3 May 2024Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The public authority has failed to respond to this request within 20 working days, as specified under FOIA. The Commissioner requires it to provide the complainant with a response to this request within 35 calendar days in accordance with its obligations under FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10(1)
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)
3 May 2024Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant submitted two requests relating to specific planning matters. Guildford Borough Council (the “Council”) disclosed information. The complainant has raised concerns that the Council has not disclosed all the relevant information that it holds. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council’s responses to the requests fail to convincingly confirm that all relevant information held has been disclosed and do not comply with the requirement for a public authority that holds environmental information to make it available on request and that the Council has, therefore, breached regulation 5(1) of the EIR. The Commissioner requires the Council to, in relation to each of the two requests, issue fresh responses which identify and disclose information falling within the scope of the request and/or issue a fresh refusal notice under regulation 14 indicating the exceptions under the EIR the council is relying on to withhold information / confirm that information is not held.
Exemptions cited: EIR 5(1)
View Guildford Borough Council
3 May 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested the Monitoring Officer’s full response to a Code of Conduct complaint made against a Councillor. The London Borough of Bexley (“the Council”) 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. Information Tribunal FT/EA/2024/0168 under appeal.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40(2)
View Bexley Council
2 May 2024Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from Chief Constable Gwent Police (the public authority). By the date of this notice the public authority had not issued a substantive response to this request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the public authority has breached section 10(1) of FOIA in that it failed to provide a valid response to the request within the statutory time frame of 20 working days. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following 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.
Following review of this case, it has been noted that the Commission
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Gwent Police
2 May 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to a property that they owned. Rotherham Metropolitan District Council provided the information held and stated no further information was held. The Commissioner’s decision is that section 40(1) (personal data of the requestor) of the FOIA applies as the information requested constitutes the complainant’s own personal data. The Commissioner does not require any steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council
2 May 2024Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested an organisational chart for employees handling FOIA and subject access requests (SARs). Monmouthshire County Council (the Council) stated that the information requested was not held and it was not obliged to create new information to respond to an FOIA request. During the course of the Commissioner’s investigation, the Council amended its position and disclosed the job titles and details of the hierarchy of staff dealing with FOIA and SARs but withheld the names of junior staff. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council correctly applied section 40(2) (personal data) to the request. However, the Commissioner finds that, in failing to confirm the information was held and to provide the disclosable information within the statutory time period, the Council breached sections 1(1)(a) and 10(1) of the FOIA. The Commissioner does not require any steps to be taken. Information Tribunal FT/EA/2024/0203 appeal dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10; FOI 40
View Monmouthshire County Council
2 May 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information from the Royal Borough of Greenwich (the Council) in relation to its communications with the emergency services regarding its neighbourhood management project. The Council advised that it did not hold the requested information. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the Council did not hold information at the time of the request and regulation 12(4)(a) of the EIR is applicable. The Commissioner does not require the Council to take any steps as a result of this decision. Information Tribunal FT/EA/2024/0166 appeal withdrawn.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(a)
View Royal Borough of Greenwich
2 May 2024Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to the Ministry of Defence (MOD) seeking a) the percentage increase mandated to AWE Plc for the remuneration of staff for the 2023 June pay round and b) the date when this percentage offered. The MOD withheld this information on the basis of sections 36(2)(c) (effective conduct of public affairs) and 43(2) (commercial interests) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that section 43(2) does not provide a basis to withhold either piece of requested information. Both pieces of information are exempt from disclosure on the basis of section 36(2)(c) and while the public interest favours maintaining the percentage mandated, the public interest favours disclosure of the date this mandate was offered to AWE. Information Tribunal FT/EA/2024/0204 appeal dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 36; FOI 43
View Ministry of Defence
2 May 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information about applications to the Court of Protection. NHS West Yorkshire Integrated Care Board (‘the ICB’) provided a response to some of the request but refused to comply with the remainder citing section 12 of FOIA (cost limit). The Commissioner’s decision is that the ICB was entitled to refuse to comply with the remainder of the request in accordance with section 12(1) of FOIA. The Commissioner also finds that the ICB complied with its obligations under section 16 to offer advice and assistance. The Commissioner does not require the ICB to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12; FOI 16
View NHS West Yorkshire ICB
2 May 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information about the Commissioner’s decision to stop issuing certain fines on public bodies. The ICO advised that some relevant information is already published and that it didn’t hold some information. It disclosed other information with some redactions under section 31 of FOIA (law enforcement). The complainant considers the ICO didn’t set out clearly whether it held the specific information they requested and is dissatisfied with an aspect of its handling of the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the ICO holds no further information within scope of the request and complied with section 1(1) of FOIA. It’s not necessary for the ICO to take any corrective steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Information Commissioner
2 May 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from Kent County Council (“the Council”) relating to contracts between the Council and a construction company. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council is entitled to rely on section 12(1) (cost limit) to refuse to comply with the request. He also finds that the Council met its obligations under section 16(1) of FOIA to offer advice and assistance. The Commissioner does not require the Council to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12(1); FOI 16
View Kent County Council
2 May 2024Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from Chief Constable Surrey Police (the public authority). By the date of this notice the public authority had not issued a substantive response to this request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the public authority has breached section 10(1) of FOIA in that it failed to provide a valid response to the request within the statutory time frame of 20 working days. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following 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 Surrey Police
2 May 2024Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from the Home 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 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 Home Office
2 May 2024Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to the manufacture, supply and usage of edible salts in the UK. The Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs (DEFRA) refused to provide the requested information, citing section 35(1)(a) (formulation of government policy) and section 24(1) (national security). The Commissioner’s decision is that neither exemption applies. The Commissioner requires DEFRA to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: disclose the requested information.
Exemptions cited: FOI 24; FOI 35(1)(a)
2 May 2024Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested copies of any unprocessed right of way applications submitted to the London Borough of Bromley. The London Borough of Bromley (“the Council”) withheld the information under Regulation 12(4)(d) (material in the course of completion). The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council is Regulation 12(4)(d) is not engaged. The Commissioner requires the Council to disclose the information.
Exemptions cited: EIR 11; EIR 12(4)(d)
View Bromley Council
1 May 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to Channel Four Television Corporation (Channel 4) for information relating to the insertion of ad breaks in certain online programmes.The Commissioner’s decision is that this information was held by Channel 4 for the purposes of journalism, art and literature and so was not covered by FOIA. He therefore upholds Channel 4’s position.The Commissioner does not require further steps as a result of this decision notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 3
View Channel 4
1 May 2024Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested the email addresses for Traffic Commissioners from the Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency (DVSA). The Commissioner’s decision is that DVSA has breached section 1(1) and section 10(1) of FOIA in that it failed to provide a valid response to the request under FOIA within the statutory time frame of 20 working days. The Commissioner requires DVSA to take the following step to ensure compliance with the legislation: DVSA must provide a substantive response to the request in accordance with its obligations under FOIA.
Following the issue of the Decision Notice it was brought to the Commissioner's attention that DVSA had provided a response under FOIA. The Commissioner wishes to clarify this point and that the remedial step is therefore not required.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10
View Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency
1 May 2024Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information about shooting hubs and armoury alarms held by the RAF Air Cadets. The Commissioner’s decision is that the above public authority failed to respond to the request within 20 working days and has therefore breached section 10 of FOIA. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: issue a substantive response, under FOIA, to the request.
Keywords/themes: requesting ID
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Ministry of Defence
1 May 2024Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about an incident in which the car of a high profile individual was reportedly stopped by police in error. Greater Manchester Police (GMP) would neither confirm nor deny that it held the requested information, citing section 40(5B)(a)(i) (Personal information) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that GMP was not entitled to apply section 40(5B)(a)(i) to refuse to confirm or deny whether it holds any information falling within the scope of the request. The Commissioner requires GMP to confirm or deny that it holds information falling within the scope of the request. If it does hold information, either this information must be disclosed in accordance with section 1(1)(b) of FOIA, or GMP must explain the exemption(s) being relied upon to withhold it, in accordance with its obligations under section 17 of FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View Greater Manchester Police
1 May 2024Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to ‘swipe’ records for the Sanctuary Buildings office from 3 December 2020 to 11 December 2020. The Commissioner’s decision is that section 24(1) – national security, is not engaged and the Cabinet Office was not entitled to withhold the requested information. The Commissioner requires the Cabinet Office to disclose the requested information, subject to any redactions for personal data. 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 24
View Cabinet Office
1 May 2024Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about the election of former Vice-Chancellors and the current Vice-Chancellor. The University of Oxford (‘the University’) advised it didn’t hold some information and disclosed relevant information with personal data redacted under section 40(2) of FOIA. In the course of the Commissioner’s investigation, the University advised that there was additional information that it hadn’t been able to locate but that it was prepared to disclose some information to which it had previously applied section 40(2). The Commissioner’s decision is as follows: The University is entitled to withhold personal data under section 40(2) of FOIA. On the balance of probabilities, the University doesn’t hold any further information within scope of the request. The University didn’t comply with sections 1(1) and 10(1) as it didn’t communicate all the non-exempt information that it holds within the statutory period. The Commissioner requires the University to take the fol
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10; FOI 40
View The University of Oxford
30 Apr 2024Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information associated with a voluntary redundancy/exit initiative within the Ministry of Justice (the ‘MOJ’). Specifically, he asked for the job description titles and the associated job evaluation scheme (‘JES’) reference numbers, for those whose applications were accepted for voluntary redundancy. The public authority refused to provide any of the requested information, citing section 40(2) of FOIA (the exemption for personal information). The Commissioner’s decision is where a job description title and JES number is unique to an individual accepted for voluntary redundancy, that would constitute personal data and would be exempt under section 40(2) for the reasons set out in this notice. The remaining job description titles and JES numbers are not personal data and are required to be disclosed. The Commissioner requires the MOJ to disclose all the JES numbers and job description titles for all those accepted for voluntary redundancy to whom a unique job ti
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View Ministry of Justice
30 Apr 2024Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from the UK Health Security Agency (UKHSA) about the shingles vaccination programme. UKHSA responded by stating that it did not hold the information. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probability, UKHSA does not hold the requested information. However, UKHSA breached sections 1(1)(a) and 10(1) of FOIA because it didn’t confirm that it doesn’t hold the information within the statutory timeframe. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1(1); FOI 10(1)
View UK Health Security Agency
30 Apr 2024Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
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 that it dealt with as reference number 3NF5SLXXDF, 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)
30 Apr 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested from the Home Office internal correspondence on the reported painting over of child-friendly wall art at an asylum seeker reception centre in Dover. The Home Office refused the request, citing sections 36(2)(b)(i) and (ii) (Prejudice to the effective conduct of public affairs) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Home Office was entitled to apply the cited exemptions to refuse the request.
Exemptions cited: FOI 36
View Home Office
30 Apr 2024Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information on funding packages and the associated fraud before, during and post the Covid-19 pandemic. DCMS relied on section 12 of FOIA (cost of compliance) to refuse the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that DCMS was not entitled to rely on section 12(1) of FOIA to refuse the request. The Commissioner finds that notwithstanding this finding, DCMS complied with its section 16 obligation to offer advice and assistance. The Commissioner requires DCMS to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation - Issue a fresh response to the complainant which does not rely on section 12 FOIA. 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 12
View Department for Culture, Media and Sport
30 Apr 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information on the bids related to a particular tender regarding environmental sustainability support for national governing bodies (“NGBs”). UK Sport (“UKS”) initially relied on FOIA section 43(2) – commercial interests, to refuse the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the request should have been addressed under the EIR. He finds that the exception at regulation 12(5)(e) - confidentiality of commercial or industrial information, is engaged and that in the circumstances of this case the public interest favours maintaining the exception. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(e)
View UK Sport
30 Apr 2024Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information from Westmorland and Furness Council (“the Council”) relating to a planning application. By the date of this notice the Council had not issued a substantive response to this request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council 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 Council to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. Issue a substantive response to the request in accordance with its obligations under the EIR. The Council must take these steps within 30 calendar days of the date of this decision notice. Failure to comply may result in the Commissioner making written certification of this fact to the High Court pursuant to section 54 of the Freedom of Information Act and may be dealt with as a contempt of court.
Exemptions cited: EIR 5(2)
View Westmorland and Furness Council
30 Apr 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested DfE to disclose information relating to the use of reinforced autoclaved aerated concrete (RAAC) in educational settings between July to September 2023. DfE refused to disclose the requested information citing regulation 12(4)(e) of the EIR. The Commissioner’s decision is that DfE is entitled to refuse to disclose the requested information in accordance with regulation 12(4)(e) of the EIR. He does not require any further action to be taken.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(e)
View Department for Education
30 Apr 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to the National Records of Scotland (NRS) under the Re-use of Public Sector Information Regulations 2015 (RPSI) to re-use information from selected historical records.The Commissioner’s decision is that NRS was correct to refuse the re-use request under regulations 4(1), 5(1)(b) and 7(2) of RPSI.The Commissioner does not require further steps as a result of this decision notice. Information Tribunal FT/EA/2024/0210 under appeal.
Exemptions cited: RPSI 4(1); RPSI 5(1)(b; RPSI 7(2)
View National Records of Scotland
30 Apr 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to the Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office (FCDO) seeking information about the actions of the Maltese government during the investigation of the Lockerbie bombing for the period October 1990-January 1991. The FCDO disclosed some information but withheld additional information on the basis of sections section 21 (information reasonably accessible), 23(1) (security bodies) and section 24(1) (national security) with these exemptions being cited in the alternative, 27(1)(a) and 27(2) (international relations), and 31(1)(b) and (c) (law enforcement) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the disputed information is exempt from disclosure on the basis of sections 23(1) or 24(1), section 27(1)(a) and sections 31(1)(b) and (c).
Exemptions cited: FOI 23; FOI 24; FOI 27; FOI 31
View Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office
30 Apr 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to the Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office (FCDO) seeking copies of two files about the Lockerbie bombing. The FCDO disclosed some information but withheld additional information on the basis of sections 21 (information reasonably accessible), 23(1) (security bodies) and section 24(1) (national security) with these exemptions being cited in the alternative, 27(1)(a) and 27(2) (international relations), 38(1)(b) (health and safety), 40(2) (personal data) and 41(1) (information provided in confidence). The Commissioner’s decision is that the disputed information is exempt from disclosure on the basis of sections 23(1) or 24(1), section 27(1)(a) and sections 38(1)(b).
Exemptions cited: FOI 23; FOI 24; FOI 27; FOI 38
View Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office
30 Apr 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from Darlington Borough Council (“the Council”) relating to council tax, business rates and penalty charge notice cases that have been referred to an enforcement agency. The Commissioner’s decision is the Council is entitled to rely on section 12(1) (cost limit) of FOIA to refuse to comply with the request. He also finds that the Council met its obligations under section 16(1) of FOIA to offer advice and assistance. The Commissioner does not require the Council to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12(1); FOI 16
View Darlington Borough Council
30 Apr 2024Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to Research & Development (R&D) tax relief claims. HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) refused to comply with the request by virtue of section 31(1)(d) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that HMRC was entitled to rely on Section 31(1)(d) to refuse to disclose the information.However, in responding late to the request, it breached section 10(1) (Time for compliance) of FOIA. No steps are required. Information Tribunal FT/EA/2024/0172 appeal part allowed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10(1); FOI 31(1)
30 Apr 2024Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about correspondence he has not received. Royal Borough of Greenwich (“the public authority”) maintains it does not hold the requested information.The Commissioner’s decision is that some requested information was a request for the complainant’s personal data and therefore is exempt information under section 40(5A) of FOIA. The Commissioner further found that the public authority did not hold the rest of the requested information.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 40(5)(a)
View Royal Borough of Greenwich
29 Apr 2024Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from the Home 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 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 Home Office
29 Apr 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested various information from the Judicial Appointments Commission (JAC), including information relating to the Qualified Person and outreach events conducted by the JAC. The JAC refused to provide some of the requested information, citing sections 42(1) (legal professional privilege) and 40(2) (personal information) of FOIA. The Commissioner has considered the JAC’s application of section 42(1) to the information withheld by virtue of that exemption. The Commissioner’s decision is that section 42(1) is engaged and that the public interest favours maintaining the exemption. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken as a result of this decision. Information Tribunal FT/EA/2024/0178 appeal dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 42
View Judicial Appointments Commission
29 Apr 2024Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from Puxton Parish Council (“the Council”) relating to its accounts for the financial year 2022-23. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council is not entitled to rely on section 14(1) (vexatious request) to refuse to comply with the request.The Commissioner requires the Council to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. The Council must issue a fresh response to the request which does not rely on section 14(1) of the FOIA. The Council 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 14(1)
29 Apr 2024Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested a copy of advice provided to Sheffield City Council (‘The Council’), regarding a Public Inquiry held in 2007. The Council refused to confirm or deny whether it held information within the scope of the request, citing section 12(2) (cost of compliance exceeds appropriate limit) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council was entitled to rely on section 12(2) of FOIA. However, he finds that the Council failed to provide reasonable advice and assistance and therefore did not meet its obligations under section 16(1) of FOIA. The Commissioner does not require the Council to take any steps. Information Tribunal FT/EA/2024/0163 appeal dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12(2); FOI 16(1)
View Sheffield City Council
29 Apr 2024Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from Puxton Parish Council (“the Council”) relating to its accounts for the financial year 2021-22. The Commissioner’s decision is that is that the Council is not entitled to rely on section 14(1) (vexatious request) to refuse to comply with the request. The Commissioner requires the Council to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. The Council must issue a fresh response to the request which does not rely on section 14(1) of the FOIA. The Council 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 14(1)
29 Apr 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information between the National Portrait Gallery and the Duke and Duchess of Sussex. The National Portrait Gallery (‘the Gallery’) refused the request, citing section 37(1)(ac) (communications with His Majesty and the awarding of honours). The Commissioner’s decision is that the Gallery is entitled to withhold the requested information under section 37(1)(ac). The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 37
View National Portrait Gallery
26 Apr 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from Wokingham Borough Council (“the Council”) relating to the future of a leisure centre. The Council withheld the requested information, citing section 43(2) of FOIA (commercial interests) and section 36 of FOIA (effective conduct of public affairs) as its bases for doing so. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council was entitled to rely on sections 36(2)(b)(i), 36(2)(b)(ii) and 36(2)(c) of FOIA to withhold all of the withheld information. He has therefore not gone on to consider the Council’s application of section 43(2). The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 36(2)
View Wokingham Council
26 Apr 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information from Kirtlington Parish Council (“the Parish Council”) relating to a local neighbourhood plan and two specific sites. The Parish 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 place an unreasonable burden on its resources. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council is entitled to refuse the request under regulation 12(4)(b). The Commissioner also finds that the Council complied with its obligations under regulation 9 of the EIR to offer advice and assistance. The Commissioner does not require further steps. Information Tribunal FT/EA/2024/0181 appeal withdrawn.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(b); EIR 9
26 Apr 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about a specific charity. The Charity Commission refused to provide the requested information, citing section 31(1)(g) (law enforcement). The Commissioner’s decision is that the Charity Commission is entitled to withhold the information under section 31(1)(g) (law enforcement). The Commissioner doesn’t require the public authority to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 31
View The Charity Commission
26 Apr 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from Milton Keynes Council (“the Council”) that had been logged in its customer management system over the course of the preceding year. The Council refused the request, citing section 12(1) (cost limit) of FOIA as its basis for doing so. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council is entitled to rely on section 12(1) (cost limit) of FOIA to refuse to comply with the request. He also finds that the Council met its obligations under section 16(1) of FOIA to provide advice and assistance. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12(1); FOI 16(1)
View Milton Keynes Council
25 Apr 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested copies of all reviews into governance concerns since 2022. Bolton NHS Foundation Trust (the Trust) cited section 40(5B)(a)(i) of FOIA to refuse to confirm or deny if it held the requested information. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Trust is entitled to rely on section 40(5B)(a)(i) of FOIA to refuse to confirm or deny whether it holds the information requested. The Commissioner does not require any steps to be taken as a result of this decision. Information Tribunal FT/EA/2024/0158 appeal allowed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40(5)(b)(a)(i)
View Bolton NHS Trust
25 Apr 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested Ofcom to disclose information relating to two complaints raised with it about the BBC. Ofcom disclosed the recorded information it holds. The complainant disputed that all the recorded information Ofcom holds has been disclosed. The Commissioner’s decision is that on the balance of probabilities Ofcom 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 Ofcom
25 Apr 2024Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information on Clare College’s (the College) student housing prices and availability. The College provided links to some information and cited section 21 and stated other information would be published in the future, citing section 22 of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that neither section 21 or 22 have been correctly applied to the disputed information, namely that requested at parts 2, 3 and 4 of the request. The Commissioner requires the College to disclose the information at parts 2, 3 and 4 of the request.
Exemptions cited: FOI 21; FOI 22
25 Apr 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant made a request for information relating to certificates issued under section 275 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Home Office was entitled to refuse to comply with the request in accordance with section 12(2). The Commissioner finds that the Home Office has complied with its obligations under section 16 of the FOIA to offer advice and assistance. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12
View Home Office