14 May 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information on the cost of the investigation by the Serious Fraud Office (the ‘SFO’) into Eurasian Natural Resources Corporation Ltd (‘ENRC’). The SFO refused to disclose this information, citing the exemption provided by section 31 (law enforcement) of FOIA. Specifically, it relied on subsections 31(1)(a) – the prevention or detection of crime, 31(1)(b) – the apprehension or prosecution of offenders and 31(1)(c) – the administration of justice, to withhold the requested information. During the course of the Commissioner’s investigation, the SFO additionally relied on section 21 (information accessible to applicant by other means) and section 22 of FOIA (information intended for future publication) for part 3 of the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the SFO was entitled to rely on sections 31(1)(a), (b) and (c) of FOIA to refuse to disclose the withheld information. As he has found section 31(1) to apply to all parts of the request, he has not deeme
Exemptions cited: FOI 31
View Serious Fraud Office
14 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 Wirral Council
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
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)
13 May 2024Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information about an 11+ test. King Edward VI Academy Trust (‘the Trust’) disclosed some information under the data protection legislation. It has denied holding the remaining information for its own purposes but also withheld it under section 43(2) of FOIA, which concerns commercial interests. The Commissioner’s decision is that under section 3(2)(a) of FOIA the Trust holds the information to which it applied section 43(2) and correctly applied that exemption to it. It’s not necessary for the Trust to take any corrective steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 3; FOI 43(2)
13 May 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information about power surges – the number that have caused damage and any compensation paid. UK Power Networks (Operations) Ltd's original position was that the requested information isn’t environmental information and so it wasn’t obliged to respond to the request under the EIR. UK Power Networks (UKPN) has subsequently confirmed to the Commissioner that it considers it isn’t a public authority for the purposes of the EIR. The Commissioner’s decision is that UKPN isn’t a public authority under regulation 2(2) of the EIR and therefore isn’t obliged to respond to the request under the EIR. Since UKPN isn’t a public authority for the purposes of the EIR, the Commissioner can’t order it to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 2(2)
13 May 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested copies of two emails dated 19 September 2023. NHS Devon Integrated Care Board (‘the ICB’) relied on section 40(2) of FOIA (third party personal information) to withhold the information. The Commissioner’s decision is that the ICB 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(2)
View NHS Devon ICB
13 May 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested a copy of an email sent by a particular councillor which was referred to at a meeting of Newlands Parish Council (the Council). The Council withheld the information requested under section 40(2) (personal information) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has correctly applied section 40(2) to the request. He does not require any steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
13 May 2024Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to the pupils’ academic levels and their learning difficulties at Rowan High School. The Governing Body of Rowan High School (the school) relied on section 40(2) (third party personal information) to withhold the requested information. The Commissioner’s decision is that the school is entitled to rely on section 40(2) to withhold the requested information. However, he has recorded a procedural breach of section 17(1) of FOIA. The Commissioner does not require the school to take any steps as a result of this decision notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 17; FOI 40(2)
View HARROW HIGH SCHOOL
13 May 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The Commissioner’s decision is that the Imperial War Museum has correctly applied section 40(2) of FOIA to requested information about Katherine Moloney’s attendance at an event. That information is Katherine Moloney’s and staff members’ personal data and disclosing it wouldn’t be lawful. It’s not necessary for the Imperial War Museum to take any corrective steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40(2)
View Imperial War Museum
13 May 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant made a request to the Northern Ireland Prison Service (NIPS), which is an agency within the Department of Justice (Northern Ireland) (DoJ). DoJ is the relevant public authority for this case. The complainant’s request comprised three questions about the use of x-ray body scanners on prisoners, the internal concealment of “contraband” and the recovery of any contraband concealed internally. DoJ provided a figure for one of the questions, but refused to disclose any other information, citing section 31 of FOIA (law enforcement) as its basis for doing so. The Commissioner’s decision is that DoJ was correct to rely on section 31 of FOIA and refuse to disclose information within scope of the second and third questions in the request. The Commissioner doesn’t require further steps. Information Tribunal FT/EA/2024/0220 under appeal.
Exemptions cited: FOI 31
View Department of Justice (Northern Ireland)
13 May 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested the identities of several individuals who corresponded with NICE following circulation of a guideline document to stakeholders prior to publication. NICE considered the information was personal data and therefore exempt under section 40(2) FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that NICE is entitled to withhold the personal data requested under section 40(2) FOIA. The Commissioner does not require any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View National Institute for Health and Care Excellence
13 May 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested copies of all communications with Bevan Brittan solicitors over a six month period. NHS Devon Integrated Care Board (‘the ICB’) relied on section 42 of FOIA (legal professional privilege) to withhold the information. The Commissioner’s decision is that the ICB has correctly relied on section 42 of FOIA to withhold the information. The Commissioner does not require further steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 42
View NHS Devon ICB
13 May 2024Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested Defra to disclose a copy of all internal submissions to ministers’ documents sent by its water quality team with regards to waste water treatment works in 2021. Defra refused to disclose the requested information citing regulation 12(4)(b) of the EIR – manifestly unreasonable. The Commissioner’s decision is that Defra is entitled to rely on regulation 12(4)(b) of the EIR and met its obligations under regulation 9, in terms of providing appropriate advice and assistance. He has however recorded a breach of regulation 11 of the EIR, as Defra failed to respond to the complainant’s request for an internal review within 40 working days of receipt. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 11; EIR 12(4)(b); EIR 16
13 May 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about its staff from the Office of the Police and Crime Commissioner for Cheshire (“OPCC”). The OPCC has provided some information but refused to disclose the remainder, citing section 40(2) (Personal information) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that it was entitled to do so. No steps are required. Information Tribunal FT/EA/2024/0213 appeal dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
13 May 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested copies of all communications with a named individual over a five month period. NHS Devon Integrated Care Board (‘the ICB’) relied on section 40(2) of FOIA (third party personal information) to withhold the information. The Commissioner’s decision is that the ICB 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(2)
View NHS Devon ICB
13 May 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant made a five-part request for information about microwave radiation devices, designed with through the wall sensors, and their utilisation. Ultimately, the Home Office refused to confirm or deny whether it held information in scope of the request, citing the ‘neither confirm nor deny’ provisions within section 24(2) (national security) and section 31(3) (law enforcement) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Home Office was entitled to rely on section 24(2) of FOIA for the reasons set out in this notice. AS he has found section 24(2) to be engaged, the Commissioner has not deemed it necessary to consider the Home Office’s reliance on section 31(3) of FOIA. The Commissioner does not require the Home Office to take any steps as a result of this notice. Information Tribunal FT/EA/2024/0219 under appeal.
Exemptions cited: FOI 24
View Home Office
13 May 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from the Judicial Appointments Commissioner (JAC) relating to a number of different topics. The JAC provided some information but advised that other information was exempt from disclosure. The Commissioner has investigated its application of sections 42 (legal professional privilege), 36 (prejudice to effective conduct of public affairs) and 40(2) (personal information) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the JAC was entitled to rely on sections 42(1), 36(2)(c) and 40(2) to withhold the information. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken. Information Tribunal FT/EA/2024/0197 appeal part allowed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 36; FOI 40; FOI 42
View Judicial Appointments Commission
13 May 2024Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information about Yer Tiz mountain bike trail from Forestry England (‘FE’). The Commissioner’s decision is that FE was entitled to rely on regulation 12(4)(b) when refusing this request and the public interest favours maintaining the exception. The Commissioner has also found that FE has breached regulation 9 by failing to provide advice and assistance to the complainant. The Commissioner requires FE to take the following step to ensure compliance with the legislation. Provide the complainant with advice and assistance to help them to submit a request that does not create a manifestly unreasonable burden.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(b); EIR 9
View Forestry Commission
13 May 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant asked for information about two consortia and presentations made to Tees Valley Combined Authority (the TVCA). The TVCA answered the request explaining that information was not held by them, and relevant papers would be held by Teesside International Airport Board (TIA) and are not subject to FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the requested information is environmental information within the definition at regulation 2(1)(c) of the EIR. The request should therefore have been handled under the EIR rather than FOIA and that, on the balance of probabilities, the TVCA did not hold information in scope of the request and regulation 12(4)(a) of the EIR is applicable. The Commissioner does not require any steps to be taken as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(a)
View Tees Valley Combined Authority
13 May 2024Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested South West Water (SWW) to disclose a list of all Sewage Treatment Works where it has been using continuous monitoring devices in the final treated downfall and all water quality data from installation from the last four years. SWW refused to disclose the information citing regulation 12(4)(b) of the EIR. The Commissioner’s decision is that SWW is entitled to refuse to disclose the information in accordance with regulation 12(4)(b) of the EIR. It however breached regulation 9 by failing to provide any advice and assistance to the complainant and regulation 5 by failing to disclose recorded information to which the complainant was entitled under EIR. The Commissioner requires SWW to provide advice and assistance to the complainant in accordance with regulation 9 of the EIR and, in relation to question 1 of the request, disclose an updated listed of all relevant Sewage Treatment Works.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(b); EIR 5; EIR 9
View South West Water
13 May 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested correspondence between the Education Authority and schools regarding gender identity issues. The Authority provided a link to published information and cited section 36(2)(b) (prejudice to the effective conduct of public affairs) and section 40(2) (personal data) to refuse the remainder. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Authority was entitled to rely on the exemptions cited. No steps are required.
Exemptions cited: FOI 36
10 May 2024Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested 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. 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 35 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.The Commissioner expects the public authority to take app
Exemptions cited: FOI 10(1)
View Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office
10 May 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant submitted a request to the London Borough of Islington (the Council) seeking copies of correspondence it had exchanged with a party alleged to have committed a particular breach of planning legislation. The Council withheld the requested information on the basis of regulation 12(5)(b) (course of justice and inquiries). The Commissioner’s decision is that the information is exempt from disclosure on the basis of this exception and that in all the circumstances of the case the public interest favours maintaining this exception.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(b)
View Islington Council
10 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.
This notice was issued in error for a duplicate complaint.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Home Office
10 May 2024Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested 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. 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 35 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.The Commissioner expects the public authority to take app
Exemptions cited: FOI 10(1)
View Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office
10 May 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information about discharges from United Utilities. United Utilities (“the public authority”) refused to provide the requested information, citing regulation 12(5)(b) (The course of justice and inquiries exception) and regulation 12(5)(d) (confidentiality of proceedings). The Commissioner’s decision is that the withheld information doesn’t engage regulation 12(5)(b) or regulation 12(5)(d). 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); EIR 12(5)(d)
View United Utilities
10 May 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested from Channel Four Television Corporation (“Channel 4”) information relating to a potential conflict of interests. Channel 4 explained the information was covered by the derogation and excluded from FOIA.The Commissioner’s decision is that this information was held by Channel 4 for the purposes of ‘journalism, art or literature’ and does not fall inside FOIA. The Commissioner therefore upholds Channel 4’s position and he does not require it to take any further steps as a result of this decision. Information Tribunal FT/EA/2024/0180 under appeal.
Exemptions cited: FOI 3
View Channel 4
9 May 2024Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant made a request for information relating to cases referred to the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS), outsourcing operational activities and the employees at Greater Manchester Police (GMP). GMP refused to provide the requested information saying that to do so would exceed the appropriate limit at section 12(1) (cost of compliance) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that, in respect of requests one, two and three GMP was entitled to aggregate these requests and rely on section 12(1). The Commissioner does not agree that requests four to eight can be aggregated with the rest. The Commissioner also finds that GMP did not comply with its section 16(1) obligation to offer advice and assistance.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12(1); FOI 16(1)
View Greater Manchester Police
9 May 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to Sport England for information relating to any conditions imposed or suggestions made to Swim England.The Commissioner’s decision is that section 36(2)(b)(ii) is engaged and that the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosure.The Commissioner does not require further steps as a result of this decision notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 36(2)(b)(ii)
View Sport England
9 May 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to a private dining club at the University of Oxford. Thames Valley Police relied on section 14(1) of FOIA (vexatious) to refuse the request.The Commissioner’s decision is that the request was vexatious and therefore Thames Valley Police were 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 Thames Valley Police
9 May 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested the ICO to disclose information relating to a tribunal case involving the Judicial Appointments Commission (JAC) where it transpired that there was an issue with its section 36 of FOIA qualified person’s (QP) authorisation. The ICO disclosed the recorded information it holds. The complainant disputed that the ICO had disclosed all the recorded information it holds and claimed that it has also breached section 16 of FOIA by failing to provide them with advice and assistance. The Commissioner’s decision is that on the balance of probabilities the ICO has identified and disclosed all the recorded information it holds falling within the scope of the request. He has concluded that there is no breach of section 16 of FOIA. As a result the Commissioner does not require any further steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 16
View Information Commissioner
9 May 2024Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from United Lincolnshire Hospitals NHS 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 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 United Lincolnshire Hospitals NHS Trust
9 May 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested from Westminster City Council (‘the Council’) the year-on-year income it received from leasing a particular site for advertising. The Council disclosed some information, but it refused to disclose the income it received for the most recent two financial years, citing section 43(2) (Commercial interests) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council was entitled to apply section 43(2) to withhold that information.
Exemptions cited: FOI 43
View Westminster Council
9 May 2024Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested a copy of a Data Protection Impact Assessment (‘DPIA’) covering the use of artificial intelligence (‘AI’) technology to detect traffic offences. Devon and Cornwall Police (‘DCP’) said that it did not hold the requested information. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, DCP does not hold the requested DPIA. However, by failing to respond to the request within the statutory time for compliance, DCP breached sections 1(1) and 10(1) of FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10
View Devon and Cornwall Police
8 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 Staffordshire Police
8 May 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about parking charge notices issued by a contractor at one of the car parks on the hospital site. University Hospitals Coventry and Warwickshire NHS Trust (‘the Trust’) advised that it did not hold the requested information. The Commissioner’s decision is that the requested information is not held by the Trust as per section 3(2) of FOIA – Information held on behalf of. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken. Information Tribunal FT/EA/2024/0196 under appeal.
Exemptions cited: FOI 3
View University Hospitals Coventry and Warwickshire NHS Trust
8 May 2024Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information regarding bins belonging to a named property causing an obstruction on the public highway, including CCTV footage. Dorset Council (‘the Council’) provided some information, however the complainant considers that the Council holds additional information which it has failed to disclose. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has not complied with its obligations under regulation 5(1) of the EIR. The Council’s failure to conduct an internal review also represents a breach of regulation 11(4), whilst its failure to disclose some information until during the Commissioner’s investigation is a breach of regulation 5(2) of the EIR. However, the Council was entitled to redact a small amount of personal data under regulation 13 (personal information) from a table disclosed during the Commissioner’s investigation. Information Tribunal FT/EA/2024/0174 appeal withdrawn.
Exemptions cited: EIR 11(4); EIR 13; EIR 5(1); EIR 5(2)
View Dorset County Council
7 May 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested from the Attorney General’s Office (AGO) information about meetings, correspondence and information shared between the AGO and representatives of the Israeli Embassy. The AGO refused to disclose the information it held, citing section 27(1)(a) (International relations) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the AGO was entitled to apply section 27(1)(a) to withhold the requested information. He also finds that, on the balance of probabilities, it does not hold further information falling within the scope of the request.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 27
View Attorney General's Office
7 May 2024Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The public authority has failed to respond to this request within 20 working days, as specified in the EIR. The Commissioner requires it to provide the complainant with a response to this request within 30 calendar days in accordance with its obligations under the EIR.
Exemptions cited: EIR 5(2)
View Swindon Borough Council
7 May 2024Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information about an individual’s registration as a foster carer. City of Wolverhampton Council (the “Council”) refused to confirm or deny whether the information was held, relying on the exemption for personal information in section 40(5B) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council’s refusal notice did not comply with section 17(1) but that is entitled to rely on section 40(5) to refuse to confirm or deny that it holds the requested information. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 17; FOI 40(5)
View Wolverhampton City Council
7 May 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to specific material that was gathered during a review commissioned by the then Attorney General. The Attorney General’s Office (AGO) refused to provide the requested information, citing section 31(1)(c) (law enforcement) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the AGO is entitled to rely on section 31(1)(c) of FOIA to refused to disclose the withheld information. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken as a result of this decision. Information Tribunal FT/EA/2024/0212 under appeal.
Exemptions cited: FOI 31
View Attorney General's Office
7 May 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to Channel Four Television Corporation’s (Channel 4) financial commitment to the Creative Industries Independent Standards Authority (CIISA). Channel 4 refused to provide the information on the basis of section 43(2) of FOIA (Commercial Interest).The Commissioner’s decision is that Channel 4 was correct to apply section 43(2) to withhold the information. He does not require the public authority to take any further steps. Information Tribunal FT/EA/2024/0183 appeal withdrawn.
Exemptions cited: FOI 43(2)
View Channel 4
7 May 2024Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information from the London Borough of Hackney (the public authority). By the date of this notice the public authority had not issued a substantive response to this request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the public authority has failed to respond to the request within 20 working days and has therefore breached regulation 5(2) of the EIR. The Commissioner requires the public authority to issue a substantive response to the request in accordance with its obligation under the EIR. The public authority must take these steps within 30 calendar days of the date of this decision notice. Failure to comply may result in the Commissioner making written certification of this fact to the High Court pursuant to section 54 of the Freedom of Information Act and may be dealt with as contempt of court.
Exemptions cited: EIR 5(2)
View London Borough of Hackney
7 May 2024Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested complaint related information about judges from the Judicial Conduct Investigations Office (the ‘JCIO’), which falls under the remit of the Ministry of Justice (the ‘MOJ’). The JCIO argued that it is an independent statutory body and is not a public authority for the purposes of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (‘FOIA’) and is therefore not obliged to respond to FOIA requests. The Commissioner’s decision is that the JCIO is not a statutory body. He finds that the JCIO is part of the MOJ which is a public authority for the purposes of FOIA for the reasons set out in this notice. By failing to confirm whether it held the requested information within 20 working days, the MOJ has breached sections 1(1)(a) and 10(1) of FOIA. The Commissioner requires the MOJ to issue a fresh response to the complainant’s request under FOIA within 30 calendar days of the date of this decision notice. Failure to comply may result in the Commissioner making written certification of
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10
View Ministry of Justice
3 May 2024Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The public authority has failed to respond to this request within 20 working days, as specified in the EIR. The Commissioner requires it to provide the complainant with a response to this request within 35 calendar days in accordance with its obligations under the EIR.
Exemptions cited: EIR 5(2)
View West Sussex County Council
3 May 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested all recorded information held between the Care Quality Commission (CQC) and other parties concerning the safeguarding of service users of named service providers between certain dates. The CQC relied on section 40(5B) of FOIA (third party personal information) to refuse to confirm or deny that the information was held. It also relied on section 31(3) of FOIA (law enforcement) to neither confirm nor deny whether it held this information. The Commissioner’s decision is that the public authority has correctly relied on section 40(5B) and section 31(3) of FOIA to refuse to confirm or deny that the information was held. The Commissioner does not require further steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 31(3); FOI 40(5)(b)(a)(i)
View CQC
3 May 2024Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested from Causeway Coast & Glens Borough Council (the Council) information regarding a Planning Enforcement Notice. 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. However, the Commissioner finds that the Council breached its obligations under regulations 14(2) and 11(4) of the EIR.
The Commissioner does not require the Council to take any further steps as a result of this decision. Information Tribunal FT/EA/2024/0209 appeal allowed.
Exemptions cited: EIR 11(4); EIR 12(4)(b); EIR 14(2)