4 Jun 2024Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has made a four part request for information relating to an agreement between Tsinghua University and St Antony's College. The Governing Body of St Antony’s College (the college) provided the information falling within the scope of parts 1 and 3 of the request but refused to provide the information requested in parts 2 and 4 of the request citing section 40(2) (third party personal data) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the college has failed to comply with section 1 of FOIA due to it not conducting appropriate searches for information falling within the scope of part 4 of the request. In addition, the college has failed to demonstrate that section 40(2) of FOIA is engaged.The Commissioner requires the college to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation:• disclose the information requested under part 2 of the request,• disclose the information it has already located falling within the scope of part 4 of the request, and• conduct app
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 40(2)
4 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
View Bromley Council
4 Jun 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to a fixed penalty fine (‘FPF’). National Highways (‘the public authority’) refused the request, citing section 31(1)(a), (b) and (c) (law enforcement) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the requested information is exempt under section 31(1)(a), (b) and (c). The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 31(1)(a); FOI 31(1)(b); FOI 31(1)(c)
View National Highways
4 Jun 2024Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information regarding vehicle crime and exchanges of correspondence regarding the Vehicle Crime Taskforce. 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 not entitled to rely on section 12(2) of FOIA to refuse the request. However, the public authority did comply with its section 16 obligation to offer advice and assistance.The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation.
• Issue a fresh response that does not rely on section 12 of FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12(2)
View West Midlands Police
4 Jun 2024Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about a prosecution case in which he is named as the defendant. The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) would neither confirm nor deny that it holds the requested information, citing section 40(5A) (Personal information) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the CPS was entitled to rely on section 40(5A) of FOIA to neither confirm nor deny whether it holds the requested information. However, it breached section 17(1) of FOIA by failing to issue a valid refusal notice within twenty working days of receipt of the request.
Exemptions cited: FOI 17; FOI 40
View Crown Prosecution Service
4 Jun 2024Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to Biometric Residence Permits. The Home Office 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
4 Jun 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The Commissioner’s decision is that, under regulation 12(5)(e) of the EIR, High Speed Two Limited (HS2) is entitled to withhold the requested information about payments it made to a golf club. This exception concerns commercial confidentiality. It’s not necessary for HS2 to take any corrective steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(e)
View High Speed Two (HS2) Limited
4 Jun 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant made two requests for information regarding a former Home Secretary’s trip to the United States in September 2023 to give a speech to the American Enterprise Institute.The Home Office relied on section 12(1) (cost limit) of FOIA to refuse both requests as the aggregated cost of responding would have exceeded the appropriate limit.The Commissioner’s decision is that the Home Office was entitled to consider the combined cost of responding to both requests and that it has reasonably estimated that combined cost as exceeding the appropriate limit. Consequently, the Home Office was entitled to refuse to comply with the requests in accordance with section 12(1).The Commissioner finds that the Home Office has complied with its obligations under section 16 of FOIA to offer advice and assistance.The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12(1); FOI 16
View Home Office
4 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
3 Jun 2024Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested various information regarding businesses storing commercial waste on the public highway over the last seven years. Warwick District Council (‘the Council’) provided some information. However, the complainant was not satisfied that the Council had provided all relevant information it holds in respect of section 47 notices. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has failed to demonstrate that all relevant information held has been identified and considered for disclosure. The Commissioner is not therefore satisfied that it has complied with the requirement under regulation 5(1) of the EIR to make it available on request (subject to the relevant conditions). The Council has therefore breached regulation 5(1) of the EIR. The Commissioner requires the Council to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. Issue a fresh response to that part of the request regarding the number of section 47 letters issued, which complies with regulat
Exemptions cited: EIR 5(1)
View Warwick District Council
3 Jun 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from the British Film Institute (BFI) about the setting up of a new regulatory body, with the request to cover the period June 2021 – August 2022. BFI had voluntarily provided information on this subject previously and its position is that it doesn’t hold any further relevant information. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, BFI doesn’t hold any information relevant to this request, for its own purposes, and has complied with section 1(1) of FOIA. Nor does BFI hold information on behalf of another person, in which case section 3 of FOIA would have applied. BFI doesn’t need to take any corrective steps. Information Tribunal FT/EA/2024/0229 appeal dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1(1)
View British Film Institute
3 Jun 2024Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to the Ministry of Defence (MOD) seeking information about a contract between it and WholeShip Limited relating to the use of Predannack Airfield. The MOD disclosed some information within the scope of the request but withheld the remainder on the basis of sections 40(2) (personal data) and 43(2) (commercial interests) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the remaining withheld information is exempt from disclosure on the basis of either section 43(2) and that in all the circumstances of the case the public interest favours maintaining that exemption, or is exempt on the basis of section 40(2) of FOIA. However, the MOD breached section 10(1) of FOIA by failing to disclose the information it did not consider to be exempt within 20 working days of the request. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 40; FOI 43
View Ministry of Defence
3 Jun 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested, from the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman (PHSO), information about “the legal status of non-CCT [Customer Care Team] reviews and the re-opening of final decisions”. PHSO disclosed some information but withheld certain legal advice, citing section 42 of FOIA (legal professional privilege) as its basis for doing so. The Commissioner’s decision is that PHSO was correct to refuse to disclose the legal advice in question on the basis of section 42 of FOIA. The Commissioner doesn’t require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 42
View The Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman
3 Jun 2024Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information about a particular planning application. South Gloucestershire Council (SGC) disclosed some information which fell outside of the scope of the request. At internal review, SGC said it held no other recorded information about the application. However, during the Commissioner’s investigation it located information falling within the scope of the request, which it refused to disclose, citing regulations 12(5)(f) (Interests of information provider) and 13(1) (Personal data) of the EIR. The Commissioner’s decision is that regulation 13(1) was properly engaged. However, by initially handling a request for environmental information under FOIA, SGC breached regulation 14(1) of the EIR.
Exemptions cited: EIR 13(1); EIR 14(1)
View South Gloucestershire Council
31 May 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to Project Dray. The University of Oxford (“the University”) refused to provide the requested information, citing section 36 (prejudice to the effective conduct of public affairs). The Commissioner’s decision is that the withheld information engages section 36(2)(b) and the public interest lies in maintaining the exemption. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 36(2)(b)
View The University of Oxford
31 May 2024Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested correspondence relating to a planning application. The Police Service of Northern Ireland (PSNI) refused the request citing regulation 12(4)(b) on the basis that the request was manifestly unreasonable. The Commissioner’s decision is that the request is not manifestly unreasonable and PSNI was not entitled to rely on regulation 12(4)(b). The Commissioner requires PSNI to issue a fresh response to the complainant that does not rely on regulation 12(4)(b) of the EIR.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(b)
View Police Service of Northern Ireland
31 May 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested a copy of an email relating to a meeting between Somerley Estate and Ellingham, Harbridge and Ibsley Parish Council (the Council). The Council provided a copy of the email but applied regulation 12(5)(f) (interests of the information provider), to redact some of the content. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has correctly applied regulation 12(5)(f) to some information within the email.The Commissioner does not require further steps. Information Tribunal FT/EA/2024/0295 appeal allowed.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(f)
31 May 2024Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to increased pay-offs for MPs. The Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority (“IPSA”) refused to provide the requested information, citing section 36(2)(b)(i), (ii) and 36(2)(c) (prejudice to the effective conduct of public affairs). The Commissioner’s decision is that section 36(2)(b)(i) and (ii) are engaged but section 36(2)(c) isn’t. In relation to section 36(2)(b), the balance of the public interest lies in disclosing the majority of the information. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: disclose the requested information, with all personal data redacted under section 40(2) (personal information) except the document titled ‘Annex 1 – Consultation responses. Consultation on boundary changes and support to MPs leaving Parliament – Summary of Online Survey and Email Consultation responses. Information Tribunal FT/EA/2024/0254 under appeal.
Exemptions cited: FOI 36(2)(b)(i); FOI 36(2)(b)(ii); FOI 36(2)(c)
View Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority
31 May 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested code of conduct complaint information about Yeovil Town Council from Somerset Council (the Council). The Council refused to disclose the information it held, citing section 40(1) (Personal information) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council was entitled to rely on section 40(1) when refusing to provide the requested information. The Commissioner also finds that, on the balance of probabilities, the Council does not hold any further information within the scope of the request. The Commissioner does not require any further steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40(1)
View Somerset Council
31 May 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about a protest arranged by the Sussex Friends of Palestine Society. The University of Sussex (‘the University’) withheld the information under sections 38 and 42 of FOIA, which concern health and safety and legal professional privilege. The University has now confirmed that it’s no longer relying on section 42 but has applied sections 31, 36, 40, and 41 to the request. These exemptions concern investigations, prejudice to the conduct of public affairs, personal data and information provided in confidence, respectively. The Commissioner’s decision is that the University is entitled to withhold the requested information under section 36(2)(b)(i) and section 36(2)(b)(ii) of FOIA. It’s not necessary for the University to take any corrective steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 36(2)(b)
View University of Sussex
31 May 2024Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested the number of complaints received about driving vehicle examiners employed in a particular location. The Driver & Vehicle Standards Agency (DVSA) provided some information but refused other information, citing section 40(2) – personal information. Eventually the DVSA accepted that this exemption did not apply and provided the remaining information. The Commissioner’s decision is that the DVSA breached section 1(1)(b) and 10(1) of FOIA by providing information to which the complainant was entitled outside the statutory timeframe. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1(1)(b); FOI 10(1)
View Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency
31 May 2024Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from Aspley Guise Parish 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 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
30 May 2024Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested various information regarding an incident relating to money donated at a charity event. Bodmin Town Council (“the council”) responded to the first request by seeking to answer the questions asked. It initially applied section 14 to a second request, however during the course of the Commissioner's investigation, it amended this and applied section 12 (appropriate limit). The complainant argues that the council should have disclosed the requested information. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council does not hold any further information falling within the scope of the first request for information. He has also decided that it was correct to apply section 12 to refuse the second request for information, however it did not provide advice and assistance to the complainant as required by section 16 of FOIA. The Commissioner requires the council to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. Provide the complainant with appropriate
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 12; FOI 16
30 May 2024Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information held by Cherwell DistrictCouncil (the council) about legal advice it received in relation to a particular planning matter. The Council issued a refusal notice, citing regulation 12(5)(b)(course of justice), of the EIR. The council confirmed that it also considered regulation 12(4)(e)(internal communications), of the EIR to apply to part of the requested information. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council is entitled to rely on regulation 12(5)(b) of the EIR in respect of all of the withheld information. However, as the council failed to issue both the refusal notice, and its internal review response, within the statutory timeframes, the Commissioner has found a breach of regulation 14(2), and regulation 11(4), of the EIR, respectively.
Exemptions cited: EIR 11(4); EIR 12(5)(b); EIR 14(2)(1)
View Cherwell District Council
30 May 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 1; FOI 10
30 May 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested a file about Parliamentary annuities to the Royal Family listed at The National Archives but retained by HM Treasury (“HMT”). HMT refused to provide it citing sections 40(2) (personal data), section 41(1) (information provided in confidence) and section 37(1)(ac) (communications with members of the Royal Family). It upheld this at internal review. The Commissioner’s decision is that HMT is entitled to rely on section 40(2), section 41(1) and section 37(1)(ac) as its basis for withholding the requested information. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 37; FOI 40; FOI 41
View HM Treasury
30 May 2024Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
In a five-part request, the complainant has requested information about reported incidents of violence and aggression. Epsom and St Helier University Hospitals Trust (‘the Trust’) has withheld all the information under sections 38 and 40 of FOIA. These exemptions concern health and safety and personal data, respectively. The Commissioner’s decision is that the information requested in parts 1 and 2 of the request is exempt from disclosure under section 40(2) of FOIA because it’s other individuals’ personal data. However, parts 3, 4 and 5 of the request don’t engage either section 38 or 40(2).The Trust breached section 17(3) of FOIA as, in respect of section 38, it didn’t provide the complainant with an outcome of its public interest deliberations within a reasonable period. The Commissioner requires the Trust to take the following step to ensure compliance with the legislation: Disclose the information requested in parts 3, 4 and 5 of the request.
Exemptions cited: FOI 17; FOI 38; FOI 40(2)
View Epsom and St Helier University Hospitals NHS Trust
30 May 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (MHRA). The Commissioner’s decision is that the MHRA is entitled to rely on section 41(2) of FOIA to neither confirm nor deny it holds the requested information.
Exemptions cited: FOI 41
View Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency
30 May 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 Haringey Council
29 May 2024Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested from HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) information relating to the raw data and calculation logic that underpins its guidance. The Commissioner’s decision is that HMRC failed to issue a refusal notice within the statutory timeframe and therefore, HMRC breached section 17(5) (refusing a request) of FOIA. The Commissioner does not require further steps as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: FOI 17(5)
29 May 2024Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information from Pentir Community Council (the public authority). By the date of this notice the public authority had not issued a substantive response to this request.The Commissioner’s decision is that the public authority has failed to respond to the request within 20 working days and has therefore breached regulation 5(2) of the EIR.The Commissioner requires the the public authority to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation.• 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 a contempt of court.
Exemptions cited: EIR 5(2)
29 May 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 requestwithin 20 working days. Based on evidence available to the Commissioner, bythe date of this notice the public authority has not issued a substantive responseto this request. Therefore, the Commissioner finds a breach of section 10.The public authority must provide a substantive response to the request inaccordance with its obligations under FOIA.The public authority must take this step within 30 calendar days of the date ofthis decision notice. Failure to comply may result in the Commissioner makingwritten certification of this fact to the High Court pursuant to section 54 of FOIAand may be dealt with as a contempt of court.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
29 May 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information about a proposed site for a mobile phone mast. Gloucester City Council (the “Council”) disclosed some information but withheld addresses under the exception for personal information (regulation 13). The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council was entitled to apply regulation 13 of the EIR to refuse to provide the requested addresses. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 13
View Gloucester City Council
29 May 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.
Keywords: Highways Maintenance PFI contract
Exemptions cited: FOI 10(1)
View London Borough of Hounslow
29 May 2024Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has submitted a request to the Chief Constable of Surrey Police (the public authority). By the date of this notice, the public authority had not issued a substantive response to this request.The Commissioner’s decision is that the public authority has 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 steps 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. 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(1)
View Surrey Police
29 May 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(1)
View Northamptonshire Police
29 May 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to complaints about the construction of a bridge. Ennerdale & Kinniside Parish Council (the “Council”) confirmed that the information was not held. The complainant disputes this. The Commissioner’s decision is that on a balance of probabilities, the Council holds no recorded information relevant to the complainant’s request and it has complied with section 1(1) of FOIA. The Commissioner does not require further steps. Information Tribunal FT/EA/2024/0250 appeal dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1(1)
28 May 2024Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from Greater Manchester Mental Health NHS Foundation Trust (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 Greater Manchester Mental Health NHS Foundation Trust 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 Greater Manchester Mental Health NHS Foundation Trust
28 May 2024Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information about correspondence with the RNLI. Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council disclosed information in response. It subsequently acknowledged in its internal review outcome that additional information was likely to be held, but did not disclose it, or issue a valid refusal notice for any exception it intends to rely on. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the Council holds additional information which falls within the scope of the request. The Commissioner requires Council to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: Conduct new searches for any additional information falling within scope of the request, and issue a fresh response to the request in which any additional information is either disclosed, or a valid refusal notice issued for any exception it intends to rely on.
Exemptions cited: EIR 5(1)
View Wirral Council
28 May 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about the recipients of the Queen’s or King’s Police Medal. The Home Office refused to disclose the information, citing section 21(1) (information accessible to applicant by other means) and section 40(2) (personal information) of FOIA as its basis for doing so. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Home Office was correct to rely on sections 21(1) and 40(2) to refuse to disclose the requested information. The Commissioner does not require the Home Office to take any further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 21; FOI 40(2)
View Home Office
28 May 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to the University and Colleges Employers Association. The Royal Agricultural University (“the public authority”) refused to provide the requested information, citing section 41(1). The Commissioner’s decision is that the withheld information engages section 41(1) (information provided in confidence) and the balance of the public interest lies in maintaining the confidence. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 41(1)
View Royal Agricultural University
28 May 2024Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to internal training and policies. Cumbria Constabulary relied on section 14(1) of FOIA (vexatious) to refuse the request.The Commissioner’s decision is that the request was vexatious and therefore Cumbria Constabulary were entitled to rely upon section 14(1) of FOIA to refuse it. The Commissioner has also decided that Cumbria Constabulary have breached sections 1(1)(a) and 10(1) of FOIA by not providing a response to the complainant’s request within 20 working days.The Commissioner does not require any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10; FOI 14
28 May 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested copies of reports held by the Department for Education on reinforced autoclaved aerated concrete (‘RAAC’) at Cockermouth School. The Department for Education (‘DfE’) refused to provide the requested information, citing regulation 12(5)(d) of the EIR – confidentiality of proceedings. The Commissioner’s decision is that DfE is entitled to refuse to disclose the requested information in accordance with regulation 12(5)(d) of the EIR. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(d)
View Department for Education
28 May 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested correspondence between an Assistant Commissioner (“AC”) and two Muslim associations from the Metropolitan Police Service (the “MPS”). The MPS disclosed some information but said that a personal email was exempt from disclosure by virtue of sections 31(1)(a) (Law enforcement) and 40(2) (Personal information) of FOIA. During the Commissioner’s investigation, the MPS withdrew reliance on section 31(1)(a) and added reliance on section 38(1) (Health and safety) of FOIA. It also advised that it considered a further letter was now suitable for disclosure. In respect of the personal email, the Commissioner’s decision is that section 40(2) of FOIA is properly engaged. Regarding the letter it identified as suitable for disclosure, if it has not already done so, the Commissioner requires it to disclose the letter which was emailed from AC Jukes to the Chair of the National Association Muslim Police on 4 October 2022.
Exemptions cited: FOI 38; FOI 40
View Metropolitan Police Service
28 May 2024Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information held by the Cabinet Office which comprised of, records or is related to contact with the ICO as referred to in the Minister of State’s letter to Bambos Charalambous MP of 9 January 2023.The Cabinet Office relied on section 36(2)(c) and 40(2)(personal data) to withhold some of the requested information from the complainant. The Commissioner is not satisfied that the Cabinet Office correctly relied on section 36(2)(c) to withhold some of the requested information.The Cabinet Office did not complete its deliberations on the balance of the public interest test within a reasonable time, and late relied on new exemptions; therefore it breached section 17(3) and 17(1) respectively of FOIA.The Commissioner requires Cabinet Office to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation:• Disclose its team email addresses, as described in paragraph 17, to the complainant. • Disclose the email described in paragraph 33, or issue a valid refusal
Exemptions cited: FOI 36
View Cabinet Office
28 May 2024Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested from Planning Appeals Commission (PAC) information relating to the Commission’s report following the public inquiry into the A5 Western Transport Corridor. The Commissioner’s decision is that PAC failed to respond to the request within 20 working days and has therefore breached regulation 5(2) (time for compliance) of the EIR. The Commissioner does not require further steps as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: EIR 5(2)
24 May 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested from Sunderland County Council which is now part of a new combined authority - North East Combined Authority (the Council), information relating to Unpaid Toll Charge Notice (UTCN). The Council stated that to comply with the request would exceed the cost limit, and therefore applied section 12(1) (cost of compliance) of FOIA to the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council was entitled to rely on section 12(1) of FOIA to refuse to comply with the request. He also finds that the Council complied with its obligations under section 16(1) of FOIA to offer advice and assistance. Therefore, the Commissioner does not require the Council to take any steps as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12(1); FOI 16(1)
View Sunderland City Council
24 May 2024Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a three part request for information held by Oxford Direct Services Limited (ODSL) relating to low access shower adaptions completed over a 36 month time period. ODSL provided the complainant with some information, and advised that it considered the remaining information relevant to the request to be exempt from disclosure under section 43(2) (commercial interests) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, ODSL has not identified all of the information held that is relevant to all three parts of the complainant’s request, and has therefore failed to comply with section 1 of FOIA. Furthermore, the Commissioner has found that section 43(2) is not engaged in respect of the withheld information which ODSL has currently identified as being relevant to part 2 and part 3 of the request. When relying on section 43(2) of FOIA, ODSL also failed to set out its consideration of the public interest test, both in its refusal notice to th
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 17(3); FOI 43(2)
24 May 2024Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested a list of responders to a consultation on planned advertising restriction for foods high in fat, salt and sugar along with the submissions from these responders. The DHSC provided the list of responders and the request was refined to the first five pages of submissions which the DHSC provided in redacted form with information exempt under section 35(1)(a) and 43(2) FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the DHSC has failed to demonstrate that the section 43(2) exemption is engaged. Section 35(1)(a) is engaged but the public interest favours disclosure. The Commissioner requires DHSC to provide the complainant with a copy of the information it withheld from the submissions under section 35(1)(a) and 43(2).
Exemptions cited: FOI 35; FOI 43
View Department of Health and Social Care
24 May 2024Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information relating to meetings between a Minister and CEO’s of various water companies. Defra provided some information on the administration of the meetings but withheld any information relating to the discussions that actually took place and any briefings given to the Minister beforehand under regulation 12(4)(e) as the information amounted to internal communications. The Commissioner’s decision is that the information has been correctly categorised as internal communications under regulation 12(4)(e). He finds that the public interest favours disclosure of some of the withheld information but that Defra has correctly withheld the background to the key questions in the briefing documents and the information in the read-outs of the meetings. The Commissioner requires the public authority to disclose the information in the factsheet and the objectives, top lines and key questions (minus the backgrounds) in the briefing documents.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(e)