation 12(4)(b) of the EIR as manifestly unreasonable. The Commissioner’s decision is that regulation 12(4)(b) is not engaged. The Commissioner requires the council to issue a fresh response to the complainant in accordance with the EIR, without relying on regulation 12(4)(b) of the EIR within 30 calendar days. Information Tribunal FT/EA/2024/0450 appeal consent order.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(b)
View Flintshire County Council
25 Oct 2024Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information produced by UKRI in response to an open letter from the Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology. UKRI confirmed information was held but was being withheld under section 36(2), section 42, section 38 and section 40(2). UKRI disclosed some emails with information redacted under section 40(2). During the course of the Commissioner’s investigation UKRI agreed it could now provide some of the names of senior staff from the disclosed information and the documents previously withheld under section 38. The Commissioner’s decision is that UKRI is entitled to rely on section 36(2)(b)(i) and (ii), section 42(1) to withhold the remaining requested information and section 40(2) for the names/contact information of any junior staff and third parties. The Commissioner finds that UKRI has breached FOIA section 10(1) by failing to respond within the time for compliance. It has also breached section 17(3) in delaying the provision of its refus
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 17; FOI 36; FOI 40; FOI 42
View UK Research and Innovation
25 Oct 2024Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to the Council of Goldsmiths, University of London’s (the university) cash balance figure and Transformation Programme. The university has failed to respond to two requests within 20 working days, as specified under FOIA. The Commissioner requires it to provide the complainant with a response to these requests within 30 calendar days in accordance with its obligations under FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
25 Oct 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from the Council for Curriculum Examinations & Assessments (‘the CCEA’) relating to specific job posts. The CCEA disclosed the information it held. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the CCEA does not hold any additional information within the scope of the request. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Northern Ireland Council for the Curriculum, Examinations and Assessment
25 Oct 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested environmental assessments and all other information held about a proposed desalination plant. Cornwall Council (the “Council”) confirmed that it did not hold environmental assessments and that other information could not be provided on grounds of cost. The Commissioner’s decision is that, in relation to the request for environmental assessments, the Council correctly confirmed that the information was not held and regulation 12(4)(a) applies; in relation to other information on the desalination plant, the Commissioner finds that the Council was entitled to rely on regulation 12(4)(b) to refuse the request on cost grounds and that it complied with its duty to provide advice and assistance under regulation 9. The Commissioner does not require further steps. Information Tribunal FT/EA/2024/0387 appeal dismissed.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(b)
View Cornwall Council
25 Oct 2024Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from Chief Constable of Warwickshire Police about a county court judgement. 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 10) of FOIA. The public authority must provide a substantive response to the request in accordance with its obligations under FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Warwickshire Police
24 Oct 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to correspondence between the then Home Secretary and Prime Minister about the plan to send asylum seekers to Rwanda. The Home Office refused to provide the requested information, citing sections 35(1)(a) and (b) (formulation of government policy) of FOIA. The Commissioner has investigated the Home Office’s application of section 35(1)(b) to the requested information. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Home Office was entitled to rely on section 35(1)(b) of FOIA to withhold the requested correspondence. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: FOI 35
View Home Office
24 Oct 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information relating to drainage on a piece of land. Wealden District Council (“the council”) said that it does not hold any information falling within the scope of the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council does not hold any information falling within the scope of the request. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(a)
View Wealden District Council
24 Oct 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information from Birmingham City Council (“the council”) relating to a decision not to remove barriers from two parking bays in an area of the city. The council said that no relevant information is held by it. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council does not hold the requested information. The Commissioner does not require the council to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(a)
View Birmingham City Council
24 Oct 2024Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from Bath College (“the College”) relating to certain courses and members of staff. The College disclosed some information in response to the request, however it refused to disclose the remainder, citing section 40(2) of FOIA as a basis for non-disclosure.The Commissioner’s decision is that the College has failed to comply with sections 1(1)(b) and 10(1) of FOIA.The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10
24 Oct 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 Health and Safety Executive
24 Oct 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested deportation and/or refusal of leave to enter information about a high-profile figure. The Home Office relied on section 40(2) of FOIA (third party personal information) to withhold the information.The Commissioner’s decision is that the Home Office has correctly relied on section 40(2) of FOIA to withhold the information.The Commissioner does not require further steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40(2)
View Home Office
24 Oct 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from Cardiff Council (the Council), regarding a gating proposal for an alley at a specific location. The Council disclosed information in scope of the request and explained that it had redacted information relating to third parties under section 40(2) – personal information.
The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council was entitled to withhold the redacted information under section 40(2) of FOIA.
The Commissioner does not require any steps as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40(2)
View Cardiff Council
24 Oct 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
24 Oct 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested various information about investments made in local areas. Mid and East Antrim Borough Council initially disclosed some of the requested information but refused to comply with the remainder of the request under section 12(1) of FOIA (cost of compliance). It also advised that the some of the requested information was publicly accessible under section 21 (information accessible to applicant by other means). During the course of investigation, the Council explained to the Commissioner that having reviewed its handling of the request, it considered that it should have applied section 12(1) to the request in full. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council is entitled to apply section 12(1) to the request in full and has complied with the duty to provide advice and assistance under section 16 of FOIA. The Commissioner does not require further steps but refers the Council to the observations contained in ‘Other matters’.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12(1); FOI 16
24 Oct 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information relating to communications surrounding traffic flow. Royal Borough of Kingston Upon Thames (the council) disclosed some of the information but withheld the remainder under regulation 12(4)(b) (manifestly unreasonable requests) and 12(4)(e) (internal communications) of the EIR. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council was entitled to withhold the requested information under regulation 12(4)(b) and he does not require any further steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(b)
View Kingston upon Thames Council
24 Oct 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 refused to confirm or deny whether the requested information was held, citing section 31(3) (law enforcement) and section 40(5) (personal information) of FOIA. 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. Information Tribunal FT/EA/2024/0453 under appeal.
Exemptions cited: FOI 31(3)
View The Charity Commission
24 Oct 2024Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to a named police operation. The Commissioner’s decision is that the above public authority (“the public authority”) breached section 10(1) of FOIA by failing to provide a valid response to the request within the statutory time frame of 20 working days. The Commissioner does not require further steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10(1)
View Cleveland Police
23 Oct 2024Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested documents supplied by three manufacturers. The above public authority provided some information but withheld three documents relating to Jaguar Land Rover. It relied on regulations 12(5)(b) and 12(5)(e) of the EIR in order to do so. The Commissioner’s decision is that regulation 12(5)(e) of the EIR only applies to one of the three documents, however, where this exception does apply, the balance of the public interest favours maintaining it. The Commissioner does not consider that regulation 12(5)(b) applies to either of the remaining documents. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. Disclose the two documents provided to the Commissioner in pdf format. The public authority may make appropriate redactions to comply with its data protection obligations. Information Tribunal FT/EA/2024/0455 under appeal.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(b); EIR 12(5)(e)
View Vehicle Certification Agency