16 Jul 2024Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested EA to disclose the United Kingdom Accreditation Service (UKAS) audit reports for water companies, which concern each of the water company’s Monitoring Certification Scheme (‘MCERTS’) site conformity inspection certificate for flow monitoring. EA refused to disclose the information citing regulation 12(5)(e) of the EIR. The Commissioner’s decision is that EA is not entitled to rely on 12(5)(e) of the EIR. It also breached regulation 14(2) of the EIR by failing to issue a refusal notice within 20 working days of the receipt of the request. The Commissioner requires EA to disclose the requested information to the complainant. EA is permitted to redact personal data from the withheld information in accordance with regulation 13 of the EIR.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(e); EIR 14(2)(1)
View Environment Agency
15 Jul 2024Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to the Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office (FCDO) seeking briefing notes prepared for the then Prime Minister, David Cameron, for his trip to China in December 2013. The FCDO confirmed that it held some information falling within the scope of the request but it considered this to be exempt from disclosure on the basis of sections 27(1)(a), (c) and (d) (international relations), 35(1)(a) (formulation or development of government policy), 43(2) (commercial interests) and 40(2) (personal data) of FOIA. (Albeit during the course of the Commissioner’s investigation, the FCDO confirmed that it was prepared to disclose some of this information.) It also relied on sections 23(5) (security bodies) and 24(2) (national security) of FOIA to refuse to confirm or deny whether it held any further information falling within the scope of the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that: Of the information which the FCDO has confirmed it holds, this informa
Exemptions cited: FOI 17; FOI 23; FOI 24; FOI 27
View Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office
15 Jul 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to the release of information in connection with civil proceedings. Thames Valley Police refused to comply with the request, citing section 14(1) (vexatious request) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the request is vexatious under section 14(1) of FOIA. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14
View Thames Valley Police
15 Jul 2024Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to the Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office seeking a copy of a contract between it and Zinc Network Ltd. It initially withheld the contract in full on the basis of sections 43(2) (commercial interests), 38(1)(a) and (b) (health and safety) and 40(2) (personal data) of FOIA. It subsequently disclosed a redacted version of the contract, relying on the previously cited exemptions to withhold parts of it. The Commissioner’s decision is that the majority of the redacted material is exempt from disclosure on the basis of section 43(2) of FOIA and that section 40(2) provides a basis to redact personal data contained in the contract. However, the Commissioner has also concluded that the part of the contract containing the statement of the FCDO’s requirements (SoR) is not exempt from disclosure on the basis of section 43(2) of FOIA. Furthermore the redactions made on pages 3 and 7 of the contract are not exempt from disclosure on the basis of secti
Exemptions cited: FOI 38; FOI 40; FOI 43
View Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office
15 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 Brighton and Hove City Council
15 Jul 2024Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested copies of historic murder investigation files. The above public authority relied on sections 31 (law enforcement), 38 (health and safety) and 40(2) of FOIA (third party personal information) to withhold the information. The Commissioner’s decision is that all three exemptions will be engaged and that, where applicable, the public interest favours maintaining the exemption. The public authority breached section 17(3) of FOIA by failing to complete its considerations on the balance of the public interest within a reasonable time period. The Commissioner does not require further steps to be taken. Information Tribunal FT/EA/2024/0312 appeal withdrawn.
Exemptions cited: FOI 17; FOI 31; FOI 38; FOI 40(2)
View The National Archives
15 Jul 2024Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information about a) sewage treatment works using continuous monitoring devices, and b) water quality. United Utilities’ (UU) final position was that the information isn’t environmental information, but UU also withheld it under regulation 12(4)(b), 12(4)(e) and 12(5)(b) of the EIR. These exceptions concern manifestly unreasonable requests, internal communications, and the course of justice, respectively. During the course of the Commissioner’s investigation, UU advised that it intends to make available the information requested in part A of the request. The Commissioner’s decision is as follows: The requested information is environmental information under regulation 2(1) of the EIR. UU is entitled to refuse to disclose the information requested in part B of the request under regulation 12(4)(b). UU breached regulation 9(1) by failing to provide the complainant with any advice and assistance in respect of part B. It also breached regulations 5(2) and 14(2)
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(b); EIR 14(2); EIR 2; EIR 5(2); EIR 9(1)
View United Utilities
15 Jul 2024Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information relating to access agreement for licensed badger control activities. The Forestry Commission refused the request under regulation 12(5)(a) EIR – public safety. During the course of the Commissioner’s investigation it became apparent that the public authority was seeking to neither confirm nor deny if information was held under regulation 12(6). The Commissioner’s decision is that the public authority is not entitled to rely on regulation 12(6) to neither confirm nor deny holding the requested information with respect to regulation 12(5)(a). The Commissioner requires the public authority confirm or deny whether it holds information as described in parts 1 and 2 of the request and either disclose that information or issue a fresh refusal notice compliant with regulation 14 EIR.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(a)
View Forestry Commission
15 Jul 2024Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The Commissioner’s decision is that the Courtauld Institute of Art (‘the Institute’) correctly applied section 41(1) of FOIA to the requested guidance about handling FOIA requests about University & Colleges Employers Association (UCEA). This is because the information was provided to the Institute in confidence. However, the Institute didn’t comply with section 17(1) of FOIA as it didn’t provide the complainant with a refusal notice within the statutory time limit. It’s not necessary for the Institute to take any corrective steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 17; FOI 41(1)
15 Jul 2024Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to mental health needs assessment surveys carried out by Reading Borough Council (“the council”). The council disclosed some information to the complainant, but said that it does not hold the majority of the information. The complainant disputed that that was the case. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council was not correct to say that it does not hold any further information falling within the scope of the request. He has decided that the council does hold information in respect of one part of the request, and that it has misconstrued other parts of the request. The Commissioner therefore requires the council to take the following steps: to disclose the information falling within part 7 of the request, (as outlined in paragraph 25 of this decision notice), and, to reconsider and respond to a part 1-6 of the request again as required by section 1 of FOIA, (as outlined in paragraphs 26-28 of this decision notice).
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10
View Reading Borough Council
15 Jul 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to the Ministry of Defence (MOD) seeking information about the numbers and locations of jobs supported by the Skynet program. The MOD explained that it did not hold the requested information. The Commissioner’s decision is that the MOD does not hold the requested information and nor is such information held by the third party contractor on the MOD’s behalf for the purposes of section 3(2)(b) of FOIA. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 3
View Ministry of Defence
12 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 London Borough of Hackney
12 Jul 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to the Ministry of Defence (MOD) seeking information a copy of a particular US memorandum of understanding and a copy of a particular NATO doctrine. The MOD provided some of the information falling within the scope of the request but sought to withhold the remainder on the basis of sections 27(1)(a) and 27(1)(b). The Commissioner’s decision is that withheld information in question is exempt on the basis of each exemption and that for each exemption the public interest favours withholding the information.
Exemptions cited: FOI 27
View Ministry of Defence
12 Jul 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
In a two part request, the complainant has requested from the Royal College of Music (RCM) consultation material associated with the Universities and Colleges Employers Association (UCEA) and email correspondence. RCM refused to disclose the requested information, citing section 41(1) of FOIA which concerns information provided in confidence. The Commissioner’s decision is that RCM was entitled to rely on section 41(1) of FOIA to withhold the information requested in part one of the complainant’s request. The Commissioner doesn’t require any steps as a result of this decision notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 41(1)
View Royal College of Music
12 Jul 2024Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from Brighton and Hove City Council (“the Council”) relating to the Valley Gardens bus gates. The Commissioner’s decision is that with the exception of information located by the Council during the course of his investigation, on the balance of probabilities the Council does not hold further information within the scope of the request. He also finds the Council breached section 10(1) (time for compliance) by failing to respond to the request within the statutory timeframe of 20 working days. The Commissioner requires the Council to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. The Council must either disclose the information located during the course of the Commissioner’s investigation, or issue an appropriate refusal notice which complies with 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 thi
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10
View Brighton and Hove City Council
12 Jul 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)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
12 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 35 calendar days in accordance with its obligations under FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10(1)
View Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council
11 Jul 2024Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information in relation to a footpath. Devon County Council (the council) refused the request under regulation 12(4)(b) of the EIR as manifestly unreasonable. The Commissioner’s decision is that regulation 12(4)(b) is not engaged. The Commissioner requires the council to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. Issue a fresh response to the complainant in accordance with the EIR, without relying on regulation 12(4)(b) of 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 12(4)(b)
View Devon County Council
11 Jul 2024Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information in Internal Process Reviews (IPRs). The Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) withheld the information on the basis of section 21, information reasonably accessible to the applicant, and section 22, information intended for future publication. The complainant did not dispute DWP’s reliance on section 21 and 22 in respect of questions 1 and 2. The Commissioner’s decision is that DWP is not entitled to rely on section 22 to withhold the information falling within the scope of the remainder of the request. The Commissioner requires DWP to disclose the information falling within questions 3 and 4 and the request for IPR recommendations relating to Universal Credit. 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 FOIA and may be dealt with as a contempt of cour
Exemptions cited: FOI 22
View Department for Work and Pensions
11 Jul 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested from St Albans City and District Council (“the Council”), information about reports of rat problems in neighbouring properties. The Council provided a general explanation of its investigation of the reports but it refused to disclose the recorded information it held, citing regulation 13(1) (Personal data) of the EIR. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council was entitled to apply regulation 13(1) of the EIR to refuse the request. Information Tribunal FT/EA/2024/0344 appeal struck out.
Exemptions cited: EIR 13(1)
11 Jul 2024Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested, from NHS England, information about certain projects, contracts and costs. NHS England’s position is that it has disclosed all of the information it holds within scope of the request. However, the complainant considers that NHS England holds further information within scope of the request. The Commissioner disagrees with NHS England’s interpretation of the request, and considers that NHS England didn’t identify and consider all of the information falling within scope correctly. The Commissioner requires NHS England to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: identify all of the information within the scope described in paragraph 26, and disclose it or issue a valid refusal notice. 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 FOIA, and may
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View NHS England
11 Jul 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about the diversity data for all applicants to three funding programmes run by the British Film Institute. The British Film Institute (‘BFI’) provided some information but advised that it was not able to break the information down by year and specific fund as requested within the cost limit.The Commissioner’s decision is that BFI was entitled to rely on section 12(1) of FOIA to refuse the request. The Commissioner finds that BFI complied with its section 16 obligation to offer advice and assistance. The Commissioner does not require further steps. Information Tribunal FT/EA/2024/0266 under appeal.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12; FOI 16
View British Film Institute
11 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.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
11 Jul 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a number of information requests spanning the period of 2022, 2023 and early in 2024 to Buckhurst Hill Parish Council (the Council) relating to Roding Valley Hall and Car Park. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the Council does not hold further information within the scope of the requests. The Commissioner does not require the Council to take any steps as a result of this decision. Information Tribunal FT/EA/2024/0309 under appeal.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1(1)
11 Jul 2024Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information about the Environment Agency’s internal enforcement policies and enforcement undertakings concerning water pollution incidents. The Environment Agency (‘EA’) relied on regulation 12(4)(b) of the EIR (manifestly unreasonable) to refuse the request. EA disclosed some of the requested information during the course of the Commissioner’s investigation but advised that this did not impact on its reliance on regulation 12(4)(b). The Commissioner’s decision is that EA was entitled to rely on regulation 12(4)(b) of the EIR to refuse the remainder of the request and that EA complied with its duty under regulation 9(1) to offer advice and assistance. However, he also finds that EA breached regulation 11 (reconsideration) of the EIR by failing to provide the complainant with the outcome of its internal review within 40 working days. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 11; EIR 12(4)(b); EIR 9
View Environment Agency
11 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.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
10 Jul 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about security / surveillance cameras imported from China, from the National Police Chiefs Council (the “NPCC”). Having initially advised that the information was not held, the NPCC revised its position and stated that to establish whether or not any information was held would exceed the cost limit at section 12(2) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the NPCC properly relied on section 12(2) of FOIA; he also finds no breach of section 16 (Advice and assistance). The Commissioner does not require any steps Information Tribunal FT/EA/2024/0289 under appeal.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12; FOI 16
View National Police Chiefs Council
10 Jul 2024Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about a court case involving Warwickshire Hunt, from Warwickshire Police. Warwickshire Police denied holding some of the information. It advised that some information was in the public domain so was exempt by virtue of section 21(1) (Information accessible to applicant by other means) of FOIA. It directed the complainant to the Office of the Police and Crime Commissioner (the “OPCC”) for one part of the request. It advised that one part was exempt from disclosure, citing section 32(1) (Court records) of FOIA. It also withheld an email citing section 42(1) (Legal professional privilege) of FOI.The Commissioner’s decision is that Warwickshire Police was entitled to rely on the position taken regarding parts (2), (3) and (5) of the request. However, by failing to issue a timely response, Warwickshire Police breached sections 1(1) (General right of access) and 10(1) (Time for compliance) of FOIA. He finds that part (4) of the request was not respon
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10; FOI 21; FOI 32; FOI 42
View Warwickshire Police
10 Jul 2024Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested copies of an audit of the Guild of Students. The above public authority relied on sections 31 (law enforcement), 41 (breach of confidence) and 43 (commercial interests) of FOIA to withhold the information. The Commissioner’s decision is that only a small part of the information engages section 31 of FOIA – though where it does, the public interest favours maintaining that exemption. Where section 31 is not engaged, neither section 41 nor section 43 is engaged either. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: Disclose the five documents it identified to the Commissioner as comprising the withheld information – with the exception of the second paragraph under the subheading “Positive Observations”. The public authority may also make appropriate redactions to protect personal information.
Exemptions cited: FOI 31; FOI 41; FOI 43
View The University of Birmingham
10 Jul 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about overseas trips taken by Alex Mahon (Chief Executive) and Ian Katz (Director of Programmes) between 19 January 2023 and 19 January 2024. Channel Four Television Corporation (‘Channel 4’) refused the request relying on section 12 of FOIA (cost limit). The Commissioner’s decision is that Channel 4 was entitled to rely on section 12(1) of FOIA to refuse the request. The Commissioner finds that Channel 4 complied with its section 16 obligation to offer advice and assistance. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12; FOI 16
View Channel 4
10 Jul 2024Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The Commissioner’s decision is that the public authority has failed to either provide the complainant with the information requested or provide a proper refusal notice.The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following step to ensure compliance with the legislation.Either disclose the requested information or, to the extent that information is to be withheld, issue a refusal notice in accordance with the requirements of section 17 of the 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 1(1)(b); FOI 17
View HURST PRIMARY SCHOOL
10 Jul 2024Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested details of CCTV footage from specific dates. The above public authority denied holding the information. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the public authority has not complied with section 1(1) of FOIA because it has not considered whether the information was held on its behalf. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. Issue a fresh response, to the request, on the basis that any CCTV footage held by GLL is also held on behalf of the public authority. Information Tribunal FT/EA/2024/0305 appeal withdrawn.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Barnet Council
10 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 Home Office
10 Jul 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to emergency COVID loan schemes. British Business Bank (BBB/the Bank) provided some information and denied holding some. It refused to provide the remainder, citing sections 29 (prejudice to the national economy), 31 (law enforcement) and 43 (commercial interests) of FOIA. The Commissioner considered its application of section 43 to the withheld information. He also considered whether the Bank holds information within the scope of part 4.3 of the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the withheld information is exempt from disclosure on the basis of section 43(2) of FOIA. He also finds that, on the balance of probabilities, the Bank does not hold information in scope of part 4.3 of the request. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 43
View British Business Bank
9 Jul 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested a copy of an internal audit report. Morecambe Town Council (the “Council”) confirmed that the information was not held. The complainant disputes the Council’s position. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council correctly confirmed that it did not hold the requested information and complied with section 1(1) of the FOIA. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1(1)
9 Jul 2024Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information issued to sensitivity reviewers in order to carry out their work under the Public Records and National Archive Acts for the period 2021 to March 2023, with specific reference to the handling of royal matters.
The Cabinet Office initially advised that the information requested was exempt under section 27(prejudice to international relations) of FOIA, subsequently revising the exemption relied upon to section 37(1)(ac)(communications with other members of the Royal Family). The Cabinet Office later advised that the information was instead exempt in its entirety under section 37(1)(a)(communications with the Sovereign). This absolute exemption was upheld at internal review.
During the Commissioner’s investigation, the Cabinet Office advised that in addition to section 37(1)(a), they were also applying sections 36(2)(b)(i) and (ii)(prejudice to effective conduct of public affairs) to the information requested.
The Commissioner has found
Exemptions cited: FOI 10(1); FOI 17; FOI 37(1)(a)
View Cabinet Office
9 Jul 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information about the installation of a ULEZ traffic camera in a specific location. Transport for London (TfL) withheld the information under regulations 12(5)(a), 12(5)(b) and 12(5)(e) EIR. The Commissioner’s decision is that the information engages both the exceptions at regulation 12(5)(a) and (b) and the public interest favours maintaining the exceptions and withholding the information. The Commissioner does not require any steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(a); EIR 12(5)(b)
View Transport for London
9 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 PORTICO ACADEMY TRUST
9 Jul 2024Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information from Etchingham Parish Council (“the public authority”). 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 public authority to issue a substantive response to the request in accordance with its obligations under the EIR.
Exemptions cited: EIR 5(2)
9 Jul 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested from Belfast Metropolitan College (the College) information relating to Castlereagh Campus. The College confirmed the information requested is intended for future publication on the College’s website. It applied section 22(1) (information intended for future publication) of FOIA to the withheld information.The Commissioner’s decision is that the College was entitled to rely on section 22(1) of FOIA to withhold the information. Therefore, the Commissioner does not require the College to take any further steps as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: FOI 22
9 Jul 2024Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from the Chief Constable of Humberside Police (“the public authority”). The Commissioner’s decision is that the above public authority (“the public authority”) breached section 10(1) of FOIA by failing to provide a valid response to the request within the statutory time frame of 20 working days. The Commissioner does not require further steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Humberside Police
9 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 Humberside Police
9 Jul 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about meetings held between the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons (‘RCVS’) and the Department for Food, Environment and Rural Affairs (‘Defra’) or the Animal and Plant Health Agency (‘APHA’) between 1 June 201 and 31 December 2021. The RCVS provided some of the requested information but advised that no further information was held within scope of the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the RCVS does not hold further information within scope of the request. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons
9 Jul 2024Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information relating to Ricardo plc’s application for a grant to design, install and operate a combined heat and power demonstrator plant. DESNZ initially refused the request in reliance of EIR regulation 12(5)(e) – confidentiality of commercial or industrial information. Some information related to emissions was disclosed at internal review. During the Commissioner’s investigation DESNZ also relied on regulation 12(5)(c) – intellectual property rights and regulation 13(1) – personal information. The Commissioner’s decision is that regulation 12(5)(e) applies to some of the withheld information but not all of the information withheld in reliance of this exception, regulation 12(5)(c) has been correctly applied to some information and regulation 13(1) has been correctly applied to limited information. The Commissioner requires DESNZ to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. Disclose the information identified in the annex attach
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(c); EIR 12(5)(e); EIR 13(1)
View Department for Energy Security and Net Zero
9 Jul 2024Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information from East West Railway Company (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.
Exemptions cited: EIR 5(2)
View East West Railway Company Limited
9 Jul 2024Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested any correspondence between King Charles and Tony Juniper on specific subjects relating to climate change. Natural England stated no information was held. During the course of the Commissioner’s investigation one letter was found which the Commissioner considers is in scope of the request. He finds that on balance, following additional searches, Natural England has identified all relevant information it holds. However, he finds that Natural England did not comply with its obligation under regulation 5 EIR at the time of the request as it did not locate and provide all relevant information within the statutory timeframe. The Commissioner requires Natural England to provide the complainant with a copy of the letter from Tony Juniper dated 1 March 2023.
Exemptions cited: EIR 5
View Natural England
8 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 35 calendar days in accordance with its obligations under FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10(1)
8 Jul 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information about personal protective equipment categorised as not fit for use. The Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC) disclosed some relevant information, advised that it doesn’t hold other information, and relied on sections 21, 23, 31, 41 and 43 of FOIA to withhold the remaining information in scope of the request. These exemptions concern information already accessible to the applicant, information supplied by, or relating to, bodies dealing with security matters, law enforcement, information provided in confidence and commercial interests, respectively. The Commissioner’s decision is that DHSC doesn’t hold the updated table of information that the complainant is seeking and its response to that part of the request complied with section 1(1)(a) of FOIA. The information DHSC is withholding is exempt from disclosure under section 23(1) of FOIA. It’s not necessary for DHSC to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1(1); FOI 23
View Department of Health and Social Care
8 Jul 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested disclosure of information relating to a consultation process from Bangor University (“the University”). The University refused to disclose the requested information, citing sections 43(2) and 41 of FOIA as a basis for non-disclosure.The Commissioner’s decision is that the University has correctly applied the above exemptions to the requested information.The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 41; FOI 43
View Bangor University
8 Jul 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to any form of contact made by Kent Police on a specified date and location, including a time parameter, with various listed groups of individuals as well as a named individual. Kent Police would neither confirm nor deny (‘NCND’) holding any information by virtue of sections 30(3) (investigations and proceedings) and 40(5) (personal information) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that Kent Police was entitled to rely on section 30(3) of FOIA to refuse the request. As he has found section 30(3) to be engaged, the Commissioner has not deemed it necessary to consider Kent Police’s reliance on section 40(5) of FOIA. No steps are required as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: FOI 30
View Kent Police