8 Oct 2024Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested copies of an application for grant funding from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and associated correspondence. The above public authority disclosed some information, but its final position was to rely on section 22A of FOIA (research) to withhold the remainder. The Commissioner’s decision is that the public authority has not demonstrated that the exemption applies. The public authority breached section 10 of FOIA as it failed to disclose non-exempt information within 20 working days. 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 22A of FOIA to withhold. The public authority may make appropriate redactions to comply with its data protection obligations.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 22A
View London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine
8 Oct 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information about GCF agreement, accommodation agreements and accessibility to hotel real estate. The Cabinet Office relied on section 14(1) of FOIA (vexatious) to refuse the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the request was vexatious and therefore the Cabinet Office was entitled to rely upon section 14(1) of FOIA to refuse it. The Commissioner does not require any steps. Information Tribunal FT/EA/2024/0400 under appeal.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14
View Cabinet Office
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
8 Oct 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information about child and adult social care complaints, and monitoring related to specified complaints. Ultimately, Suffolk County Council (the ‘Council’) provided some information and said that it could not provide the remainder on the grounds of cost, citing section 12(1) of FOIA. 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 Suffolk County Council
8 Oct 2024Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to a restructure project. Newcastle upon Tyne Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust (‘the public authority’) failed to confirm whether it held information, or disclose any information, in response to the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the public authority has failed to comply with section 1 (general right of access to information) and section 17 (refusal notice) of FOIA. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: issue a fresh response to the request, that complies with its obligations under FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1(1); FOI 17
View THE NEWCASTLE UPON TYNE HOSPITALS NHS FOUNDATION TRUST
8 Oct 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information about historical roofing working carried out on a residential building. The London Borough of Islington (“the Council”) refused the request with reliance on regulation 12(4)(b) (manifestly unreasonable) of the EIR. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council is entitled to refuse the complainant’s request and the balance of the public interest favours maintaining the exception. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(b)
View Islington Council
7 Oct 2024Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to the handling of a previous request for information to Derbyshire County Council. Derbyshire County 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 Derbyshire County Council
7 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)
7 Oct 2024Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to the impact of the Streatham Wells Low Traffic Neighbourhood (LTN) on the wellbeing and education of children/students in Primary or Secondary school. The Dunraven School Local Governing Board 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
7 Oct 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested minutes, action logs and briefing materials from a meeting between HM Treasury (“HMT”) and Copper held in February 2022, as well as other materials shared in the meeting. HMT disclosed some information but cited section 40 (personal data), section 43(1) (trade secret), section 43(2) (commercial interests) and section 27 (international relations) as its basis for refusing to provide the remaining requested information. The complainant did not challenge section 40 but did challenge the other exemptions. HMT upheld its position at internal review. HMT withdrew reliance on section 27 during the Commissioner’s investigation. It also made a further disclosure during the Commissioner's investigation. The Commissioner’s decision is that HMT is entitled to rely on section 43(1) and section 43(2) as its basis for withholding the requested information. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 43
View HM Treasury
7 Oct 2024Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested a copy of any Propriety and Ethics Team assessments or guidance relating to Peter Bone’s appointment as Deputy Leader of the House of Commons. The Cabinet Office refused to confirm or deny whether the information was held citing section 40(5B) of FOIA (third party personal information) and section 36(3) (prejudice to the effective conduct of public affairs). The Commissioner’s decision is that section 40(5B) and section 36(3) by virtue of sections 36(2)(b)(i) and 36(2)(b)(ii) do not apply. Section 36(3) by virtue of section 36(2)(c) is engaged but the public interest balance in confirming or denying whether the information is held is greater than the public interest in maintaining the exemption. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation - Confirm or deny whether it holds the requested information; and, if it does: Either provide the information to the complainant or issue a fresh re
Exemptions cited: FOI 36; FOI 40(5)(b)
View Cabinet Office
7 Oct 2024Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information concerning the names of all those individuals who refused an honour between 1999 and 2010, and who have since died.The Cabinet Office initially refused the request under section 12 (costs limit) but revised their position at internal review, stating that they did not hold the information requested. The Cabinet Office maintained this position during the Commissioner’s subsequent investigation. The Commissioner has found, on the balance of probabilities, that the Cabinet Office do hold information requested. The Commissioner therefore requires the Cabinet Office to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation.• Disclose the information held to the complainant (ie the information regarding the five individuals considered in this Decision Notice) or issue a valid refusal notice.The Cabinet Office must take these steps within 30 calendar days of the date of this decision notice. Failure to comply may result in the Commissioner
Exemptions cited: FOI 1(1)
View Cabinet Office
7 Oct 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about the policing of an annual event. Cumbria Constabulary refused the request, citing section 12(1) (Cost of compliance exceeds appropriate limit) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that Cumbria Constabulary was entitled to rely on section 12(1) to refuse the request.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12
7 Oct 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested a copy of any Propriety and Ethics Team due diligence reports relating to the appointment of Chris Pincher as Deputy Chip Whip. The Cabinet Office relied on section 36 (effective conduct of public affairs), section 40(2) (third party personal information) and section 41 (information provided in confidence) of FOIA to withhold the information. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Cabinet Office was entitled to rely on section 36 to withhold the requested information. The Commissioner does not require the Cabinet Office to take any steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. Some of the Cabinet Office’s arguments and reasoning - and the Commissioner’s accompanying analysis - is included in a confidential annex due to its sensitivity. Information Tribunal FT/EA/2024/0418 under appeal.
Exemptions cited: FOI 36
View Cabinet Office
7 Oct 2024Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about legal fees. The above public authority provided some information, stated that some information was not held and relied on section 40(2) of FOIA to withhold the remainder. The Commissioner’s decision is that on the balance of probabilities, the public authority does not hold information within the scope of part 2 of the request. In respect of part 1, the public authority is entitled to rely on section 40(2) of FOIA to withhold the information. The public authority breached sections 10 and 17 of FOIA in its handling of the request. The Commissioner does not require further steps to be taken. Information Tribunal FT/EA/2024/0428 appeal part allowed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10; FOI 17; FOI 40(2)
View AYLESBURY HIGH SCHOOL
7 Oct 2024Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about the expansion of Magee College. The above public authority provided some information, but relied on sections 35 (government policy, 43 (commercial interests) and 40 (personal data) of FOIA to withhold the remainder. The Commissioner’s decision is that the public authority has correctly engaged section 35 of FOIA, but that the balance of the public interest only favours maintaining the exemption in respect of some of the withheld information. For the remainder, it favours disclosure. Section 43 is engaged in respect of some of the information to which it has been applied, but not all. Where the exemption is engaged, the balance of the public interest favours maintaining the exemption. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. Disclose the information specified in the confidential annex. The public authority may make appropriate redactions to comply with its data pr
Exemptions cited: FOI 35; FOI 43
7 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 Ministry of Defence
7 Oct 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to the costs for provision of adult social care for a specific provider from Norfolk County Council (the Council). The Council provided some information, but cited section 43(2) (commercial interests) of FOIA to withhold further information. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council was correct to apply section 43(2) to withhold some information falling within the scope of the request. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 43(2)
View Norfolk County Council
7 Oct 2024Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The Commissioner’s decision is, first, that the information the complainant has requested about a Feed-In Tariff transfer is environmental information which Ofgem correctly handled under the EIR. The Commissioner has also decided that Ofgem has disclosed all the information it holds that’s relevant to the complainant’s request and which isn’t subject to an exception. The information Ofgem has withheld is personal data which is excepted under regulation 13(1) of the EIR. However, the timeliness of Ofgem’s response didn’t comply with the requirements of regulation 5(2) and 14(2). It’s not necessary for Ofgem to take any corrective steps. Information Tribunal FT/EA/2024/0430 under appeal.
Exemptions cited: EIR 13; EIR 14(2)(1); EIR 5(1); EIR 5(2)
View Office of Gas and Electricity Markets
7 Oct 2024Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information from the Rural Payments Agency (RPA) about named Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) claimants. The RPA initially refused to confirm or deny whether it held this information but ultimately refused to provide the information, citing Regulation 12(5)(a) of the EIR – public safety. The Commissioner’s decision is that the RPA cited Regulation 12(5)(a) correctly and that the public interest lies in withholding the requested information. However, he has decided that the RPA breached Regulation 14(2) of the EIR by failing to issue a refusal notice to the complainant within 20 working days of receipt of the request. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(a); EIR 14(2)(1)
View Rural Payments Agency
4 Oct 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant submitted a multipart request to the London Borough of Lewisham (the Council) seeking information about works on the Dacres Estate. The Council provided information falling within the scope of the request but the complainant argued that it would hold additional recorded information. The Commissioner’s decision is that on the balance of probabilities the Council does not hold any recorded information beyond that disclosed to the complainant. The Commissioner does not require further steps. Information Tribunal FT/EA/2024/0419 appeal Part Allowed.
Exemptions cited: EIR 5
View Lewisham Council
4 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 Staffordshire Police
4 Oct 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from Bristol City Council (the Council) relating to a tender to become the Council’s ‘Digital Strategic Partner’ (DSP). The Council disclosed information with redactions made under sections 41 (information provided in confidence) and 43(2) (commercial interests) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council was correct to refuse the request under section 41 of FOIA. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 41
View Bristol City Council
4 Oct 2024Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information from United Utilities Water Limited (the public authority). The Commissioner’s decision is that the public authority breached regulation 5(2) of the EIR by failing to respond to the request within 20 working days. The Commissioner does not require further steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: EIR 5(2)
View United Utilities
4 Oct 2024Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information relating to public rights of way at a woodland. Knutsford Town Council (the “Council”) initially handled the request under the FOIA, disclosing some information and withholding personal information under section 40. During the Commissioner’s investigation the Council reconsidered the request under the EIR and issued a new response which disclosed further information and applied regulation 13 to withhold personal information. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council is entitled to rely on regulation 13 of the EIR to withhold the personal information but that it provided some of the requested information outside the time for compliance, failed to issue a refusal notice under the EIR in time and failed to carry out an internal review, breaching regulations 5(2), 14 and 11(4). The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 11(4); EIR 13; EIR 14; EIR 5(2)
3 Oct 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The Commissioner’s decision is that Anthem Schools Trust (‘the Trust’) is entitled to refuse the complainant’s request for information about special educational needs and disability support under section 14(1) of FOIA. The request can be categorised as a vexatious request, and it was submitted as part of a campaign against the Trust. The Trust is also entitled to refuse the request under section 12(1) of FOIA as complying with it would exceed the appropriate cost limit. There was no breach of section 16(1), which concerns advice and assistance. It’s not necessary for the Trust to take any corrective steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12(1); FOI 14(1); FOI 16(1)
3 Oct 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information on an independent review commissioned by the ICB into allegations about a GP practice. The Commissioner’s decision is that the ICB has demonstrated that section 41 FOIA is engaged in relation to the withheld information and there is no public interest defence to a breach of confidence applicable. The information has therefore been correctly withheld. As the Commissioner has found that section 41 is engaged he has not gone on to consider the other exemptions cited and he requires no steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 41
View NHS Greater Manchester ICB
3 Oct 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a multipart request to the Greater London Authority (GLA) seeking information about the decision to select the proposal ‘Antelope’ by Samson Kambalu for the Fourth Plinth in Trafalgar Square. The GLA responded to some parts of the request, but in relation to part 2 of the request it refused to confirm or deny whether it held any information on the basis of section 38(2) (health and safety) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the GLA is entitled to rely on section 38(2) to refuse to confirm or deny whether it holds any information falling within the scope of this part of the request. The Commissioner does not require further steps. Information Tribunal FT/EA/2025/0054 under appeal.
Exemptions cited: FOI 38
View Greater London Authority
3 Oct 2024Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted three requests to the Cabinet Office each seeking a file containing records of the Ministerial Committee on Animal Rights Activists. The Cabinet Office initially withheld each file on the basis of sections 23(1) (security bodies) and 24(1) (national security) (cited in the alternative) and sections 31(1)(a) to (c) (law enforcement). During the course of the Commissioner’s investigation the Cabinet Office withdrew its application of sections 31(1)(a) to (c), and for two of the files cited section 22(1) (information intended for future publication), and for the third file explained that at the time of the request, save for some retained material, the file in question was not held. The Commissioner has concluded that the Cabinet Office can rely on sections 23(1) and 24(1) in the manner in which it has and that section 40(2) also applies to some information; that section 22(1) applies to only one of the files; and that the remaining two files – save for the retain
Exemptions cited: FOI 22; FOI 23; FOI 24; FOI 40
View Cabinet Office
3 Oct 2024Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about the repeal of section 40 of the Crime and Courts Act 2013. The Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) relied on section 35 (formulation or development of government policy) to withhold the requested information from the complainant. The Commissioner’s decision is that the exemption at section 35 is engaged but he finds that the public interest in maintaining the exemption does not outweigh the public interest in disclosure. The Commissioner requires DCMS to disclose the information falling within the scope of the request, subject to any appropriate redactions for personal data.
Exemptions cited: FOI 35(1)(a)
View Department for Culture, Media and Sport
3 Oct 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information from Lincolnshire County Council (“the council”) in relation to a plan to install a road crossing. The council provided information in response to the request, however the complainant argues that further information will be held by it. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the council holds no further information falling within the scope of the complainant's request for information. The Commissioner does not require the council to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 5(1)
View Lincolnshire County Council
3 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 London Borough of Lambeth
3 Oct 2024Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about the United Kingdom’s withdrawal from the European Union. The Cabinet Office refused to comply with the request, citing section 12 (cost limit) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Cabinet Office was entitled to refuse to comply with the request in accordance with section 12(1) of FOIA. The Commissioner also finds that the Cabinet Office complied with its obligations under section 16 to offer advice and assistance. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12(2)
View Cabinet Office
3 Oct 2024Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
Summary wording for website: The complainant requested information from Middlewich Town Council about tendering for an HR Consultant. By the date of this notice the public authority had not issued a substantive response to this request. 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 Commissioner requires the public authority to issue a substantive response to the request in accordance with its obligations under FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
3 Oct 2024Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has made two requests to London Borough of Barnet (‘the Council’) about the funding bid and expected income for the JOLT electric vehicle charging point scheme. The Council provided some of the requested information but relied on section 43(2) of FOIA to withhold the redacted sections of the requested bid document. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council was entitled to rely on section 43(2) of FOIA to withhold some of the requested information. He also finds that the Council breached sections 10(1) and 17(1) of FOIA by failing to provide a refusal notice to the requests within 20 working days. The Commissioner does not require further formal steps. However, if it has not already done so, the Council should disclose the updated version of the redacted bid document to the complainant as planned.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 17; FOI 43
View Barnet Council
3 Oct 2024Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information linked to the Covid-19 Strategy committee meetings held from 2020 to 2021. The Cabinet Office (“[the public authority]”) initially refused the request in reliance on FOIA section 35(1)(b) – Ministerial communications. The UK Covid-19 Inquiry published information in the scope of the request which led to the Cabinet Office also relying on FOIA section 21 – information accessible to the applicant by other means. The Commissioner’s decision is that some of the information has been appropriately withheld under FOIA section 35(1)(b) whilst the public interest favours disclosure of other information. The Commissioner finds that the Cabinet Office correctly relied on FOIA section 21(1) to withhold some of the information in the scope of the request. The Commissioner requires the Cabinet Office to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation - Disclose the information set out in the confidential annex to this notice. The public au
Exemptions cited: FOI 21; FOI 35
View Cabinet Office
3 Oct 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested from Armagh City Banbridge and Craigavon Borough Council (the Council) information about a report relating to a meeting at the Orchard Leisure Centre Armagh. The Council stated that it does not hold the information as described in the request.The Commissioner’s decision is that on the balance of probabilities, the Council does not hold 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.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1(1)(a)
3 Oct 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office (FCDO) seeking correspondence between it and Linacre College, Oxford regarding the proposed donation from Nguyen Thi Phuong Thao to the college. The FCDO disclosed information in response to the request but redacted parts of it on the basis of sections 27(1)(a), (c) and (d) (international relations), 40(2) (personal data), 41(1) (information provided in confidence) and 43(2) (commercial interest) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the redacted information is exempt from disclosure on the basis of the exemptions cited by the FCDO. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 27; FOI 40; FOI 41; FOI 43
View Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office
2 Oct 2024Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested all held information referring to Data Protection and Freedom of Information matters, and correspondence with the ICO, for the calendar year of 2023. Cherwell District Council initially withheld the information under the exemptions provided by sections 31(1)(g) (Law enforcement), 40(2) (Personal information), and 42(1) (Legal professional privilege), and subsequently indicated at internal review that it considered the request would engage section 12 (Cost of compliance). During the course of investigation, the Council informed the Commissioner that it wished to rely upon section 14(1) (Vexatious requests) on the grounds of burden, and section 12 in the alternative. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council is entitled to refuse to comply with the request under section 14(1). However, in failing to issue a refusal notice within the statutory timescale, the Council breached section 17(5) (Refusal of request). The Commissioner does not require further s
Exemptions cited: FOI 14(1); FOI 17(5)
View Cherwell District Council
2 Oct 2024Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested guidance regarding ‘Managed Migration’. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) has identified all of the information falling within the scope of the request. For the information that DWP has withheld, he finds that whilst section 35(1)(a), formulation or development of government policy, is engaged, the balance of the public interest favours disclosure. The Commissioner requires DWP to disclose the withheld information. 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 a contempt of court.
Exemptions cited: FOI 35(1)(a)
View Department for Work and Pensions
2 Oct 2024Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
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 Haringey Council
2 Oct 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested copies of design proposal submissions for the Redcar Hydrogen Village Trial, any revisions to design proposals and a summary of proposals to offer electric alternatives to residents. Ofgem relied on regulation 12(4)(b) of the EIR (manifestly unreasonable) to refuse the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that Ofgem was entitled to rely on regulation 12(4)(b) of the EIR to refuse the request. He also finds that Ofgem complied with regulation 9(1) of the EIR. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(b); EIR 9
View Office of Gas and Electricity Markets
2 Oct 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information regarding how DWP assessed that a criteria for deferring a claimant’s migration to Universal Credit should be removed from guidance. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, DWP does not hold the requested information. The Commissioner does not require DWP to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Department for Work and Pensions
2 Oct 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
In a series of requests, the complainant requested information relating to a specific investigation. Hampshire Constabulary neither confirmed nor denied holding the requested information, citing sections 40(5) (personal information) and 30(3) (investigations and proceedings) of FOIA. The Commissioner investigated Hampshire Constabulary’s application of section 30(3) to the requested information. The Commissioner’s decision is that Hampshire Constabulary is entitled to rely on section 30(3) of FOIA to refuse to confirm or deny whether it holds any information falling within the scope of the requests. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken as a result of this decision. Information Tribunal FT/EA/2024/0426 appeal part allowed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 30
2 Oct 2024Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested a copy of the final report following an investigation into the cluster of Endovirus causing Myocarditis in young babies. Public Health Wales NHS Trust (PHW) withheld the information requested under section 22 (information intended for future publication) of the FOIA . The Commissioner’s decision is that section 22 (information intended for future publication) of the FOIA is not engaged as, at the time of the request, the information requested was not held. In failing to confirm that the information requested was not held and for failing to confirm the information was not held within the statutory time period, the Commissioner finds that PHW breached sections 1 and 10 of the FOIA. The Commissioner does not require any steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10; FOI 22
View Public Health Wales NHS Trust
1 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 Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office
1 Oct 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from Wennington Parish Council (“the Council”) relating to the sale of land. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council is entitled to rely on section 12(1) (cost limit) of FOIA to refuse to comply with the request. He also finds that the Council complied with its obligations under section 16(1) of FOIA to offer advice and assistance. The Commissioner does not require the Council to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12; FOI 16
1 Oct 2024Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information concerning the Cabinet Office’s intranet, specifically, an intranet sitemap, screenshot of the intranet homepage and annual intranet costs for the past five years.In their original response to the request the Cabinet Office confirmed that they held the intranet sitemap requested but that this was exempt from disclosure under section 31 (law enforcement) of FOIA and that the balance of the public interest favoured maintaining the exemption. The original response did not address the complainant’s request for the screenshot and costs information.Following an internal review, the Cabinet Office provided the complainant with the intranet costs information requested and stated that at the time of the request, they did not hold a screenshot of the intranet homepage. The review also overturned the original response in that the Cabinet Office advised that they did not hold a sitemap of the intranet (and were therefore no longer withholding the same unde
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Cabinet Office
1 Oct 2024Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to meetings between HM Treasury (HMT) ministers or officials and representatives of Copper. HMT provided some information but refused to provide the remainder citing section 35 (formulation/development of government policy), section 40 (personal data), section 43(1) (trade secrets) and section 43(2) (commercial interests). After internal review, HMT clarified the number of meetings and who had attended them. It withdrew reliance on section 35 for some information but introduced it for other information it had found within scope as a result of the complainant’s clarification at internal review. It maintained reliance on section 43(1), disclosed some information it had withheld under section 43(2) and introduced reliance on section 27 (international relations) and section 29 (the economy). It disclosed further information during the course of the Commissioner’s investigation but maintained reliance on section 35(1)(a), section 40(2) and
Exemptions cited: FOI 35; FOI 40; FOI 41; FOI 43
View HM Treasury
1 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 UK Health Security Agency