12 Jun 2024Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a two part request to the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) seeking equalities information in relation to: (1) DWP’s proposed policy to remove the Work Capability Assessment and (2) information about DWP’s equality publication duties.DWP refused to provide the information for part one of the request arguing it was exempt from disclosure on the basis of section 35(1)(a) of FOIA (formulation or development of government policy) and that the public interest favoured maintaining the exemption. In relation to part two, DWP argued that the information was exempt from disclosure on the basis of section 21 (information accessible to the applicant by other means) and section 22 (information intended for future publication). The Commissioner’s decision is that the withheld information in part one of the request is exempt from disclosure on the basis of section 35(1)(a) but the public interest favours disclosure of the information. For part two, the information is e
Exemptions cited: FOI 21; FOI 35(1)(a)
View Department for Work and Pensions
12 Jun 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested certain information from the incident database, held by the Home Office. The Home Office provided some information but initially withheld the remainder, citing sections 38(1) (Health and safety) and 40(2) (Personal information) of FOIA. During the Commissioner’s investigation, the Home Office disclosed the remaining information, in line with the complainant’s request. The complainant disputed the extent of what was requested and asked for further information. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Home Office has complied with the request. He does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 8
View Home Office
12 Jun 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about a contract with a third party to refurbish a Council building. Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council (the Council) disclosed some information but withheld information which would reveal the pricing structure applied, citing section 43 (Commercial interests). It said that it did not hold information about future payments. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council applied section 43 correctly, and, on the balance of probabilities, the Council does not hold the remaining information.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 43
View Sandwell Council
11 Jun 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested a copy of a report by an external consultant, reviewing the effectiveness of working practices in the Home Office. The Home Office refused to disclose the information, citing sections 23(1) (security bodies), 36(2)(b)(i) and (ii) (prejudice to the effective conduct of public affairs) and 40(2) (personal information) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Home Office was entitled to apply section 36(2)(b)(i) and (ii) to refuse the request. Information Tribunal FT/EA/2024/0231 appeal part allowed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 36
View Home Office
11 Jun 2024Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The public authority has failed to complete its public interest test considerations within a reasonable time in accordance with its obligations under FOIA. The Commissioner requires it to provide a substantive response to the request within 30 calendar days in accordance with its obligations under FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 17(3)
View UK Research and Innovation
11 Jun 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information associated with the Broadlands Archive Agreement (‘the Agreement’). The University of Southampton (‘the University’) disclosed relevant information with redactions made under section 41(1) of FOIA, which concerns information provided in confidence. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the University doesn’t hold any further information within scope of the request and has complied with section 1(1) of FOIA. The Commissioner has also decided that information the University is withholding is exempt under section 41(1) of FOIA. It’s not necessary for the University to take any corrective steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1(1); FOI 41(1)
View University of Southampton
11 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 30 calendar days in accordance with its obligations under FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10(1)
View Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office
11 Jun 2024Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested minutes of meetings and a costing report from Waterbeach Parish Council. Waterbeach Parish Council 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
11 Jun 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information in relation to a document published by the Cabinet Office in 2023.. The Cabinet Office relied on sections 24(1) and 40(2) of FOIA to withhold the information. It later stated to the Commissioner that it wished to rely on the additional exemption of section 38(1) of FOIA.The Commissioner’s decision is that the public authority has correctly relied on section 24(1) of FOIA to withhold the information. The Commissioner considers that this exemption applies to the entirety of the requested information so has not considered the Cabinet Office’s application of the exemptions at sections 38(1) and 40(2) of FOIA.The Commissioner does not require further steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 24
View Cabinet Office
11 Jun 2024Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The Commissioner’s decision is that the Care Quality Commission (CQC) is entitled to rely on section 40(2) of FOIA to withhold some of the requested information about a care home as it’s the personal data of a third party and disclosure would be unlawful. The CQC breached section 1(1) and 10(1) of FOIA as it didn’t disclose all the non-exempt information it holds within the statutory period. It’s not necessary for the CQC to take any corrective steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1(1); FOI 10(1); FOI 40(2)
View CQC
11 Jun 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested from the Cabinet Office copies of all email communication exchanged between nominet.uk and government.uk during 2022, containing words ‘update’ and ‘domain’. Following the Cabinet Office’s refusal based on section 12 (Cost of compliance exceeds appropriate limit) of FOIA, the complainant narrowed down his request to communication contained within four specified email addresses during the same period of time and containing the same key words. The Cabinet Office refused the complainant’s request citing section 14(1) (Vexatious requests) of FOIA.The Commissioner’s decision is that the request was vexatious, based on the oppressive burden that complying with the request would impose and therefore the Cabinet Office was entitled to rely upon section 14(1) of FOIA to refuse it.The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14(1)
View Cabinet Office
11 Jun 2024Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information provided to Antrim and Newtownabbey Borough Council (the Council) as part of a planning enforcement case. The Council provided some information and withheld other information in reliance on the exception at regulation 12(5)(b) of the EIR (adverse effect on the course of justice). The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council was entitled to rely on regulation 12(5)(b). No steps are required.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(b)
11 Jun 2024Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested emails between a named Professor and Polaris pharmaceutical company within a certain timeframe. Queen Mary University of London (QMUL) refused to provide the information citing section 43(2) of FOIA (commercial interests) and section 22A of FOIA (research information). The Commissioner’s decision is that QMUL cited section 22A of FOIA correctly and that the public interest favours maintaining the exemption. He has also decided that QMUL breached sections 1(1)(a) and 10(1) of FOIA by not confirming if it held the requested information within the time for compliance. QMUL also breached section 17(1) of FOIA by later relying on an exemption it had not included in its refusal notice. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1(1)(a); FOI 10(1); FOI 17; FOI 22A
View Queen Mary University of London
10 Jun 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested a copy of a noise abatement notice issued in respect of a particular property. The council refused the request, citing regulation 13 (personal information) of the EIR. The Commissioner has decided that the council is entitled to rely on regulation 13 of the EIR as its basis for refusing to provide the requested information. The Commissioner does not require the council to take any further steps as a result of this decision notice. Information Tribunal FT/EA/2024/0245 appeal allowed.
Exemptions cited: EIR 13
View Wakefield Council
10 Jun 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to the Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office (FCDO) seeking its policy or guidance for diplomatic staff concerning “illicit foreign exchange (currency) markets”. The FCDO responded by stating that it did not hold the requested information. The Commissioner’s decision is that on the balance of probabilities the FCDO does not hold any information falling within the scope of this request. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office
10 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 Swansea Council
10 Jun 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested copies of correspondence it has sent to Potto Parish Council, and an investigation report, from North Yorkshire Police (“NYP”). NYP confirmed holding some information but advised that it was exempt from disclosure by virtue of section 40(2) (Personal information) of FOIA. During the Commissioner’s investigation, NYP added reliance on sections 31(1) (a) and (b) (Law enforcement) of FOIA to withhold the information in its entirety. The Commissioner is satisfied that it was entitled to do so. He does not require any steps. Information Tribunal FT/EA/2024/0270 appeal allowed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 31
View North Yorkshire Police
10 Jun 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to the Ministry of Defence (MOD) seeking a list of 'mutually assured destruction' scenarios. The MOD responded by stating that it did not hold the requested information. The Commissioner’s decision is that on the balance of probabilities the MOD does not hold any information falling within the scope of this request. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Ministry of Defence
10 Jun 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested correspondence between the Office of Gas and Electricity Markets (Ofgem) and The Times newspaper in March 2023. Ofgem provided some information but withheld other information, citing section 31 – law enforcement, section 44 – prohibitions on disclosure, and section 40 of FOIA – personal information. The Commissioner’s decision is that Ofgem correctly cited section 31(1)(g) with subsection 31(2)(c) of FOIA to refuse to disclose the withheld information and that the public interest favoured maintaining the exemption. He has also decided that sections 44(1)(a) of FOIA was correctly cited. The Commissioner does not require further steps. Information Tribunal FT/EA/2024/0233 under appeal.
Exemptions cited: FOI 31; FOI 44
View Office of Gas and Electricity Markets
10 Jun 2024Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested, from the Environment Agency (EA), information relating to a specified environmental permit application. EA disclosed information, but the complainant considered that EA hadn’t disclosed all relevant information. During the Commissioner’s investigation, EA changed its position; it’s now refusing the request under regulation 12(4)(b) (the ‘manifestly unreasonable’ exception). The Commissioner’s decision is that EA is correct to rely on regulation 12(4)(b) and refuse the request as manifestly unreasonable; he also finds that EA breached regulation 14 due to its late refusal in reliance on regulation 12(4)(b). The Commissioner doesn’t require further steps. Information Tribunal FT/EA/2024/0261 under appeal.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(b); EIR 14
View Environment Agency
10 Jun 2024Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from Alberbury with Cardeston Parish Council (“the Parish Council”) relating to two pubs and the land surrounding them. The Parish Council has refused the request under section 12(1) of FOIA (cost limit). The Commissioner’s decision is that the Parish Council is entitled to refuse the request under section 12(1) of FOIA, however it has not met its obligations under section 16 of FOIA to provide advice and assistance. The Commissioner requires the Parish Council to take the following step to ensure compliance with the legislation: Provide advice and assistance to the complainant aimed to help them make a fresh request will not exceed the cost limit, taking into consideration which activities may and may not be taken into account when forming a cost estimate.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12(1); FOI 16(1)
10 Jun 2024Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested, from the Environment Agency (EA), information relating to a specified environmental permit application. EA disclosed information, but the complainant was concerned that a certain Excel spreadsheet was password protected. During the Commissioner’s investigation, EA changed its position: it’s now refusing the request, under regulation 12(4)(b) (the ‘manifestly unreasonable’ exception). The Commissioner’s decision is that EA is correct to rely on regulation 12(4)(b) and refuse the request as manifestly unreasonable; he also finds that EA breached regulation 14 due to its late refusal in reliance on regulation 12(4)(b). The Commissioner doesn’t require further steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(b); EIR 14
View Environment Agency
10 Jun 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested a copy of a particular planning contravention notice (PCN) issued by Wakefield Council (the council). The Commissioner’s decision is that the council is entitled to rely on regulation 13 (personal information) of the EIR as its basis for refusing to provide the requested information. The Commissioner does not require the council to take further steps as a result of this decision notice.
Exemptions cited: EIR 13
View Wakefield Council
7 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 therapist’s professional membership body. During the course of the Commissioner’s investigation, the public authority applied section 14(1) of FOIA (vexatious request) to refuse the request.
The Commissioner’s decision is that in failing to provide a response to the request that complies with section 1 of FOIA within 20 working days, and also in failing to issue a refusal notice that is compliant with section 17(1), the public authority has breached section 1(1), 10(1) and 17(1) of FOIA. The public authority is also not entitled to rely on section 14(1) in refusing to provide the requested information.
The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. Provide the requested information or issue an appropriate refusal notice which does not rely on section 14(1).
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10; FOI 17
7 Jun 2024Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information about a survey report and all other information held by the London Borough of Islington (“the Council”) in relation to previous roofing work carried out on a residential building. The Council provided the complainant with some information within scope of their request, however stated that no further information is held. Throughout the Commissioner’s investigation, the Council located and disclosed further information within scope of their request. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the civil standard of the balance of probabilities, it is likely that the Council holds information within scope of the second part of the complainant’s request further than that which has already been provided. The Commissioner also finds that the Council has breached regulation 11 of the EIR in failing to provide the complainant with an internal review outcome within 40 working days. To ensure compliance with the legislation, the Council must issue a fresh respons
Exemptions cited: EIR 11; EIR 12(4)(a)
View Islington Council
7 Jun 2024Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from the British Museum (the Museum) regarding the Ethiopian tabots. The Museum provided some information but withheld other information citing section 14(2) (repeated request), section 21 (information accessible to the applicant by other means), section 27 (international relations), and section 36 (prejudice to the effective conduct of public affairs) of FOIA. The Museum also refused to confirm or deny whether it had sought legal advice (section 42(2) of FOIA). The Commissioner’s decision is that the Museum is entitled to rely on section 27(1) of FOIA and that the public interest favours non-disclosure. He has accepted that section 21 of FOIA is also engaged. However, the Commissioner has decided that the Museum has failed to demonstrate that issuing a confirmation or a denial would, in itself, disclose information to which legal professional privilege could be maintained and is therefore not entitled to rely on section 42(2) of FOIA. The Comm
Exemptions cited: FOI 21; FOI 27; FOI 42(2)
View British Museum
7 Jun 2024Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information from Trafford Metropolitan Borough 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 public authority to provide a substantive response to the request in accordance with its obligations under the EIR.
Exemptions cited: EIR 5(2)
View Trafford Council
7 Jun 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about an application for an Independent Distribution Network Operator's Licence (IDNO). Ofgem refused the request, citing section 44(1) (prohibitions on disclosure). The Commissioner’s decision is that Ofgem was correct to refuse the request under section 44(1). The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 44
View Office of Gas and Electricity Markets
7 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 in the EIR. The Commissioner requires it to provide the complainant with a response to this request within 30 calendar days in accordance with its obligations under the EIR.
Exemptions cited: EIR 5(2)
View Bromley Council
7 Jun 2024Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested correspondence and information between named people at NHS Property Services Limited (NHSPS) relating to Hightown Village Surgery and its lease between specific dates. NHSPS withheld information in scope of the request under section 40(2) and 43(2) FOIA.The Commissioner’s decision is that some of the information is reasonably accessible to the applicant by other means and therefore exempt under section 21 FOIA. For the remaining information, NHSPS has correctly applied section 40(2) to withhold personal information but has not demonstrated that section 43(2) is engaged in relation to information on lease negotiations, maintenance and supplier requests. The Commissioner requires NHSPS to disclose the information in the folders ‘Lease Negotiations’, ‘Letter to Landlord’, ‘Maintenance Correspondence’ and ‘Supplier Requests’, redact any names/contact information and exclude any information already accessible to the applicant as a recipient/sender.
Exemptions cited: FOI 21; FOI 40; FOI 43
7 Jun 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to an investigation report. The Ministry of Justice (the MoJ) relied on section 14(1) of FOIA (vexatious) to refuse the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the request was vexatious and therefore the MoJ was entitled to rely upon section 14(1) of FOIA to refuse it. The Commissioner does not require any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14(1)
View Ministry of Justice
6 Jun 2024Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information on the future availability and cost of hydrogen for home heating. DESNZ refused the request in reliance of EIR regulation 12(4)(d) – material in the course of completion. The Commissioner’s decision is that the exception is not engaged.The Commissioner requires DESNZ to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation - Disclose the information withheld under regulation 12(4)(d)The public authority must take these steps within 30 calendar days of the date of this decision notice. Information Tribunal FT/EA/2024/0262 under appeal.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(d)
View Department for Energy Security and Net Zero
6 Jun 2024Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
In a seven-part request, the complainant requested information about competence assessments. The Office of the Immigration Services Commissioner (OISC) advised it doesn’t hold some of the information and applied section 35 of FOIA to the remainder. OISC also applied section 43(2) to one part of the request. Its final position, however, is that it doesn’t hold information within scope of any part of the complainant’s request. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, OISC doesn’t hold the requested information. By relying on section 35 initially, OISC indicated that it held some relevant information within scope of parts 1, 2 and 3; as such it didn’t comply with section 1(1)(a) and 10(1) of FOIA as it didn’t confirm it didn’t hold any of the requested information within the statutory time period. It’s not necessary for OISC to take any corrective steps. Information Tribunal FT/EA/2024/0259 under appeal.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1(1)(a); FOI 10(1)
View Office of the Immigration Services Commissioner
6 Jun 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has submitted a request seeking information contained in JSP 441 (which concerns information management policies) on two particular topics. The MOD asked the complainant to clarify part of his request. The complainant disputes the MOD’s view that such clarification was needed, albeit as part of his correspondence with the MOD it then established what it understood this part of the request to be asking for. The MOD subsequently disclosed the information it held on one of the requested topics (subject access requests) and explained that it did not hold any information regarding the other topic (law enforcement processing). The complainant also disputes this latter finding. The Commissioner’s decision is that the MOD was correct, under section 1(3) of FOIA, to seek clarification of the request. Furthermore, he is satisfied that on the balance of probabilities the MOD does not hold any information falling within the part of the request seeking information about law enforcem
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Ministry of Defence
6 Jun 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
In two requests, the complainant has requested information about costs associated with ‘Strictly Come Dancing.’ The BBC explained that, in both cases, the information is derogated and excluded from FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that in both cases, if held, the BBC would hold the information for the purposes of ‘journalism, art or literature.’ The information isn’t therefore covered by FOIA, and the BBC doesn’t need to take any corrective steps. Information Tribunal FT/EA/2024/0253 under appeal.
Exemptions cited: FOI 3
View BBC
6 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 in the EIR. The Commissioner requires it to provide the complainant with a response to this request within 30 calendar days in accordance with its obligations under the EIR.
Exemptions cited: EIR 5(2)
View Swansea Council
6 Jun 2024Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from the Home Office relating to the Research, Information and Communications Unit (“RICU”). The Home Office refused to disclose that information, citing sections 24(1), 31(1)(a) and 40(2) of FOIA as a basis for non-disclosure. In relation to part 2 of the request, the Home Office later changed its stance and stated that it did not hold the information in that part of the request.The Commissioner’s decision is that the Home Office has appropriately applied the exemption contained in section 24(1) of FOIA to withhold the requested information in parts 1 and 3. As he considers that section 24(1) covers the entirety of the requested information in those parts, he has not considered the other exemptions applied. The Commissioner also accepts that the Home Office does not hold information within the scope of part 2 of the request.The Commissioner has also decided that the Home Office has breached sections 1(1)(a) and 10(1) of FOIA as it did not info
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10; FOI 24
View Home Office
6 Jun 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The Commissioner’s decision is that Mid and South Essex Integrated Care System (‘the ICS’) doesn’t hold the requested information about legislation that supported its claimed non-compliance with certain Regulations. The ICS has complied with section 1(1)(a) of FOIA, and it doesn’t need to take any corrective steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1(1)(a)
View NHS Mid and South Essex ICB
6 Jun 2024Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested a draft report and correspondence from Royal Borough of Greenwich (“the public authority”). The public authority refused to provide the requested information, citing regulation 12(5)(b) (the course of justice and inquiries exception). The Commissioner’s decision is that the regulation 12(5)(b) exception, as regards the “correspondence” is engaged and that the public interest was in maintaining the exception. The Commissioner further decided that the regulation 12(5)(b) exception, as regards the draft report, is not engaged.The Commissioner requires the public authority to provide the complainant with a copy of the draft report. Information Tribunal FT/EA/2024/0257 appeal Allowed.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(b)
View Royal Borough of Greenwich
6 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 London Borough of Lambeth
6 Jun 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to Myasthenia Gravis diagnosis. Frimley Health NHS Foundation Trust (Frimley) disclosed the information it held. The Commissioner’s decision is that on the balance of probabilities, Frimley has complied with its obligations under sections 1 and 10(1) of FOIA and holds no further recorded information relevant to the complainant’s request. However, he also finds that Frimley did not provide adequate advice and assistance in line with its obligations under section 16 of FOIA. The Commissioner does not require further steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10(1)
View Frimley Health NHS Foundation Trust
6 Jun 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
In two requests, the complainant has requested information about costs associated with ‘Strictly Come Dancing.’ The BBC explained that, in both cases, the information is derogated and excluded from FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that in both cases, if held, the BBC would hold the information for the purposes of ‘journalism, art or literature.’ The information isn’t therefore covered by FOIA, and the BBC doesn’t need to take any corrective steps. Information Tribunal FT/EA/2024/0253 under appeal.
Exemptions cited: FOI 3
View BBC
6 Jun 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested details of requests for information made to energy suppliers to check they are meeting requirements of the Gas Supply Licence. The Office of Gas and Electricity Markets (‘Ofgem’) applied section 44 of FOIA (prohibitions on disclosure) to refuse the first two parts of the request and advised it did not hold the information requested in the third part of the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that Ofgem is entitled to withhold the information requested in parts one and two of the request under section 44(1) of FOIA. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10; FOI 44
View Office of Gas and Electricity Markets
6 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 The University of East Anglia
6 Jun 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from the House of Commons regarding staff time spent on various events. The House of Commons stated that it did not hold recorded information within the scope of the complainant’s request.The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the House of Commons does not hold the requested information.The Commissioner does not require the House of Commons to take any steps as a result of this decision notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Corporate Officers of the House of Commons
5 Jun 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested the costs and completion date for a housing development. Westminster City Council (“the Council”) provided some information but withheld cost details on the basis of Regulation 12(4)(d) (materials in the course of completion). The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has failed to demonstrate the exception is engaged. The Commissioner requires it to issue a fresh response to the request that does not cite regulation 12(4)(d).
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(d)
View Westminster Council
5 Jun 2024Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about the UK’s social security agreement with Canada. The Department for Work and Pensions (“the DWP”) refused the request on the basis of section 14(2) (repeated requests) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the DWP is not entitled to rely on section 14(2) of the FOIA to refuse this request. To ensure compliance with the legislation, the Commissioner requires the DWP to provide a fresh response to the request without relying on section 14(2) of the FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14(2)
View Department for Work and Pensions
5 Jun 2024Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from the Department for Culture, Media and Sport (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 take the following step to ensure compliance with the legislation. 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 Department for Culture, Media and Sport
5 Jun 2024Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about specific correspondence between the Mayor of London and the Leader of the Labour Party.Greater London Authority (“GLA”) advised the complainant that it did not hold any information in scope of the request.The Commissioner’s decision is as follows: • On the balance of probabilities, the GLA holds no recorded information relevant to the complainant’s request and has complied with section 1(1) of FOIA. • GLA breached section 10(1) of FOIA by failing to issue a response within 20 working days of the request.The Commissioner does not require the GLA to take any further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1(1); FOI 10(1)
View Greater London Authority
5 Jun 2024Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested copies of reports generated by a corporate services strategic value transformation review. Lancashire and South Cumbria Integrated Care Board (‘the ICB’) has disclosed the reports’ executive summaries but is withholding the full reports under sections 41 and 43 of FOIA. These exemptions concern information provided in confidence and commercial interests, respectively. The Commissioner’s decision is that section 41(1) isn’t engaged but that the ICB is entitled to rely on section 43(2) of FOIA to withhold the requested information. It’s not necessary for the ICB to take any corrective steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 41(1); FOI 43(2)
View NHS Lancashire and South Cumbria ICB