25 Apr 2024Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information with regards to a planning matter. Exeter City Council (the council) provided the information it held with some redactions under regulation 13 of the EIR – third party personal data. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council breached regulation 5(2) of the EIR as it did not provide all the information it held, that was not exempt from disclosure, within the required 20 working days. As all the information that is not exempt from disclosure has now been provided, the Commissioner does not require any steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 5(2)
View Exeter City Council
25 Apr 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to the occupation of the ‘Techboard Factory’. Blaenau Gwent County Borough Council (the council”) refused to confirm or deny (NCND) the requested information was held, under section 41(2) FOIA (information provided in confidence) and section 31(d) and 31(3) (law enforcement). The Commissioner’s decision is that the council is entitled to rely on section 31(3) FOIA to NCND whether any information is held and that the public interest favours maintaining the exemption. The Commissioner does not require further steps. Information Tribunal FT/EA/2024/0165 appeal dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 31
View Blaenau Gwent County Borough Council
25 Apr 2024Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested from The West of England Combined Authority (‘the council’) information relating to the appointment of its Interim Chief Executive. The council refused the request on the basis that the exemption in 43(2) of FOIA applied (prejudice to commercial interests). The Commissioner’s decision is that the council was not correct to withhold the information under section 43(2). The Commissioner requires the council to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. To disclose the withheld information to the complainant subject to the redactions specified under section 40(2) of FOIA, and the appropriate redaction of bank account details. Information Tribunal FT/EA/2024/0200 appeal consent order.
Exemptions cited: FOI 43(2)
View West of England Combined Authority
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
25 Apr 2024Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested correspondence held by the Private Office and the Chancellor regarding Infected Blood Compensation for the period of 1 April 2022-20 August 2022. HM Treasury (HMT) disclosed a small amount of information but withheld the majority of the requested information. HMT redacted some of the information under sections 35(1)(a) formulation or development of government policy, 35(1)(b) Ministerial communications, 35(1)(d) the operation of any ministerial office and 40(2) personal information. The complainant has not challenged the applications of section 40(2) therefore it has not been addressed in this investigation. The Commissioner’s decision is that HMT is entitled to rely on sections 35(1)(a), 35(1)(b), 35(1)(d) formulation or development of government policy. The Commissioner has also considered HMT’s delay in providing a response and has found that HMT breached section 10(1) of FOIA ) in respect of sections 1(1)(a) and 1(1)(b) of FOIA, as well as section 17(3) in
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 35(1)(a); FOI 35(1)(b); FOI 35(1)(d)
View HM Treasury
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 not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested from the ICO its exchanges with Thames Valley Police (TVP) on the subject of third-party subject access requests. The ICO refused to provide the information, citing section 44(1) (prohibitions on disclosure) and 40(2) (personal information) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that section 44 is engaged. He has also decided on the balance of probability that there is no further information held relevant to the request. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1(1); FOI 44(1)(a)
View Information Commissioner
25 Apr 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has made various requests for information. Cambridge City Council refused to comply with the requests under section 14(1) (vexatious requests) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council was entitled to apply section 14(1) of FOIA, and that where the requests seek environmental information, the Council is entitled to rely upon regulation 12(4)(b) (manifestly unreasonable requests) of the EIR. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(b); FOI 14(1)
View Cambridge City Council
24 Apr 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested correspondence relating to a Financial Conduct Authority (“FCA”) investigation. The FCA disclosed some information, but it refused to disclose the remainder, citing sections 31(1)(g) (Law enforcement), 40 (Personal data) and 44(1)(a) (Prohibitions on disclosure) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the FCA was entitled to rely on sections 31(1)(g) and 44(1)(a) to withhold the remaining information.
Exemptions cited: FOI 31; FOI 44
View Financial Conduct Authority
24 Apr 2024Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested the numbers, and copies of, WhatsApp messages between Boris Johnson and Evgeny Lebedev in 2020 concerning the latter’s consideration for a peerage and any other messages about government business. The Cabinet Office’s position is that it does not hold the requested information. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Cabinet Office has failed to comply with section 1(1) of FOIA due to omitting to search its own official records for information falling within the scope of the request and for omitting to ask Mr Johnson whether he holds information falling within the scope of the request. The Commissioner requires the Cabinet Office to take the searches for information which are specified in the decision notice in order to comply with the legislation.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Cabinet Office
24 Apr 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) regarding cetacean strandings. DEFRA refused to provide the requested information, citing regulation 12(4)(d) of the EIR – material still in the course of completion.The Commissioner’s decision is that DEFRA was correct to cite this exception and that the public interest lies in maintaining it.The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(d)
24 Apr 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested historical information regarding a named individual who had been allegedly struck off as a teacher. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Department for Education (DfE) 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.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40(5)(b)(a)(i)
View Department for Education
24 Apr 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information held by Milton Keynes Council (the council) about a particular bus route. The council provided the complainant with some information, but advised that it considered other information relevant to the request to be exempt from disclosure under section 43(2) of FOIA. Following the Commissioner’s intervention, the council provided the complainant with some additional information. The council also revised its position, now stating that it did not hold some of the information previously considered to be relevant to the request. This included the information which the council had claimed to be subject to the exemption at section 43(2) of FOIA. It is the Commissioner’s decision that, on the balance of probabilities, the council does not hold any information relevant to the request in addition to that which has already been provided to the complainant. The Commissioner does not require the council to take any steps. FOIA 1: not upheld
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Milton Keynes Council
23 Apr 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from the London Borough of Southwark (the Council), in relation to safety concerns the complainant had previously raised about a specific stretch of road. The Council advised that it does not hold the requested information. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the Council does not hold information within the scope of the request. The Commissioner does not require the Council to take any steps as a result of this decision.Keywords/themes: Highways safety concerns
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Southwark Council
23 Apr 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from the British Film Institute (BFI) about information held on a previous ICO complaint case. The BFI provided information but redacted some of it, citing sections 36 and 40(2) of FOIA. The BFI later withdrew section 36 but maintained its citing of section 40(2) – personal information. The complainant raised doubts that all the non-exempt information they had requested had been provided. The Commissioner’s decision is that the BFI cited section 40(2) appropriately and that, on the balance of probability, all the requested information to which the complainant is entitled has been provided. The Commissioner does not require further steps. Information Tribunal FT/EA/2024/0159 under appeal.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 40(2)
View British Film Institute
23 Apr 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from the Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames (the Council), in relation to a Councillors email to other Councillors regarding a ceasefire statement. The Council advised that it does not hold the requested information. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the Council did not hold any information at the time of the request. The Commissioner does not require the Council to take any steps as a result of this decision. Keywords/themes: Gaza ceasefire
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Kingston upon Thames Council
23 Apr 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about any relationship it has with a named Imam from the Metropolitan Police Service (the “MPS”). The MPS would neither confirm nor deny (“NCND”) holding any information, citing section 40(5) (Personal information) of FOIA as its basis for doing so. The Commissioner’s decision is that section 40(5) of FOIA was properly engaged. No steps are required.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View Metropolitan Police Service
23 Apr 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to a named police officer.West Yorkshire Police (“WYP”) refused to confirm or deny that it held the requested information, citing sections 40(5) (personal information) and 38(2) (health and safety) of FOIA.The Commissioner’s decision is that WYP was entitled to rely on section 40(5B)(a)(i) of FOIA to refuse to confirm or deny holding the requested information. The Commissioner does not require further steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40(5)(b)(a)(i)
View West Yorkshire Police
23 Apr 2024Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested correspondence between Merseyside Fire and Rescue Service (the ‘MFRS’) and Cobalt Energy Ltd regarding a fire at an energy plant in Liverpool. The MFRS refused the request on the basis that Regulation 12(5)(e) and 12(5)(c) of the EIR applied (commercial confidentiality and intellectual property rights). The Commissioner’s decision is that the MFRS was correct to withhold the information under Regulation 12(5)(e). He has, however, decided that the MFRS was not correct to apply Regulation 12(5)(c) to two reports. The Commissioner requires the MFRS to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. To disclose copies of the two Dunton Environmental Limited reports. Information Tribunal FT/EA/2024/0207 under appeal.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(c); EIR 12(5)(e)
View Merseyside Fire and Rescue Service
23 Apr 2024Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information in relation to a public statement made by Newcastle upon Tyne Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust (the Trust) on 26 September 2023. The Trust initially identified and disclosed some information within scope of the request, and then during a review, it identified and disclosed further information.The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the Trust has identified and provided all information held within the scope of the request. However, in failing to identify and disclose all the information in its initial response, the Trust has breached section 1(1) and 10(1) of FOIA. The Commissioner does not require any further steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1(1); FOI 10
View THE NEWCASTLE UPON TYNE HOSPITALS NHS FOUNDATION TRUST
22 Apr 2024Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about the recruitment for two roles by Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council. The Local Government Association (“the LGA”), which was involved in facilitating the recruitment, disclosed information subject to some redactions under sections 40(2) (personal information), 41(1) (information provided in confidence), and 43(2) (commercial interests) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that, in respect of sections 40(2) and 41(1) the LGA is entitled to withhold the information, but in respect of section 43(2) the LGA is not entitled to withhold the information. The Commissioner is also satisfied that all relevant information has been identified in respect of the request. However, the Council breached section 10(1) and section 17(1) by failing to respond to the request within the statutory period. The Commissioner requires the LGA to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: Disclose the information withheld under section
Exemptions cited: FOI 10(1); FOI 17; FOI 40(2); FOI 41(1); FOI 43(2)
View Local Government Association
22 Apr 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about the impact of changes to the National Minimum Wage on certain social issues. The Home Office said it did not hold the requested information. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the Home Office does not hold the requested information.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Home Office
19 Apr 2024Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested a report relating to 3 Rivers Developments Ltd. Mid Devon District Council (the “Council”) initially handled the request under the FOIA and withheld the information under the exemption for commercial interests (section 43). At the Commissioner’s direction it subsequently reconsidered the request under the EIR, disclosed some information and withheld other information under the exception for commercial confidentiality (regulation 12(5)(e)). The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council failed to respond in accordance with the EIR and breached regulation 5(1), 5(2) and 14 and that it failed to demonstrate that the exception in regulation 12(5)(e) is engaged. The Commissioner requires the Council to disclose the information withheld under regulation 12(5)(e). EIR 5(1) – upheld; EIR 5(2) – upheld; EIR 14 – upheld; EIR 12(5)(e) – upheld. Information Tribunal FT/EA/2024/0187 appeal withdrawn.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(e); EIR 14; EIR 5(1); EIR 5(2)
View Mid Devon District Council
19 Apr 2024Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested copies of certain communications received by the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (the DLUHC) which concern The Future Homes and Buildings Standards, due to be implemented in 2025. The DLUHC refused the request, citing regulation 12(4)(d) - material in the course of completion, and regulation 13 - personal information, of the EIR. The complainant has not contested the DLUHC’s decision to apply regulation 13 to information that is the personal data of third parties. The Commissioner has decided that the exception at regulation 12(4)(d) is not engaged in respect of part of the withheld information. Furthermore, where the Commissioner has accepted that regulation 12(4)(d) is engaged, he has found that the public interest favours disclosure of the information. The Commissioner requires the DLUHC release all of the withheld information, with the exception of any personal information, which should be redacted.EIR 12(4)(d): Complaint upheld
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(d)
View Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government
19 Apr 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information regarding the number of individuals with disabilities that applied for a specific course and all PhD and DPhil Courses and were successful in their application. The University of Warwick (‘the University’) 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. Keywords/themes: Motivated intruder, special category data.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40(2)
View The University of Warwick
19 Apr 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested a variety of information relating to transgender rights and gender-critical views. The Crown Prosecution Service (“the CPS”) refused to comply with the request, citing section 12(1) (cost of compliance) of FOIA as its basis for doing so. The Commissioner’s decision is that the CPS was entitled to rely on section 12(1) of FOIA to refuse the request. The Commissioner also finds that the CPS complied with it’s section 16 obligation to offer advice and assistance. The Commissioner does not require the CPS to take any further steps.FOI 12(1) – complaint not upheld, FOI 16 – complaint not upheld
Exemptions cited: FOI 12(1); FOI 16
View Crown Prosecution Service
19 Apr 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
19 Apr 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested letters sent by The Christie NHS Foundation Trust (the Trust) to the Care Quality Commission (CQC) following an inspection. The Trust confirmed it held some information in scope of the request but withheld this under section 31(1)(g) and 31(2)(c) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Trust has demonstrated that section 31 is engaged and the public interest favours maintaining the exemption. The Commissioner does not require further steps. FOI section 31 – complaint not upheld
Exemptions cited: FOI 31
View The Christie NHS Foundation Trust
19 Apr 2024Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information regarding outbound calls made by Merseyside Police. Merseyside Police relied on section 12 of FOIA (cost of compliance) to refuse the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that Merseyside Police was entitled to rely on section 12(1) of FOIA to refuse the request. The Commissioner also finds that Merseyside Police did not comply with its section 16 obligation to offer advice and assistance. The Commissioner requires Merseyside Police to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. Provide the complainant with appropriate advice and assistance to help them submit a request which may potentially fall within the appropriate limit. Merseyside Police 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. FOI Sect
Exemptions cited: FOI 12(1); FOI 16
View Merseyside Police
19 Apr 2024Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to any subsidy paid by Bolton Council (the council) in respect of bowling greens. The council refused the request under regulation 12(4)(b) – manifestly unreasonable, of the Environmental Information Regulations 2004 (the EIR). The Commissioner has decided that FOIA is the appropriate access regime in this instance, but that the council’s arguments for refusing to comply with the request under regulation 12(4)(b) of the EIR are transferable to section 14(1) - vexatious requests, of FOIA. However, it is the Commissioner’s decision that the council has failed to provide sufficient evidence that section 14(1) of FOIA is engaged. The Commissioner requires the council to either disclose the information held that is relevant to the request, or issue a fresh response to the request that does not rely on section 14 of FOIA.
FOI section 14(1): Complaint upheld
Exemptions cited: FOI 14(1)
View Bolton Council
19 Apr 2024Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to human rights abuses committed by the Rwandan government. The Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (FCDO) withheld the information citing sections 27(1)(a), (c) and (d), and sections 40(2) and 40(3A)(a). The Commissioner’s decision is that section 27 is engaged but that the public interest lies in favour of disclosure. The Commissioner requires FCDO to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. Disclose the information requested, subject to appropriate redactions under section 40(2). 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. Information Tribunal FT/EA/2024/0192 appeal Consent Order. Keywords: Rwanda
Exemptions cited: FOI 27
View Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office
19 Apr 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to Jimmy Savile. The BBC denied holding any information within the scope of the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the BBC doesn’t hold any information within the scope of the request. The Commissioner does not require further steps.FOI section 1 – not upheld
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View BBC
19 Apr 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about FOI requests/publications, safety protocols, and data protection services from the Thomas Coram School (the school). The school is one of the two educational establishments that have the Castle Church of England Federation as “the Governing Body […] responsible for both schools in the Federation” . Under FOIA, the Castle Church of England Federation is the public authority. However, for the purposes of this decision notice ‘the school’ will be referenced throughout. The school refused the requests, citing section 14(1) of FOIA – vexatious request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the requests were vexatious under section 14(1) of FOIA. The Commissioner does not require any steps as a result of this notice. Information Tribunal FT/EA/2024/0179 appeal allowed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14(1)
19 Apr 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about the UK Universities and Spinouts Review. HM Treasury (“HMT”) refused to comply with the request, citing section 14(1) (vexatious requests) of FOIA as it’s basis for doing so. The Commissioner’s decision is that HMT was entitled to rely on section 14(1) of FOIA to refuse to comply with the request. The Commissioner does not require HMT to take any further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14(1)
View HM Treasury
18 Apr 2024Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested the anti-vaccination narratives and COVID-19 vaccine rollout reports from the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology (DSIT). DSIT 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. Section 10 – complaint upheld
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Department for Science, Innovation and Technology
18 Apr 2024Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested the Equality Impact Assessment (EIA) from the Department for Transport (DfT) associated with its proposal to change rail ticket offices. The DfT refused to provide the information citing sections 35(1)(a), 43(2) and 21(1) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the DfT was entitled to withhold the requested information, under section 35(1)(a) of FOIA. He has found that section 21 is not engaged. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 21; FOI 35(1)(a)
View Department for Transport
18 Apr 2024Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information held by Oxford Direct Services Ltd(ODSL) relating to all tender exercises that have involved 1st ChoiceScaffolding. ODSL disclosed only part of the information requested by thecomplainant. It refused to provide the remaining information held, citingsection 21 – information reasonably accessible by other means, section43(1) – trade secret, and section 43(2) – commercial interests, of FOIA.At the internal review stage, ODSL withdrew its reliance on the exemptionat section 43(1) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that whilst ODSLis entitled to refuse part of the request under section 21, it did not complywith its section 16 obligation to offer advice and assistance. TheCommissioner has also decided that ODSL is entitled to rely on section43(2) in respect of only part of the withheld information. As ODSL also failed to confirm that it had considered the public interest test in respect of section 43(2), both in its original response to the request
Exemptions cited: FOI 17(3); FOI 21; FOI 43(2)
18 Apr 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested a copy of an apology letter issued by a councillor to an officer of the council. 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.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40(2)
View Devon County Council
18 Apr 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested from Telford and Wrekin Council (the Council) information relating to Stoneyhill landfill site. The Council refused to comply with 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. Therefore, the Commissioner does not require the Council to take any steps as a result of this decision. Information Tribunal FT/EA/2024/0201 appeal allowed.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(b)
View Telford and Wrekin Council
18 Apr 2024Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information held by Colyford Parish Council (the parish council) relating to its “headline figure of salary”. The Commissioner’s decision is that the parish council has failed to comply with section 16(1) of FOIA - advice and assistance. This is because the request did not have a single objective reading, and the parish council failed to seek clarification of the request under section 1(3) of FOIA. The Commissioner requires the parish council to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. Comply with section 16 of the FOIA by seeking clarification of the complainant’s request of 17 October 2023, set out within paragraph 18 of this decision notice. Once clarification has been received, the parish council must respond to the complainant in accordance with FOIA. The parish 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
Exemptions cited: FOI 16
18 Apr 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to The Christie. The Care Quality Commission (“the public authority”) refused to provide the requested information, citing section 31(1)(g) (law enforcement) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that section 31(1)(g) applies but the public interest favours disclosure. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: disclose the requested information, with redactions made under section 40 (personal information). FOI section 31(1)(g) – not upheld
Exemptions cited: FOI 31(1)(g)
View CQC
18 Apr 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from Ealing Council (the Council) in relation to a Fire risk assessment on a named property. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the Council does not hold any further information within scope of the request. The Commissioner does not require the Council to take any steps as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Ealing Council
18 Apr 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from the British Museum (Museum) regarding a contract and/or formal agreement with BP. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Museum was entitled to aggregate three requests under section 12(4) of FOIA and is entitled to rely on section 12(2) of FOIA to neither confirm or deny holding the requested information. The Commissioner is also satisfied that the Museum met its obligations under section 16 by offering advice and assistance. FOI section 12(4) – complaint not upheld, section 12(2) complaint not upheld, Section 16 – complaint not upheld. Information Tribunal FT/EA/2024/0190 under appeal.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12; FOI 16
View British Museum
18 Apr 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested pre-application planning advice relating to a specific property. Northumberland County Council (the “council”) withheld the information under the exception for the confidentiality of proceedings (regulation 12(5)(d)). The Commissioner’s decision is that the council correctly withheld the requested information under regulation 12(5)(d). The Commissioner does not require further steps. EIR 12(5)(d) – not upheld.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(d)
View Northumberland County Council
18 Apr 2024Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from the Chief Constable of the Police Service of Northern Ireland (PSNI). 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 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 public authority to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation.Either issue a refusal notice, that cities an exemption from the duty to confirm or deny that the information is held; orConfirm or deny that it holds the information within the scope of the request; andHaving confirmed whether or not information is held within the scope of the request; either disclose the requested information or, to the extent that information is to be withheld, issue a refusal notice in accordance with the requirements of section 17 o
Exemptions cited: FOI 17(3)
View Police Service of Northern Ireland
17 Apr 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested copies of an educational psychologist report and related correspondence. The London Borough of Sutton (“the Council”) refused to provide the educational psychologist report and correspondence, citing section 40(2) (personal data) of FOIA. During the course of the Commissioner’s investigation the Council also sought to rely on section 12 (cost limits) to refuse the request, only to later withdraw its reliance on this provision. The Commissioner’s decision is that information within scope of the request does constitute third party personal data, and that disclosure of it would breach the data protection principles. Therefore the Council is entitled to rely on section 40(2) to withhold the information. The Commissioner does not require any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40(2)
View London Borough of Sutton
17 Apr 2024Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information about the formulation of Oldham’s Town Investment Plan. Oldham Council (the Council) provided some information and stated that other information was available online. Following an internal review the Council stated that further information relevant to the request had been identified but it was considered exempt under regulations 12(4)(e) (internal communications) and 12(5)(f) (interests of the provider), 12(5)(e) (confidentiality of commercial or industrial information) and 13 (personal data) of the EIR. During the course of the Commissioner’s investigation the Council stated that it was now relying on regulation 12(4)(b) (manifestly unreasonable) of the EIR on the grounds that to comply with the request would incur an unreasonable burden on its resources. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council is entitled to rely on regulation 12(4)(b) (manifestly unreasonable) to refuse to provide the requested information. However, he finds that the Cou
Exemptions cited: EIR 11; EIR 12(4)(b); EIR 9
View Oldham Council
17 Apr 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to three named, deceased, individuals. NHS England ultimately disclosed some information, denied holding some information, and refused to provide the remainder, citing section 21 (information accessible to applicant by other means) of FOIA. The Commissioner investigated its application of section 21. The Commissioner’s decision is that NHS England is entitled to apply section 21. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken as a result of this decision.FOI Section 21 complaint not upheld
Exemptions cited: FOI 21
View NHS England
17 Apr 2024Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to the potential awarding of a peerage to Alister Jack MP .The Commissioner’s decision is that the Cabinet office was not entitled to rely on section 37(2)(b), read together with section 37(1)(a), to neither confirm nor deny that it held the requested information as the public interest did not favour maintaining the exemption. The Commissioner further decided that the Cabinet Office was also not entitled to rely on section 40(5B)(a)(i) to neither confirm nor deny the requested information is held. The Commissioner’s decision is therefore that the Cabinet Office has breached section 1(1)(a) of FOIA in that it failed to confirm nor deny whether it held information within the scope of the request. The Commissioner requires the Cabinet Office to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. The Cabinet Office must confirm or deny that it holds the requested information. If it does hold the information, disclose it, or
Exemptions cited: FOI 37(2); FOI 40(5)(b)(a)(i)
View Cabinet Office