20 Jun 2024Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
1. The complainant has requested information from Westminster City Council (“the Council”) in relation to a specific consultation. The Council refused to disclose the information, citing section 22(1) of FOIA as its basis for non-disclosure.2. The Commissioner considers that the Council has incorrectly applied section 22(1) of FOIA to the requested information.3. The Commissioner requires the Council to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. • Disclose the requested informationThe Council must take these steps within 30 calendar days of the date of this decision notice. Failure to comply may result in the Commissioner making written certification of this fact to the High Court pursuant to section 54 of the Act and may be dealt with as a contempt of court.
Exemptions cited: FOI 22
View Westminster Council
20 Jun 2024Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to an article namely "Fredrick Jackson Turner's Frontier Thesis, Orientalism, and the Austrian Militärgrenze". The University of Cambridge (the university) refused to confirm or deny whether the information was held citing section 40(5B) (a)(i) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the university is not entitled to rely on section 40(5B) (a)(i) of FOIA and that it should have relied on section 40(2) of FOIA to withhold parts of the information. The Commissioner requires the university to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. Disclose information in relation to parts 1a, 1b, 2, 3b and some of the information contained in part 4a of the request. 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 de
Exemptions cited: FOI 40(2)
View The University of Cambridge
20 Jun 2024Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to victim statements made to Cleveland Police. The Commissioner’s decision is that Cleveland Police breached section 10(1) of FOIA by failing to provide a response within 20 working days. The Commissioner does not require further steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Cleveland Police
20 Jun 2024Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested from SOAS University of London (School of Oriental and African Studies) information about students that were offered places on its Global Liberal Arts BA course for the academic year of 2023/24. SOAS applied section 43(2) of FOIA (prejudice to commercial interests) to withhold the information. The Commissioner’s decision is that 43(2) is not engaged regarding the withheld information. The Commissioner requires SOAS to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. Disclose the withheld information.
Exemptions cited: FOI 43(2)
20 Jun 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 Mansfield District Council
20 Jun 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about the number of requests to inspect accounts. Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole Council disclosed information. The Commissioner’s decision is that on the balance of probabilities, the council does not hold further information within the scope of the request. The Commissioner does not require the council to take any steps. Information Tribunal FT/EA/2024/0277 under appeal.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1(1)
View BCP Council
20 Jun 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to a safeguarding review. The Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) relied on section 12 of FOIA (cost of compliance) to refuse the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that DWP was entitled to rely on section 12(1) of FOIA to refuse the request. The Commissioner also finds that the public authority complied with its section 16 obligation to offer advice and assistance. The Commissioner does not require further steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12
View Department for Work and Pensions
19 Jun 2024Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information regarding the recruitment for a specific role and copies of various managers’ meeting diaries from the Council for the Curriculum, Examinations & Assessment (CCEA). CCEA relied on section 40(2) of FOIA (third party personal information) to withhold the information. The Commissioner’s decision is that the CCEA has relied correctly on section 40(2) of FOIA to withhold some of the requested information. He finds, however, that some of the information should be disclosed. The Commissioner requires the CCEA to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. Disclose the withheld information, subject to appropriate redactions as outlined by the Commissioner in paragraphs 39-42. The CCEA 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 w
Exemptions cited: FOI 40(2)
View Northern Ireland Council for the Curriculum, Examinations and Assessment
19 Jun 2024Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about an internal investigation he believes has been undertaken by London Borough of Hounslow (“the public authority”). The public authority relied on section 36(3), read together with section 36(2)(C), to neither confirm nor deny that it held the requested information The Commissioner’s decision is that the public authority was not entitled to rely on section 36(3) as the public interest did not favour maintaining the exemption.The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation.- The public authority must confirm or deny that it holds the requested information;and- if it does hold the information, disclose it, or provide a refusal notice in accordance with its obligations under section 17 of FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 36
View London Borough of Hounslow
19 Jun 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about the number of employees working from home or another area, and the number of employees who have secondary employment. The Isle of Wight Council refused to comply with the request under section 12(1) of FOIA (cost of compliance). The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has correctly applied section 12(1), and has complied with the duty to provide advice and assistance under section 16. The Commissioner does not require further steps. Information Tribunal EA/2024/0301 under appeal.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12(1); FOI 16
View Isle of Wight Council
19 Jun 2024Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to the contents of a formal Universities and Colleges Employers Association (UCEA) consultation with the Royal Academy of Music (RAM) within certain date parameters. RAM refused to provide this information citing section 41 of FOIA – information provided in confidence. The Commissioner’s decision is that RAM has cited section 41 of FOIA appropriately to the requested information, apart from some limited information where section 41 is not engaged. However, RAM breached sections 1(1)(a) and 10(1) of FOIA by not confirming whether it held the requested information until the internal review and breached section 17(1)(b) of FOIA by citing an exemption for the first time at the review stage. The Commissioner requires RAM to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation.
• Disclose the single line response from RAM at part three, question four (2020-2021).• Disclose each response provided by RAM under part two, quest
Exemptions cited: FOI 1(1)(a); FOI 10(1); FOI 17; FOI 41
View Royal Academy of Music
19 Jun 2024Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested various information in respect of cataract lenses from Aneurin Bevan University Health Board (‘the Health Board’). The Health Board refused the request citing section 12(4) (costs exceed the appropriate limit) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Health Board was not entitled to aggregate this request under section 12(4) of the FOIA and that it failed to demonstrate that section 12(1) was engaged in respect of this request. The Commissioner requires the Health Board to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. Issue a fresh response to the request that does not rely on section 12 of the FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12
View Aneurin Bevan University Health Board
19 Jun 2024Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information regarding an internal audit of Universal Credit claimants. The Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) withheld the requested information on the basis of section 35(1)(a), formulation or development of government policy. The Commissioner’s decision is that DWP is entitled to rely on section 35(1)(a) to withhold the majority of the information, however, the balance of the public interest favours disclosure for the information that is in the public domain. The Commissioner requires DWP to disclose document 6 which is already in the public domain. 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 35
View Department for Work and Pensions
19 Jun 2024Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information regarding staff qualifications and professional membership. Stafford Borough Council (the Council) relied on section 40(2) of FOIA (third party personal information) to withhold the information. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has correctly relied on section 40(2) of FOIA to withhold the information. The Commissioner also finds that the Council breached sections 10(1) and 17(1) by failing to provide a valid response within 20 working days. The Commissioner does not require further steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10(1); FOI 17; FOI 40(2)
View Stafford Borough Council
19 Jun 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to vehicle loss and recovery during a specified timeframe. West Midlands Police relied on section 12 of FOIA (cost of compliance) to refuse the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that West Midlands Police was entitled to refuse to comply with the request in accordance with section 12(1). The Commissioner also finds that it complied with its obligations under section 16 (duty to provide advice and assistance) of FOIA. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12; FOI 16
View West Midlands Police
18 Jun 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information from Suffolk County Council (the “Council”) regarding obtaining boundary line data.The Council withheld the requested GIS shapefiles under the confidentiality of commercial information exception (regulation 12(5)(e) of the EIR.)The Commissioner’s decision is that the commercial confidentiality exception under regulation 12(5)(e) of the EIR is engaged for the withheld information and that the public interest favours maintaining the exception.The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(e)
View Suffolk County Council
18 Jun 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information about the potential sale of land owned by Fladbury Parish Council. The council disclosed information in response. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council has disclosed all held information. The Commissioner does not require further steps. Information Tribunal FT/EA/2024/0251 under appeal.
Exemptions cited: EIR 5(1)
18 Jun 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
18 Jun 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The Commissioner’s decision is that, at the time of the request, Acas correctly applied section 40(2) of FOIA to requested information about a job evaluation and grading support exercise. The information is personal data, and it would have been unlawful to disclose it. Acas doesn’t need to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40(2)
View Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service
18 Jun 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information in respect of the contents of emails. The above public authority (“the public authority”) relied on section 12 of FOIA (cost of compliance) to refuse the request.The Commissioner’s decision is that the public authority was entitled to rely on section 12(1) of FOIA to refuse the request. The Commissioner also finds that the public authority complied with its section 16 obligation to offer advice and assistance.The Commissioner does not require further steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12(1); FOI 16
18 Jun 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about complaints received concerning image rights publication violation. The Information Commissioner’s Office (‘the ICO’) relied on section 12(2) of FOIA (cost limit) to refuse the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the ICO was entitled to rely on section 12(2) to refuse the request. He also finds that the ICO met its obligations under section 16(1) of FOIA to provide advice and assistance. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12(2); FOI 16
View Information Commissioner
18 Jun 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to a specific agenda item for a parish council meeting. Poundstock Parish Council (the Council) provided some information falling within the scope of the request, and advised that other information was not held. It is the Commissioner’s decision that, on the balance of probabilities, the council does not hold any information relevant to the request in addition to that which has already been provided to the complainant. The Commissioner does not require the Council to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
17 Jun 2024Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested a copy of a report assessing the risks associated with ‘volumetric’ modular construction. The Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (‘the DLUHC’) refused the request by virtue of section 35(1)(a) (formulation of government policy) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the request should have been considered under the EIR. He has therefore recorded a breach of regulation 2(1) of the Regulations. The Commissioner requires the DLUHC to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. Reconsider the request under the EIR and either provide the requested information or issue a refusal notice citing a valid exception.
Exemptions cited: EIR 2(1)
View Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government
17 Jun 2024Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from Potto Parish Council relating to an ‘annual review’. The Commissioner’s decision is that on the balance of probabilities, the council does not hold futher information within the scope of the request. The Commissioner does not require the council to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10(1)
17 Jun 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested DfE to disclose a list of the local authorities (LAs) which have had to submit Actions Plans for schools in deficit and for a copy of those Actions Plans. DfE disclosed an up to date list but refused to disclose the Actions Plans citing sections 36(2)(b)(i),(ii) and 36(2)(c) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that DfE is entitled to rely on sections 36(2)(b)(i), (ii) and 36(2)(c) of FOIA. He does not require any further action to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 36(2)(b); FOI 36(2)(c)
View Department for Education
17 Jun 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested copies of correspondence and communications between HRH The Prince of Wales (or officials acting on his behalf) and specific individuals and departments within Newport City Council (the Council) regarding issues around homelessness, rough sleepers, provision of housing and the Homewards initiative. The Council disclosed some information and withheld other information under sections 37(1)(aa) (communications with the heir to or second in line to the Throne) and 41 (information provided in confidence). During the course of the Commissioner’s investigation the Council disclosed some additional information relevant to the request, maintained its reliance on section 37 for some information, withdrew reliance on section 41 and instead sought to rely on section 40(2) (personal information). The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the Council does not hold any further information falling within the scope of the request, and it is entitled
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 37; FOI 40
View Newport City Council
17 Jun 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested the Charity Commission (CC) to disclosea serious incident report (RSI) submitted by The Prince of Wales Charitable Foundation and any pre-investigation assessment undertaken by CC. They also asked for the number of other RSIs submitted by this charity between 2011 and 2016. CC refused to disclose the RSI and associated correspondence relating to its assessment in accordance with section 31(1)(g) of FOIA. In terms of its correspondence and assessment, CC also relied on section 41 of FOIA. For the latter, the number of other RSIs submitted between 2011 and 2016, CC refused to confirm or deny holding this information under section 31(3).During the Commissioner’s investigation CC disclosed some information to the complainant but made redactions under section 40 of FOIA for some personal data. It also withdrew its application of section 31(3) of FOIA to the latter part of the request and provided a response under FOIA. No further complaint was made about these
Exemptions cited: FOI 31(1)(g)
View The Charity Commission
17 Jun 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested, from the Insolvency Service (IS), a copy of a certain director conduct report. IS refused to disclose the requested report, on the basis of section 40(2) of FOIA (the exemption for personal information). The Commissioner’s decision is that IS was correct to refuse to disclose the report, on the basis of section 40(2). The Commissioner doesn’t require any further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40(2)
View The Insolvency Service
17 Jun 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about deceased people who had been removed from the NHS Immunisation Management Service (NIMS) database since December 2020. The UK Health Security Agency (‘UKHSA’) provided some of the requested information but relied on section 38 of FOIA (health and safety) to withhold some of the information in the detail specified. The Commissioner’s decision is that UKHSA was entitled to rely on section 38(1)(a) of FOIA to withhold some of the requested information. The Commissioner does not require further steps. Information Tribunal FT/EA/2024/0267 under appeal.
Exemptions cited: FOI 38
View UK Health Security Agency
17 Jun 2024Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information about odour complaints related to a recycling facility. East Riding of Yorkshire Council (the Council) applied regulation 12(4)(e) (Internal Communications) to refuse the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council was entitled to withhold some information falling within the scope of the request under regulation 12(4)(e). However this does not extend to the entirety of the withheld information.The Commissioner requires the Council to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation.To disclose the information not listed in the attached schedule.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(e)
View East Riding of Yorkshire Council
17 Jun 2024Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to the death of Sandra Rivett and the subsequent disappearance of Lord Lucan, from the Metropolitan Police Service (the “MPS”). Having initially relied on the neither confirm nor deny (“NCND”) provisions in sections 30(3) (Investigations and proceedings) and 40(5) (Personal information) of FOIA, the MPS subsequently revised its position and relied on sections 30(1) and 40(2) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the exemption at section 30(1) is engaged and that the public interest favours maintaining the exemption. The Commissioner also finds that, in providing a late response, the MPS breached sections 1(1) (General right of access) and 10(1) (Time for compliance) of FOIA. No steps are required.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10; FOI 30
View Metropolitan Police Service
17 Jun 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about a report. The above public authority relied on section 40(2) (third party personal information) to withhold the information.The request was primarily for the complainant’s personal data which (if held) would be exempt information under section 40(5A) of FOIA. The Commissioner has therefore proactively applied section 40(5A). To the extent that any information (if held) relates to third parties, it is exempt under section 40(5B) of FOIA. The Commissioner does not require further steps to be taken. Information Tribunal FT/EA/2024/0238 appeal dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10(1); FOI 40(5)(a); FOI 40(5)(b)
View Cambridgeshire Constabulary
17 Jun 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from the Office of the Public Guardian (‘the OPG’) for specified documentation as to why OPG 2015 investigation details cannot be disclosed in subject access requests to those being investigated. The OPG is an executive agency of the Ministry of Justice (‘the MOJ’), the MOJ therefore being the relevant public authority. The MOJ considered the request to be vexatious in accordance with section 14(1) of FOIA and, as a result, relied on section 17(6) of FOIA to decline to issue a further refusal notice. The Commissioner’s decision is that the request was vexatious and that the MOJ was entitled to rely on section 17(6) of FOIA to decline to issue a further refusal notice. The Commissioner does not require any steps to be taken as a result of this notice. Information Tribunal FT/EA/2024/0268 under appeal.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14; FOI 17
View Ministry of Justice
17 Jun 2024Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested addresses and contact details from Thames Valley Police (“TVP”). TVP responded to the request and provided a link to a map of its local policing areas. It said that it did not have direct dial numbers and it would not disclose its control room’s email address, although no exemption was cited. It did not provide any response to the rest of the request. By not specifying what information is held, TVP breached section 1(1)(a) (General right of access) of FOIA. Its refusal notice offered no rationale to explain its position regarding the control room’s email address, thereby breaching section 17(1)(b) (Refusal of request) of FOIA. The Commissioner requires TVP to issue a fresh response which addresses all parts of the request, other than the map, and clarifies what is held. If any information is to be withheld it must issue a refusal notice which complies fully with section 17. If any information is not held it should provide a clear explanation as to why this
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 17
View Thames Valley Police
14 Jun 2024Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from the BBC about editorial decisions involving Julian Assange. The BBC had yet to respond at the date of this notice. The Commissioner finds that as the BBC failed to respond to the request, it breached section 10(1) of FOIA. However he is also satisfied that this information, if held at all, would be held by the BBC for the purposes of journalism, art or literature and so would not be covered by FOIA. The Commissioner does not require further steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 3
View BBC
14 Jun 2024Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from Greater Manchester Police (“GMP”) regarding people detained under UK immigration legislation. GMP relied on section 12 of FOIA (cost of compliance) to refuse the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that GMP was entitled to rely on section 12(1) of FOIA to refuse the request. The Commissioner finds that GMP complied with its section 16 obligation to offer advice and assistance. The Commissioner also finds that GMP breached section 10(1) by failing to respond to the request within 20 working days. The Commissioner does not require further steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10(1); FOI 12(1); FOI 16
View Greater Manchester Police
14 Jun 2024Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from the London Borough of Bromley (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 breached section 10(1) of FOIA in that it failed to provide a valid response to the request within the statutory time frame of 20 working days.The Commissioner requires the public authority to 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 Bromley Council
14 Jun 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 London Borough of Hackney
14 Jun 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from HM Treasury (HMT regarding the application and granting of specific licences by the Office of Financial Sanctions Implementation. HMT refused to confirm or deny whether it held any information falling within the scope of the request on the basis of sections 40(5B)(a)(i) (personal data), 41(2) (information provided in confidence) and 43(3) (commercial interests) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that HMT is entitled to rely on sections 40(5B)(a)(i) and 41(2) to neither confirm nor deny whether information falling within the scope of the request is held. The Commissioner does not require further steps. Information Tribunal FT/EA/2024/0298 appeal dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40; FOI 41
View HM Treasury
14 Jun 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, Berkshire Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust (‘the Trust’) doesn’t hold the requested information about a named individual’s involvement decision-making. The Trust complied with section 1(1) of FOIA, and it doesn’t need to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1(1)
View Berkshire Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust
13 Jun 2024Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information from Kent County Council (“the Council”) relating to a specific verge and tree. The Council refused the request under regulation 12(4)(b) (manifestly unreasonable) of the EIR. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council is entitled to rely on regulation 12(4)(b) to refuse to comply with the request. However, he also finds that the Council 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 the Council to take any steps. Information Tribunal FT/EA/2024/0263 appeal dismissed.
Exemptions cited: EIR 11; EIR 12(4)(b)
View Kent County Council
13 Jun 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to a consultation run by the Department of Health and Social Care entitled “Creating a smokefree generation and tackling youth vaping". The Department of Health and Social Care (‘DHSC’) provided links to the requested information that was already available, advised that some information was not held and that it was relying on section 27(2) of FOIA (international relations) and section 35 of FOIA (formulation of government policy) to withhold the remainder of the requested information. The Commissioner’s decision is that DHSC was entitled to rely on section 27(2) of FOIA to withhold some of the information concerning question two of the request. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 27
View Department of Health and Social Care
13 Jun 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 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 Duchy of Cornwall
13 Jun 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant submitted a request for information held by Herefordshire Council (the council) about the legal status of a particular area of land. The council aggregated the request with a number of other requests submitted by the complainant and issued a refusal notice, citing section 12 (cost limits) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA). During the Commissioner’s investigation, the council revised its position, and provided the complainant with information in response to all seven parts of their request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council should have initially considered the request under the EIR. However, he considers that the council has, on the balance of probabilities, now provided the complainant with the information that is held that falls within the scope of the request.
Exemptions cited: EIR 5(1)
View North Hertfordshire District Council
13 Jun 2024Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from Weston College Corporation (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 breached section 10(1) of FOIA in that it failed to provide a valid response to the request within the statutory time frame of 20 working days. The Commissioner requires the public authority to provide a substantive response to the request in accordance with its obligations under FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
13 Jun 2024Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested from Dr Julian Medical Group Limited (the public authority) the name of a complaint investigator’s professional membership body. The public authority applied section 14(1) of FOIA (vexatious request) to refuse the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the public authority was not entitled to rely on section 14(1) in refusing to provide the requested information. As the complainant has since obtained the requested information it is therefore not necessary for the public authority to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14
13 Jun 2024Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information in relation to speed cameras. The Commissioner’s decision is that Bournemouth Christchurch and Poole Council (the council) breached section 10(1) of the FOIA as it did not respond to the request within the required 20 working days set out in the FOIA. As the council has since responded, the Commissioner does not require any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View BCP Council
13 Jun 2024Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information from the University of Manchester (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 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 decision notice. Failure to comply may result in the Commissioner making written certification of this fact to the High Court pursuant to section 54 of the Freedom of Information Act and may be dealt with as contempt of court.
Exemptions cited: EIR 5(2)
View The University of Manchester
12 Jun 2024Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested copies of studies and reports held by a named professor that provide evidence of the existence of SARS-COV-2. The University of Sheffield (‘the University’) refused the request under section 14(1) of FOIA (vexatious requests). The Commissioner’s decision is that the University has incorrectly applied section 14(1) to categorise the request as vexatious. The Commissioner requires the University to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: Disclose the requested information or issue a fresh response to the complainant’s request that does not rely on section 14(1).
Exemptions cited: FOI 14(1)
View The University of Sheffield
12 Jun 2024Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested a deep dive report into primary care in Buckinghamshire. Buckinghamshire, Oxfordshire & West Berkshire (BOB) Integrated Care Board (ICB) (“the public authority”) refused the request, citing section 36(2)(b)(ii) and 36(2)(c) (prejudice to the effective conduct of public affairs) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the report engages section 36(2)(b)(ii) but the balance of the public interest lies in disclosure. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: disclose the report.
Exemptions cited: FOI 36(2)(b)(ii); FOI 36(2)(c)
View NHS Buckinghamshire, Oxfordshire and Berkshire West ICB