23 Oct 2024Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested from London Borough of Lambeth (the Council) information related to spending of £30,000 by the Council towards community improvement with regard to the redevelopment of Olive Morris House.In the first instance the Council confirmed that it held the information within the scope of the request and responded by answering a question to then changing the response at a later stage. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has breached section 1 of FOIA through an incorrect application of it to the FOI request and section 10 by exceeding the time for its response. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10
View London Borough of Lambeth
23 Oct 2024Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to vehicle details. The Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency (DVLA) has relied on section 14(1) of FOIA to refuse the request on the basis that it is vexatious. The Commissioner’s decision is that the DVLA is not entitled to rely on section 14 of FOIA. The Commissioner requires the DVLA to issue a fresh response to the complainant in accordance with FOIA, which does not rely on section 14 of FOIA within 30 calendar days.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14
View Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency
23 Oct 2024Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested from Poundstock Parish Council (the Council) information relating to the Community Hall. 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 Council has not issued a substantive response to this request. Therefore the Commissioner finds a breach of section 10. The Commissioner requires the Council to provide the complainant with a substantive response to this request within 30 calendar days in accordance with its obligations under FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
23 Oct 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
Summary wording for website: The complainant requested information from the BBC about complaints received relating to coverage of the Gaza conflict. 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. Information Tribunal FT/EA/2024/0433 appeal withdrawn.
Exemptions cited: FOI 3
View BBC
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
23 Oct 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information regarding a complaint submitted to Armagh City Banbridge and Craigavon Borough Council (the Council). The Commissioner’s decision is that the information, if it were held, would be the complainant’s own personal information. The Council was therefore entitled to rely on section 40(5A) of FOIA to refuse to confirm or deny that this information was held. The Commissioner does not require further steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40(5)(a)
23 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 30 calendar days in accordance with its obligations under FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View University of Bedfordshire
22 Oct 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested various information in respect of electric bikes and regarding Brachers solicitors from Dover District Council (the Council). The Council refused the request on the basis that it was vexatious, citing section 14(1) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council was entitled to refuse the request on the basis of section 14(1) of the FOIA. The Commissioner does not require any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14(1)
View Dover District Council
22 Oct 2024Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested bus audio announcements. Reading Transport Limited (trading as ‘Reading Buses’) (“RTL”) refused the request under the exemption in section 43 (commercial interests). The Commissioner’s decision is that RTL failed to demonstrate that the exemption in section 43 is engaged and breached section 17 by failing to issue a proper refusal notice. The Commissioner requires RTL to disclose the requested audio announcements to the complainant.
Exemptions cited: FOI 17; FOI 43
View Reading Borough Council
22 Oct 2024Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a follow-up request to Ticehurst Parish Council (the Council) on 19 August 2024 seeking information about a specific planning application.
A public authority will breach section 10 of FOIA if it fails to respond to a request within 20 working days. On 16 September 2024, the complainant wrote to the public authority, reminding it of its responsibilities and asking it to provide a response to their request. The public authority sent a partial response on the same day stating it believed the complainant was vexatious but also asking for clarification of part two of the request.
The complainant clarified part two of their request on 17 September 2024 and followed this up on 28 September 2024 as they had not received a response.
The commissioner wrote to the public authority on 3 October 2024 to remind it of its obligations, the public authority claimed it had responded on 16 September 2024, however, it was pointed out that the complainant had further r
Exemptions cited: FOI 10(1)
22 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 Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust
22 Oct 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from the Royal Horticultural Society (the RHS). The RHS refused to provide the information as it stated that it was not subject to FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the RHS is not a public authority for the purposes of FOIA and was therefore not obliged to respond to the request. As the RHS is not a public authority, the Commissioner would be unable to order any remedial steps – even if any were necessary.
Exemptions cited: FOI 4
22 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 Leicestershire Police
22 Oct 2024Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested from Elmton with Creswell Parish Council (the Council) information relating to PWLB loan application submitted by the Council in 2020. The Council failed to respond to this request within 20 working days, as specified under FOIA, therefore, the Commissioner finds a breach of section 10 of FOIA. The Commissioner requires the Council 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
22 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 High Peak Borough Council
21 Oct 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office seeking two records concerning political parties in Hong Kong in the 1970s. The FCDO applied sections 23(1) (information supplied by, or relating to, bodies dealing with security matters) and 24(1) (national security) of FOIA, in the alternative, to refuse the request. The Commissioner’s decision that the FCDO was entitled to apply sections 23(1) and 24(1) in the alternative, to withhold the requested information. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 23; FOI 24
View Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office
21 Oct 2024Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information from High Peak Borough Council (“the council”) relating to a public consultation on its Local Development Plan. The council initially refused the request under Regulation 12(4)(d) of the EIR (material still in the course of completion). It subsequently withdrew its reliance upon this exception and published copies of the consultation responses. The complainant, however, disputes the council’s application of Regulation 13(1) of the EIR to redact the names and postcodes of some of the respondents. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council was correct to apply Regulation 13(1) to withhold post code information in relation to the respondents to the consultation, however he considers that it was not correct to apply it to withhold the names of the respondents. The Commissioner requires the council to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: To disclose the redacted names of the individuals who submitted consultation resp
Exemptions cited: EIR 13(1); EIR 5(2)
View High Peak Borough Council
21 Oct 2024Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information about several planning applications. Reigate & Banstead Borough Council (“the Council”) disclosed some information. It withheld a small amount of information, citing regulation 12(4)(e) (Internal communications) of the EIR. The Commissioner’s decision is that regulation 12(4)(e) is engaged, but the public interest in maintaining the exception is not sufficiently strong to overcome the presumption in favour of disclosure at regulation 12(2). He also finds that the Council breached regulation 11(4) of the EIR by failing to complete the internal review within 40 working days. The Commissioner requires the Council to disclose the withheld information, with appropriate redactions to conceal personal data.
Exemptions cited: EIR 11(4); EIR 12(4)(e)
View Reigate and Banstead Borough Council
21 Oct 2024Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested from HM Treasury (“HMT”) a Deed of Indemnity between HMT and the Bank of England. HMT has applied the exemptions under sections 29(1)(a), 29(1)(b), 31(1)(a), 31(1)(b) and 40(2) of FOIA as a basis for non-disclosure.The Commissioner’s decision is that HMT has correctly applied sections 29(1)(a) and (b) to part of the requested information (“the withheld information”). The Commissioner requires HMT to take the following step to ensure compliance with the legislation:-• Disclose the part of the requested information which is not highlighted.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 this fact to the High Court pursuant to section 54 of the Act and may be dealt with as an contempt of court.
Exemptions cited: FOI 29
View HM Treasury
21 Oct 2024Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested DfE to disclose all information on the Moderator Proposition, as submitted by them to the DfE. DfE refused to comply with the request citing section 14 of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that DfE is not entitled to rely on section 14 of FOIA. The Commissioner requires DfE to issue a fresh response to the complainant, which does not rely on section 14 of FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14
View Department for Education
21 Oct 2024Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about a safeguarding referral. The Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust (‘the Trust’) relied on section 14(2) of FOIA (repeated requests) to refuse the request. The Trust later confirmed to the Commissioner that it was relying on section 14(1) of FOIA to refuse the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Trust was entitled to rely on section 14(1) of FOIA to refuse the request. He also finds that the Trust breached section 17 of FOIA by failing to rely on the correct exemption when refusing the request. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14(1); FOI 17
View Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust
21 Oct 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. The public authority must provide a substantive response to the request in accordance with its obligations under FOIA. The public authority must take this step within 30 calendar days of the date of this decision notice. Failure to comply may result in the Commissioner making written certification of this fact to the High Court pursuant to section 54 of FOIA and may be dealt with as a contempt of court.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
21 Oct 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested “any and all” Ministerial submissions relating to Manston Immigration Centre, including a second refined version of the request (with a specified date range), should the original exceed the cost limit in section 12 of FOIA. Ultimately, the Home Office responded to the second refined version of the request, a position which the complainant has not challenged, so the Commissioner has not considered this aspect any further. The Home Office refused to provide the requested information citing the FOIA exemptions in section 31(1)(e) (the operation of immigration controls), section 35(1)(a) (the formulation or development of government policy), section 40(2) (personal information) and section 42(1) (legal professional privilege). The complainant was not concerned about the application of section 40(2) so the Commissioner has disregarded this from his investigation. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Home Office was entitled to rely on section 35(1)(a) of FOIA ap
Exemptions cited: FOI 35; FOI 42
View Home Office
21 Oct 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information regarding corruption-related intelligence from West Mercia Police (WMP). WMP refused to disclose the requested information, citing the exemptions at sections 23(5) and 31(1) (a) and (b) of FOIA as a basis for non-disclosure.2. The Commissioner’s decision is that appropriately applied the exemptions contained in sections 31(1)(a) and (b) of FOIA (law enforcement and the prevention or detection of crime and apprehension and prosecution of offenders) to withhold the information. 3. The Commissioner does not require WMP to take any steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. Information Tribunal FT/EA/2024/0423 under appeal.
Exemptions cited: FOI 31
View West Mercia Police
18 Oct 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested from Puxton Parish Council (the Council) information relating to the Annual Governance and Accountability Return (AGAR) statement 2022-23. The Council confirmed that it does not hold any further information other than what had been disclosed to the complainant. The Commissioner’s decision is that on the balance of probabilities, the Council does not hold any further information falling within scope of the request, and it has complied with section 1(1)(a) of FOIA. Therefore, the Commissioner does not require the Council to take any steps as a result of this decision. Information Tribunal FT/EA/2024/0448 appeal allowed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1(1)(a)
18 Oct 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested from the Department for Education (DfE) the day rates for consultants working on the SEND (Special Educational Needs and Disabilities) and AP (Alternative Provision) Change programme. The DfE refused to provide the information, citing section 43(2) of FOIA – commercial interests, section 41(1) of FOIA – information provided in confidence and section 40(2) of FOIA – personal information. The Commissioner’s decision is that the DfE correctly withheld the requested information under section 43(2) and that the public interest favours maintaining the exemption. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 43(2)
View Department for Education
18 Oct 2024Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to the Civil Service Pay remit guidance 2023 to 2024. The Home Office (HO) subsequently provided information or confirmed it did not hold information at the time of the request for parts 3 (a-e) of the request and relied on section 14(1) of FOIA (vexatious) to refuse the request for part 2. Some personal data at part 3(d) of the request was redacted under section 40(2) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the request at part 2 was vexatious and therefore HO was entitled to rely upon section 14(1) of FOIA to refuse it. Furthermore, he considers that the HO was entitled to redact/anonymise personal information for the disclosure made at part 3(d) of the request. He also finds that the HO breached section 10(1) of FOIA by failing to provide a response to the request within 20 working days. The Commissioner does not require any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10(1); FOI 14(1); FOI 40(2)
View Home Office
18 Oct 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested copies of past exam papers. The above public authority relied on section 43 of FOIA (commercial interests) to withhold the information. The Commissioner’s decision is that section 43 of FOIA is engaged and that the public interest favours maintaining the exemption. The Commissioner does not require further steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 43
View King's College London
18 Oct 2024Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information regarding highways rights in relation to a specific parking area. Kent County Council (the “Council”) disclosed some information and withheld other information under the exemption for legal professional privilege (section 42 of the FOIA). The Commissioner’s decision is that the request should have been handled under the Environmental Information Regulations 2004 (EIR) rather than the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA). The Commissioner also finds that the Council has breached regulation 11 by failing to issue an internal review within 40 working days. The Commissioner requires the Council to issue a fresh response to the request under the EIR.
Exemptions cited: EIR 11; EIR 5
View Kent County Council
18 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 30 calendar days in accordance with its obligations under FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
18 Oct 2024Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The Commissioner’s decision is that the public authority breached section 10(1) of FOIA by failing to provide a response within 20 working days. The Commissioner does not require further steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10(1)
17 Oct 2024Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to Goldsmiths College (University of London) on 2 June 2024 seeking information about Goldsmiths' relationships with consultants.
A public authority will breach section 10 of FOIA if it fails to respond to a request within 20 working days. On 5 July and 16 September 2024, the complainant wrote to the public authority, reminding it of its responsibilities and asking it to provide a response to their request. The public authority has failed to respond other than an acknowledgment of the initial request.
The public authority must provide a substantive response to the request in accordance with its obligations under FOIA.
The public authority must take this step within 30 calendar days of the date of this decision notice. Failure to comply may result in the Commissioner making written certification of this fact to the High Court pursuant to section 54 of FOIA and may be dealt with as a contempt of court.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10(1)
17 Oct 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to the Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office (FCDO) seeking information about a meeting between then Minister Anne-Marie Trevelyan and HSBC in April 2023. The FCDO disclosed information falling within the scope of the request but redacted further information on the basis of sections 27(1)(a) (international relations), 35(1)(a) (formulation or development of government policy), 40(2) (personal data) and 43(2) (commercial interests) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the various exemptions cited by the FCDO provide a basis to withhold the information which it has not disclosed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 27; FOI 35; FOI 40; FOI 43
View Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office
17 Oct 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
17 Oct 2024Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested a copy of the Equality Impact Assessment based on the increase in minimum salary threshold for sponsors of spouse or family visas. The Home Office refused the request citing section 22. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Home Office was not entitled to rely on section 22 of FOIA to withhold the requested information. As the requested information has since been published, the Commissioner does not require further steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 22
View Home Office
17 Oct 2024Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
Summary wording for website: The complainant requested information from London Borough of Haringey about anti-social behaviour. A public authority will breach section 10 of FOIA if it fails to respond to a request within 20 working days. Based on evidence available to the Commissioner, by the date of this notice the public authority has not issued a substantive response to this request. Therefore the Commissioner finds a breach of section 10. The public authority must provide a substantive response to the request in accordance with its obligations under FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Haringey Council
17 Oct 2024Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The Commissioner’s decision is that at the time of the request the Welsh Office was entitled to withhold some of the information the complainant has requested (“the withheld information”) under regulations 12(5)(e) and 13 of the EIR, which concern commercial interests and personal data of third parties. The Commissioner’s decision is also that some of the requested information does not fall under the above exceptions and the Commissioner considers that this should be disclosed to the complainant.The Commissioner orders the Welsh Office to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation:• To disclose the information to which neither regulation 12(5)(e) nor regulation 13 of the EIR applies, i.e. that information which it has not highlighted in either green or blue in the most recent copy provided to the Commissioner.The Welsh Office must take these steps within 30 calendar days of the date of this decision notice. Failure to comply may result in the Commissioner making
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(e); EIR 13
View Office of the Secretary of State for Wales
17 Oct 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested copies of bonfire risk assessments in the Council’s area. Armagh City, Banbridge & Craigavon Borough Council (“the Council”) withheld the information under regulation 12(5)(a) (national security or public safety). The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has correctly relied on regulation 12(5)(a) to withhold the requested information. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(a)
17 Oct 2024Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has made a multi-part request concerning various elements of Newcastle upon Tyne Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust’s operation, including information on waiting lists, budgets, and job descriptions. Newcastle upon Tyne Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust (‘the Trust’) provided responses for questions six to nine, but refused questions one to five under section 12 of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Trust was entitled to rely on section 12(1) of FOIA to refuse questions one to five of the request. However, he also finds that the Trust did not comply with its section 16 obligation to offer advice and assistance. The Commissioner requires the Trust to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: Provide the complainant with appropriate advice and assistance to help them refine their request so that it falls within the appropriate limit.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12; FOI 16
View THE NEWCASTLE UPON TYNE HOSPITALS NHS FOUNDATION TRUST
17 Oct 2024Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested, from London Councils (LC), information regarding the selection of a site for a proposed new secure children’s home in London. LC provided a link to published information, but refused to disclose other information, citing regulation 12(4)(d) of the EIR (material still in the course of completion, unfinished documents or incomplete data) as its basis for doing so. During the Commissioner’s investigation, LC applied an additional exception – namely regulation 12(5)(d) (confidentiality of proceedings) – to the withheld information. The Commissioner’s decision is that regulation 12(4)(d) is engaged and the public interest favours withholding the information; he also finds that LC has breached regulation 11(4) as its internal review was late by two days. The Commissioner doesn’t require any steps. Information Tribunal FT/EA/2024/0444 under appeal.
Exemptions cited: EIR 11; EIR 12(4)(d)
17 Oct 2024Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about care providers whose licence to sponsor visas had been revoked. The above public authority relied on sections 41 (breach of confidence) and 31 (law enforcement) to withhold the information. The Commissioner’s decision is that section 41 of FOIA is not engaged. Section 31 is engaged and the balance of the public interest favours maintaining this exemption. The Commissioner does not require further steps.Keywords: flow of information
Exemptions cited: FOI 31; FOI 41
View CQC
17 Oct 2024Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information from Purton Parish Council (“the Council”) relating to the revision of a neighbourhood plan. The Commissioner’s decision is that by failing to correctly identify the requested information and subsequently make that information available the Council has breached regulation 5(1) of the EIR. He also finds that the Council has breached regulation 5(2) of the EIR by failing to provide the requested information within 20 working days. The Commissioner requires the Council to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. The Council must provide the complainant with a fresh response to their information request which either discloses the requested information or issue a refusal notice which complies with regulation 14 of 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 pur
Exemptions cited: EIR 5(1); EIR 5(2)
17 Oct 2024Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested how many transfers and quantity by weight of special nuclear materials (for purposes other than nuclear threat reduction) had taken place each year since the end of 2014 to the date of the request. The Ministry of Defence (MOD) refused to provide this information, citing section 24(1) – (National Security), section 26(1)(a) and (b) (Defence) and section 27(1) (International relations) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the MOD cited section 24(1) of FOIA appropriately and that the public interest lies in withholding the requested information. However, the Commissioner has found that the MOD breached section 17(1)(b) of FOIA by relying later on exemptions it had not originally cited when it required extra time to consider the public interest. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 17; FOI 24
View Ministry of Defence
17 Oct 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
1. The complainant has requested information from Cala Homes (Chiltern) Limited regarding a specific sewage pumping station. Cala Homes (Chiltern) Limited explained that it was not a public authority for the purposes of the EIR and was therefore not obliged to provide the information.2. The Commissioner’s decision is that Cala Homes (Chiltern) Limited is not a public authority for the purposes of the EIR and therefore it was not obliged to provide the information.3. As Cala Homes (Chiltern) Limited is not a public authority, the Commissioner cannot require further steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: EIR 2(2)
17 Oct 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. The public authority must provide a substantive response to the request in accordance with its obligations under FOIA. The public authority must take this step within 30 calendar days of the date of this decision notice. Failure to comply may result in the Commissioner making written certification of this fact to the High Court pursuant to section 54 of FOIA and may be dealt with as a contempt of court.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Norfolk and Norwich University Hospitals
17 Oct 2024Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from the London Borough of Hackney (the Council) relating to letters sent to faith leaders. The Council relied on section 40(2) of FOIA (third party personal information) to withhold the information. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council breached section 16 of FOIA by failing to obtain the correct objective reading of the request. The Commissioner requires the Council to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. Contact the complainant to clarify 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 as a contempt of court.
Exemptions cited: FOI 16
View London Borough of Hackney
16 Oct 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. The public authority must provide a substantive response to the request in accordance with its obligations under FOIA. The public authority must take this step within 30 calendar days of the date of this decision notice. Failure to comply may result in the Commissioner making written certification of this fact to the High Court pursuant to section 54 of FOIA and may be dealt with as a contempt of court.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
16 Oct 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from Westminster City Council (the Council) relating to information uploaded by the Local Land and Property Gazetteer in 1999/2000. The Council refused the request under section 14(1) of FOIA (vexatious requests).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. Information Tribunal FT/EA/2024/0412 under appeal.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14(1)
View Westminster Council
16 Oct 2024Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested, from the Cabinet Office, information about government buildings where RAAC (reinforced autoclaved aerated concrete) is present and RAAC surveys. Whilst the Cabinet Office confirmed to the complainant that RAAC surveys have been carried out in Cabinet Office buildings, it withheld information on the basis of regulations 12(4)(d) (material still in the course of completion, unfinished documents or incomplete data), 12(4)(e) (internal communications) and 12(5)(a) (international relations, defence, national security or public safety) of the EIR. During the Commissioner’s investigation, the Cabinet Office confirmed to the Commissioner that the information being withheld in respect of part 3 of the request wasn’t actually held at the time the request was received, although it was held when the Cabinet Office responded to it. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Cabinet Office wasn’t entitled to rely on regulations 12(4)(d) or 12(4)(e) to withhold the informa
Exemptions cited: EIR 11; EIR 12(4)(a); EIR 12(4)(d); EIR 12(4)(e); EIR 14
View Cabinet Office
16 Oct 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested trading standards information associated with a specific kitchen provider. Nottinghamshire County Council (the “Council”) confirmed that some information was not held and withheld other information under the exemption for commercial interests (section 43). The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council is entitled to withhold the information under the exemption for commercial interests. The Commissioner does not require further steps. Information Tribunal FT/EA/2024/0437 appeal allowed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 43(2)
View Nottinghamshire County Council