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 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 copies of all documentation and correspondence concerning evidence submitted by their client for an application to the Non-Domestic Renewable Heat Incentive (NDRHI) Scheme. The Office of Gas and Electricity Markets (‘Ofgem’) provided some of the requested information but applied redactions relying on regulation 13 of the EIR. The Commissioner’s decision is that Ofgem was entitled to rely on regulation 13 of the EIR to withhold some of the requested information. He also finds that, on the balance of probabilities, no further information is held within scope of the request. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 13; EIR 5(1); EIR 5(2)
View Office of Gas and Electricity Markets
16 Oct 2024Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
1. The Commissioner’s decision is that Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (DESNZ) is entitled to rely on regulation 12(4)(e) of the EIR to withhold the information in scope of the request, however the public interest favours disclosure. 2. The Commissioner requires DESNZ to take the following step to ensure compliance with the legislation:• Disclose the information listed in the confidential annex which is in scope of the request.3. DESNZ must take this step within 30 calendar days of the date of this decision notice. Failure to comply may result in the Commissioner making written certification of this fact to the High Court pursuant to section 54 of the Act and may be dealt with as a contempt of court. Information Tribunal FT/EA/2024/0447 appeal consent order.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(e)
View Department for Energy Security and Net Zero
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
View University of Bedfordshire
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
16 Oct 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested a copy of a draft Anti-Poverty Strategy for Northern Ireland. The Department for Communities (“the DfC”) confirmed that it held the information but said it was exempt from disclosure under section 35(1)(a) (Formulation of government policy, etc) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the DfC was entitled to rely on section 35(1)(a) of FOIA to refuse to disclose the requested information.
Exemptions cited: FOI 35
16 Oct 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested copies of draft action plans relating to the draft Irish language strategy and draft Ulster Scots strategy for Northern Ireland. The Department for Communities (“the DfC”) confirmed that it held the information but said it was exempt from disclosure under section 35(1)(a) (Formulation of government policy, etc) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the DfC was entitled to rely on section 35(1)(a) of FOIA to refuse to disclose the withheld information.
Exemptions cited: FOI 35
16 Oct 2024Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to the Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office (FCDO) seeking correspondence between Baroness Verma and parts of the FCDO. The FCDO confirmed that it held information falling within the scope of the request but considered this to be exempt from disclosure on the basis of sections 27(1)(a) and (c) (international relations), 43(2) (commercial interests) and 40(2) (personal data) of FOIA. At the internal review stage it withdrew its reliance on sections 27 and 43 and disclosed the information to which these exemptions had been applied. The complainant questioned whether the FCDO was likely to hold further information falling within the scope of his request and was dissatisfied with the FCDO’s delays in providing the information it did disclose to him. The Commissioner’s decision is that on the balance of probabilities the FCDO has located all of the information it holds falling within the scope of the request. However, he has found that the FCDO
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10
View Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office
15 Oct 2024Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to Additional Restrictions Grants. Bradford District Council (the “Council”) disclosed some information and confirmed that other information was not held. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council disclosed the information that it holds and complied with section 1(1) but that it failed to do this in time and breached section 10(1). The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10(1)
View City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council
15 Oct 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information held on the common law duty of care owed by Higher Education providers to their students that the Department for Education (DfE) used to respond to a parliamentary petition. The DfE relied on section 42(1) – legal professional privilege – to withhold the information it held. The Commissioner’s decision is that the DfE has correctly applied section 42(1) to withhold the information. Information Tribunal FT/EA/2024/0445 appeal dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 42
View Department for Education
15 Oct 2024Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about correspondence with DCMS. The above public authority relied on section 44 of FOIA (statutory prohibition) to withhold the information. The Commissioner’s decision is that the public authority is not entitled to rely on section 44 to withhold the information. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. Disclose the information it has relied on section 44 to withhold. The public authority may make appropriate redactions to comply with its data protection obligations.Keywords/themes: Trade Union and Labour Relations (consolidation) Act 1992.
Exemptions cited: FOI 44
View Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service
15 Oct 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested statistics about errors in patient referrals. The above public authority relied on section 12 of FOIA (costs) to refuse the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the public authority was entitled to rely on section 12 of FOIA to refuse the request. The Commissioner does not require further steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12
View MID Yorkshire Teaching NHS Trust
15 Oct 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about specific processes. The above public authority provided some information. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the public authority does not hold further information within the scope of the request. The Commissioner finds no breach of section 17(7) of FOIA as the public authority was not obliged to comply with that section. The Commissioner does not require further steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 17
View NHS Leicester, Leicestershire and Rutland ICB
15 Oct 2024Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted an information request to the Ministry of Justice for information in relation to the use of Bromine in detention centres during 1960 to 1980. The Commissioner’s decision is that the public authority failed to respond to the request within 20 working days, as specified under FOIA. As a response has been issued, the Commissioner does not require further steps, as a result of this decision notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10(1)
View Ministry of Justice
15 Oct 2024Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information relating to the Redcar Trial. Northern Gas Networks Limited (“the public authority”) disclosed information but refused to provide the remainder, citing regulation 12(5)(a) (International relations, defence, national security or public safety), regulation 12(5)(e) (commercial or industrial information) and 12(4)(d) (material in the course of completion). The Commissioner’s decision is that only regulation 12(4)(d) applies and the balance of the public interest favours disclosure. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: disclose the requested information, subject to redactions under regulation 13 (personal information.)
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(d); EIR 12(5)(a); EIR 12(5)(e)
View Northern Bank Limited
15 Oct 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about a court case. The above public authority provided some information but claimed not to hold the remainder. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the public authority does not holder further information within the scope of the request. The Commissioner does not require further steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View General Dental Council
15 Oct 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to the theft of motor vehicles from 1 January 2022 to 31 January 2024 to be provided in Excel format. Cambridgeshire Constabulary (the constabulary) provided the information in PDF format rather than Excel format.The Commissioner’s decision is that it would not be reasonably practicable in the circumstances to expect the constabulary to provide the information in the preferred format and therefore it has complied with its obligations under section 11 (means of communicating information) of FOIA. The Commissioner does not require further steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 11
View Cambridgeshire Constabulary
14 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 North Bristol NHS Trust
14 Oct 2024Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to a market Consultant and Wirral Council’s procurement safeguards. Wirral Council has failed to respond to this request within 20 working days, as specified under FOIA. The Commissioner requires it to provide the complainant with a response to this request within 30 calendar days in accordance with its obligations under FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Wirral Council
14 Oct 2024Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to minutes of two roundtable meetings. The Department for Culture, Media and Sport 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 Department for Culture, Media and Sport
14 Oct 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information regarding any communications between the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) and the Daily Telegraph. DWP provided some information falling within the scope of the request. The complainant disputed that DWP had located all of the information held. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, DWP does not hold further information to that already provided. The Commissioner does not require DWP to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Department for Work and Pensions
14 Oct 2024Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to a roundtable meeting. The Department for Culture, Media and Sport 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 Department for Culture, Media and Sport
14 Oct 2024Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from the Ministry of Justice (MOJ). By the date of this notice the MOJ had not issued a substantive response to this request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the MOJ 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. The Commissioner requires the MOJ 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.The MOJ 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
Exemptions cited: FOI 17
View Ministry of Justice
14 Oct 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from the Cardiff and Vale University Health Board (‘the Health Board) regarding a specific service concern, the name of a specific member of staff and policy information. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Health Board should have relied on section 40(1) of FOIA when refusing to provide the requested information as it was the requester’s own personal data. The Commissioner has applied this exemption himself, proactively to prevent disclosure under FOIA. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40(1)
View Cardiff and Vale University Health Board
14 Oct 2024Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested copies of any written assurances that the Department for Transport has issued about financial support to the Air Travel Trust (‘ATT’) and details of any financial support it has given to the ATT since 2018. The Department for Transport (‘the DfT’) relied on section 35(1)(a) of FOIA (formulation of government policy), section 35(1)(b) of FOIA (ministerial communications) and section 43(2) of FOIA (commercial interests) to refuse the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that although section 35(1)(a) and section 35(1)(b) of FOIA are engaged, the public interest is weighted in favour of disclosure. He also finds that the DfT is only entitled to rely on section 43(2) of FOIA to withhold part of the requested information falling under its reliance on this exemption. The Commissioner requires the DfT to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: Disclose the information it was relying on sections 35(1)(a) and 35(1)(b) of FOIA to withh
Exemptions cited: FOI 35(1)(a); FOI 35(1)(b); FOI 43(2)
View Department for Transport
14 Oct 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested copies of the original brief and terms of reference, correspondence and information published on the website prior to 2023 and since removed from the website by the Canal and River Boat Trust (CRT).The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, CRT does not hold any further information that falls within the scope of the request. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Canal and River Trust
14 Oct 2024Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested a copy of a Data Protection Impact Assessment (‘DPIA’). Devon Partnership NHS Trust (“the public authority”) disclosed a redacted copy of the DPIA, with redactions made under section 31(1)(f). The Commissioner’s decision is that the majority of the withheld information engages section 31(1)(f) and the public interest lies in maintaining the exemption. However, there’s information that’s been withheld that doesn’t engage the exemption and therefore must be disclosed. In failing to disclose all non-exempt information within the statutory timeframe, the public authority has breached section 10 (timescale for compliance) of FOIA. The public authority’s refusal also failed to comply with section 17 (refusal notice) of FOIA. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: disclose the information identified in this decision notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 17; FOI 31
View Devon Partnership NHS Trust
14 Oct 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about names of directors of limited companies associated with the London Borough of Brent (“the Council”). The Council referred the complainant to the Companies House website. During the course of the Commissioner’s investigation, the Council sought to rely on section 21 (information accessible to applicant by other means) to withhold the requested information. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council is entitled to rely on section 21 to withhold the requested information. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 21
View London Borough of Brent
11 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 online. 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
11 Oct 2024Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested emails and their attachments sent to or from two named individuals where Collateral UK Ltd is mentioned. The Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) identified information in scope of the request, disclosing this with some information redacted under section 40 (personal data), section 30 (investigations and proceedings) and section 36 (prejudice to the effective conduct of public affairs). The Commissioner’s decision is that the FCA has correctly applied section 30(1)(c) to withhold some of the information from the disclosed correspondence. Section 40 has also been correctly applied to withhold personal data. The information within the scope of this notice to which the FCA applied section 36(2)(b)(ii) and (c) does engage the exemption but the Commissioner finds the public interest favours disclosure. The Commissioner requires the FCA to disclose the information in the emails, correspondence and attachments that engages section 36(2)(b)(ii) and 36(2)(c) but in re
Exemptions cited: FOI 30; FOI 36; FOI 40
View Financial Conduct Authority
11 Oct 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to correspondence between the Crown Estate and the Duchy of Cornwall. The Crown Estate refused to disclose the information citing section 35(1)(a) (formulation or development of government policy) of FOIA as the basis for withholding the information. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Crown Estate was entitled to withhold the requested information under section 35(1)(a) of FOIA. The Commissioner does not require further steps to be taken. Information Tribunal FT/EA/2024/0422 appeal withdrawn.
Exemptions cited: FOI 35(1)(a)
View The Crown Estate
11 Oct 2024Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information from Bristol City Council (“the Council”) relating to East Bristol Liveable Neighbourhood. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council is entitled to rely on regulation 12(4)(b) (manifestly unreasonable) of the EIR to refuse to comply with the request. He also finds that the Council complied with its obligations under regulation 9 of the EIR to offer advice and assistance. However, the Commissioner finds that the Council breached regulation 11 (reconsideration) of the EIR by failing to provide the complainant with the outcome of its internal review within 40 working days. The Commissioner does not require the Council to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 11; EIR 12(4)(b); EIR 9
View Bristol City Council
11 Oct 2024Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested any internal communications about a previous FOI request. Tees Valley Combined Authority (“the Council”) refused the request, citing section 14(1) (vexatious) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council are not entitled to rely on section 14(1) to refuse the request. The Commissioner requires the Council to issue a fresh response to the request that does not rely on section 14(1).
Exemptions cited: FOI 14(1)
View Tees Valley Combined Authority
10 Oct 2024Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from Poundstock Parish Council regarding proposals to build a new village 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 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
10 Oct 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from the BBC about complaints received on its news coverage. 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
10 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(1)
10 Oct 2024Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information about speed cameras on a particular stretch of road. Dorset Police relied on section 14(1) of FOIA (vexatious) to refuse the request.The Commissioner’s decision is that the request was not vexatious and therefore Dorset Police was not entitled to rely upon section 14(1) of FOIA to refuse it. The Commissioner also finds that Dorset Police did not provide a refusal notice within the statutory deadline as required under section 17(1) of FOIA.The Commissioner requires Dorset Police to take the following step to ensure compliance with the legislation.• Issue a fresh response, to the request that, does not rely on section 14(1) of FOIA.Dorset Police must take this step within 30 calendar days of the date of this decision notice. Failure to comply may result in the Commissioner making written certification of this fact to the High Court pursuant to section 54 of the Act and may be dealt with as a contempt of court.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14(1); FOI 17
View Dorset Police
10 Oct 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
1. The complainant has requested information from the Ministry of Defence (“MOD”) regarding the deaths of Locally Employed Civilians (LECs) in Afghanistan. The MOD originally relied on sections 26, 38 and 40 of FOIA to refuse part of the request, however it has subsequently withdrawn its reliance on section 26 in respect of part 3 of the request and has instead relied on section 12 of FOIA (cost of compliance).2. The Commissioner’s decision is that the MOD was entitled to rely on section 12(1) of FOIA to refuse to disclose the information in respect of part 3 of the request. The Commissioner also finds that the MOD complied with its section 16 obligation to offer advice and assistance.3. The Commissioner does not require further steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12(1)
View Ministry of Defence
10 Oct 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to Cheshire East Council’s (the Council) constitution. The Council relied on section 14(1) of FOIA (vexatious requests) to refuse the request.The Commissioner’s decision is that the request was vexatious and therefore the Council was entitled to rely upon section 14(1) of FOIA to refuse it. The Commissioner does not require any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14(1)
View Cheshire East Council
10 Oct 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from Wiltshire Council (the Council) regarding the exam board that awarded the National Diploma (BTEC or HND) in Foundation studies in Art and Design in June 1998.
The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the Council does not hold any information within scope of the request.
The Commissioner does not require the Council to take any steps as a result of this decision.
Keywords: Trowbridge College
Exemptions cited: FOI 1(1)
View Wiltshire Council
10 Oct 2024Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about the appointment of a new headteacher. St Dunstan’s Catholic Primary School (‘the School’) addressed the complainant’s questions and disclosed relevant information. The School redacted some information from the material it disclosed, advising this was personal data.The Commissioner’s decision is first that, on the balance of probabilities, the School holds no further relevant information. He’s also decided that the School correctly withheld some of the requested information under section 40(2) of FOIA, which concerns personal data. However, the School’s refusal notice didn’t fully comply with the requirements of section 17(1). It’s not necessary for the School to take any corrective steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1(1); FOI 17; FOI 40(2)
View ST CHAD'S CATHOLIC PRIMARY SCHOOL
10 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(1)
View London Borough of Lambeth
10 Oct 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested copies of studies and reports held by a named professor that provide evidence of the existence of SARS-COV-2. The University of Sheffield (‘the University’) relied on section 22A of FOIA to refuse the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the University was entitled to rely on section 22A of FOIA to refuse the request. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 22A
View The University of Sheffield
10 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 Haringey Council
10 Oct 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant made five requests between 31 October 2023 and 8 November 2023 for information relating to former Cheshire Constabulary officers. Cheshire Constabulary refused all five requests citing section 14(1) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that Cheshire Constabulary was entitled to rely on section 14(1) for all five requests. The Commissioner does not require any further steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14(1)
9 Oct 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information linked to a number of previous FOIA requests and responses they had submitted to Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council (the Council). The Council informed the complainant that as far as it was aware there were no outstanding requests in their name and advised them to contact the Information Commissioner if they remained dissatisfied. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has complied with its obligations under section 1(1) of the FOIA. The Commissioner does not require any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1(1)
View Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council
9 Oct 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information about a particular planning application. Braintree District Council (the Council) provided some information and withheld other information under regulation 12(4)(d) (material in the course of completion) and regulation 13 (personal data). The complainant raised concerns about the absence of an earlier draft of the planning report. The Council confirmed that it considered the earlier draft of the planning report to be exempt under regulation 12(4)(d) of the EIR. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council correctly applied regulation 12(4)(d) to the request and the public interest favours maintaining the exception. The Commissioner does not require any steps to be taken. Information Tribunal FT/EA/2024/0438 under appeal.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(d)
View Braintree District Council
9 Oct 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about financial arrangements between SonaCare Medical and University College London (UCL) and University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust (UCLH) and those associated with UCL’s and UCLH’s use or promotion of Sonablate 500 HIFU. UCLH advised it didn’t hold some of the information, disclosed other information and is withholding contract information under section 43(2) of FOIA. This exemption concerns commercial interests. The Commissioner’s decision is that UCLH correctly applied section 43(2) of FOIA to the information it’s withholding. He has also decided that, on the balance of probabilities, UCLH holds no other further information. It’s not necessary for UCLH to take any corrective steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1(1); FOI 43(2)
View University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust
8 Oct 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from Bristol City Council (“the Council”) relating to the Think Family Database. The Council disclosed some of the information requested but has withheld some of the information under section 31(1)(a) of FOIA (law enforcement) and section 43(2) of FOIA (commercial interests). The complainant also believes that the Council holds further information within the scope of the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council is entitled to withhold the withheld information under section 43(2) and that, on the balance of probabilities, the Council does not hold any further information within the scope of the request. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1(1); FOI 43(2)
View Bristol City Council