6 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 Ribble Valley Borough Council
6 Aug 2024Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information from North of Tyne Combined Authority (NTCA), which is now part of North East Combined Authority (NECA), regarding a brownfield housing fund. NECA has withheld one document within the scope of part one of the request under regulation 12(5)(e) of the EIR (confidentiality of commercial information). It has also redacted some information from an email within the scope of part one of the request, the initial application email, under regulation 13 of the EIR (personal data). NECA’s position is that it has now disclosed all of the information it holds within the scope of part two of the request; the complainant disputes this. The Commissioner’s decision is that: NECA is entitled to withhold some, but not all, of the information it has withheld under regulation 12(5)(e) of the EIR on this basis; on the balance of probabilities, NECA does not hold any further information within the scope of part two of the request; NECA is entitled to withhold some, but no
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(e); EIR 13; EIR 5(1)
6 Aug 2024Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about an action plan issued to The Islamic Centre Manchester charity in 2018, and details of any complaints received about the charity. The Charity Commission (‘the Commission’) initially relied on section 31(1)(g) of FOIA (law enforcement) to withhold the information requested in questions one and three and advised that it did not hold the information requested in question four of the request. During the course of the Commissioner’s investigation, the Commission advised that it intended to release a redacted copy of the action plan, but it considered that section 31(1)(g) FOIA still applied to the redacted information. The Commission also advised that it considered that sections 40 and 41 also applied to question three of the request, as well as section 31. Sections 40 and 41 concern personal data and information provided in confidence, respectively. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Commission should disclose the redacted copy of the ac
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 17; FOI 31(1)(g)
View The Charity Commission
6 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 London Borough of Lambeth
6 Aug 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information in connection with the handling of a previous freedom of information request. Plymouth City Council (the Council) stated that it did not hold the information requested. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance the Council does not hold any information falling within the scope of the request. The Commissioner does not require any steps to be taken. Information Tribunal FT/EA/2024/0339 under appeal.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Plymouth City Council
5 Aug 2024Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested phosphorus data. United Utilities (‘the public authority’) refused to provide the requested information, citing regulation 12(4)(e) (internal communications) of the EIR. The Commissioner’s decision is that the withheld information engages regulation 12(4)(e) but the public interest favours disclosure. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: disclose the requested information. Information Tribunal FT/EA/2024/0324 appeal withdrawn.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(e)
View United Utilities
5 Aug 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested various information in respect of South Quay. Pembrokeshire County Council (‘[the Council’) refused the request citing regulation 12(4)(b) of the EIR on the basis that it was vexatious. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council was entitled to rely on regulation 12(4)(b) to refuse the request. The Commissioner does not require any steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(b)
View Pembrokeshire County Council
5 Aug 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested from the Financial Conduct Authority (the FCA) the protocol for supervisors when investigating protected disclosures about the firms they supervise. The FCA disclosed some of this information but withheld parts of it under section 31 of FOIA – law enforcement and section 40(2) of FOIA – personal information. The Commissioner’s decision is that the information was correctly withheld by the FCA under sections 31(1) and 40(2) of FOIA. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 31(1)(a); FOI 31(1)(g); FOI 40(2)
View Financial Conduct Authority
5 Aug 2024Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested from Goldsmiths, University of London information relating to the purchase and ongoing costs of software. 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 the 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
5 Aug 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested copies of specific invoices. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council has complied with the request in providing the information it has to the complainant. He also found that the council breached section 10(1) of the FOIA as it provided the information outside the required timeframe. As the information has been provided, the Commissioner does not require any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
5 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 NHS England has not issued a substantive response to this request. Therefore the Commissioner finds a breach of section 10.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View NHS England
5 Aug 2024Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust’s (the Trust) Gender reassignment and/or transgender guidance and policies. The Trust 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 Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust
5 Aug 2024Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to Goldsmiths College’s transformation programme risk assessment. Goldsmiths College 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
5 Aug 2024Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted two requests for information to Goldsmiths, University of London (the University) for Council and Committee meeting minutes and information relating to the minutes. 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 substantive responses to the requests. Therefore the Commissioner finds a breach of section 10. The public authority must provide substantive responses to the requests in accordance with its obligations under FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
5 Aug 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested Sussex Police’s flight logs for its drone unit during a specified time period in 2018. Sussex Police provided some of the requested information, but withheld the remainder, citing sections 31(1)(a), (b) and (c) (law enforcement) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that Sussex Police was entitled to rely on sections 31(1)(a), (b) and (c) of FOIA to withhold the remaining information in scope of the request. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: FOI 31
View Sussex Police
5 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 Cleveland Police
2 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
View Staffordshire Police
2 Aug 2024Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested correspondence about a safeguarding concern. Bidborough Church of England Primary School (‘the School’) withheld the information under section 36 and section 40 of FOIA. These exemptions concern prejudice to the effective conduct of public affairs and personal data, respectively. The Commissioner’s decision is as follows: The School hasn’t demonstrated that section 36(2)(b)(ii) of FOIA is engaged. However, the School is entitled to withhold some of the information under section 40(1) of FOIA as it’s the complainant’s own personal data and is entitled to withhold the remaining information under section 40(2) as it’s other people’s personal data and disclosing it would be unlawful. The School didn’t comply with section 17(1) of FOIA as its refusal notice was inadequate. It’s not necessary for the School to take any corrective steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 17; FOI 36(2)(b)(ii); FOI 40
2 Aug 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (DESNZ) seeking material produced by the Energy Efficiency Taskforce. DESNZ withheld the requested information on the basis of section 35(1)(a) (formulation or development of government policy) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the withheld information is exempt from disclosure on the basis of section 35(1)(a) and that in all the circumstances of the case the public interest favours maintaining the exemption.
Exemptions cited: FOI 35
View Department for Energy Security and Net Zero
2 Aug 2024Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information held by Fareham Borough Council (the council) relating to a closed meeting of the Executive where “commercial opportunities related to wider regeneration of Fareham Town Centre” were considered. The council refused the request, citing regulation 12(5)(d) (confidentiality of proceedings) of the EIR. During the Commissioner’s investigation, the council confirmed that it was now able to release part of the withheld information to the complainant. Whilst the Commissioner is satisfied that regulation 12(5)(d) of the EIR is engaged in respect of all of the withheld information, he considers that the balance of the public interest favours the disclosure of part of this information. The Commissioner requires the council to disclose the withheld information highlighted in yellow which has been provided separately to this decision notice.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(d)
View Fareham Borough Council
2 Aug 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to an investigation undertaken by the Health and Safety Executive Northern Ireland (HSENI). HSENI provided some information but stated that it did not hold recorded information in respect of one part of the request (part 8). The Commissioner’s decision is that HSENI does not hold recorded information relating to part 8 of the request. No steps are required. Information Tribunal FT/EA/2024/0327 under appeal.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
2 Aug 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to an investigation conducted by the Police Service of Northern Ireland (PSNI). PSNI refused to confirm or deny that it held the requested information, citing section 30(3) (investigations), section 38(2) (health and safety) and section 40(5B)(a)(i) (third party personal data) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that PSNI was entitled to rely on section 40(5B)(a)(i) to refuse confirm nor deny whether it held the requested information. No steps are required.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View Police Service of Northern Ireland
2 Aug 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The Commissioner’s decision is that NHS Resolution was entitled to withhold the requested information about pharmaceutical services under section 42(1) of FOIA as the information is protected by legal professional privilege. It’s not necessary for NHS Resolution to take any corrective steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 42(1)
View NHS Resolution
2 Aug 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information mentioned in Lydd Town Council’s (the Council) meeting minutes. The Council did not provide a response to the complainant’s request, relying on section 17(6) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council was entitled to rely on section 17(6) in this case. The Commissioner does not require any further steps to be taken. Information Tribunal FT/EA/2024/0338 appeal withdrawn.
Exemptions cited: FOI 17(6)
View Ilkley Town Council
2 Aug 2024Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The Commissioner’s decision is that Tees, Esk and Wear Valleys NHS Foundation Trust (‘the Trust’) is entitled to refuse parts of the request for information about ADHD referrals under section 12(1) of FOIA. The cost of complying with these parts would exceed the appropriate limit. There was no breach of section 16(1), which concerns advice and assistance, but the Trust breached section 1(1), 10(1) and 17(5) of FOIA in respect of the timeliness of its response. It’s not necessary for the Trust to take any corrective steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1(1); FOI 10(1); FOI 12(1); FOI 16(1); FOI 17(5)
View Tees, Esk and Wear Valleys NHS Foundation Trust
2 Aug 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) relating to the training provided to certain staff members. The Commissioner’s decision is that the ICO is entitled to rely on section 40(2) (personal information) of FOIA to refuse to provide the withheld information. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40(2)
View Information Commissioner
2 Aug 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to a specific charity. The Charity Commission refused the request, citing section 40(2) (personal information) and section 41(1) (information provided in confidence). The Commissioner’s decision is that the requested information is exempt under section 40(2) and section 41(1). The Commissioner does not require further steps. Information Tribunal FT/EA/2024/0332 appeal dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40(2); FOI 41(1)
View The Charity Commission
2 Aug 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested from Ulster University (the University) information relating to architecture staff meetings and for External Examiner reports from June 2023. The University withheld some of the information and cited section 43(2) (commercial interests) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the University was entitled to withhold the information under section 43(2) of FOIA and the public interest favours maintaining the exemption. Therefore, the Commissioner does not require the University to take any steps as a result of this decision. Information Tribunal FT/EA/2024/0315 appeal withdrawn.
Exemptions cited: FOI 43(2)
View Ulster University
1 Aug 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information relating to land transactions at Solent Airport. Fareham Borough Council (the “Council”) withheld the information under the exception for the confidentiality of proceedings (regulation 12(5)(d)). The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has correctly applied regulation 12(5)(d). The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(d)
View Fareham Borough Council
1 Aug 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information about the use of chalk aquifers. The above public authority relied on regulation 12(5)(a) of the EIR (national security or public safety) to withhold the requested information. The Commissioner’s decision is that the public authority has correctly relied on regulation 12(5)(a) of the EIR to withhold the information and the public interest favours maintaining the exception. The Commissioner does not require further steps to be taken. Information Tribunal FT/EA/2024/0299 appeal allowed.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(a)
View Affinity Water
1 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 Aug 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to a meeting that took place between the Secretary of State and the Phoenix Partnership (TPP). The DHSC provided some information but withheld some documents under sections 41 and 43 FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the four documents provided by TPP have been correctly withheld under section 41 FOIA and the remaining two documents produced by the DHSC (a briefing note and minutes) have been correctly withheld under section 43 FOIA. The Commissioner does not require any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 41; FOI 43
View Department of Health and Social Care
1 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)
1 Aug 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about a partnership with a particular company. The above public authority denied holding any information. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the College does not hold the requested information. The College breached section 10 of FOIA as it failed to respond within 20 working days. The Commissioner does not require further steps to be taken. Information Tribunal FT/EA/2024/0310 (Previously FT/EA/2024/0297/GDPR) appeal dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View University College London
1 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
View Wirral Council
1 Aug 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to the Ministry of Defence (MOD) seeking copies of operational directives concerning UK armed forces personnel embedded with other forces. The MOD explained that it had previously provided the complainant with copies of the requested documents with information being redacted on the basis of sections 23(1) (security bodies), 24(1) (national security), 26(1)(b) (defence), 27(1)(a) and (c) (international relations) of FOIA. The MOD explained that its position had not changed in relation to the withheld information and it remained of the view that it was still exempt on the basis of these exemptions. The Commissioner’s decision is that the withheld information is exempt on the basis of sections 23(1), 26(1)(b) and 27(1)(a) and (c) of FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 23; FOI 26; FOI 27
View Ministry of Defence
1 Aug 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about follow-up research to two particular studies. The above public authority stated that it did not hold any information. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the College does not hold the requested information. The Commissioner does not require further steps to be taken. Information Tribunal FT/EA/2024/0348 appeal dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View University College London
1 Aug 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information about a piece of land included in the Local Plan. St Helens Metropolitan Borough Council (the Council) cited section 14 (Vexatious request) of FOIA to refuse the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council should have considered the request under the EIR. The Commissioner also finds that it was entitled to apply the equivalent EIR exception, regulation 12(4)(b) (Manifestly unreasonable request) to refuse the request. Information Tribunal FT/EA/2024/0307 appeal allowed.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(b)
View St Helens Council
31 Jul 2024Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The Commissioner’s decision is that the Department for Education (DfE) incorrectly applied section 36(2)(c) of FOIA (prejudice to the conduct of public affairs) to the withheld local authority level information about appeals to the Secretary of State about Education and Health Care plans. However, the information is exempt under section 40(2) of FOIA as it can be categorised as personal data and disclosing this information would be unlawful.
Exemptions cited: FOI 36(2)(c); FOI 40(2)
View Department for Education
31 Jul 2024Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested meta-data relating to the handling of one of their previous requests. The London Borough of Hackney (“the Council”) initially relied on section 42 to withhold information within scope of the request, however during the course of the Commissioner’s investigation amended its position to rely on 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 decision notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14(1)
View London Borough of Hackney
31 Jul 2024Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from The National Archives (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 complete its deliberations on the balance of the public interest within a reasonable time and has therefore breached section 17(3) of FOIA. The Commissioner requires the public authority to either disclose the requested information or, to the extent that the information is to be withheld, issue a refusal notice in accordance with the requirements of section 17 of the FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 17(3)
View The National Archives
31 Jul 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
31 Jul 2024Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The Commissioner finds a breach of section 10. The public authority must provide a substantive response to the request in accordance with its obligations under FOIA. The public authority must take this step within 30 calendar days of the date of this decision notice. Failure to comply may result in the Commissioner making written certification of this fact to the High Court pursuant to section 54 of FOIA and may be dealt with as a contempt of court.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Liverpool City Council
31 Jul 2024Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to the Ministry of Defence’s (MOD) interactions with an oil company, Motor Oil Hellas. MOD refused to provide the requested information as to do so would exceed the appropriate limit at section 12(1) (cost of compliance exceeds appropriate limit) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that MOD was entitled to rely on section 12(1) to refuse to comply with the request. The Commissioner also finds that MOD did not comply with its section 16(1) obligation to offer advice and assistance in relation to part two of the request but as it has now provided advice on how to narrow the request, no further steps are therefore required.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12(1); FOI 16
View Ministry of Defence
31 Jul 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information from Anglian Water Services Limited (Anglian Water) relating to sewage treatment works using continuous monitoring devices, and water quality data. Anglian Water disclosed the information relating to sewage treatment works but applied regulation 12(4)(b) to the water quality data on the basis that it was a manifestly unreasonable request. The Commissioner’s decision is that Anglian Water was entitled to rely on regulation 12(4)(b) of the EIR to refuse to provide the water quality data. The Commissioner also finds that Anglian Water complied with its obligation under regulation 9(1) to offer advice and assistance. The Commissioner does not require Anglian Water to take any further steps as a result of this decision notice.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(b); EIR 9(1)
View Anglian Water
30 Jul 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information relating to a planning application concerning Bristol Zoo. Bristol City Council disclosed further information (following new searches being required by the Commissioner in decision notice IC-256678-V0V6) subject to some redactions under Regulation 12(4)(d) (material still in the course of completion, etc.) and Regulation 12(5)(b) (course of justice). During the Commissioner’s investigation, the council withdrew its reliance on Regulation 12(4)(d), and disclosed the information withheld under that exception. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council was correct to apply Regulation 12(5)(b) to withhold the remaining information that has been identified. He has also decided the council has complied with the requirements of Regulation 5(1) of the EIR as it has demonstrated, on the balance of probabilities, that no further information is held by it falling within the scope of the request for information. The Commissioner does not require the c
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(b); EIR 5(1)
View Bristol City Council
30 Jul 2024Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested copies of the contract specifications and service delivery plans that are held by East Suffolk Council (the council) in relation to its waste and recycling collection, ground maintenance and street cleansing. The council confirmed to the complainant that it does not hold copies of the service delivery plans requested. With regard to the contract specifications, the council confirmed that it considered this information to be exempt from disclosure under the exception at regulation 12(5)(e) (confidentiality of commercial information) of the EIR. The council also confirmed that it considered the public interest to favour withholding this information. The Commissioner has decided that the council is not entitled to rely on regulation 12(5)(e) as its basis for withholding the information contained within the contract specification documents relevant to the request.
Exemptions cited: EIR 15
View East Suffolk Council
30 Jul 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant made a request for information relating to the consultation on the ‘buy now, pay later’ (BNPL) scheme from HM Treasury (HMT). HMT refused to disclose the requested information, on the basis of section 35(1)(a) (the exemption for the formulation or development of government policy) and section 43(2) (commercial interests) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that HMT was entitled to withhold the requested information, under section 35(1)(a) of FOIA. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 35(1)
View HM Treasury
30 Jul 2024Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from King's Lynn Academy (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
30 Jul 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information in connection to a non-FOIA complaint that he made to the Police, Fire and Crime Commissioner for Staffordshire (the “PFCC”). The PFCC advised that it did not hold costing information and provided an explanation regarding the remainder. The complainant subsequently referred only to one part of his request, namely that the PFCC did not hold costing information.
The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the civil standard of the balance of probabilities, the costing information requested is not held. He does not require any steps. Information Tribunal FT/EA/2024/0337 appeal struck out.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1