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
10 Sep 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested various information about a legal easement at a specific location. Ribble Valley Borough Council (the Council) confirmed that some information was available on its planning portal and stated that the remaining information held relevant to the request was exempt under section 40(2) (personal data), section 41 (information provided in confidence) and section 42 (legal professional privilege). During the course of the Commissioner’s investigation, the Council accepted that the request should have been considered under the EIR as opposed to the FOIA. It reconsidered the request under the EIR and stated that it was now relying on regulation 13 (personal data), regulation 12(5)(f) (interests of the provider) and regulation 12(5)(b) (course of justice). The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council correctly applied regulation 12(5)(f) to the request. He does not require any steps to be taken. Information Tribunal FT/EA/2024/0420 under appeal.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(f)
View Ribble Valley Borough Council
10 Sep 2024Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant submitted a request to the London Borough of Sutton (the Council) seeking information about changes to parking restrictions at a particular location. The Council disclosed some information to the complainant but withheld additional information on the basis of regulations 12(5)(f) (interests of the person who provided the information to the public authority) and 13(1) (personal data) of the EIR. The complainant disputed the application of these exceptions and also argued that the Council was likely to hold further information. During the course of the Commissioner’s investigation the Council located additional information part of which it disclosed and part which it sought to withhold. The Commissioner’s decision is that on the balance of probabilities the Council has now located all of the information it holds falling within the scope of the request and that the information which the Council is seeking to withhold is exempt from disclosure on the basis of regulations 12
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(f); EIR 13(1); EIR 14(2); EIR 5(1); EIR 5(2)
View London Borough of Sutton
10 Sep 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to the Ministry of Defence (MOD) seeking some previously withheld parts of a report produced in 2000 into Unidentified Aerial Phenomena. The MOD withheld the requested information on the basis of sections 24(1) (national security), 26(1)(b) (defence) and 27(1)(a) (international relations) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the withheld information is exempt from disclosure on the basis of section 27(1)(a) and that in all the circumstances of the case the public interest favours maintaining the exemption. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 27
View Ministry of Defence
10 Sep 2024Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested HSE to provide a list of all applications for PT1 Derogation under the UK Biocidal Products Regulation Article (BPR) 55 for the period 1st January 2020 to 31st December 2022. HSE disclosed some information but withheld the remainder, citing section 43 of FOIA. During the Commissioner’s investigation HSE accepted that the request should have been considered under the EIR. It issued a revised response to the complainant and disclosed some further information. For the remaining withheld information, HSE cited regulation 12(5)(c) of the EIR. The Commissioner’s decision is that HSE is not entitled to rely on regulation 12(5)(c) of the EIR. He has also found HSE in breach of regulations 5(2), 11(4) and 14(2) of the EIR. The Commissioner requires HSE to disclose the remaining withheld information to the complainant.
Exemptions cited: EIR 11(4); EIR 12(5)(c); EIR 14(2); EIR 5(2)
View Health and Safety Executive
10 Sep 2024Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested correspondence relating to a specific planning condition. The above public authority provided some information but the complainant believes more is held. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the public authority has disclosed all the information it holds that falls within the scope of the request. The public authority breached regulation 5(2) of the EIR as it failed to make some environmental information available within 20 working days. The public authority discharged its obligations under regulations 9 and 11 of the EIR. The Commissioner does not require further steps to be taken. Information Tribunal FT/EA/2024/0398 under appeal.
Exemptions cited: EIR 11; EIR 5(1); EIR 5(2); EIR 9
View Hart District Council
10 Sep 2024Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to the council’s correspondence with the Information Commissioner’s Office (“the ICO”). Potto Parish Council (“the council”) disclosed some of the information it held falling within the scope of the request in its initial response. It subsequently disclosed the remainder following the Commissioner's investigation letter to it. The complainant argues that the council’s response did not comply with the time requirements of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council did not comply with the requirements of section 10(1) of FOIA. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10(1)
10 Sep 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about the last two pay remit rounds. The above public authority provided some information but relied on section 36 of FOIA (prejudice to the effective conduct of public affairs) to withhold the remainder. The Commissioner’s decision is that the public authority has correctly relied on section 36(2)(b)(ii) of FOIA and that the public interest favours maintaining the exemption. The Commissioner does not require further steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 36
View School Teachers' Review Body
9 Sep 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to an allegation made about themselves relating to a child in their foster care. Liverpool City Council (the Council) provided the complainant with their own personal data and withheld the remaining information under sections 40(2) (personal data) and section 41 (information provided in confidence). The Commissioner’s decision is that the information is exempt from disclosure under sections 40(1) and 40(2) of the FOIA. He does not require any steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40(1); FOI 40(2)
View Liverpool City Council
9 Sep 2024Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information concerning the conferring of the title of Duke of Edinburgh upon HRH Prince Edward by HM The King.The Cabinet Office initially confirmed that they held information within scope of the request but that this was exempt from disclosure in its entirety under section 37(1)(b)(information relating to the conferring by the Crown of any honour or dignity) of FOIA. At internal review, the Cabinet Office applied section 42(1)(legal professional privilege) to some of the withheld information and also provided a neither confirm nor deny (NCND) response under section 35(3) as to whether they held any information relating to Law Officers’ advice.During the course of the Commissioner’s investigation the Cabinet Office applied section 37(1)(a)(communications with the Sovereign) to some of the withheld information and section 40(2)(third party personal data) to the names of junior civil servants. The Commissioner’s decision is that section 42(1) is engaged to s
Exemptions cited: FOI 35(3); FOI 37; FOI 42(1)
View Cabinet Office
9 Sep 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from Hertsmere Borough Council (“the Council”) relating to overcrowding reviews. The Commissioner’s decision is that on the balance of probabilities, the Council does not hold information within the scope of the request. The Commissioner does not require the Council to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Hertsmere Borough Council
9 Sep 2024Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information regarding the Shrewsbury North West relief road plan from Shropshire County Council (‘the Council’). The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council was not entitled to rely on regulation 12(4)(b) for this request. The Commissioner also finds that the Council breached regulation 5(2) by failing to respond within 20 working days. The Council has also breached regulation 9(1) by failing to provide advice and assistance, or confirming why it is unable to do so. The Commissioner requires the Council to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. Either disclose the requested information or provide an appropriate refusal notice which does not rely on regulation 12(4)(b). The Council must take these steps within 30 calendar days of the date of this decision notice. Failure to comply may result in the Commissioner making written certification of this fact to the High Court pursuant to section 54 of the Act and may be dealt with
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(b); EIR 5(2); EIR 9(1)
View Shropshire Council
9 Sep 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested the “asylum and immigration file data” for a named individual. The Home Office refused to provide the requested file in its entirety, citing the FOIA exemptions at sections 21(1) (information accessible to applicant by other means), 31(1)(e) (law enforcement), 38(1)(a) (health and safety), 40(2) (personal information) and 41(1) (information provided in confidence). During the course of the Commissioner’s investigation, the Home Office withdrew its reliance on section 21(1) and additionally cited section 38(1)(b) (health and safety) for a small amount of the withheld information. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Home Office was entitled to withhold the requested information in its entirety under sections 31(1)(e), 40(2) and 41(1) of FOIA. He did not deem it necessary to consider the Home Office’s reliance on sections 38(1)(a) and (b) as he has determined that that information was caught by section 41(1) of FOIA. The Commissioner requires no steps to be t
Exemptions cited: FOI 31; FOI 40; FOI 41
View Home Office
6 Sep 2024Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from the University of Bedfordshire (the public authority). 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
View University of Bedfordshire
6 Sep 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested records regarding two meetings held by Fylde Borough Council (the Council). 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 Fylde Borough Council
6 Sep 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to the historical handling of his settlement with the British Coal Corporation. DESNZ relied on section 14(1) of FOIA (vexatious) to refuse the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the request was vexatious and therefore DESNZ was entitled to rely upon section 14(1) of FOIA to refuse it. The Commissioner does not require any steps. Information Tribunal FT/EA/2024/0380 appeal dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14(1)
View Department for Energy Security and Net Zero
6 Sep 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information on COVID-19 deaths broken down by age and gender. The Office for National Statistics (ONS) refused the request under section 21 FOIA – information accessible to the applicant by other means. The Commissioner’s decision is that the information is reasonably accessible to the applicant by other means and ONS has correctly refused the request under section 21 FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 21
View Office for National Statistics
6 Sep 2024Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information on refurbishment options, with emphasis on energy and carbon assessment, for Castle Leazes halls of residence site at Newcastle University (the University). The University disclosed some information but withheld a report to its Executive Board under regulation 12(5)(e). The complainant disputed whether all information relevant to the request had been located. The Commissioner’s decision is that the report withheld under regulation 12(5)(e) was correctly withheld and that the University has provided adequate explanations as to why no further information in scope of the request was held at the time of the request. However, he finds that the University did not comply with its obligation under regulation 5 EIR at the time of the request as it did not locate and provide all relevant information within the statutory timeframe. However as information has now been provided the University is not required to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(e); EIR 5
6 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 30 calendar days in accordance with its obligations under FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 17(3)
View Cabinet Office
6 Sep 2024Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The Commissioner’s decision is that the majority of the information the complainant has requested is exempt from disclosure under section 40(2) of FOIA. This is because the information is another individual’s personal data and disclosing it wouldn’t be lawful. Pearl Smile Dental Group’s section 40(2) refusal notice didn’t comply with section 17(1) of FOIA.The remaining information isn’t personal data and Pearl Smile Dental Group didn’t comply with section 1(1) and 10(1) of FOIA in respect of the timeliness of its response to this part of the request. Pearl Smile Dental Group must take the following step to ensure compliance with the legislation: Provide the complainant with a fresh response to part 3.0 of the request, basing the response on the situation as it was the time of the request.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1(1); FOI 10(1); FOI 17; FOI 40(2)
6 Sep 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to Mid and South Essex Integrated Care Board (ICB’s) processes surrounding Individual Funding Requests. The ICB refused the request as vexatious under section 14(1) FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the request was vexatious and therefore the ICB was entitled to rely upon section 14(1) FOIA to refuse it. The Commissioner does not require any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14
View NHS Mid and South Essex ICB
6 Sep 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information connected with a previous request and questions relating to it. Lancaster University (the university) refused the request, citing section 14(1) of FOIA – vexatious request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the request was vexatious and therefore the university was entitled to rely upon section 14(1) of FOIA to refuse it. The Commissioner does not require further steps. Information Tribunal FT/EA/2024/0402 under appeal.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14(1)
View The University of Lancaster
6 Sep 2024Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested communication between the Department for Transport (‘DfT’) and Greybull Capital. The DfT disclosed information with redactions made under section 43(2) (commercial interests). The Commissioner’s decision is that all withheld information engages section 43(2) and the public interest lies in maintaining the exemption, except in one instance. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: disclose the information redacted from the letter dated 23 August 2021. Information Tribunal FT/EA/2024/0354 appeal withdrawn.
Exemptions cited: FOI 43(2)
View Department for Transport
5 Sep 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted an information request to London Ambulance Service NHS Trust (LAS) for information relating to CAD 4368. The Commissioner’s decision is that the request was vexatious and therefore LAS was entitled to rely upon section 14(1) of FOIA to refuse it. Information Tribunal FT/EA/2024/0368 appeal dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14(1)
View London Ambulance Service NHS Trust
5 Sep 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information from London Borough of Haringey (“the Council”) regarding letters of complaint lodged with the Council regarding specified properties and their listed status. The Council relied on section 40(2) of FOIA (third party personal information) to withhold the information, however it later considered that it should have handled the request under the EIR, so applied regulation 13 of the EIR.2. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has correctly relied on regulation 13 of the EIR to withhold the information.3. The Commissioner has also decided that the Council breached regulation 14 of the EIR as it failed to deal with the request under the EIR.4. The Commissioner does not require further steps to be take. Information Tribunal FT/EA/2024/0395 under appeal.
Exemptions cited: EIR 13
View Haringey Council
5 Sep 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to staffing levels within Magilligan Prison. The Department of Finance withheld the requested information in reliance on section 31(1)(f) of FOIA (maintenance of security and good order in prisons). The Commissioner’s decision is that the Department was entitled to rely on section 31(1)(f) to refuse the request. No steps are required.
Exemptions cited: FOI 31
View Department of Finance
5 Sep 2024Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to the London Borough of Merton (the council) for a cabinet paper in relation to a named car park. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council correctly relied upon regulation 12(5)(d) (confidentiality of proceedings) to withhold the requested information, and that the public interest favoured maintaining the exception. However, in failing to issue a proper refusal notice, within 20 working days, the council breached regulation 14(3) of the EIR.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12; FOI 14
View Merton Council
5 Sep 2024Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information about acoustic fish deterrents. NNB Generation Company (HPC) Ltd (NNB GenCo) refused to comply with the request as it did not consider the information to be environmental or that it was subject to the EIR. The Commissioner’s decision is that NNB GenCo is public authority for the purposes of the EIR and therefore was under an obligation to respond to the request. As it failed to provide any environmental information or issue a refusal notice, the Commissioner finds that NNB GenCo breached regulation 5(2) of the EIR. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. Information Tribunal FT/EA/2024/0393 under appeal.
Exemptions cited: EIR 2(2); EIR 5(2)
5 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
View Home Office
5 Sep 2024Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to Non-Disclosure Agreements (“NDAs”). Oxfordshire County Council (the “Council”) disclosed some information but withheld the standard wording of NDAs under the exemption for prejudice to commercial interests (section 43). 2. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has failed to demonstrate that the exemption in section 43(2) is engaged. 3. The Commissioner requires the Council to disclosure the requested NDA standard text to the complainant.
Exemptions cited: FOI 43(2)
View Oxfordshire County Council
5 Sep 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information about electricity standing charges. EDF Energy Ltd refused to comply with the request as it did not consider the information to be environmental or that it was subject to the EIR. The Commissioner’s decision is that EDF is not a public authority for the purposes of the EIR and therefore it was not under an obligation to respond to the request. As EDF is not a public authority, the Commissioner is unable to compel it to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 2(2)
5 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. 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 NHS England
5 Sep 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information about electricity standing charges. EDF Energy Ltd refused to comply with the request as it did not consider the information to be environmental or that it was subject to the EIR. The Commissioner’s decision is that EDF is not a public authority for the purposes of the EIR and therefore it was not under an obligation to respond to the request. As EDF is not a public authority, the Commissioner is unable to compel it to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 2(2)
5 Sep 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from the London Borough of Hillingdon (the Council) relating to a definition of anti-social behaviour used by the Council. The Council deemed the request vexatious under section 14(1) of FOIA, and refused to provide a further response to the complainant, relying on section 17(6) as the basis for doing so. The Commissioner’s decision is that the request was vexatious under section 14(1), and that the Council was entitled to rely on section 17(6) of FOIA to decline to issue a further refusal notice. As a result, the Commissioner does not require the Council to take any steps in relation to this complaint.
Exemptions cited: FOI 17(6)
View Hillingdon Council
4 Sep 2024Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested The Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust (the Trust) to disclose information relating to a £9m donation to Royal Marsden Cancer Charity (RMCC) in 2022/23. The Trust disclosed some information but withheld the remainder under section 36(2)(c) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Trust is entitled to refuse to disclose the withheld information in accordance with section 36(2)(c) of FOIA. He has however found a breach of section 1, 10 and 17 of FOIA. The Commissioner does not require any further action to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10; FOI 17; FOI 36(2)(c)
View The Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust
4 Sep 2024Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from Cleveland Fire Brigade (‘CFB’) about its business relationship with Cleveland Fire Brigade Risk Management (‘CFBRM’). CFB disclosed some information, but it withheld information about some financial arrangements, citing section 43(2) (Commercial interests) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that CFB has not demonstrated that section 43(2) of FOIA is engaged. The Commissioner requires CFB to disclose to the complainant the information requested at points (1), (3), (4) and (18) of the request, which was withheld under section 43(2).
Exemptions cited: FOI 43
View Cleveland Fire Brigade
4 Sep 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has submitted multiple requests for information to South Tyneside Council (STC). The Commissioner’s decision is that STC is entitled to rely upon section 14(1) of FOIA to refuse to provide the requested information. The Commissioner does not require any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14(1)
View South Tyneside Council
4 Sep 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The Commissioner’s decision is that the BBC’s interpretation of the complainant’s request for information about its structure was reasonable and that, on the balance of probabilities, it holds no further relevant information. It’s not necessary for the BBC to take any corrective steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1(1)
View BBC
4 Sep 2024Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested the University of Oxford (the university) to disclose emails between four named members of staff, between 1 August 2023 and 29 April 2024, relating to postdoctoral researchers and their eligibility to Congregation. The university refused the request, citing section 14 of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the university is not entitled to rely on section 14 of FOIA. The university is required to issue a fresh response to the complainant in accordance with FOIA, which does not rely on section 14.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14
View The University of Oxford
4 Sep 2024Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested details of the local authorities that applied to transfer funds from their schools block funding and the application each one submitted. The above public authority provided most of the information, but withheld the applications themselves, relying on section 36 of FOIA (prejudice to effective conduct of public affairs) in order to do so. The Commissioner’s decision is that only some of the information engages section 36 and, where this is the case, the public interest favours disclosure. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. Disclose a copy of each submission along with any supporting documents. The public authority should make appropriate redactions to protect personal information.
Exemptions cited: FOI 36
View Department for Education
4 Sep 2024Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested, from Fermanagh and Omagh District Council (the Council), information relating to a Strategic Capital Projects Grant Programme and covering a specified period of time. The Council disclosed some information, but relied on sections 40(2) and 43(2) of FOIA (the ‘personal information’ and ‘commercial interests’ exemptions) to refuse to disclose other information. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council was entitled to rely on section 40(2) in respect of the withheld information relating to Council officials. However, he finds that the Council has failed to demonstrate that section 43(2) is engaged in respect of the information being withheld under that exemption. He also finds that the Council holds further information within scope of the request of 28 November 2023; and that it breached section 17 of FOIA as it previously failed to state its reliance on section 21 in respect of information published on its website. The Commissioner requires the Counc
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 17; FOI 40(2); FOI 43(2)
4 Sep 2024Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The public authority has failed to respond to this request within 20 working days, as specified in the EIR. The Commissioner requires it to provide the complainant with a response to this request within 30 calendar days in accordance with its obligations under the EIR.
Exemptions cited: EIR 5(2)
View Harrow Council
3 Sep 2024Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information relating to meetings with specific companies. The above public authority relied on regulations 12(4)(d) (material in the course of completion) and 12(4)(e) of the EIR (internal communications) to withhold the information. The Commissioner’s decision is that regulation 12(4)(d) is engaged, but that the public interest favours disclosure. Regulation 12(4)(e) is engaged in respect of all the information to which the public authority has applied it, but the public interest only favours maintaining the exception for some of the information. For the remaining information, the public interest favours disclosure. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: disclose a copy of the letter identified in paragraph 10 and the readouts identified in paragraph 21. Information Tribunal FT/EA/2024/0388 appeal allowed.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(d); EIR 12(4)(e)
3 Sep 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about a decision not to debate the UK’s membership of the WHO. The House of Commons relied on section 34 (Parliamentary privilege) to withhold the information. The Commissioner’s decision is that disclosure would have infringed parliamentary privilege and therefore the House of Commons was entitled to rely on section 34 of FOIA. The Commissioner does not require further steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 34
View Corporate Officers of the House of Commons
3 Sep 2024Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested copies of policies and procedures. The above public authority disclosed some information and relied on section 21 of FOIA (reasonably accessible) to withhold the remainder. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the public authority has now either disclosed all the information it holds or indicated where it can be found. However, as the public authority failed to communicate all relevant information or issue an adequate refusal notice within 20 working days it breached sections 10 and 17 of FOIA. The Commissioner does not require further steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10; FOI 17
3 Sep 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to facilities provided for asylum seekers/refugees at a named accommodation site. The Home Office neither confirmed nor denied holding the requested information, citing section 38(2) (health and safety) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Home Office was entitled to rely on section 38(2) to refuse to confirm or deny whether it holds any information falling within the scope of the request. No steps are required as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: FOI 38
View Home Office
3 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 Redbridge Council
3 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 Humberside Police
3 Sep 2024Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about an alleged hack on the phone of the then-Foreign Secretary. The above public authority relied on sections 23 (security bodies) and 24 (national security) of FOIA to refuse to confirm or deny that any information was held. The Commissioner’s decision is that the public authority was entitled to rely on sections 23 and 24 of FOIA to refuse to confirm or deny that any information was held. The public authority breached section 17 of FOIA by failing to issue a refusal notice within 20 working days. The Commissioner does not require further steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 17; FOI 23; FOI 24
View Cabinet Office