19 Sep 2024Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested, from the Cabinet Office, information about the allocation of funds for the Network North project. The Cabinet Office refused to disclose the requested information, on the basis of sections 21(1) and 35(1)(a) of FOIA (the ‘information accessible to applicant by other means’ and ‘formulation of government policy, etc’ exemptions respectively). The Cabinet Office has also told the Commissioner that if the request falls under the EIR, the requested information is excepted from disclosure under regulation 12(4)(e) of the EIR (the ‘internal communications’ exception). The Commissioner finds that the request falls under the EIR; regulation 12(4)(e) is engaged, but the public interest favours disclosure; and the Cabinet Office breached regulations 14 and 11, because its refusal notice didn’t cite the exception it came to rely on and because the Cabinet Office took more than 40 working days to provide the outcome of its internal review. The Commissioner requires t
Exemptions cited: EIR 11; EIR 12(4)(e); EIR 14
View Cabinet Office
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
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
18 Sep 2024Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from Mid Devon District Council (“the Council”) relating to data breaches. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council is entitled to rely on section 12(1) of FOIA to refuse to provide the requested information. He also finds that the Council met its obligations under section 16(1) of FOIA to offer advice and assistance. However, the Commissioner finds that the Council breached section 10(1) (time for compliance) of FOIA by failing to respond to the request within the statutory timeframe of 20 working days. The Commissioner does not require the Council to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 12; FOI 16
View Mid Devon District Council
18 Sep 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested a copy of the operating procedures and guidelines for Independent Case Examiners (‘ICE’) from the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP). DWP referred the complainant to publicly available information in accordance with section 21 of FOIA, which it confirmed was the only information held within the scope of the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, DWP does not hold any additional information within the scope of the request. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Department for Work and Pensions
18 Sep 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from Transport for London (TfL) relating to complaints about taxi drivers. The Commissioner’s decision is that TfL is entitled to rely on section 40(2) (personal information) to withhold information within the scope of the request. The Commissioner does not require TfL to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View Transport for London
18 Sep 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested the recorded cause of a fire that occurred in a particular location. Suffolk County Council (the council) refused to provide the requested information, citing section 21 of FOIA – information accessible to the applicant by other means. During the course of the Commissioner’s investigation, the council disclosed the information but the complainant did not accept that all the information falling within scope had been disclosed. The Commissioner’s decision is that the requested information falls under the EIR and that, on the balance of probability, there is no further information held by the council. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 5(1)
View Suffolk County Council
18 Sep 2024Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information about a sewer capacity assessment associated (SCA) with a proposed development. Severn Trent Water (STW) has now disclosed the relevant information it holds – the SCA - but the complainant considers STW holds more information.The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, STW doesn’t hold any further information and that regulation 12(4)(a) of the EIR is engaged. The Commissioner has also decided that STW’s initial refusal of the request and its handling of the complainant’s request for an internal review didn’t comply with the requirements of regulations 14 and 11(4) of the EIR. It’s not necessary for STW to take any corrective steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 11(4); EIR 12(4)(a); EIR 14
View Severn Trent Water
18 Sep 2024Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested from Anthem Schools Trust (the Trust), staff travel and accommodation expenses covering a period of five years. The Trust relied on section 12(1) (cost of compliance exceeds appropriate limit) and section 14 (vexatious requests) of FOIA to refuse the request.
The Commissioner’s decision is that the Trust was entitled to rely on section 12(1) of FOIA to refuse the request. The Commissioner also finds that in failing to provide advice and assistance at the time it responded to the request, the Trust did not comply with its section 16 obligation. The Trust however subsequently provided advice to the complainant.
The Commissioner does not require any steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12; FOI 14
18 Sep 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested staff guidance on suspension procedures. The Department for Work and Pensions (“the DWP”) initially stated it did not hold the information requested, but released the guidance at internal review. The Commissioner’s decision is that the information which has been provided to the complainant is an accurate reflection of the information that is held and that, on the balance of probabilities, the DWP does not hold any further information that falls within scope of the request. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Department for Work and Pensions
18 Sep 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) relating to Sector-based Work Academy Programmes. DWP relied on section 12 of FOIA (cost of compliance) to refuse the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that DWP was entitled to rely on section 12(1) of FOIA to refuse the request. The Commissioner also finds that DWP complied with its section 16 obligation to offer advice and assistance. The Commissioner does not require further steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12; FOI 16
View Department for Work and Pensions
18 Sep 2024Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested declaration of interest forms for staff in the roles of Area and Regional Directors at the Environment Agency (Deputy Directors and Directors respectively). The Environment Agency refused the request under section 40(2). The Commissioner’s decision is that the for the less senior position of Deputy Director the Environment Agency was correct to withhold the information in the declaration of interest forms. However, for the more senior position of Director the Commissioner considers section 40(2) has not been correctly engaged. The Commissioner requires the Environment Agency to disclose the requested information at Director level. Information Tribunal FT/EA/2024/0425 under appeal.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View Environment Agency
18 Sep 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested a copy of a report outlining the findings of an inquiry into allegations made about senior Council officials. London Borough of Newham (‘the Council’) relied on section 40(2) of FOIA to refuse the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council was entitled to rely on section 40(2) of FOIA to refuse the request. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40(2)
View Newham Council
18 Sep 2024Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested copies of specific email chains. The Department for Transport (‘DfT’) disclosed a redacted email and denied holding any further information that fell within the scope of the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the DfT has identified all of the information that falls within the scope of the request. However, the DfT breached section 10 (timescale for compliance) in failing to disclose all non-exempt information within twenty working days. The Commissioner does not require further steps. Information Tribunal FT/EA/2024/0397 under appeal.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10
View Department for Transport
18 Sep 2024Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested road maintenance data from Nottinghamshire County Council (“the council”). The council initially provided some data, however in its internal review, it identified that further information was held by it in a separate database. It subsequently disclosed this to the complainant. The complainant, however, believes that further information is held by the council. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council does not hold any further information falling within the scope of the complainant's request for information. He has, however, decided that the council’s response did not comply with the requirements of Regulation 5(2) of the EIR. The Commissioner does not require the council to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 5(1); EIR 5(2)
View Nottinghamshire County Council
18 Sep 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about the possible existence of indecent material on Ormiston Academies Trust’s systems. Ormiston Academies Trust (‘the Trust’) relied on section 14(1) of FOIA to refuse the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the request was vexatious and therefore the Trust was entitled to rely upon section 14(1) of FOIA to refuse it. The Commissioner does not require further steps. Information Tribunal FT/EA/2024/0407 under appeal.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14(1)
View ORMISTON ACADEMIES TRUST
17 Sep 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested numbers of staff employed (actual and full time equivalent) for specified categories of employees between 2010 to 2024. Lincolnshire Police provided some of the requested information dating from 2014. At internal review, Lincolnshire Police explained that it was unable to provide any earlier data as it no longer had access to a redundant system. During the Commissioner’s investigation, Linconshire Police provided the complainant with additional information which it had obtained from its Annual Data Returns for workforce figures submitted to the Home Office for the years 2010 to 2013, for some categories of employees requested by the complainant. He maintained that Lincolnshire Police must hold further information. The Commissioner has considered whether Lincolnshire Police holds more information than has already been disclosed to the complainant. The Commissioner’s decision is, on the balance of probabilities, that no further recorded information within the sc
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Lincolnshire Police
17 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 Staffordshire Police
17 Sep 2024Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information in respect of wildlife crime reports. The public authority relied on section 12(1) of FOIA (cost of compliance) to refuse the request.The Commissioner’s decision is that the public authority was entitled to rely on section 12(1) of FOIA to refuse the request. The Commissioner also finds that the public authority complied with its section 16 obligation to offer advice and assistance.The Commissioner also finds that the public authority breached section 10(1) as it failed to respond to one request within the statutory time limit.The Commissioner does not require further steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 12(1); FOI 16
View Police Service of Northern Ireland
17 Sep 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about changes to pricing for leisure centre activities. Mid Devon District Council withheld some of the requested information under section 43(2) (commercial interests) of FOIA and disclosed the remainder. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council is entitled to withhold the information under section 43(2) and does not hold any further information. The Commissioner does not require further steps. Information Tribunal FT/EA/2024/0389 under appeal.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1(1); FOI 43(2)
View Mid Devon District Council
17 Sep 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about ‘The Home Protection scheme’, specifically in relation to ‘Toughened Glass’ and costs related to it. The Northern Ireland Office (NIO) would neither confirm nor deny (NCND) holding any information , citing sections 24(2) (National security). The Commissioner’s decision is that the NIO was entitled to rely on section 24(1) FOIA to NCND holding the requested information. The Commissioner does not require further steps. Information Tribunal FT/EA/2024/0376 under appeal.
Exemptions cited: FOI 24
View Northern Ireland Office
16 Sep 2024Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested the Charity Commission (CC) to disclose a list of charities that have a dispensation where the names of all of their trustees are withheld from the public Register of Charities. CC refused the request citing sections 38 and 40 of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that section 40 of FOIA applies to the requested information for Charitable Companies. However, for Charitable Incorporated Organisations (CIOs), Charitable Trusts and Unincorporated Charitable Associations, both sections 38 and 40 of FOIA are not engaged. CC is therefore required to disclose the requested information for all CIOs, Charitable Trusts and Unincorporated Charitable Associations to the complainant. Information Tribunal FT/EA/2024/0410 under appeal.
Exemptions cited: FOI 38; FOI 40
View The Charity Commission
16 Sep 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested correspondence between the Council and the Information Commissioner Office relating to a specific case. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council was entitled to rely on section 14(1) to refuse the request. The Commissioner does not require any further steps to be taken
Exemptions cited: FOI 14
View Birmingham City Council
16 Sep 2024Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to HM Treasury (HMT) seeking information about the assessment of the overall sufficiency of adult social care funding and the local government finance settlement. HMT disclosed some information but sought to withhold the remainder on the basis of section 35(1)(a) (formulation or development of government policy) of FOIA. The complainant challenged this and also argued that HMT had failed to provide adequate or full responses to parts of the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that HMT has located and provided (or withheld) all of the recorded information it holds falling within the scope of the request, and that the information withheld on the basis of section 35(1)(a) falls within the scope of that exemption, but the public interest in disclosure of this outweighs the public interest in withholding it. Information Tribunal FT/EA/2024/0409 appeal withdrawn.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 35
View HM Treasury
16 Sep 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested DfT to disclose information relating the Prime Minister’s announcement on 20 September 2023 to, amongst other things, delay the ban on sales of petrol and diesel cars from 2030 to 2035 (the “ZEV decision”). DfT refused to disclose the requested information citing regulation 12(4)(e) of the EIR. The Commissioner’s decision is that DfT is entitled to rely on regulation 12(4)(e) of the EIR. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(e)
View Department for Transport
16 Sep 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information about AB 48/953 Operation Epsilon papers. The Ministry of Defence (“MoD”) 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 MOD 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 Ministry of Defence
16 Sep 2024Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information about historic deeds relating to a school site. The London Borough of Hackney (“the Council”) 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 the Council was not entitled to rely upon section 14(1) of FOIA to refuse it. The Commissioner requires the Council to issue a fresh response to the request that does not rely on section 14(1) of FOIA. The Council must take this step within 30 calendar days of the date of this notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14(1)
View London Borough of Hackney
16 Sep 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information from Ealing Council (the Council) in relation to maintenance and repair records on a named property.
The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the Council does not hold any further information within scope of the request. However, he finds that the Council breached regulation 5(2) in respect of its late initial response.
The Commissioner does not require the Council to take any steps as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: EIR 5(1)
View Ealing Council
13 Sep 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested from Swansea Council (the Council) information regarding road inspection reports. The Council withheld the information under section 12(5)(b) (course of justice) of the EIR.The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council was entitled to withhold the requested information under regulation 12(5)(b) of the EIR. He does not require the Council to take any steps as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(b)
View Swansea Council
13 Sep 2024Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The public authority has failed to complete its public interest test considerations within a reasonable time in accordance with its obligations under FOIA. The Commissioner requires it to provide a substantive response to the request within 35 calendar days in accordance with its obligations under FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 17
View Home Office
13 Sep 2024Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information about council tax arrears owed by a named MP. Hartlepool Borough Council (the Council) refused to provide the information requested under sections 31(1)(a) (law enforcement) and 40(2) (personal data). The Commissioner’s decision is that section 40(2) is not engaged in relation to some of the information requested and that the Council correctly withheld other information undersection 40(2) of the FOIA. The Commissioner also finds that section 31 is not engaged in respect of the first part of the postcode. The Commissioner requires the Council to disclose the amount that the MP was in arrears and the first part of the postcode of their home address.
Exemptions cited: FOI 31; FOI 40
View Hartlepool Council
13 Sep 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to the creation of a statement issued to the press. London Borough of Tower Hamlets (the Council) provided some information and confirmed that no further information was held. 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. However, in not responding to the request within the statutory time limit, the Council breached section 10(1) of FOIA. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1(1)
View London Borough of Tower Hamlets
13 Sep 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) relating to the phased roll out offer to people on Universal Credit. DWP stated that it did not hold some of the information requested, it applied Sections 35(1)(a) and 21 to the remainder of the information. The Commissioner’s decision is that section 35(1)(a) is engaged for the withheld information and the public interest lies in maintaining the exemption.The Commissioner does not require further steps
Exemptions cited: FOI 35(1)(a)
View Department for Work and Pensions
12 Sep 2024Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested a copy of service records. The Ministry of Defence (‘MoD’) disclosed a copy of the record with redactions made under section 41(1) (information provided in confidence). The Commissioner’s decision is that the withheld information has been appropriately withheld under section 41(1). The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 41(1)
View Ministry of Defence
12 Sep 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about a recruitment exercise. Lift Schools (formerly ‘Academies Enterprise Trust’) disclosed the majority of the requested information and applied section 40(2) of FOIA to the remainder. Section 40(2) concerns personal data. The Commissioner’s decision is that Lift Schools correctly applied section 40(2) of FOIA to the information it has withheld. The information is other individuals’ personal data and disclosing it wouldn’t be lawful. It’s not necessary for Lift Schools to take any corrective steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40(2)
View LIFT SCHOOLS
12 Sep 2024Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information relating to the installation of fencing at a village green. Folkstone and Hythe District Council (“the council”) responded under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the FOIA) stating the information was not held. The Commissioner’s decision is that the request was for environmental information and so the council should have responded under the EIR. However, he has decided that, on the balance of probabilities, the council does not hold the requested information. The Commissioner has also decided that the council did not comply with regulation 11(3) of the EIR as it did not carry out an internal review. The Commissioner does not require any steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 11(3); EIR 12(4)(a)
View Folkestone and Hythe District Council
12 Sep 2024Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested correspondence relating to a website login. The above public authority denied that it held information for the purposes of FOIA.The Commissioner’s decision is that the public authority does hold some information within the scope of the request and that it holds this information for the purposes 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, on the basis that the information it described to the Commissioner in its submission is held for the purposes of FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 3
View Lincolnshire County Council
12 Sep 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant made a request for the due diligence report relating to a planned donation to Linacre College. The Commissioner’s decision is that the College was entitled to rely on section 41(1) of FOIA to withhold the information requested at part one of the request and, on the balance of probabilities, does not hold information within scope at part two of the request. The Commissioner doesn’t require any steps as a result of this decision notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 41(1)
12 Sep 2024Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about the sharing of information following road traffic collisions. The above public authority’s final position was that it held no information within the scope of the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the public authority does not hold any further information within the scope of the request apart from that which it has already disclosed to the complainant and that which is already reasonably accessible to him. The public authority breached section 10 of FOIA as it failed to respond to the request within 20 working days. The Commissioner does not require further steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10
View Staffordshire Police
12 Sep 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about the events and communications surrounding the Opposition Day debate on 21 February 2024. The House of Commons (“HoC”) neither confirmed nor denied that it held information within scope of the request, with reliance on section 34 (parliamentary privilege) of FOIA. During the course of the Commissioner’s investigation the HoC issued a certificate under section 34(3) confirming that the exemption applied. The Commissioner’s decision is that section 34(2) was correctly applied. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 34
View Corporate Officers of the House of Commons
12 Sep 2024Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested, from the London Borough of Croydon (the Council), a copy of a building control certificate regarding a specified property. The Council refused to disclose the requested information, citing regulations 13 (personal data) and 12(5)(d) (confidentiality of proceedings) of the EIR as its basis for doing so. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council was entitled to rely on regulation 13 of the EIR as its basis for refusing to disclose the requested information. He also finds that, as the Council’s refusal and internal review response were late, the Council breached regulations 14 and 11 respectively. The Commissioner doesn’t require any steps in response to this decision notice. Information Tribunal FT/EA/2024/0399 appeal dismissed.
Exemptions cited: EIR 11; EIR 13; EIR 14
View London Borough of Croydon
12 Sep 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested from Chigwell Parish Council (“the council”) the names of councillors serving in specified years at the council. He also requested a copy of the Acceptance of Office certificates for parish councillors who were elected to the council on 6 May 2021. The council applied section 21 of FOIA to part 1 of the request information (information easily accessible to the applicant by other means). It said that it does not hold any information falling within part 2 of the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council was correct to apply section 21 to withhold the information falling within part 1 of the request from disclosure. He has also decided that, on a balance of probabilities, the council does not hold a copy of the councillors’ Acceptance of Office Certificates as regards part 2 of the request. The Commissioner does not require the council to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 21
12 Sep 2024Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The Commissioner’s decision is that the public authority breached section 10(1) of FOIA by failing to provide a response within 20 working days.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View NHS England
12 Sep 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information relating to the legal advice obtained by the London Borough of Sutton (the council) before it introduced additional costs for processing documents submitted in support of a planning application. The council has refused to provide the information, stating that it is covered by Legal Professional Privilege (LPP). It cited regulation 12(5)(b) (the course of justice and inquiries) of the EIR as its basis for doing so. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council correctly withheld the information under the exception at regulation 12(5)(b) of the EIR and that the balance of the public interest favours the exception being maintained. The Commissioner does not require the council to take further steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(b)
View London Borough of Sutton
12 Sep 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information relating to a planning application. Somerset County Council (the council) disclosed some of the information to the complainant but withheld the remainder of the information citing regulations 12(5)(b) (the course of justice and inquiries) and 12(3) (personal information) of the EIR as its basis for doing so. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council was correct to rely on regulations 12(5)(b) of the EIR. The Commissioner also considers that the council has failed to comply with its obligations under regulation 5(2) of the EIR as it did not issue a response to the complainant’s request within 20 working days. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(b)
View Somerset Council
12 Sep 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information about a quarry and its operation. Warwickshire County Council disclosed some information but withheld the remainder under the exceptions provided by regulation 12(5)(b) (course of justice, etc.) and regulation 12(5)(e) (confidentiality of commercial or industrial information) of the EIR. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council is entitled to withhold the information under regulation 12(5)(b) and regulation 12(5)(e). The Commissioner does not require further steps. Information Tribunal FT/EA/2025/0401 under appeal.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(b); EIR 12(5)(e)
View Warwickshire County Council
11 Sep 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to the Ministry of Defence (MOD) seeking information about a number of defence projects. The MOD provided some of the information requested but sought to withhold the remainder on the basis of sections 24 (national security), 26 (defence) and 27 (international relations). The Commissioner’s decision is that the withheld information is exempt from disclosure on the basis of sections 24(1) and 27(1)(a), and that the public interest favours maintaining each exemption. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 24; FOI 27
View Ministry of Defence
11 Sep 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested various information in respect of a boundary wall at the rear gardens of a row of properties including reports that Cheshire West and Chester Council, (’the Council’) have commissioned regarding the wall. The Council refused the request citing regulation 12(5)(b) (the course of justice) to withhold the information. During the course of the Commissioner’s investigation, the Council wrote to the complainant confirming that it does not hold information in respect of item two of the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that some of the information constitutes the complainant’s own personal data, and as such, regulation 5(3) of the EIR applies. The Commissioner has also determined that the Council correctly applied regulation 12(5)(b) to the withheld information. The Commissioner does not require any steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(b); EIR 5(3)
View Cheshire West and Chester Council
11 Sep 2024Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information about a firearms prohibition in the Offensive Weapons Act 2019. Although the Home Office responded to some parts of the request, it failed to issue a substantive response to two parts, despite the complainant asking that it do so. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Home Office breached sections 1(1) (General right of access) and 10(1) (Time for compliance) by failing to respond to those two parts of the request. The Commissioner requires the Home Office to confirm or deny whether it holds information falling within scope of the requests reproduced in paragraph 5 of this decision notice. If held, any information must either be disclosed, or a valid non-disclosure exemption cited, with an appropriate supporting explanation for its application provided.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10
View Home Office
11 Sep 2024Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information with regards to the status of specific footpaths. The Commissioner’s decision is that Durham County Council (the council) should have refused the request under regulation 12(4)(c) of the EIR (request formulated in too general a manner) and breached regulation 9 of the EIR as it did not provide the complainant with appropriate advice and assistance in order to clarify the request. The Commissioner requires the council to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. In accordance with regulation 9 of the EIR, provide the complainant with appropriate advice and assistance as outlined in this decision notice. The council must take these steps within 30 calendar days of the date of this decision notice. Failure to comply may result in the Commissioner making written certification of this fact to the High Court pursuant to section 54 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and may be dealt with as a contempt of court.
Exemptions cited: EIR 9
View Durham County Council