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)
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 partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to the Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office (FCDO) seeking copies of internal paperwork regarding the investigation into the behaviour of the then Minister of State Christopher Pincher MP. The FCDO confirmed that it held information but withheld this on the basis of sections 36(2)(c) (effective conduct of public affairs), 40(2) (personal data) and 41(1) (information provided in confidence) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the information withheld by virtue of section 40(2) is exempt from disclosure on the basis of this exemption. However, the Commissioner has concluded that the information withheld from disclosure on the basis of section 36(2)(c) is not exempt from disclosure on the basis of this exemption. The Commissioner has also concluded that the FCDO breached section 17(1) given its delays in responding to this request. Information Tribunal FT/EA/2024/0246 appeal dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 17; FOI 36; FOI 40
View Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office
24 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 30 calendar days in accordance with its obligations under FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10(1)
View Department for Culture, Media and Sport
23 May 2024Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to the expansion of places at Magee University. The Department of Finance (DoF) refused to provide the information citing section 35(1) FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that section 35(1) is engaged but the public interest lies in disclosing part of the withheld information. The Commissioner requires DoF to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. Disclose the information listed in the confidential annex ensuring personal data is redacted where necessary. Details of the information to be disclosed is contained in a confidential annex made available to DoF only. 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 of Finance
23 May 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to fly-grazing and loose/escaped horses/ponies in a particular area. 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
23 May 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to checks on external speakers. The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) refused to provide the requested information, citing section 35(1) (formulation and development of government policy) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that section 35 is not engaged. The Commissioner requires the MoJ to take the following step to ensure compliance with the legislation: disclose the withheld information to the complainant.
Exemptions cited: FOI 35
View Ministry of Justice
23 May 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested from Monmouthshire County Council (the Council) information relating to Old Monmouth Road. The Council refused the request and cited regulation 12(4)(b) (manifestly unreasonable) of the EIR.The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council was entitled to rely on regulation 12(4)(b) of the EIR to refuse to comply with the request, and the public interest lies in maintaining the exception. The Commissioner does not require the Council to take any further steps as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(b)
View Monmouthshire County Council
23 May 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information about allotments and the decision to ban bonfires at allotments. Great Wakering Parish Council (the Council) disclosed some information and stated other information was not held. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities the Council does not hold some of the information requested and therefore regulation 12(4)(a) of the EIR applies. The Commissioner does not require any steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(a)
23 May 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to the Epic electronic patient record system. Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust (“the public authority”) refused to comply with the request, citing section 12 (cost of compliance exceeds appropriate limit) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that: the public authority was correct to refuse the request under section 12 and the public authority has complied with its section 16 (advice and assistance) obligations. The Commissioner does not require further steps. Information Tribunal FT/EA/2024/0241 appeal allowed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12(1); FOI 16
View Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust
23 May 2024Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information about the reduction in disabled parking bays in a particular location. Blaenau Gwent County Borough Council (the Council) provided some information and stated other information was not held. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities the Council does not hold any additional information falling within the scope of the request. The Commissioner does not require any steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10(1)
View Blaenau Gwent County Borough Council
23 May 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information about artwork owned by Birmingham City Council (the “Council”). The Council disclosed some information and withheld other information under the exemptions for law enforcement (section 31), health and safety (section 38) and commercial interests (section 43). The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council correctly withheld the information in part 6 of the request under section 31. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 31
View Birmingham City Council
23 May 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested to know the amount that was paid to a hotel which was due to house asylum seekers, prior to those plans being dropped. The Home Office refused the request, citing section 43 (Commercial interests) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Home Office was entitled to cite section 43(2) to refuse the request.
Exemptions cited: FOI 43
View Home Office
23 May 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The Commissioner’s decision is that the Department for Education (DfE) is entitled to rely on the FOIA exemptions under sections 36(2)(b)(i), 36(2)(b)(ii) and 36(2)(c) of FOIA to withhold some of the requested information about a review of a school. Section 36 concerns prejudice to the effective conduct of public affairs. It’s not necessary for DfE to take any corrective steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 36(2)(b)(i); FOI 36(2)(b)(ii); FOI 36(2)(c)
View Department for Education
23 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 30 calendar days in accordance with its obligations under FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View The University of Manchester
22 May 2024Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from King’s College London (KCL) relating to donations made by a named donor. KCL provided some information but withheld other information, citing sections 41(1) (information provided in confidence), 43(2) (commercial interests) and 40(2) (personal information) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that KCL correctly cited sections 41(1) and 43(2) of FOIA. The public interest regarding section 43 lies in non-disclosure. The Commissioner finds that KCL breached sections 1(1)(b) and 10(1) of FOIA by disclosing information to which the complainant was entitled beyond the legislative timeframe. It breached section 17(1) of FOIA by later relying on exemptions it had not included in the refusal notice. The Commissioner does not require further steps. Information Tribunal FT/EA/2024/0239 under appeal.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10(1); FOI 17; FOI 41(1); FOI 43(2)
View King's College London
22 May 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 section 43(2) (commercial interests) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the remaining withheld information is exempt from disclosure on the basis of section 43(2) and that in all the circumstances of the case the public interest favours maintaining the exemption. 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 43
View Ministry of Defence
22 May 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested pre-application advice relating to a specific planning application. North Northamptonshire Council (the “Council”) refused the request citing the exceptions for confidentiality of proceedings (regulation 12(5)(d)) and interests of the information provider (regulation 12(5)(f)). The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council correctly withheld the requested information under regulation 12(5)(d). The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(d)
View North Northamptonshire Council
22 May 2024Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information about Burgess Hill Train Station developments. Mid Sussex District Council (the “Council”) disclosed some information and confirmed that further information was not held. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council correctly confirmed that the information requested, beyond that disclosed to the complainant, was not held and that regulation 12(4)(a) applies but that it failed to issue a proper refusal notice and breached regulation 14(3). The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(a); EIR 14(3)
View Mid Sussex District Council
22 May 2024Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from Warwickshire Police about complaints from members of the public about the Warwickshire Hunt. 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(1)
View Warwickshire Police
22 May 2024Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to complaints closed under section 50 FOIA. The Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) refused the request under section 14(1) – vexatious requests. The Commissioner’s decision is that the ICO has incorrectly applied section 14(1) to categorise the request as vexatious. The Commissioner requires the public authority to 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
View Information Commissioner
22 May 2024Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from Warwick District 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
View Warwick District Council
22 May 2024Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about the temporary £20-per week benefit uplift put in place at the start of the Covid-19 pandemic. HM Treasury (“HMT”) refused to provide it citing section 35 (formulation/development of government policy) and section 40(2) (personal data). The complainant made it clear in their request for internal review that they did not seek access to any personal data. On internal review, HMT introduced reliance on section 42 (legal professional privilege). During the Commissioner’s investigation, HMT withdrew reliance on section 42 and introduced reliance on section 36 (effective conduct of public affairs). It maintained reliance on section 35 in respect of a small amount of the requested information. The Commissioner’s decision is that HMT is not entitled to rely on section 35 and section 36 as its basis for withholding the requested information. The Commissioner requires HMT to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: Disclos
Exemptions cited: FOI 35; FOI 36
View HM Treasury
22 May 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to Steyning Parish Council (“SPC”). SPC relied on section 14(1) of FOIA (vexatious) to refuse to comply with the request.The Commissioner’s decision is that the SPC is not entitled to rely on section 14(1) of FOIA to refuse to comply with the request. He has also determined that SPC is in breach of section 17(5) of FOIA, by failing to issue a refusal notice within 20 working days of the request. The Commissioner requires SPC to take the following step to ensure compliance with the legislation.• Issue a fresh response to the request that does not rely on section 14(1) of FOIA.SPC 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 the Act and may be dealt with as a contempt of court.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14(1)
22 May 2024Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested from The West of England Combined Authority (‘WECA’), work diaries relating to the Interim Chief Executive of WECA, and other information associated with his employment in various roles within WECA. WECA refused the request on the basis that section 36(2)(c) (prejudice to the effective conduct of public affairs), section 43(2) (commercial interests) 38(1)(b) (health and safety), and section 40(2) (personal data) applied. The Commissioner’s decision is that WECA was not correct to withhold the information under section 36(2)(c) and section 43(2), however it was correct to withhold some information under section 40(2). He has not found it necessary to consider the application of section 38(1)(b). The Commissioner requires WECA to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. To disclose the withheld information, subject to appropriate redactions of personal data under section 40(2) of FOIA as outlined within this decision notice. Informatio
Exemptions cited: FOI 36(2)(c); FOI 40(2); FOI 43(2)
View West of England Combined Authority
22 May 2024Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information about a draft business plan relating to the creation of a property development company by Mid Devon District Council (the Council). The Council provided a copy of the main body of the report but withheld the appendix, citing section 43(2) (prejudice to commercial interests) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that section 43(2) is not engaged regarding the withheld information. The Commissioner requires the Council to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation - disclose the withheld information.
Exemptions cited: FOI 43(2)
View Mid Devon District Council
22 May 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information about the number of officers on duty on a particular Bank Holiday night shift. Essex Police refused to comply with the request, citing section 12(1) (cost of compliance) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that Essex Police is entitled to rely on section 12(1) to refuse to comply with the request. He also finds that Essex Police complied with its obligations under section 16 of FOIA to offer advice and assistance. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12; FOI 16
View Essex Police
21 May 2024Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information about the Judicial Appointments Commission’s (the ‘JAC’) use of section 36 (prejudice to effective conduct of public affairs) of FOIA. He particularly sought information about the associated ‘qualified person’, who must be recognised under FOIA, and whom is required to give their opinion as to whether any part of section 36 is engaged in relation to an FOIA request. The JAC responded to each part of the complainant’s request. It cited sections 32(1) (court records) and 42(1) (legal professional privilege) of FOIA for some of the request. It also said some information was not held and that parts of the request were not requests for recorded information under FOIA. The complainant objected to all of the foregoing and also asked the Commissioner to consider the delay in providing the substantive response in this case and whether the JAC had complied with its section 16 (advice and assistance) of FOIA obligations. The Commissioner’s decision is that se
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10; FOI 16; FOI 17; FOI 32; FOI 42; FOI 8
View Judicial Appointments Commission
21 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 30 calendar days in accordance with its obligations under FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View West Midlands Police
21 May 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about the parking contract between Somerset NHS Foundation Trust and Q-Park. Somerset NHS Foundation Trust (‘the Trust’) provided copies of the contract and relevant schedules and advised that some information had been redacted under section 43 of FOIA (commercial interests). The Commissioner’s decision is that the Trust was entitled to apply section 43(2) to withhold the redacted information. The Commissioner requires no steps as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: FOI 43
View Taunton and Somerset NHS Foundation Trust
21 May 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information regarding a specified property. London Borough of Barnet (“the Council”) relied on regulation 13 of the EIR (third party personal information) to withhold some of the requested information and stated that it did not hold any further information, citing regulation 12(4(a) of the EIR.The Commissioner’s decision is that the public authority has correctly relied on regulations 12(4)(a) and 13 of the EIR.The Commissioner does not require further steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(a); EIR 13
View Barnet Council
21 May 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant made a request for the Islington (Prescribed Routes) (No. 5) Traffic Order 2023. The London Borough of Islington (the Council) provided a copy of the order with the signature redacted. It relied on section 40(2) of FOIA to withhold the signature. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council should have dealt with the request under the EIR. However, having done so, it would have been entitled to rely on Regulation 13 of the EIR to withhold the information. The public authority breached regulation 14 of the EIR as it failed to deal with the request under the EIR. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 13
View Islington Council
21 May 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to a complaint they had submitted Northern Ireland Public Services Ombudsman (NIPSO) in respect of alleged maladministration. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, NIPSO does not hold any further information within scope of the request. The Commissioner does not require further steps. Information Tribunal FT/EA/2024/0225 appeal Allowed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Northern Ireland Ombudsman
21 May 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to a travel services framework agreement. The Cabinet Office disclosed some information, stated that it did not hold some information, and withheld some information in reliance on the exemption at section 43 of FOIA (prejudice to commercial interests). The Commissioner’s decision is that the Cabinet Office does not hold any information other than that which it has disclosed to the complainant. No steps are required.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Cabinet Office
21 May 2024Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from Oxford University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust (the Trust). By the date of this notice the Trust had not issued a substantive response to this request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the 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 Trust to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Oxford University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust
21 May 2024Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested correspondences from Somerset County Council (the Council) which related to a specific planning application. The Commissioner’s decision is that on the balance of probabilities, the Council does not hold any additional information in the scope of the request. The Commissioner also finds that the Council breached regulation 5(2) by failing to disclose all the requested information within 20 working days. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 5(1); EIR 5(2)
View Somerset Council
21 May 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from the BBC about a BBC Verify article. The BBC responded that the requested information was covered by the derogation and hence excluded from FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that this information, if held at all, is held by the BBC for the purposes of journalism, art or literature and so is not covered by FOIA. He therefore upholds the BBC’s position and requires no steps to be taken in this case.
Exemptions cited: FOI 3
View BBC
21 May 2024Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has submitted a request to South Kesteven District Council (the council) for information relating to specific planning applications.The Commissioner’s decision is that the council is entitled to rely on regulation 12(4)(b)(manifestly unreasonable) to refuse to provide the requested information. However, the Commissioner finds that the council did not comply with its obligations under regulation 9(1) of the EIR to offer advice and assistance. The Commissioner has also concluded that the council breached regulations 5(2) and 14(2) of the EIR by failing to respond and issue a refusal notice to the request within 20 working days.The Commissioner requires the council to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation:• Provide the complainant with advice and assistance to help them submit a less burdensome request.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(b); EIR 14(2); EIR 5(2); EIR 9(1)
View South Kesteven District Council
21 May 2024Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information about a parking survey from Hampshire County Council (“the council”). The Council withheld information under Regulation 12(4)(e) (internal communications), Regulation 12(5)(e), (commercial confidentiality), and Regulation 13 (personal data). The Commissioner’s decision is that the council was correct to withhold some information under Regulation 12(5)(e) and Regulation 13, however it was not correct to withhold information under Regulation 12(4)(e) of the EIR. The Commissioner requires the council to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. To disclose copies of all correspondence withheld under Regulation 12(4)(e), with appropriate redactions of personal data falling within the scope of Regulation 13. To disclose all information which has been withheld under Regulation 12(5)(e) with the exception of: the breakdown of prices, the framework document, (with the exception of the completed the completed ‘scope’ section of the
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(e); EIR 12(5)(e)
View Hampshire County Council
21 May 2024Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested legal advice relating to a playing field. Redcar & Cleveland Borough Council (the “Council”) withheld the information under the exception for the course of justice (regulation 12(5)(b)). The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council correctly withheld the requested information under regulation 12(5)(b) but that it failed to complete an internal review in time and breached regulation 11(4). The Commissioner does not require further steps. Information Tribunal FT/EA/2024/0234 appeal dismissed.
Exemptions cited: EIR 11(4); EIR 12(5)(b)
View Redcar and Cleveland Council
20 May 2024Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information contained in two planning applications for properties which share a boundary with their home. London Borough of Ealing (the “Council”) disclosed some information and relied on regulation 13 of the EIR (third party personal information) to withhold other parts of the requested information. During the course of the Commissioner’s investigation, the Council additionally sought to rely on regulation 12(5)(d) of the EIR (confidentiality of proceedings) to withhold a part of the requested information. The Commissioner’s decision is that regulation 13 applies to all the withheld information. However, the Council breached regulation 11(4) of the EIR as it did not provide its internal review outcome within 40 working days. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps to ensure compliance with the legislation.
Exemptions cited: EIR 11(4); EIR 13
View Ealing Council
20 May 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information regarding drug testing and security scanning on members of staff from the Ministry of Justice (the MoJ). The MoJ advised that some of the requested information was not held and relied on section 12 of FOIA (cost of compliance) to refuse the remaining parts of the request. The Commissioner’s decision is as follows: On the balance of probabilities the MoJ does not hold any information within the scope of question 1. The MoJ was entitled to rely on section 12(1) of FOIA to refuse the request. The MoJ complied with its section 16 obligation to offer advice and assistance. The Commissioner does not require further steps to be taken.
Published decision notice redacted at the request of the MoJ.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 12(1); FOI 16
View Ministry of Justice
20 May 2024Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The Commissioner’s decision is that the requested information about discharges at combined sewer overflows doesn’t engage regulation 12(5)(b) of the EIR, which concerns the course of justice. The Commissioner requires Northumbrian Water Ltd to take the following step to ensure compliance with the legislation: Disclose the requested information.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(b)
View Northumbrian Water
20 May 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested a copy of the Enhanced Quality Assurance Framework (‘EQAF’). The Commissioner’s decision is that the Department for Work and Pensions (‘DWP’) fully considered all the information specified in the complainant’s request and interpreted it correctly. On the balance of probabilities, DWP also holds no further recorded information relevant to the complainant’s request and has complied with section 1(1) of FOIA. The Commissioner does not therefore require DWP to take further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Department for Work and Pensions
20 May 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested to know the salary of a named judge and detailed information about any periods of absence they have had. The Ministry of Justice (‘MoJ’) refused the request, citing section 40(2) (Personal information) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the MoJ was entitled to apply section 40(2) to refuse the request.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View Ministry of Justice
20 May 2024Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information from Birmingham City Council (“the Council”) relating to the suspension of two parking bays. The Council has refused the request under regulation 12(4)(b) of the EIR (manifestly unreasonable) on the grounds that to comply with the request would incur unreasonable costs. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council is not entitled to refuse the request under regulation 12(4)(b) of the EIR (manifestly unreasonable), on the grounds that to comply with the request would incur unreasonable costs, as the exemption is not engaged. The Commissioner requires the Council issue a fresh response to the request, which does not rely on the exception at regulation 12(4)(b) of the EIR, to ensure compliance with the legislation.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(b)
View Birmingham City Council
20 May 2024Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested a copy of a tracker spreadsheet held by Homes England, relating to Help to Buy Equity Loans for properties that have undergone an EWS1 assessment. Homes England refused to provide the requested information, citing section 40(2) of FOIA (personal information) and section 43(2) of FOIA (commercial interests) as its bases for doing so. The Commissioner’s decision is that: Homes England is entitled to rely on section 40(2) of FOIA to withhold some, but not all, of the information it has withheld on this basis; Home England is entitled to rely on section 43(2) of FOIA to withhold some, but not all, of the information it has withheld on this basis. The Commissioner requires Homes England to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: Disclose all of the headings of the columns on the spreadsheet (ie all of the information in row 1), with the exception of the staff initials included in the heading of column AB as these can be redacted under se
Exemptions cited: FOI 40(2); FOI 43(2)
View Homes and Communities Agency
20 May 2024Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information about discharges from Yorkshire Water Services Limited. Yorkshire Water Services (“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 withheld information doesn’t engage regulation 12(5)(b). Therefore, the public authority isn’t entitled to withhold it. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: disclose the requested information.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(b)
View Yorkshire Water
20 May 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The Commissioner’s decision is that the Department for Education (DfE) correctly applied regulation 12(4)(e) of the EIR to the requested information about Reinforced Autoclaved Aerated Concrete (RAAC) in schools and colleges. The information is internal communications and disclosing it wasn’t in the public interest. It’s not necessary for DfE to take any corrective steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(e)
View Department for Education
20 May 2024Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The Commissioner’s decision is that the requested information about discharges at combined sewer overflows doesn’t engage regulation 12(5)(b) of the EIR, which concerns the course of justice. The Commissioner requires Anglian Water Services Ltd to take the following step to ensure compliance with the legislation: Disclose the requested information.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(b)
View Anglian Water