30 Jul 2024Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from the Metropolitan Borough of Wirral (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 Wirral Council
30 Jul 2024Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested specified correspondence, dates of meetings and legal advice relating to a named site in Shrewsbury, following the judgment of the Supreme Court in March 2023. Shrewsbury Town Council (the ‘Council’) ultimately provided the dates and the legal advice, but refused to provide the requested correspondence, citing section 42 of FOIA – the exemption for legal professional privilege. The Commissioner’s decision is that the requested information is environmental as defined by the EIR and that the Council, therefore, incorrectly applied section 42 of FOIA. However, he finds that the Council has engaged Regulation 12(5)(b) of the EIR. By failing to provide its internal review result within the statutory 40 working days, the Council has breached Regulation 11(4) of the EIR. No steps are required as a result of this notice.
Exemptions cited: EIR 11(4); EIR 12(5)(d)
30 Jul 2024Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information on the easements the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) introduced during the Covid-19 pandemic. The Commissioner’s decision is that DWP is not entitled to rely on section 14(1), vexatious requests, to refuse to comply with the request. The Commissioner requires DWP to provide a fresh response to the request that does not rely on section 14(1) of FOIA. The public authority 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
View Department for Work and Pensions
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
29 Jul 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information from Kent County Council (“the Council”) regarding parking on a paved vehicle access point outside a particular residential address. The Council refused the request, citing regulation 12(4)(b) (manifestly unreasonable) as its basis for doing so. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council is entitled to refuse the request under regulation 12(4)(b). The Commissioner does not require further steps. Information Tribunal FT/EA/2024/0321 appeal dismissed.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(b)
View Kent County Council
29 Jul 2024Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from the University of Cambridge (the University) relating to a news article, and to the membership of the University Tribunal. The University 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 Commissioner’s decision is that the University is not entitled to rely on section 40(5B)(a)(i) to refuse to confirm or deny that it holds any of the information requested. However, he finds the University has complied with its obligations under section 16 of FOIA. The Commissioner requires the University to confirm or deny if it holds any information within the scope of part 1 of the request and, if it does, to either provide that information or issue an appropriate refusal notice. He also requires the University to either provide any information it holds within the scope of p
Exemptions cited: FOI 16; FOI 40(5)
View The University of Cambridge
29 Jul 2024Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant made a request for information relating to Traffic Regulation Order Harwood Street. Sheffield City Council (the Council) provided three copies of documents within scope of the request with the signatures redacted. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council should have dealt with the request under the EIR. However, having done so, it would have been entitled to rely on Regulation 13(1) of the EIR to withhold the signatures contained in the three traffic regulation order documents. The public authority breached regulation 14 of the EIR as it failed to deal with the request under the EIR. The Council also breached regulation 2(1) of the EIR as it failed to provide all information within scope of the request, the Commissioner requires the Council to provide the full version of the ‘Outer Order Consolidation 2008’, or issue a fresh refusal to the complainant that is compliant with the EIR.
Exemptions cited: EIR 13(1); EIR 2(1)
View Sheffield City Council
29 Jul 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 Wirral Council
29 Jul 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from Northumberland County Council (“the Council”) relating to the Council’s contracting of Ascendant Solutions Ltd to assist with the roll out of the Council Tax Energy Rebate Scheme. The Council’s position is that it has disclosed all of the information it holds within the scope of the request. However, the complainant disputes this. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the Council does not hold any further information within the scope of the request. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1(1)
View Northumberland County Council
29 Jul 2024Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information from Carmarthenshire County Council (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 regulation 5(2) of the EIR. The Commissioner requires the the public authority to issue a substantive response to the request in accordance with its obligations under the EIR. The public authority must take these steps within 30 calendar days of the date of this notice.
Exemptions cited: EIR 5(2)
View Carmarthenshire County Council
29 Jul 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 under FOIA and 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 FOIA and EIR.
Exemptions cited: EIR 5(2); FOI 10(1)
View Wirral Council
29 Jul 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 NHS England
29 Jul 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from Erewash Borough Council (“the Council”) regarding the registration of two food businesses. The Council provided some of the requested information but withheld the names of the registered owners of one of the businesses under section 40(2) of FOIA (personal information). The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council is entitled to rely on section 40(2) to refuse to provide the withheld information. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40(2)
View Erewash Borough Council
29 Jul 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested a record of part of a child protection conference attended by their former partner from Brighter Futures for Children Limited (“Brighter Futures”). Brighter Futures has refused to provide the information requested, citing section 40(2) of FOIA (personal information) as its basis for doing so. The Commissioner’s decision is that Brighter Futures is entitled to withhold the majority of the requested information under section 40(2) of FOIA. The Commissioner has determined that the remainder of the information is the complainant’s own personal data and is therefore exempt from disclosure under section 40(1) of FOIA. The Commissioner does not require further steps. Information Tribunal FT/EA/2024/0303 appeal dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40(1); FOI 40(2)
29 Jul 2024Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a three part request to Plymouth City Council (the council) for particular information relating to infant mortality. The council initially advised the complainant that it did not hold any information that was relevant to their request. However, during the Commissioner’s investigation, the council identified and released information to the complainant in response to part 1 of their request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the information which has been provided to the complainant is an accurate reflection of the information that is held that is relevant to part 1 of the request and that, on the balance of probabilities, the council does not hold any further information that falls within scope of the remaining parts of the request. However, as the council failed to provide the complainant with the information relevant to part 1 of their request within the statutory 20 working days, the Commissioner has found a breach of section 10(1) (time for compliance) of
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10(1)
View Plymouth City Council
29 Jul 2024Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information from Wiltshire Council (“the Council”) regarding the estimated costs of a proposed transport link. The Council’s position is that it does not hold the information requested. The complainant disputes this. The Commissioner’s decision is that he is satisfied that the Council does not hold the information requested. However, the Commissioner also finds that the Council breached regulation 9 of the EIR as it failed to provide adequate advice and assistance. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(a); EIR 9(1)
View Wiltshire Council
26 Jul 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested HRA to disclose information relating to the NextCOVE trial. HRA disclosed some information but withheld the remainder under section 43(2) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that section 43(2) of FOIA applies and the public interest rests in maintaining the exemption. He does not require any further action to be taken. Information Tribunal FT/EA/2024/0300 appeal allowed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 43
View Health Research Authority
26 Jul 2024Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (DLUHC) about the assessment of the overall sufficiency of adult social care funding and the local government finance settlement 2023 to 2024 policy impact statement. DLUHC withheld some of the requested information under section 35(1)(a) of FOIA (formulation and development of government policy). The complainant also raised other concerns about how the request was handled. DLUHC has recently changed name to the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG). As this occurred after DLUHC’s most recent correspondence with the Commissioner regarding this case, this decision notice refers to DLUHC throughout except in relation to the steps now required by the department. The Commissioner’s decision is that: One further document held by DLUHC is within the scope of the request. However, the Commissioner is satisfied that, with the exception of this document, on the balance of
Exemptions cited: FOI 1(1); FOI 10; FOI 35(1)(a); FOI 8
View Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government
26 Jul 2024Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to a contract. Brighton & Hove City Council (the “Council”) confirmed that the cost of complying with the request would exceed the appropriate limit, and as such it was relying on section 12 (cost limit) of the FOIA to refuse the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council is entitled to rely on section 12(1) (cost limit) of the FOIA to refuse to provide the requested information. However, he finds that the Council failed to provide reasonable advice and assistance and therefore did not meet its obligations under section 16(1) of the FOIA. The Commissioner requires the Council to provide the complainant with advice and assistance to help them submit a request falling within the appropriate limit.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12(1); FOI 16
View Brighton and Hove City Council
26 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 Essex Police has not issued a substantive response to this request. Therefore the Commissioner finds a breach of section 10. Essex Police must provide a substantive response to the request in accordance with its obligations under FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Essex Police
26 Jul 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested correspondence between Michael Gove and the then Prince Charles over a specified time period. Defra stated it held no information within the scope of the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, Defra does not hold any information in scope of the request. The Commissioner does not require any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
26 Jul 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information contained in a file relating to an enquiry. The DfE refused the request under section 14(1) FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the DfE has correctly applied section 14(1) and refused the request as vexatious. The Commissioner does not require any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14
View Department for Education
26 Jul 2024Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested ammonia spot sampling data. United Utilities (“the public authority”) refused the request, citing regulation 12(4)(e) (internal communications.) 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/2024/0323 appeal withdrawn.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(e)
View United Utilities
26 Jul 2024Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to the Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office (FCDO) seeking information about services provided by the British Embassy in Bangkok. The FCDO provided information in response to the request, save for minimal redactions on the basis of section 40(2) (personal data) of FOIA. The complainant is dissatisfied that the FCDO did not respond to his request within 20 working days. The Commissioner’s decision is that the FCDO breached section 10(1) of FOIA by failing to respond to the request within this timeframe.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office
25 Jul 2024Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information from North Warwickshire Borough Council (“the Council”) relating to specific planning applications. The Commissioner’s decision is that on the balance of probabilities, the Council holds further information falling within the scope of the request. The Commissioner requires the Council to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. The Council is required to carry out further searches aimed at identifying all the information it holds falling within the scope of the request, and to issue the complainant with a new response as required by the EIR. 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: EIR 5(1)
View North Warwickshire Borough Council
25 Jul 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about variable speed limits at a particular date, time and location. National Highways refused to provide the information citing section 31 of FOIA (Law enforcement). The Commissioner’s decision is that National Highways was entitled to rely on section 31 and that the public interest lies in non-disclosure. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 31(1)(a); FOI 31(1)(b); FOI 31(1)(c)
View National Highways
25 Jul 2024Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested turbidity data. United Utilities (‘the public authority’) refused the request, 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/2024/0325 appeal withdrawn.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(e)
View United Utilities
25 Jul 2024Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from Walsall Council (the Council) relating to a Serious Case Review (SCR) conducted by Walsall Safeguarding Partnership, including material supplied by the Council in connection with the SCR. The Council stated that some of the information was held on behalf of the Local Safeguarding Children’s Board (LSCB) (section 3(2)(a) (public authorities)) of FOIA. With respect to the remaining requested information, it refused to provide that, citing sections 38 (health and safety), 40 (personal information), 41 (information provided in confidence) and 44 (prohibitions on disclosure) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council holds the review material for the purposes of FOIA but that it is exempt from disclosure by virtue of section 40(2). He has also decided that the Council was entitled to rely on section 40(2) to refuse to disclose the actual review. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken as a result of this decision. Information T
Exemptions cited: FOI 3; FOI 40
View Walsall Council
25 Jul 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested from Police Service of Northern Ireland (PSNI) information relating to PSNI connections with Israel. PSNI provided a Neither Confirm Nor Deny (NCND) response and cited exemptions; sections 23(5) (Information supplied by or relating to security bodies), 24(2) (National security), 27(4) (International relations), 31(3) (Law enforcement), 38(2) (Health and safety) and 40(5B)(a)(i) (Personal information) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that PSNI was entitled to withhold the information under sections 23(5) and 24(2) of FOIA and the public interest favours maintaining the exemption. Therefore, the Commissioner does not require PSNI to take any steps as a result of this decision. Information Tribunal FT/EA/2024/0320 under appeal.
Exemptions cited: FOI 23; FOI 24(2)
View Police Service of Northern Ireland
24 Jul 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about ongoing investigations. The above public authority provided some information, stated that some information was not held, relied on section 31 of FOIA (law enforcement) to withhold some information and relied on section 12 of FOIA (costs) to refuse part of the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the public authority was entitled to rely on section 31 of FOIA and that the balance of the public interest favours maintaining the exemption. The Commissioner does not require further steps to be taken.Keywords: greenwashing
Exemptions cited: FOI 31
View Financial Conduct Authority
24 Jul 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(1)
View Manchester City Council
24 Jul 2024Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from London Borough of Havering (LBH) relating to the dates of any discussions, exchange of correspondence and or meetings in respect of the Rom Valley Ice rink Site which took place between January 2010 to 1 May 2013. London Borough of Havering (LBH) refused to comply with the request on the basis of section 14(2) (repeated request) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that LBH is not entitled to rely upon section 14(2) of FOIA to refuse to comply with the request. He has also determined that LBH is in breach of section 17(5) of FOIA, by failing to issue a refusal notice within 20 working days of the request. The Commissioner requires LBH to take the following step to ensure compliance with the legislation.• Issue a fresh response to the request that does not rely on section 14(2) of FOIA.LBH 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 certi
Exemptions cited: FOI 14(2); FOI 17(5)
View London Borough of Havering
24 Jul 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
1. The complainant has requested information relating to applications for relief in business rates liability under Section 44A of the Local Government Finance Act 1988. The London Borough Council of Hillingdon (the council) disclosed some of the information but refused to disclose the remaining information citing section 31(1)(a) of FOIA (Law enforcement) and section 41(1) of FOIA (Information provided in confidence) as its basis for doing so. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council was correct to rely on section 31 of FOIA to withhold the information and the public interest lies in maintaining the exemption. The Commissioner does not require further steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 31(1)(a)
View Hillingdon Council
24 Jul 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from a file held by the National Archives (TNA). TNA disclosed the majority of the information and withheld the remainder under sections 38(1)(a) and 40(2) of FOIA, which concern endangerment to mental health and personal data, respectively. The Commissioner’s decision is that TNA has correctly withheld the information to which it’s applied the two exemptions and it’s not necessary for it to take any corrective steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 38(1)(a); FOI 40(2)
View The National Archives
23 Jul 2024Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The Commissioner’s decision is that the public authority breached section 10(1) and 17(1) by failing to confirm or deny holding the requested information and by failing to issue an appropriate refusal notice within the statutory time frame of 20 working days. The Commissioner does not require further steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10(1); FOI 17
View Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office
23 Jul 2024Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from Leigh-on-Sea Town Council (“the Council”) relating to the employment of Council staff and the training of Councillors. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has breached section 10(1) (time for compliance) of FOIA by failing to provide the complainant with some information within the scope of the request within 20 working days. He also finds that the Council has breached section 17(1) (refusal notice) of FOIA by failing to provide the complainant with an appropriate refusal notice within 20 working days. The Commissioner requires the Council to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. The Council must provide the complainant with a fresh response to the request which complies with the requirements of 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
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 17
23 Jul 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information relating to the status of a piece of land from North Northamptonshire Council (“the council”). The council initially applied Regulation 12(4)(b) of the EIR to refuse to respond further (manifestly unreasonable request). During the course of the Commissioner's investigation, however, the council amended its position. It said that after carrying out further searches, no information is held by it. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the council was correct to state that no information is held by it. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(a)
View North Northamptonshire Council
23 Jul 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to the recording of court proceedings. The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) denied holding the requested information. The Commissioner’s decision is that the MoJ does not hold the requested information, namely audio recordings, for the purposes of FOIA. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: FOI 3
View Ministry of Justice
23 Jul 2024Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about whether an organisation is proscribed, from the Home Office. The Home Office would neither confirm nor deny (“NCND”) holding any information, citing sections 23(5) (Information supplied by, or relating to, bodies dealingwith security matters), 24(2) (National security) and 27(4) (International relations) of FOIA.The Commissioner’s decision is that the Home Office was not entitled to NDNC holding any information. The Commissioner requires the Home Office to issue a fresh response confirming whether or not any information is held. If it is held, this should either be disclosed or the Home Office should issue a refusal notice in compliance with section 17 of FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 23; FOI 24; FOI 27
View Home Office
23 Jul 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested from Belfast City Council (the Council) information regarding LGBTQIA+ Belfast Hub Feasibility Study report. The Council refused the request under section 43(2) (commercial interests) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council 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 Council to take any steps as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: FOI 43(2)
23 Jul 2024Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to the Charity Commission for England and Wales (the Charity Commission) for a copy of the Reporting Serious Incidents and the correspondence associated with it, in relation to a named charity.The Commissioner’s decision is that the Charity Commission correctly cited section 31(1)(g) (law enforcement), with subsection 31(2)(c) and (f) of FOIA to refuse to disclose the requested information, and that the public interest favoured maintaining the exemption. However, in failing to issue an appropriate refusal notice, confirming the exemption it ultimately came to rely upon, within the statutory timescale, the Charity Commission has breached 17(1) of FOIA.The Commissioner does not require further steps, as a result of this decision notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 17; FOI 31(1)(g)
View The Charity Commission
23 Jul 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information about salaries of senior staff. The Police Federation of England and Wales (“PFEW”) suspected she had made the request using a pseudonym. It asked for confirmation of her identity, which she did not provide. PFEW then argued that the request was not a valid request for information within the meaning at section 8(1)(b) (Request for information) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that, in the circumstances of this case, PFEW was entitled to consider the request did not meet the criteria for a valid request at section 8(1)(b) of FOIA without confirmation of the complainant’s identity.
Exemptions cited: FOI 8
23 Jul 2024Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information, over a specified time period, about Legionella risk assessments, water sample test results and disinfection reports relating to the Bibby Stockholm accommodation barge. The Home Office disclosed some of the requested information with redactions under section 31(law enforcement), section 40 (personal information) and section 43 (commercial interests) of FOIA. During the course of the Commissioner’s investigation, the Home Office reconsidered the request under the EIR, said it had provided the incorrect document for part 1 of the request, which it rectified at internal review and disclosed further information. The Home Office relied on Regulations 12(5)(a) (international relations), 12(5)(e) (confidentiality of commercial or industrial information), 12(5)(f) (interests of the person who provided the information to the public authority) and 13(1) (personal data) of the EIR to withhold some of the information in the disclosed Legionella Risk Assessmen
Exemptions cited: EIR 11; EIR 5
View Home Office
23 Jul 2024Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted three requests for information to University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust (the Trust) relating to the hereditary angioedema (HAE) service. 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 University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust
23 Jul 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information regarding section 36 FOIA and its application. The Cabinet Office refused the request under section 14(1) of FOIA (vexatious requests). Information Tribunal FT/EA/2024/0311 under appeal.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14
View Cabinet Office
23 Jul 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information relating to the Shrewsbury North West Relief Road. The Department for Transport (“the public authority”) disclosed information but with redactions made under regulation 12(5)(e) (commercial or industrial information). The Commissioner’s decision is that the public authority has correctly withheld the information it has under regulation 12(5)(e). The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(e)
View Department for Transport
23 Jul 2024Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to redundancies made by Oxford Direct Services Limited (‘ODSL’). ODSL refused the request on the basis that section 40(2) of FOIA applies (personal data of third parties). The Commissioner’s decision is that ODSL was partially correct to withhold the information under section 40(2). However, in order to meet the legitimate interests identified, he requires ODSL to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. To disclose a total, overall amount for the three redundancy payments paid to the individuals falling within the scope of the complainant's request for information.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40(2)
23 Jul 2024Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from Chief Constable of Sussex Police (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 Sussex Police