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 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
17 May 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested data about recipients of housing support in a seven part request. The London Borough of Camden (the Council”) disclosed the recorded information it holds. The complainant disputed that all the recorded information the Council holds has been disclosed. The Commissioner’s decision is that on the balance of probabilities the Council does not hold any further recorded information to that already provided. He does not require any further action to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Camden Council
17 May 2024Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
1. The complainant requested information from the Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office (the public authority). By the date of this notice the public authority had not issued a substantive response to this request. 2. 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.3. 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. 4. 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 Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office
17 May 2024Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust (the trust) relating to the cost of High-Intensity Focussed Ultrasound (HIFU) treatment. The trust 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 University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust
17 May 2024Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The public authority has failed to provide a revised response 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 Ministry of Defence
17 May 2024Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested correspondence from and to the General Medical Council (GMC) relating to the regulation of several groups pf medical professionals. The GMC refused to provide the requested information as to do so would exceed the appropriate limit at section 12(1) FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the GMC was correct in its reliance on section 12(1) to refuse the request. The Commissioner also finds that the GMC did not comply with its section 16(1) obligation to offer advice and assistance but it has now provided advice on how to narrow the request and no further steps are therefore required.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12; FOI 16
View GMC
17 May 2024Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested the name and contact details of a member of staff. The Commissioner’s decision is that the above public authority failed to respond to the request within 20 working days and therefore breached section 10 of FOIA. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Information Commissioner
17 May 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to a historical archive. The Cabinet Office 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 Cabinet Office 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 Cabinet Office
17 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
16 May 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested emails from specific BBC staff. The BBC refused to comply with the request, citing section 12(1) (cost of compliance exceeds appropriate limit) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that section 12(1) applies and the BBC was entitled to refuse the request. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 12(1)
View BBC
16 May 2024Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested communications between the University of Coventry (‘the University’) and the Universities & Colleges Employers Association (‘the UCEA’). The University withheld the requested information, citing section 41 (information provided in confidence). The Commissioner’s decision is that emails that originated from the University don’t engage section 41 and therefore must be disclosed. The remainder of the emails engage section 41 and the public interest favours maintaining the confidence. The Commissioner requires the University to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: disclose the emails referred to in paragraph 15, with all personal data redacted under section 40 (personal information).
Exemptions cited: FOI 41
View Coventry University
16 May 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has asked the Department for Infrastructure (DfI) for information about members of staff in the Driver and Vehicle Agency (DVA). The Commissioner’s decision is that the DfI is entitled to withhold the information it holds under section 40(2) of FOIA as it is personal data of third persons (some being special category data) and disclosure would be unlawful.The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40(2)
View Department for Infrastructure (Northern Ireland)
16 May 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to HMRC’s loan charge and specifically for updates to information contained in a particular report. The Commissioner’s decision is that HMRC was entitled to refuse to comply with the request, citing section 12(1) (cost of compliance exceeds appropriate limit) of FOIA. The Commissioner is also satisfied that there has been no breach under section 16 (advice and assistance) of FOIA. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12(1); FOI 16
16 May 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information about road repairs. Hertfordshire County Council disclosed information in response. The complainant disputed that further information was held. The Commissioner’s decision is that no further information is held. The Commissioner does not require further steps. Information Tribunal FT/EA/2024/0230 under appeal.
Exemptions cited: EIR 5(1)
View Hertfordshire County Council
16 May 2024Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from Bedfordshire Schools Trust Ltd (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 public authority must provide a substantive response to the request in accordance with its obligations under FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Bedfordshire Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust
16 May 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from the BBC about salaries of “Casualty” cast members. 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. Information Tribunal FT/EA/2024/0255 under appeal.
Exemptions cited: FOI 3
View BBC
16 May 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to an entry on a Councillor’s Register of Interests. Gedling Borough Council (the “Council”) refused the request under section 44(1)(a) (statutory prohibition). The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council correctly withheld the requested information under section 44(1)(a). The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 44(1)(a)
View Gedling Borough Council
16 May 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information regarding profiles of memory usage and battery health across devices used by the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (DESNZ). DESNZ refused the request citing section 12 (cost of compliance) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that DESNZ was entitled to rely on section 12 in response to the request. It has also complied with its duty to provide advice and assistance in line with the requirements of section 16 of FOIA. The Commissioner does not require any steps as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12(1)
View Department for Energy Security and Net Zero
16 May 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested copies of correspondence between the Charity Commission and the Foreign and Commonwealth Development Office concerning an inquiry about the Potanin Foundation and the decision-making process concerning the designation of the charity’s founder under the Russia sanctions regime. The Charity Commission withheld the requested information under section 32(2) (court records) as it was held only by virtue of it being part of an inquiry. The Charity Commission also advised it was also applying section 40 of FOIA (personal information) to the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Charity Commission has applied section 32(2) correctly to withhold the requested information. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 32
View The Charity Commission
16 May 2024Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant made three requests for information relating to theALPHA Civil Service Pension Scheme and protocols/Rules of Conducttalking to the Press. The Cabinet Office refused to comply with all threerequests on the basis that they were vexatious under section 14(1) ofFOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the three requests are not vexatiousand the Cabinet Office is not therefore entitled to rely on section 14(1). The Commissioner requires the Cabinet Office to provide the requested information to all three of the complainant’s requests, or issue an appropriate refusal notices for the requests which does not rely on section 14(1).
Exemptions cited: FOI 14(1)
View Cabinet Office
16 May 2024Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information held by Northumberland County Council (the council) about various planning matters. The council initially responded to the request under the subject access provisions of the Data Protection Act 2018 (DPA 2018). After receiving further correspondence from the complainant, it then considered the request under the EIR. Whilst the council released some information to the complainant, it advised that it considered the remaining information held to be subject to the exception at regulation 12(5)(f) (interests of the information provider) of the EIR. During the Commissioner’s investigation, the council then revised its position and released the withheld information to the complainant. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the council has provided the complainant with all of the information held that is relevant to the request. However, as the council failed to provide the relevant information within 20 working days of r
Exemptions cited: EIR 11(4); EIR 5(1); EIR 5(2)
View Northumberland County Council
16 May 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from the BBC about episodes or series of the programme “Only Fools & Horses”. 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
16 May 2024Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from the Ministry of Defence (MOD). By the date of this notice the MOD has not issued a substantive response to this request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the public authority has failed to complete its deliberations on the balance of the public interest within a reasonable time and has therefore breached section 17(3) of FOIA. The Commissioner requires the MOD to provide a substantive response to this request.
Exemptions cited: FOI 17
View Ministry of Defence
16 May 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information about a communications mast near their home. Luton Borough Council refused to comply with the request on the basis that it was vexatious under regulation 12(4)(b) (manifestly unreasonable requests) of the EIR. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council is entitled to refuse to comply with the request under regulation 12(4)(b). The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(b)
View Luton Borough Council
16 May 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information concerning MPs’ pass data. The Commissioner’s decision is that the House of Commons was entitled to rely on section 36 to withhold the requested information. Post the issuing of the Decision Notice, the House of Commons advised the Commissioner (regarding paragraph 9 of the Decision Notice) as follows.
“I can confirm that, in accordance with our usual process, before responding to the request we sought the opinion of the Speaker of the House of Commons about whether to apply the specific limb of the exemption in section 36 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA) to the information in this case. We made our submission to the Speaker on 18 September 2023 and the Speaker’s Secretary confirmed the Speaker’s decision to apply the exemption on 19 September 2023.…
When asking for the Speaker’s reasonable opinion, the information itself is provided to him and, on some occasions, a meeting is held to discuss issues or questions. On this oc
Exemptions cited: FOI 36
View Corporate Officers of the House of Commons
15 May 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information from the Thorne Moorends Town Council (the Council) in relation to its neighbourhood plan and in particular a specific appendix mentioned. The Council initially dealt with the request under FOIA and cited section 14 (vexatious). The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council should have considered the request under the Environmental Information Regulations 2004 (the EIR). The Commissioner also finds that the relevant exception, 12(4)(b) (manifestly unreasonable) is engaged. The Council is entitled to rely on regulation 12(4)(b) of the EIR to withhold the information in scope of the request and that the public interest favours maintaining the exception. The Commissioner does not require the Council to take any steps as a result of this decision. Information Tribunal FT/EA/2024/0286 appeal allowed.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(b)
15 May 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from Kent Police, who relied on section 40(2) of FOIA (third party personal information) to withhold the information.The Commissioner’s decision is that the public authority has correctly relied on section 40(2) of FOIA to withhold the information.The Commissioner does not require further steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View Kent Police
15 May 2024Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about NHS Business Services Authority’s interactions with Stonewall. NHS Business Services Authority (NHSBSA) initially disclosed some information and withheld personal information under section 40(2) and information it considered to be commercially sensitive under section 43(2). NHSBSA’s revised position in respect of part 3 of the request is that it’s prepared to disclose some information it previously withheld but will continue to withhold the remainder of the information under section 40(2) and 43(2). In addition, it’s now applied section 31(1)(a) and sections 36(2)(b)(ii) and 36(2)(c) to this information. Section 31 concerns law enforcement and section 36 concerns prejudice to the effective conduct of public affairs.The Commissioner’s decision is as follows: The information to which NHSBSA has applied only section 31(1)(a) of FOIA is exempt under that exemption.NHBSA correctly applied section 43(2) and section 40(2) to the majority of the
Exemptions cited: FOI 31; FOI 36; FOI 40; FOI 43
View NHS Business Services Authority
15 May 2024Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested from the Cabinet Office a copy of the official document issued to ban Tik-Tok application on government electronic devices.The Cabinet Office refused to provide the requested information citing section 35(1)(b)(Ministerial communications) of FOIA.The Commissioner’s decision is that the withheld information is exempt under section 35(1)(b) but the public interest balance favours disclosure. He has also found the Cabinet Office in breach of section 17(1).The Commissioner requires the Cabinet Office to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation.• Disclose to the complaint the letter from the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster to the Cabinet members.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 cour
Exemptions cited: FOI 17; FOI 35(1)(b)
View Cabinet Office
15 May 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The Commissioner’s decision is that the internal review the Forestry Commission provided in this case complied with the requirements of regulation 11 of the EIR. It’s not necessary for the Forestry Commission to take any corrective steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 11
View Forestry Commission
15 May 2024Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested various correspondence between any officer of the Brecon Beacons National Park Authority (‘the Authority’) and external individuals for the period from 1 January 2023 to 11 June 2023, and specifically in relation to Gilestone Farm, Green Man and the Green Man Festival. The Authority provided some information and refused other information in reliance on section 40 (personal information) and section 41 (information given in confidence) of the Freedom of Information Act (‘the FOIA’). However, during the course of the Commissioner’s investigation, the Authority re-considered the request under the EIR. It stated that it was relying on regulation 12(5)(e) (confidentiality of commercial information) to withhold the draft minutes and regulation 12(5)(f) (the interests of the person who provided the information) to withhold the email correspondence. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Authority was not entitled to rely on regulation 12(5)(e) to refuse to withhold t
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(e); EIR 12(5)(f); EIR 14(2)(1)
View Brecon Beacons National Park Authority
15 May 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to Disguised Remuneration Steering Group (DRSG) meeting minutes from HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC). HMRC relied on section 14(1) of FOIA (vexatious) to refuse the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that HMRC was entitled to rely upon section 14(1) of FOIA when refusing the request. The Commissioner does not require any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14
15 May 2024Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested from the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) information relating to the design, publication and views (on the results) of a survey. The FCA responded to the request outside the statutory time frame. The Commissioner’s decision is that the FCA breached section 10(1) and section 17(1) of FOIA by failing to respond to the request or issue a refusal notice within the statutory time frame of 20 working days. The Commissioner does not require further steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 17
View Financial Conduct Authority
15 May 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information on the National Risk Register of civil emergencies – 2017 Edition from the Department of Health & Social Care (DHSC). DHSC provided updated website links that superseded the 2017 version and advised it did not hold the recorded information within the scope of the request.. The Commissioner’s decision is that on a balance of probabilities, the DHSC holds no recorded information relevant to the complainant’s request and has complied with section 1(1) of FOIA. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1(1)
View Department of Health and Social Care
15 May 2024Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested all current dog breeders licenses issued by West Devon Borough Council. The Council disclosed the information, subject to some information being redacted under section 31(1)(a) (Law enforcement). The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has correctly relied on section 31(1)(a) to withhold the information. However, the Council breached section 10(1) and section 17(1) by failing to respond to the request within the statutory period. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10(1); FOI 17; FOI 31(1)(a)
View West Devon Borough Council
15 May 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to the disposal of assets and monies belonging to a registered charity. The Charity Commission for England and Wales (the Commission) refused to confirm or deny whether the requested information was held by virtue of section 31(3) of FOIA (law enforcement) and section 40(5) of FOIA (personal information). The Commissioner’s decision is that the Commission was correct to apply section 31(3) of FOIA to neither confirm nor deny (NCND) the requested information is held. The Commissioner does not require any steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 31(3)
View The Charity Commission
15 May 2024Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested a copy of the event management plan submitted by the organisers of Reading Festival. Reading Borough Council (the Council) stating the information was exempt under sections 43 (commercial interests), 40(2) (personal data) and 38 (health and safety of the FOIA. During the course of the Commissioner’s investigation it became apparent that the Council had failed to initially identify the actual information falling within the scope of the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that Council breached section 1(1)(a) of the FOIA in failing to confirm or deny whether the information requested was held and section 10(1) in failing to confirm the information requested was held within the statutory timescale. The Commissioner requires Council to issue a fresh response to the request which considers all of the information held within the scope of the request and either need to disclose the information held or issue a valid refusal notice which complies with section 17 of
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10
View Reading Borough Council
15 May 2024Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information regarding the Teeswork site and the potential number of tenants from Tees Valley Combined Authority (TVCA). The Commissioner’s decision is that TVCA breached: section 10, section 1(1)(a) and section 1(1)(b) of FOIA by failing to confirm the requested information was held within 20 working days and by failing to provide the requested information within 20 working days. As the complainant has now received the requested information the Commissioner does not require further steps to be taken in this matter.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1(1)(a); FOI 1(1)(b); FOI 10
View Tees Valley Combined Authority
15 May 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information relating to legal advice supplied to South Downs National Park Authority (SDNPA) concerning bus re-provision and the local plan. SDNPA refused the request citing section 42 – legal professional privilege. The Commissioner’s decision is that SDNPA should have considered the request under the Environmental Information Regulations 2004 (the EIR). The Commissioner also finds that the relevant exception, regulation 12(5)(b) (the course of justice), is engaged and the public interest favours maintaining the exception. The Commissioner does not require any steps as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(b)
View South Downs National Park Authority
15 May 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to the monitoring of immigration legal practitioners, as referenced by the then Minister of State for Immigration. The Home Office confirmed it holds some information within the scope of the request, but refused to provide it, citing sections 36(2)(b)(i)(ii) and 36(2)(c) (prejudice to effective conduct of public affairs) and 31(1)(a) (law enforcement) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Home Office was entitled to rely on section 36(2)(c) to withhold the requested information. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: FOI 36
View Home Office
15 May 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 February 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) and 40(2) of FOIA were correctly cited. The Commissioner does not require further steps. Information Tribunal FT/EA/2024/0195 under appeal.
Exemptions cited: FOI 31; FOI 40(2); FOI 44(1)(a)
View Office of Gas and Electricity Markets
14 May 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information about reporting on UK Stockholm Convention polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB) compliance, which Defra has advised it doesn’t hold. The Commissioner’s decision is that Defra doesn’t hold the requested information and regulation 12(4)(a) of the EIR is engaged. It’s not necessary for Defra to take any corrective steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(a)
14 May 2024Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about certain pupils’ attendance at Uppingham Community College (UCC). UCC initially advised it was withholding all the information under section 40(2) of FOIA, which concerns personal data. It subsequently provided some relevant information and indicated that it didn’t hold the remainder. The Commissioner’s decision is that UCC breached sections 1(1)(a) and 10(1) of FOIA but that, on the balance of probabilities, UCC doesn’t hold the information requested in parts 1 and 3 of the request. It’s not necessary for UCC to take any corrective steps. Information Tribunal FT/EA/2024/0252 appeal struck out.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1(1)(a); FOI 10(1)
14 May 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from Channel 4 (“C4”) regarding the use of non-disclosure agreements/confidentially clauses to prevent the calling out of wrongdoing. The Commissioner’s decision is that: C4 was correct in stating that section 36(2)(b)(i) and section 36(2)(b)(ii) of FOIA are engaged and the public interest favours maintaining these exemptions. On the balance of probabilities, C4 does not hold any further information within the scope of the request. C4 was entitled to rely on section 40(2) to withhold personal data. The Commissioner does not require C4 to take any further steps. Information Tribunal FT/EA/2024/0218 under appeal.
Exemptions cited: FOI 36; FOI 40(2)
View Channel 4
14 May 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested a full copy of their father’s army service record. The National Archives (‘TNA’) provided a redacted copy of the record as part of its internal review response and advised the redacted information was withheld under section 41 of FOIA (provided in confidence). The Commissioner’s decision is that TNA is entitled to refuse to disclose the information on the basis of section 41(1) of FOIA. No steps are required as a result of this decision. Information Tribunal FT/EA/2024/0228 under appeal.
Exemptions cited: FOI 41
View The National Archives