1 Oct 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested road safety audit reports for a specified highway improvement scheme. Somerset Council (the ‘Council’) ultimately considered the request under the EIR. It said there had been no Stage 1 Audit and provided a copy of the Stage 2 Audit Report. It cited Regulation 12(4)(d) of the EIR (the exception for material in the course of completion, unfinished documents and incomplete data) in relation to the requested Stage 3 report. The complainant’s remaining concerns centred on the withheld Stage 3 report. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council was correct to handle the request under the EIR. He also finds that the Council has properly relied on Regulation 12(4)(d) of the EIR to withhold the requested Stage 3 report. No steps are required as a result of this notice.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(d)
View Somerset Council
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
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
30 Sep 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 Reading Borough Council
30 Sep 2024Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about changes to minimum snake enclosure sizes. The above public authority disclosed some information but relied on section 35 of FOIA (formulation or development of government policy) to withhold the remainder. The Commissioner’s decision is that section 35 is engaged, but that 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 copies of the documents it identified to the Commissioner as Annex C and Annex F. The public authority may make appropriate redactions to comply with its data protection obligations.
Exemptions cited: FOI 35
30 Sep 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from Burton in Lonsdale Parish Council (the Council) which related to a particular piece of land within the parish. It is the Commissioner’s decision that, on the balance of probabilities, the Council does not hold any further information relevant to the request in addition to that which has already been provided to the complainant. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
30 Sep 2024Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about the process for handling requests for medical information. The above public authority provided some information, but not what the complainant asked for. The Commissioner’s decision is that the public authority has not complied with its obligations under section 1(1) 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, in accordance with its obligations under FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
30 Sep 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 Gwynedd Council
30 Sep 2024Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about a Personal Protective Equipment contract. The above public authority relied on section 43(2) of FOIA (commercial interests) to withhold the requested information. The Commissioner’s decision is that the public authority has not demonstrated that section 43(2) of FOIA is engaged. The public authority also breached section 10 of FOIA in its handling of the request. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: provide the number of items, purchased via the contract in question, placed into the Do Not Supply category; and provide (where known) the location of these items.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 43
30 Sep 2024Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested documents and emails relating to the transfer of Thanet District Council’s (the ‘Council’) public toilets and their management to a named third party. Ultimately, the Council provided some information with redactions for personal data under Regulation 13(1) of the EIR (the personal data exception). The Council withheld the remaining information (an email and attached spreadsheet) in full citing Regulation 12(5)(e) of the EIR. The Commissioner’s decision is that the request was correctly handled under the EIR and that the Council has properly relied on Regulation 13(1) of the EIR. The Commissioner has recorded a breach of Regulation 11(4) of the EIR as a result of the Council’s failure to provide its internal review within the required timescale. The Commissioner has found that the Council has failed to demonstrate that the exception in Regulation 12(5)(e) of the EIR is engaged. The Commissioner requires the Council to disclose the information withheld under Re
Exemptions cited: EIR 11(4); EIR 12(5)(e); EIR 13(1)
View Thanet District Council
30 Sep 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted an information request to Hartlepool Borough Council (the council) for financial information.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 further steps, as a result of this decision notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14(1)
View Hartlepool Council
27 Sep 2024Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested a breakdown of the costs of scaffolding and portacabins for work on a covered market. Oxford City Council (the “Council”) provided some information and withheld the requested costs under the exemption for commercial interests (section 43). The Commissioner has concluded that the withheld information is exempt from disclosure on the basis of section 43(2) and that in all the circumstances of the case the public interest favours maintaining the exemption. However, in failing to issue a refusal notice in time, he finds that the Council breached section 1, 10 and 17 of FOIA. The Commissioner does not require any further steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10; FOI 17; FOI 43(2)
View Oxford City Council
27 Sep 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to a recruitment process undertaken by Dorset Council (“the council”) for a senior leadership position. The council provided some information and withheld other information under section 40(2) of FOIA (personal data of third parties). It also said that some information was not held by it. The complainant argues that the council has not provided all of the information they have requested, but has not questioned the application of section 40(2) where this exemption has been applied. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council has provided all of the information falling within the scope of the complainant's request for information, other than that withheld under section 40(2). The Commissioner does not require the council to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Dorset County Council
27 Sep 2024Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The public authority has failed to respond to this request within 20 working days, as specified under FOIA. The Commissioner requires it to provide the complainant with a response to this request within 35 calendar days in accordance with its obligations under FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View London Borough of Lambeth
27 Sep 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to the House of Commons (HoC) seeking information about submissions received in response to the Public Bill Committee’s call for evidence about the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Bill. The HoC sought to refuse parts of the request on the basis of section 34(1) (parliamentary privilege) and refused to confirm or deny whether it held information falling within the scope of another part of the request on the basis of section 34(2). The Speaker of the HoC issued a certificate certifying that these exemptions applied. The Commissioner’s decision is that section 34(1) of FOIA provides a basis upon which to withhold the information falling within the scope of parts 1-3 of the request, and that section 34(2) allows the HoC to refuse to confirm or deny whether it hold any information falling within the scope of part 4 of the request.
Exemptions cited: FOI 34
View Corporate Officers of the House of Commons
27 Sep 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about the Special Educational Needs budget of Loxwood Primary School (‘the School’). The School provided broad information but withheld certain information about expenditure under section 40 of FOIA. This exemption concerns personal data. The Commissioner’s decision is that the School correctly withheld the information under section 40(2) of FOIA. The information is other people’s personal data and disclosing it wouldn’t be lawful. It’s not necessary for the School to take any corrective steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40(2)
View WOODSIDE PRIMARY SCHOOL
27 Sep 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about employees placed on performance improvements plans. West Mercia Police (WMP) relied on section 40(5B) of FOIA (third party personal information) to refuse to confirm or deny that the information was held. The Commissioner’s decision is that the public authority has correctly relied on section 40(5B) of FOIA to refuse to confirm or deny that the information was held. The Commissioner does not require WMP to take any further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40(5)
View West Mercia Police
27 Sep 2024Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested communications, correspondence and other information relating to the construction of a new Health Centre. The ICB disclosed information but did redact and withhold some information under section 43(2). The complainant raised queries as to whether further information might be held. The Commissioner’s decision is that the ICB has correctly applied section 43(2) to withhold information in respect of parts 2) and 6) of the request. The ICB has located a Project Initiation Document (PID) that the Commissioner considers is in scope of the request and should now be disclosed. The ICB did not therefore comply with its duties under section 1 FOIA as this information was not provided at the time of the request but as the ICB has conducted appropriate searches and found no further information the Commissioner does not require any further steps in this regard. The Commissioner requires the ICB to disclose the PID document with appropriate redactions under section 40(2
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 43
View NHS Hertfordshire and West Essex ICB
27 Sep 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested from London Borough of Southwark (the Council) information relating to Snowsfields Quarter Phase 1. The Council stated recorded information relating to the request is not held.The Commissioner’s decision is that on the balance of probabilities, the Council does not hold recorded information within the scope of the request. He is satisfied the Council complied with its duty under regulation 5(1) of the EIR by virtue of the exception at regulation 12(4)(a) (information not held). Therefore, the Commissioner does not require the Council to take any steps as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: EIR 5(1)
View Southwark Council
26 Sep 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about a decision not to join the “Friendly WiFi” scheme. The House of Commons disclosed some information but relied on sections 24 (national security), 31 (law enforcement) and 36 of FOIA to withhold information. The Commissioner’s decision is that the House of Commons was entitled to rely on section 36 in the manner that it has done. The House of Commons was also entitled to rely on section 24 of FOIA and the balance of the public interest favours maintaining that exemption. The Commissioner does not require further steps to be taken.Keywords: Speaker’s certificate
Exemptions cited: FOI 24; FOI 36
View Corporate Officers of the House of Commons
26 Sep 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information from Bolton Borough Council (“the Council”) regarding inspections, reported defects and repairs on a specific road. The Council withheld the requested information under regulation 12(5)(b) of the EIR (course of justice). The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council is entitled to withhold the requested information under regulation 12(5)(b) of the EIR. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(b)
View Bolton Council
26 Sep 2024Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested various information regarding pupils. The London Oratory School (“School”) relied on section 12 of FOIA (cost of compliance) to refuse the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that: The School was entitled to rely on section 12(1) of FOIA to refuse the request. The School did not comply with its section 16 obligation to offer advice and assistance. The School did not provide an appropriate refusal notice as required under section 17(1) of FOIA. The School also breached section 1(1)(a) by failing to confirm whether the requested information was held in its response to the complainant. The Commissioner requires the School to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. Provide the complainant with appropriate advice and assistance to help them submit a request that falls within the appropriate limit. The School must take these steps within 30 calendar days of the date of this decision notice. Failure to comply may result in the Comm
Exemptions cited: FOI 12(1); FOI 16; FOI 17
View THE LONDON ORATORY SCHOOL
26 Sep 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested various email addresses from Dyfed Powys Police (DPP). DPP provided most of the requested information but withheld one address on the basis that section 31(1)(a) and (b) (Law Enforcement) of the FOIA applied. The Commissioner’s decision is that DPP was entitled to refuse to provide the requested information on the basis of the exception specified. The Commissioner does not require any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 31(1)(a); FOI 31(1)(b)
View Dyfed-Powys Police
26 Sep 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant submitted a request for correspondence between Merton Council and the Inspectors appointed for the Public Examination of the draft Local Plan. Merton Council (the Council) refused to provide the information requested citing regulation 12(4)(d) of the EIR. The Council later also relied upon regulations 12(4)(b) and 6(1)(b) of the EIR to withhold the information. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council was entitled to rely on regulation 12(4)(b) to withhold the information in scope of the request and that the public interest favours maintaining the exception. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(b)
View Merton Council
26 Sep 2024Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information concerning a specific policy change. The Department for Energy, Security and Net Zero (“DESNZ”) refused to disclose the requested information, citing regulations 12(4)(e) and 12(5)(b) of the Environmental Information Regulations 2004 (“EIR”) as a basis for non-disclosure. The Commissioner’s decision is that regulation 12(4)(e) is engaged in relation to the entirety of the requested information, however the balance of the public interest is in favour of disclosure.2. In relation to regulation 12(5)(b), it is the Commissioner’s decision that it is engaged in relation to part of the requested information and that the balance of public interest favours maintaining the exception.3. The Commissioner requires DESNZ to take the following step to ensure compliance with the legislation:• Disclose the requested information other than the part to which regulation 12(5)(b) applies.4. DESNZ must take this step within 30 calendar days of the date of this decision
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(e); EIR 12(5)(b)
View Department for Energy Security and Net Zero
26 Sep 2024Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested copies of internal audit reports from Fosdyke Parish Council (“the Parish Council”). The complainant believes the Parish Council holds further information within the scope of the request, beyond that which it has disclosed. During the course of the Commissioner’s investigation the Parish Council identified a further page of information held within the scope of the request. The Parish Council’s position is that it has now identified all of the information held that falls within the scope of the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that, with the exception of the additional page of information identified by the Parish Council during his investigation, on the balance of probabilities, the Parish Council has provided the complainant with all of the information held within scope of the request. The Commissioner requires the Parish Council to disclose the additional page of information it identified as falling within the scope of the request during the course of
Exemptions cited: FOI 1(1)
26 Sep 2024Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information relating to appeals to a planning decision made from Egerton Parish Council (“the council”). The council refused the request on the basis that section 14(1) of FOIA applied (vexatious requests). The Commissioner’s decision is that the requested information is environmental information and that the council should have considered the request under the EIR. He has decided that the council was not able to apply Regulation 12(4)(b) of the EIR to refuse to respond to the request, and that the council failed to comply with Regulation 5(2) of the EIR in that it did not respond to the request within 20 working days. The Commissioner requires the council to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. To respond to the request again, without relying upon Regulation 12(4)(b) of the EIR.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(b)
26 Sep 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from the Home Office in relation to a passport application of a late relative.The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the Home Office does not hold any further information within scope of the request.The Commissioner does not require the Home Office to take any steps as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Home Office
26 Sep 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant made four requests on the same day for information about Penalty Charge Notices (“PCNs”). Tunbridge Wells Borough Council (the Council) cited section 14(1) of FOIA to refuse the amalgamated requests as vexatious and withhold the requested information. The Commissioner’s decision is that the public authority was entitled to rely on section 14(1) of FOIA to refuse the requests.The Commissioner does not require any steps as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14(1)
View Tunbridge Wells Borough Council
25 Sep 2024Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant submitted a request to Lewisham Homes Limited (Lewisham Homes) for information relating to fly-tipping.The Commissioner’s decision is that the complainant’s request had more than one objective reading and therefore Lewisham Homes was under a duty to clarify the scope of the request. The Commissioner therefore finds that Lewisham Homes breached regulation 9 of the EIR by not providing adequate advice and assistance.The Commissioner does not require further steps, as a result of this decision notice.
Exemptions cited: EIR 9
View Lewisham Council
25 Sep 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about cookie compliance work carried out by the Information Commissioner’s Office (‘the ICO’). The ICO advised that it was relying on section 31(1)(g) of FOIA to withhold the requested information for questions one and two, and section 44 for questions three and five. The Commissioner’s decision is that the ICO was entitled to rely on sections 31(1)(g) and 44 of FOIA to withhold the requested information for these questions. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 31(1)(g); FOI 44
View Information Commissioner
25 Sep 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information in relation statements made in a case officer’s report in respect of a planning application. The above public authority (“the Council”) stated that the information was not held.The Commissioner considers that, on the balance of probabilities, the Council does not hold the information requested and regulation 12(4)(a) of the EIR is engaged. The Commissioner also finds that the Council provided adequate advice and assistance under Regulation 9 of the EIR.The Commissioner does not require the Council to take any further steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(a); EIR 9
25 Sep 2024Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested the Department of Health Northern Ireland (DoH) to disclose information relating to the practices where GP contracts have been handed back and the practices have had to be Trust managed. DoH disclosed some information but withheld the remainder, citing section 43 of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that DoH is not entitled to rely on section 43 of FOIA. The Commissioner requires DoH to disclose the remaining withheld information to the complainant.
Exemptions cited: FOI 43
View Department of Health NI
24 Sep 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about a merger investigation. The above public authority relied on sections 44 (statutory prohibition) and 31 (law enforcement) of FOIA to withhold the information. The Commissioner’s decision is that the public authority was entitled to rely on sections 44 and 31 of FOIA to withhold the information. The Commissioner does not require further steps to be taken.Keywords: Enterprise Act; Regulators
Exemptions cited: FOI 31; FOI 44
View Competition and Markets Authority
24 Sep 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information regarding a change to meeting minutes which discuss a specific planning application. The South Tyneside Council (the Council) provided some information within the scope of the request, but advised that no further information within the scope of the request was held. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the Council does not hold any additional information within the scope of the request. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 5(1)
View South Tyneside Council
24 Sep 2024Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested the name of a Senior Dispute Resolution Manager on the Horizon Shortfall Scheme. The Post Office Ltd refused to provide the requested information, citing section 38(1) of FOIA – health and safety. It later cited section 40(2) of FOIA – personal information and withdrew its reliance on section 38(1). The Commissioner’s decision is that the Post Office has correctly relied on section 40(2) of FOIA to withhold the information. However, he has found the Post Office in breach of sections 1(1)(a), 10(1) and 17(1) of FOIA by failing to provide a response and a relevant refusal notice within 20 working days. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1(1)(a); FOI 10(1); FOI 17; FOI 40(2)
View Post Office Ltd
23 Sep 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested details of a named Permanent Secretary’s specified expenses over a particular time period. The Ministry of Justice (the ‘MOJ’) cited section 21 of FOIA (information accessible to the applicant by other means). During the course of the Commissioner’s investigation, the MOJ clarified that it had originally interpreted the request and the meaning of “expenses” differently, namely as being for expenses claimed by the named individual through the MOJ’s expenses system during the period specified in the request. The Commissioner has commented on this aspect in the ‘Other matters’ part of this notice. At internal review, the MOJ provided the complainant with details of a taxi fare undertaken by the named individual in the specified period. It said that no sustenance expense claims had been made during that time, and that travel booked by its contracted supplier and invoiced directly to the MOJ (as opposed to being claimed as an expense) was out of scope of the reques
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Ministry of Justice
23 Sep 2024Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information held by Derbyshire County Council (the council) relating to the costs of the removal of two trees on a particular road. In response, the council provided the complainant with details held of the total costs of the work carried out by both the council and its contractor. As the council did not include the VAT charge when providing the cost of the work carried out by the contractor, the Commissioner considers that there has been a breach of regulation 5(1) of the EIR. However, he is satisfied that, on the balance of probabilities, the council holds no further breakdown of the costs for removing the relevant trees. The Commissioner requires the council to provide the complainant with the information held that confirms the VAT charge for the work carried out by the contractor.
Exemptions cited: EIR 5(1)
View Derbyshire County Council
23 Sep 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information about ‘screening direction requests’. The Planning Inspectorate originally refused the request under section 12 (cost of compliance) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000, but later confirmed to the Commissioner that it should have done so under regulation 12(4)(b) (manifestly unreasonable requests) of the Environmental Information Regulations 2004. The Commissioner’s decision is that the PI was entitled to rely on regulation 12(4)(b) of the EIR when refusing to supply the requested information, and has otherwise complied with its duty under regulation 9(1) of the EIR to offer advice and assistance to the complainant. The Commissioner does not require the PI to take any further action.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(b); EIR 9(1)
View Planning Inspectorate
23 Sep 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information on the Data Protection Impact Assessments (DPIAs) conducted by the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP). The Commissioner’s decision is that DWP provided the disclosed information outside of the statutory timeframe in breach of section 10(1). As DWP has disclosed the information, the Commissioner does not require DWP to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10(1)
View Department for Work and Pensions
23 Sep 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has asked London Borough of Southwark (“the Council”) for information about data breaches. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council is entitled to withhold some of the information it holds under section 40(2) of FOIA as it is personal data of third persons and disclosure would be unlawful.The Commissioner does not require any further action to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View Southwark Council
23 Sep 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested an audio recording of an interview which Surrey Police conducted with Jimmy Savile in 2009. Surrey Police refused to disclose the audio recording, citing section 38(1) (Health and safety) and section 40(2) (Personal information) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that Surrey Police was entitled to rely on section 38(1) and section 40(2) to withhold the requested information. Information Tribunal FT/EA/2024/0406 under appeal.
Exemptions cited: FOI 38; FOI 40
View Surrey Police
20 Sep 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) about an interview with Kirsty Wark relating to antisemitism and related complaints. 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
20 Sep 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant submitted a request to the London Borough of Islington (the Council) seeking information about proposals for the Barnsbury and Laycock Liveable Neighbourhood plans. The Council confirmed that it held information falling within the scope of the request but refused to disclose this on the basis of regulation 12(4)(d) (material in the course of completion, unfinished documents and incomplete data) of the EIR. The Council subsequently withdrew its reliance on this exception and disclosed this information to the complainant, and also further information located during the Commissioner’s investigation. However, the complainant argued that the Council would hold further information falling within the scope of his request. The Commissioner’s decision is that on the balance of probabilities the Council has now located all of the recorded information it holds falling within the scope of this request and has disclosed this to the complainant. The Commissioner does not require furt
Exemptions cited: EIR 5
View Islington Council
20 Sep 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested the proposed locations for Mobile Network Operators’ masts in Scotland. Ofcom has withheld the information under regulations 12(5)(a) and 12(5)(e) of the EIR, which concern national security and commercial interests.The Commissioner’s decision is that Ofcom is entitled to rely on both of these exceptions to withhold the requested information. It’s not necessary for Ofcom to take any corrective steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(a); EIR 12(5)(e)
View Ofcom
19 Sep 2024Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested consultation material and email correspondence associated with the Universities and Colleges Employers Association (UCEA). St Mary’s University (‘the University’) relied on section 41(1) of FOIA to refuse part one of the request and stated that it did not hold the information requested in part two. The Commissioner’s decision is that the University was entitled to rely on section 41(1) of FOIA to refuse the first part of the request. However, he also finds that the University breached sections 1(1)(a) and 17(1) of FOIA by failing to confirm that it held the requested information, and by failing to provide a section 41 refusal notice within 20 working days of the request. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1(1)(a); FOI 17; FOI 41
19 Sep 2024Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information regarding a decision to provide free admission to a proposed Holocaust Memorial and Learning Centre (“HMLC”) from the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (“DLUHC”), now MHCLG. MHCLG has withheld all of the requested information under section 35(1)(a) of FOIA (formulation or development of government policy). It has also applied section 42(1) to a paragraph of legal advice and section 40(2) to a small amount of personal data. The complainant has indicated they are not seeking personal data. The Commissioner’s decision is that MHCLG is not entitled to withhold the requested information under section 35(1)(a) of FOIA (formulation or development of government policy) as, although the exemption is engaged, the public interest in disclosure outweighs that in maintaining the exemption. However, MHCLG is entitled to withhold the information withheld under section 42(1) on this basis. The Commissioner requires MHCLG to disclose the informat
Exemptions cited: FOI 35(1)(a); FOI 42(1)
View Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government
19 Sep 2024Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
1. The complainant has requested information relating to subject access requests (“SARs”) made to HM Revenue and Customs. The above public authority (“HMRC”) relied on section 44(1) of FOIA (statutory prohibition on disclosure) to withhold part of the information.2. The Commissioner’s decision is that HMRC has correctly relied upon section 44(1) of FOIA. 3. As HMRC upon internal review provided part of the requested information (the dates of the SARs) the Commissioner’s decision is that it has not complied with sections 1(1)(b) and 10(1) of FOIA as it did not provide that information within 20 working days of the request.4. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10; FOI 44
19 Sep 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
In a three part request, the complainant has requested information associated with a death that occurred from University Hospitals Sussex NHS Foundation Trust (‘the Trust’). The complainant was provided with relevant information outside of FOIA and the Trust’s final position had been to rely on sections 40(5A) and 40(5B) of FOIA (personal data) to refuse to confirm or deny it holds the requested information. The complainant was concerned that the Trust holds further information within scope of Q1 of their request that it hasn’t provided and disputed its reliance on sections 40(5A) and (5B). During the Commissioner’s investigation, the Trust reconsidered its position. It has now confirmed that, other than the relevant information that had already been provided to the complainant, it holds no other information within scope of Q1 of the request. It has also confirmed that it doesn’t hold the specific information requested in Q2 and Q3 and that to the degree that relevant information it do
Exemptions cited: FOI 1(1); FOI 40(2)
View University Hospitals Sussex NHS Foundation Trust
19 Sep 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. From the evidence presented to the Commissioner in this case, Cleveland Police failed to respond to the request within 20 working days, and therefore breached section 10 of FOIA. The Commissioner does not require Cleveland Police to take any steps as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Cleveland Police