22 Aug 2024Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has made a four-part request for information about advertising campaigns. The West of England Combined Authority issued a response in which it stated that some parts of the request were not valid requests for information, and that for the remainder, the information was exempt from disclosure. During the course of investigation, WECA informed the Commissioner that upon review, it considered that all parts of the request were valid requests for information, and that its original response to the request did not therefore comply with FOIA. WECA also acknowledged that at the time of the request, it did not appear that appropriate searches for information had been carried out before determining that certain information was exempt from disclosure. The Commissioner’s decision is that WECA has failed to respond to the request in compliance with its duties under section 1 (General right of access to information) and section 10 (Time for compliance with the request). The Commissio
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10(1)
View West of England Combined Authority
22 Aug 2024Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information about vehicle movements at Leeds East Airfield. North Yorkshire Council (the “Council”) withheld the information under the exception for the course of justice (regulation 12(5)(b)). The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council is entitled to withhold the information under regulation 12(5)(b) and that its internal review complied with regulation 11(4). However, he also finds that the Council breached regulation 5(2) because its initial response was outside 20 working days. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 11(4); EIR 12(5)(b); EIR 5(2)
View North Yorkshire County Council
22 Aug 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information on contracts awarded to particular companies. The Home Office disclosed much of the requested information but it withheld some information about particular contracts, citing section 24(1) (National security) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the withheld information was exempt from disclosure under section 24.
Exemptions cited: FOI 24
View Home Office
22 Aug 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to an SAI report of a trip which took place in May 2020 from (Name redacted) Care Home to Trust led day centres. Southern Health and Social Care Trust (SHSCT) relied on section 40(2) of FOIA (third party personal information) to withhold the information.The Commissioner’s decision is that SHSCT is entitled to withhold some of the information it holds under section 40(2) of FOIA as it is the personal data of another individual and disclosure would be unlawful.The Commissioner does not require further steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40(2)
View Southern Health and Social Care Trust
22 Aug 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant made a number of requests for information to Cornwall Council (“the council”) relating two planning applications. The council aggregated the three requests and refused to respond further, applying Regulation 12(4)(b) of the EIR. It subsequently confirmed that no information is held as regards one of the requests. The complainant disputes that the information should have been considered under the EIR, and argues that the council is wrong to apply Regulation 12(4)(b) to refuse the requests. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council was correct to aggregate the requests and to consider the information under the EIR. He has also decided that it was correct to apply Regulation 12(4)(b) to refuse to respond to the requests further. The Commissioner does not require any steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(b)
View Cornwall Council
21 Aug 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested from Sheriff Hutton Parish Council (‘the Parish Council’) all information and correspondence it held relating to a variation to planning application that he had submitted to North Yorkshire Council. The Parish Council disclosed most of the requested information, but it withheld individual councillors’ names and email addresses. It also withheld correspondence on the application it had received from a member of the public. It cited section 41 (Information provided in confidence) of FOIA for these redactions. During the Commissioner’s investigation, the Parish Council reconsidered the request under the EIR and confirmed it was relying on regulation 13(1) (Personal data) to withhold the information, which it considered to be the personal data of third parties. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Parish Council was entitled to rely on regulation 13(1) to refuse to disclose the withheld information.
Exemptions cited: EIR 13(1)
21 Aug 2024Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested, from South West Water (SWW), information relating to sewer flooding. The Commissioner’s decision is that the information requested in parts 3, 4 and 5 of the request is environmental information under regulation 2(1) of the EIR. Therefore, SWW is obliged to respond to these parts of the request. The Commissioner requires SWW to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation.• SWW must provide the complainant with a response to parts 3, 4 and 5 of the request, which complies with the requirements of the EIR. SWW 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 FOIA and may be dealt with as a contempt of court. Information Tribunal FT/EA/2024/0377 appeal withdrawn.
Exemptions cited: EIR 2(1)
View South West Water
21 Aug 2024Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from East Grinstead Town Council (“the Council”) relating to questions asked at a Council meeting. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council is not entitled to rely on section 14(1) (vexatious request) of FOIA to refuse to comply with the request. The Commissioner requires the Council to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. The Council must issue a fresh response to the request which does not rely on section 14(1) of the FOIA. 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 as a contempt of court.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14(1)
21 Aug 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from West Midlands Police relating to fields on a database. West Midlands Police refused to provide the requested information, citing section 43(2) (commercial interests) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that section 43(2) of FOIA applies and that the public interest favours maintaining the exemption. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: FOI 43
View West Midlands Police
21 Aug 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about the Home Office’s response to the Independent Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration (‘ICIBI’) report about security checks on ‘high risk’ private jet flights arriving in the UK. The Home Office refused to disclose the requested information, citing sections 31(1)(a) (Law enforcement – prevention and detection of crime) and (e) (Law enforcement – immigration controls) and 24(1) (National security) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Home Office was entitled to apply section 31(1)(e) to refuse to disclose the requested information. Information Tribunal FT/EA/2024/0333 under appeal.
Exemptions cited: FOI 31
View Home Office
21 Aug 2024Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information about the number of times Manchester City Council (the Council) had accepted a response from the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP). The Council stated that it did not hold the information requested. During the course of the Commissioner’s investigation, the Council acknowledged that it should have sought clarification from the complainant on receipt of the request to determine the scope of the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that, in failing to seek clarification of the request under section 1(3) of the FOIA the Council breached section 16(1) of the FOIA. The Commissioner requires the Council to comply with section 16 of the FOIA by seeking clarification of the complainant’s request of 15 October 2023. Once clarification has been received, the Council must respond to the complainant in accordance with the FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 16
View Manchester City Council
21 Aug 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information about a planning appeal from Egerton Parish Council (“the Parish Council”). The Parish Council 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 Parish Council was entitled to rely upon section 14(1) of FOIA to refuse it. The Commissioner does not require any steps. Information Tribunal FT/EA/2024/0362 appeal allowed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14(1)
21 Aug 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to fire safety audits from Kent Fire and Rescue Service (‘KFRS’). KFRS disclosed some information, but it withheld the majority, citing sections 30(1)(a)(i) and (b) (Investigations and proceedings conducted by public authorities) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that KFRS was entitled to rely on section 30(1)(b) to withhold the information.
Exemptions cited: FOI 30
View Kent Fire and Rescue Service
21 Aug 2024Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested from London Borough of Lambeth information about the inspection of a property. A public authority will breach regulation 5(2) of the EIR 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 regulation 5(2). The public authority must provide a substantive response to the request in accordance with its obligations under the legislation.
Exemptions cited: EIR 5(2)
View London Borough of Lambeth
21 Aug 2024Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from the Ministry of Justice (the public authority). Based on evidence available to the Commissioner, by the date of this notice the public authority has not issued a substantive response to this request. Therefore the Commissioner finds a breach of section 10. The public authority must provide a substantive response to the request in accordance with its obligations under FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Ministry of Justice
20 Aug 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from NHS Coventry and Warwickshire Integrated Care Board (the ICB) relating to the South Warwickshire Community Hospital Bed Review. The ICB relied on section 22 of FOIA to withhold the information as it was intended for future publication. The Commissioner is satisfied that the ICB was entitled to rely on section 22 of FOIA to withhold the information and that, at the time of the request, the balance of the public interest favoured maintaining the exemption. The Commissioner does not require the ICB to take any further steps as a result of this decision notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 22
View NHS Coventry and Warwickshire ICB
20 Aug 2024Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The Commissioner’s decision is that the public authority breached regulation 5(2) of the EIR by failing to provide a response within 20 working days.
Exemptions cited: EIR 5(2)
View London Borough of Hackney
20 Aug 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested the House of Commons (HoC) to confirm whether the EFRA Select Committee discussed the 2023 State of NatureReport and, if it had, to disclose any unpublished documentation. The HoC refused to confirm or deny holding the information, citing section 34(2) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the HoC is entitled to refuse to confirm or deny holding any information within the scope of the request in accordance with section 34(2) of FOIA. The Commissioner does not require further steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 34
View Corporate Officers of the House of Commons
20 Aug 2024Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested the meta-data relating to emails sent about the effect of Emergency Regulations 2022/23 on students’ degree classification, from the Royal Holloway University of London (‘the University’). The University relied on sections 38 and 40(2) to withhold the information. These exemptions concern health and safety, and personal data, respectively. The Commissioner’s decision is that the University incorrectly relied on section 38. It was entitled to rely on 40(2) for some of the withheld information, but not all of the information. The Commissioner requires the University to take the following step to ensure compliance with the legislation. Disclose the withheld information in line with the Commissioner’s confidential annex. The University must take this step within 30 calendar days of the date of this decision notice. Failure to comply may result in the Commissioner making written certification of this fact to the High Court pursuant to section 54 of the Act and
Exemptions cited: FOI 38; FOI 40(2)
20 Aug 2024Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a 17 part request for information held by Claybrooke Joint Burial Committee (CJBC) about its organisation, functions and responsibilities. CJBC provided a response to each of the 17 parts of the complainant’s request, and advised that no further information was held. The Commissioner considers that section 21 (information accessible to the complainant by other means) of FOIA is applicable to parts of the request where the information is already publicly available. However, as CJBC did not provide appropriate advice and assistance to enable the complainant to reasonably access this information, the Commissioner has determined that CJBC has failed to comply with its obligations under section 16 of FOIA. The Commissioner has also found a breach of section 1(1) (general right of access to information) of FOIA, as he considers that, on the balance of probabilities, CJBC holds additional information relevant to parts of the complainant’s request. The Commissioner re
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 16
20 Aug 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information concerning police activity at a specified address from Thames Valley Police (“TVP”). TVP would neither confirm nor deny (“NCND”) holding any information, citing sections 30(3) (Investigations and proceedings) and 40(5) (Personal information) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that TVP was entitled to rely on section 40(5B)(a)(i) of FOIA. He does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View Thames Valley Police
20 Aug 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 Ministry of Defence
19 Aug 2024Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from the UK Health Security Agency (UKHSA) relating to employees of Public Health England that are registered with the General Medical Council.The Commissioner’s decision is that the UKHSA is not entitled to rely on section 12(1) (cost limit) of FOIA to refuse to comply with the request. The Commissioner requires the UKHSA to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. The UKHSA must issue a fresh response to the request which does not rely on section 12 of FOIA. The UKHSA must take these steps within 30 calendar days of the date of this decision notice. Failure to comply may result in the Commissioner making written certification of this fact to the High Court pursuant to section 54 of the Act and may be dealt with as a contempt of court.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12
View UK Health Security Agency
19 Aug 2024Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information on the number of complaints received about a named charity, and details of any serious incidents reported by that charity between 2013 and 2023. The Charity Commission (‘the Commission’) provided a response to the first part of the request, but it relied on section 31(3) of FOIA (law enforcement) to neither confirm nor deny whether it held the information for the second part. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Commission was entitled to rely on section 31(3) of FOIA to neither confirm nor deny whether it held the requested information in the second part of the request. The Commissioner also finds that the Commission breached section 10(1) and 17(1) of FOIA by failing to communicate information or issue a section 31 refusal notice within 20 working days. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 17; FOI 31(3)
View The Charity Commission
19 Aug 2024Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information held by Oxford Direct Services Limited (ODSL) relating to communications it has exchanged with the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO). ODSL refused the complainant’s request, citing section 12(1) (cost limits) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that ODSL has not sufficiently demonstrated that section 12(1) is engaged. The Commissioner requires ODSL to take issue a fresh response to the complainant that does not rely on section 12(1) of FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12(1)
19 Aug 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about a non-FOIA complaint which he previously made, from West Yorkshire Police and Crime Panel (“the Panel”). The Panel advised the complainant that it did not hold the requested information.The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the civil standard of the balance of probabilities and based on the wording of the request, no information is held. For expediency, the Commissioner also considered whether some information that had been located following the employment of a wider interpretation of the request, was suitable for disclosure. The Panel advised that this was exempt by virtue of section 42(1) (Legal professional privilege) of FOIA. The Commissioner found that the Panel was entitled to withhold this information. The Commissioner does not require any steps. Information Tribunal FT/EA/2025/0008 under appeal.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 42
19 Aug 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant asked for a copy of any documents produced and presented to Birmingham City Council (the Council) by developers St Joseph/Berkeley Homes as part of its bid for a major contract. The Council stated that there is no indicative masterplan developed by Berkeley Homes for the said project.
However, the Council later relied on regulation 12(5)(e) of the EIR to withhold information in scope of the request.
The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council was entitled to rely on regulation 12(5)(e) to withhold the requested information. The Commissioner finds a breach of regulation 5(2) regarding the delay in responding to the request.
The Commissioner does not require any steps to be taken as a result of this decision.
Keywords: Ladywood regeneration scheme.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(e)
View Birmingham City Council
19 Aug 2024Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested a copy of any documents held by the council in preparation of a question which would be asked in an open council meeting. Leicester City Council (“the council”) refused the request on the basis that section 36(2)(b)(i) and section 36(2)(c) applied (prejudice to the effective conduct of public affairs). The Commissioner’s decision is that the council was correct to find that the exemptions were engaged, however the public interest in disclosure outweighs that in the exemption being maintained in this case. The Commissioner requires the council to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. To disclose a copy of the briefing note to the complainant. To carry out further searches for information and to respond to the complainant's request again as required by section 1 of FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 36(2)
View Leicester City Council
19 Aug 2024Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested statistical information about a number of health conditions and diagnoses. Peverell Park Surgery (‘the Surgery’) provided some of the requested information but advised that no further information withing scope of the request was held. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the Surgery holds no further information within scope of the request. The Commissioner does not require further steps. Information Tribunal FT/EA/2024/0385 under appeal.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10
19 Aug 2024Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information from Thames Water Utilities Limited (“Thames Water”) relating to sewer flooding. The Commissioner’s decision is that the information requested in parts 3, 4 and 5 of the request is environmental information under regulation 2(1) and so Thames Water is obliged to respond to parts 3, 4 and 5 of the request. The Commissioner requires Thames Water to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. Thames Water must provide the complainant with a response to parts 3, 4 and 5 of the request which complies with the requirements of the EIR. Thames Water 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 (FOIA) and may be dealt with as a contempt of court.
Exemptions cited: EIR 2
16 Aug 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to staff structure charts and procedures for handling information requests. The Ministry of Justice (“MoJ”) stated that to establish whether or not the information was held would exceed the appropriate limit, therefore citing section 12(2) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the MoJ was entitled to rely on section 12(2) of FOIA to refuse the request. The Commissioner also finds that the MoJ complied with its obligations at section 16 of FOIA, by providing relevant advice and assistance to the complainant. The Commissioner does not require the MoJ to take any further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12; FOI 16
View Ministry of Justice
16 Aug 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information on meetings between Infosys and Lord Johnson, Minister of State in the DBT at the time of the request. DBT relied on FOIA section 41- information provided in confidence and section 43 – commercial interests and at internal review section 40(2) – personal information, to withhold some information within the scope of the request. In addition, during the Commissioner’s investigation, DBT relied on FOIA section 27 – international relations and section 29 – the economy to redact the remaining information. The Commissioner’s decision is that DBT is entitled to rely on FOIA sections 27(1)(c) and (d) and section 40(2) to withhold the remaining information. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 27; FOI 40(2)
View Department for Business and Trade
16 Aug 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 Richmond upon Thames Council
15 Aug 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 Warwick District Council
15 Aug 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information relating to river dredging. The Environment Agency (“the public authority”) refused the request, citing regulation 12(4)(b) (manifestly unreasonable). The Commissioner’s decision is that to comply with the request would place a grossly oppressive burden on the public authority and it was entitled to refuse it under regulation 12(4)(b). The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(b); EIR 9
View Environment Agency
15 Aug 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from the Financial Conduct Authority (the FCA) relating to how a specific human rights complaint has been handled. The FCA has refused to confirm or deny that it holds this information under section 40(5B)(a)(i) of FOIA, as it believes that to do so would disclose personal data, and that this disclosure would contravene data protection legislation. The complainant is of the view that the FCA could provide information on procedural and policy aspects of how it deals with human rights complaints without disclosing personal data. The Commissioner is satisfied the FCA obtained the correct objective reading of the request and the Commissioner requires no further action.
Exemptions cited: FOI 8
View Financial Conduct Authority
15 Aug 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
1. The complainant has requested information about cases of antisemitism. University College London (‘UCL’) relied on section 40(2) of FOIA (third party personal information) to withhold some of the requested information in the first three questions, and section 12(1) of FOIA (cost of compliance) to refuse questions four and five of the request.2. The Commissioner’s decision is that UCL was entitled to rely on section 40(2) to withhold some of the requested information in the first three questions, and that it was entitled to rely on section 12(1) of FOIA to refuse questions four and five of the request. The Commissioner also finds that UCL complied with its section 16 obligation to offer advice and assistance.3. The Commissioner does not require further steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12; FOI 16; FOI 40
View University College London
15 Aug 2024Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information on an appeal submission with regard to the refusal of an exporter’s application to export goods to China. In response DBT provided redacted information and withheld other information in the scope of the request. DBT relied on FOIA sections 21 – information accessible to the applicant by other means, 40(2) - personal information, 36(2)(b)(i) and (ii) – prejudice to effective conduct of public affairs and 42(1) – legal professional privilege. The Commissioner’s decision is that DBT is entitled to rely on FOIA sections 21, 40(2), 36(2)(b)(i), 36(2)(b)(ii) and 42(1) to withhold part of the requested information. The Commissioner finds that DBT has breached FOIA section 10(1) (time for compliance) by failing to provide the complainant with some information within the scope of the request within 20 working days. It has also breached FOIA sections 17(1)(b) by failing to identify within 20 working days which exemptions it was relying on and 17(3) in de
Exemptions cited: FOI 10(1); FOI 17; FOI 21; FOI 36; FOI 40; FOI 42
View Department for Business and Trade
15 Aug 2024Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested from Department of Health Northern Ireland (DoH) information relating to “individual briefings”. DoH stated that to comply with the request would exceed the cost limit and therefore, applied section 12(1) (cost of compliance) of FOIA to the request.The Commissioner’s decision is that DoH was entitled to rely on section 12(1) of FOIA to refuse the request. However, the Commissioner finds that DoH did not provide advice and assistance, and therefore failed to meet its obligations under section 16(1) of FOIA. The Commissioner requires DoH 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 falling within the appropriate limit, or explain why the request cannot be meaningfully refined. DoH 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 t
Exemptions cited: FOI 12(1); FOI 16(1)
View Department of Health NI
15 Aug 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information about “air pollution” or “air quality” in Exmouth. South West Water has advised it doesn’t hold any relevant information and therefore regulation 12(4)(a) of the EIR is engaged. The Commissioner’s decision is that regulation 12(4)(a) of the EIR is engaged because on the balance of probabilities, South West Water doesn’t hold the information the complainant has requested.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(a)
View South West Water
14 Aug 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about the names and contact details of people authorised to participate in negotiations conducted by the Working Group for Amendments to the International Health Regulations (WGIHR), and any associated official Letters of Delegation of Authority. The Department of Health and Social Care (‘DHSC’) relied on section 40 of FOIA (personal information) and section 38 of FOIA (health and safety) to refuse the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that DHSC was entitled to rely on section 40(2) to withhold the requested information. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View Department of Health and Social Care
14 Aug 2024Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested copies of correspondence and communications between HRH The Prince of Wales (or officials acting on his behalf) and specific individuals and departments within Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole Council (the Council) regarding issues around homelessness, rough sleepers, provision of housing and the Homewards initiative. The Council disclosed some information and withheld other information under sections 37(1)(aa) (communications with the heir to or second in line to the Throne) and 41 (information provided in confidence). During the course of the Commissioner’s investigation withdrew reliance on section 41 and also sought to rely on section 40(2) (personal information) for some of the withheld information. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the Council does not hold any further information falling within the scope of the request, and it is entitled to rely on sections 37(1)(aa) and 40(2) as its basis for refusing to provide
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 37; FOI 40
View BCP Council
14 Aug 2024Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
Summary wording for website: The complainant requested information from London Borough of Lambeth (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 London Borough of Lambeth
13 Aug 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested some email addresses from West Midlands Police (“WMP”). WMP provided the requested information other than for one address, which it withheld on the basis of section 31(1)(a) and (b) (Law enforcement) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that it was entitled to do so. No steps are required.
Exemptions cited: FOI 31
View West Midlands Police
13 Aug 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities about a report on the Independent Review of the UK Government’s Prevent Strategy. The DLUHC withheld the requested information under section 35(1)(a) (formulation or development of government policy), and parts of it under sections 24(1) (national security), 40(2) (personal information), and 42 (legal professional privilege) of FOIA. DLUHC has recently changed name to the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government. As this occurred after DLUHC’s most recent correspondence with the Commissioner regarding this case, this decision notice refers to DLUHC throughout. The Commissioner’s decision is that the DLUHC is entitled to withhold the information under section 35(1)(a). The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 35(1)(a)
View Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government
13 Aug 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested the records of a named serviceperson. The Ministry of Defence (“the MoD”) provided some information but withheld some details under section 40(2) and 41 of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the MoD were entitled to rely on sections 40(2) and 41 to withhold the information. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40; FOI 41
View Ministry of Defence
13 Aug 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested copies of four closed files that relate to the late Rudolph Hess. The National Archives (‘TNA’) relied on section 37(1)(a) of FOIA (communications with the Sovereign and the awarding of honours) to withhold three of the files and advised that it was withholding the fourth file under section 40(2) of FOIA (third party personal information). TNA later withdrew its reliance on section 40(2) and disclosed the fourth file to the complainant. The Commissioner’s decision is that TNA was entitled to rely on section 37(1)(a) of FOIA to withhold the remaining three files. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 37
View The National Archives
13 Aug 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 Essex Police
13 Aug 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to the department’s response to a historic settlement involving the complainant and the British Coal Corporation. DESNZ relied on FOIA section 12– cost of compliance, to refuse the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that DESNZ is entitled to refuse the request in reliance on FOIA section 12(2). The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. Information Tribunal FT/EA/2024/0353 appeal dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12
View Department for Energy Security and Net Zero
13 Aug 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to the performance of Crown Commercial Services (CCS) energy procurement activities. The Cabinet Office (CO) refused to disclose the information citing section 43(2) (Commercial interests) of FOIA to do so. The Commissioner’s decision is that the withheld information engages section 43(2), and the balance of the public interest lies in maintaining the exemption.The Commissioner does not require any further steps as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40; FOI 41
View Ministry of Defence