17 Apr 2024Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested copies of the minutes of meetings of the Safety Group held to discuss safety issues at Wrexham Associated Football Club matches. Wrexham County Borough Council (the Council) withheld the information requested under sections 36(2)(b)(i), 36(2)(b)(ii) and 36(2)(c) (prejudice to effective conduct of public affairs) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has correctly applied section 36(2)(b)(i) and 36(2)(b)(ii) of the FOIA to the request. The Commissioner has also determined that that the Council breached section 10(1) by failing to confirm that the requested information was held, and breached section 17(1) by failing to issue a valid refusal notice within 20 working days. The Commissioner does not require any steps to be taken.FOI 36– complaint not upheld, FOI 10 – Complaint upheld, FOI 17 – complaint upheld
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 17; FOI 36
View Wrexham County Borough Council
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 has requested information about how the Department for Work and Pensions (“DWP”) obtains and validates consent from Universal Credit claimants to issue a UC113 form to their GP. The DWP provided the complainant with some information within scope of their request for information on obtaining consent, however stated that information within scope of the remainder of their request for information on validating consent was not held. The Commissioner’s decision is that the DWP does not hold information within scope of the remainder of the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the DWP does not hold information within scope of the remainder of the request.FOI section 1 - not upheld. Information Tribunal FT/EA/2024/0189 under appeal.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Department for Work and Pensions
17 Apr 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about financial support received by Sonacare Ltd concerning urology functions or associated research. University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust (‘the Trust’) relied on section 21 of FOIA (information accessible by other means) to refuse the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Trust is entitled to rely on section 21 of FOIA to withhold the requested information. The Commissioner cannot consider the accuracy of the relevant information the Trust holds. He therefore does not require the Trust to take any steps as a result of this decision notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 21
View University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust
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 not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested from the Cabinet Office information related to honours for an actor and director Sir John Gielgud generated prior to 31 December 1962. The Cabinet Office initially refused the request citing section 14 (Vexatious requests) but following the internal review, it disclosed the information.The complainant contended that certain references in the information provided by the Cabinet Office made him believe that there might be more information within the scope of the request held by the public authority.The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the Cabinet Office does not hold any more information within the scope of the request or did hold at the time the request was made and has therefore complied with section 1(1) of FOIA.The Commissioner does not require the Cabinet Office to take any further steps in relation to this complaint.FOIA section 1(1)-Not upheld
Exemptions cited: FOI 1(1)
View Cabinet Office
17 Apr 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information relating to vehicles captured on ULEZ cameras. Transport for London (‘the public authority’) disclosed some information but confirmed it didn’t hold other information. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the public authority doesn’t hold specific information requested and therefore regulation 12(4)(a) (information not held) applies. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
EIR 12(4)(A) – NOT UPHELD
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(a)
View Transport for London
17 Apr 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested a copy of a service level agreement and information about amendments to reports that the Care Quality Commission produced on behalf of the Isle of Man Department of Health and Social Care. The Care Quality Commission (‘the CQC’) relied on section 31 of FOIA (law enforcement) to withhold the draft reports. The Commissioner’s decision is that the CQC is entitled to rely on section 31(1)(g) to withhold the draft reports. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 31(1)(g)
View CQC
17 Apr 2024Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to the Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office (FCDO) seeking information about meetings between the FCDO and the Adani Group for the period July to December 2022. The FCDO initially withheld all of the information in scope on the basis of sections 27(1)(a) (international relations), 40(2) (personal data), 41(1) (information provided in confidence) and 43(2) (commercial interests) of FOIA. During the course of the Commissioner’s investigation it disclosed some of this information. The Commissioner’s decision is that the remaining withheld information is exempt from disclosure on the basis of sections 27(1)(a), 40(2) or 41(1). The only exception to this a small amount of information in respect of which the Commissioner has concluded that section 27(1)(a) does not apply. The Commissioner has also concluded that the FCDO breached section 17(3) given the length of time it took to complete its public interest test considerations. The FCDO must disc
Exemptions cited: FOI 17; FOI 27; FOI 40; FOI 41
View Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office
17 Apr 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about Fitness to Practice Rule 17 (2g) successes at tribunal hearings. The General Medical Council (‘GMC’) refused the request under section 14(1) of FOIA (vexatious requests). The Commissioner’s decision is that the GMC was entitled to rely upon section 14(1) of FOIA to refuse the request. The Commissioner does not require further steps.FOI 14(1) - complaint not upheld
Exemptions cited: FOI 14(1)
View GMC
17 Apr 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested legal advice associated with estate management. Welwyn Hatfield Borough Council (the “council”) refused the request, citing the exception for the course of justice (regulation 12(5)(b). The Commissioner’s decision is that the council correctly applied regulation 12(5)(b) to the withheld information. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(b)
View Welwyn Hatfield Borough Council
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
16 Apr 2024Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about the Criminal Cases Review Commission’s (‘the CCRC’) review of its handling of a particular case. The CCRC referred the complainant to its media statements about the review, but it refused to disclose the remaining information it held, citing sections 36 (Prejudice to effective conduct of public affairs), 42 (Legal professional privilege) and 43 (Commercial interests) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the CCRC was entitled to apply sections 36(2)(b)(i), 36(2)(b)(ii) and 36(2)(c) of FOIA to refuse to disclose the remaining information. However, he found breaches of sections 1(1), 10(1) and 17 in its handling of the request.FOI section 1 complaint upheld, FOI section 10 complaint upheld, FOI section 17 complaint upheld, FOI section 36 complaint not upheld
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10; FOI 17; FOI 36
View Criminal Cases Review Commission
16 Apr 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about consultation on a neighbourhood management project. The Royal Borough of Greenwich (“the Council”) provided some information in the scope of the request but stated the remainder was not held. The Commissioner’s decision is that on the balance of probabilities, the Council has provided all the information it holds within the scope of the request. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Royal Borough of Greenwich
16 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. Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 10(1) – Complaint Upheld
Exemptions cited: FOI 10(1)
View Department for Education
16 Apr 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant made a request to the Cabinet Office for minutes and notes of the highest board of the Central Digital and Data Office. The Cabinet Office refused the request under section 14(1) of FOIA (vexatious requests). The Commissioner’s decision is that the request was vexatious, based on the oppressive burden that complying with the request would impose, and therefore the Cabinet Office was entitled to rely upon section 14(1) of FOIA to refuse it. The Commissioner does not require any steps to be taken.FOI section 14(1) complaint not upheld
Exemptions cited: FOI 14(1)
View Cabinet Office
16 Apr 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about the policing of a hunt from North Yorkshire Police (NYP). NYP refused to provide the requested information citing sections 31(1)(a) and (b) (Law enforcement) of FOIA. During the Commissioner’s investigation, NYP determined that the total cost of policing these events was not held, although it did hold some overtime costs which have been disclosed in this notice. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the costing information is not held. He has also determined that NYP was entitled to rely on section 31 of FOIA to withhold the rest of the information requested. No steps are required.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 31
16 Apr 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested copies of letters issued to Secretary of State Kemi Badenoch by the Cabinet Secretary or Propriety and Ethics Team. The Department for Business and Trade (“DBT”) stated that it did not hold information within scope of the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that DBT does not hold information within scope of the request. The Commissioner does not require further steps.FOI section 1(1) complaint not upheld
Exemptions cited: FOI 1(1)
View Department for Business and Trade
16 Apr 2024Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information from the London Borough of Barnet (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 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 the EIR. 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.EIR regulation 5(2) complaint upheld
Exemptions cited: EIR 5(2)
View Barnet Council
16 Apr 2024Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to film certification. The British Film Industry (BFI) provided some of the information falling within the scope of the request but withheld the remainder of the information citing section 41(1) of FOIA (information provided in confidence).The Commissioner’s decision is that BFI has failed to demonstrate that disclosure of the information would constitute an actionable breach of confidence under section 41(1) of FOIA, and therefore, it is not entitled to rely on this exemption.The Commissioner requires BFI to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation.• Disclose the withheld information or issue a fresh response that does not rely on section 41 of 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
Exemptions cited: FOI 41(1)
View British Film Institute
16 Apr 2024Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about a police officer who was filmed discharging a PAVA Irritant spray. West Yorkshire Police (“WYP”) disclosed some information, but it relied on various provisions of section 40 (Personal information) to refuse other parts of the request. However, during the Commissioner’s investigation, WYP withdrew its reliance on exemptions to withhold the information which was the subject of the complaint, and it disclosed it. The Commissioner’s decision is that WYP breached sections 1(1)(a) and (b) and section 10(1) by failing to comply with the request within the 20 working day time for compliance.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1(1); FOI 10(1)
View West Yorkshire Police
16 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. Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 10(1) – Complaint Upheld
Exemptions cited: FOI 10(1)
View Sussex Police
16 Apr 2024Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information regarding a yellow box junction. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Royal Borough of Greenwich (“the Council”) breached regulation 5(2) of the EIR by failing to provide all the requested information within the statutory time frame of 20 working days. The Commissioner does not require further steps to be taken. EIR - Regulation 5(2) - complaint upheld
Exemptions cited: EIR 5(2)
View Royal Borough of Greenwich
16 Apr 2024Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant submitted a request to the London Borough of Bexley (the Council) seeking a copy of a traffic management order. The Council responded under FOIA and confirmed that it held two orders falling within the scope of the request and said that there would be a charge of £34.00 for providing each one. The Commissioner’s decision is that request should have been considered under the EIR rather than FOIA. He has also found that under the EIR, the Council is not entitled to seek to levy any charge for disclosing the requested information because it has not published a schedule of charges under the EIR. The Commissioner requires the Council to issue a fresh response to the complainant under the EIR that does not seek to levy a charge under regulation 8.
Exemptions cited: EIR 8
View Bexley Council
16 Apr 2024Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The Commissioner’s decision is that the public authority breached section 10(1) of FOIA by failing to provide a response within 20 working days.FOI S10(1) – complaint upheld
Exemptions cited: FOI 10(1)
View Crown Prosecution Service
16 Apr 2024Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a multipart request to the Ministry of Defence (MOD) seeking information about missions flown by Reaper and Typhoon aircraft during the period January 2023 and March 2023. The MOD initially refused all parts of the request on the basis of sections 23(1) (security bodies) and 24(1) (national security) of FOIA. The complainant challenged the application of such exemptions to parts 1a and 5 of his request. At the internal review stage the MOD concluded that the information sought by these parts of the request was not exempt from disclosure and it provided this information to the complainant. The Commissioner’s decision is that the MOD breached section 17(1)of FOIA as it failed to issue its refusal notice within 20 working days of the request and furthermore also breached section 10(1) of FOIA as it failed to disclose information, which it ultimately concluded was not exempt, within 20 working days. The Commissioner does not require further steps. FOI Section 10 –
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 17
View Ministry of Defence
16 Apr 2024Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested from the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (“the DLUHC”) information relating to the proposed Learning Centre at the Holocaust Memorial in Victoria Tower Gardens. The DLUHC withheld the requested information under section 35(1)(a) (formulation or development of government policy), and parts of it under section 40(2) (personal data) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the DLUHC is entitled to withhold the requested information under section 35(1)(a). However the DLUHC breached section 17 by failing to issue a refusal notice within the statutory time. The Commissioner does not require the DLUHC to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 17; FOI 35(1)(a)
View Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government
15 Apr 2024Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested from the Financial Reporting Council Ltd (FRC) the identity of a company and related information concerning an audit quality review that had been carried out into an audit conducted by Mazars LLP. At first the FRC refused to confirm or deny (NCND) whether it held the requested information citing sections 44, 41 and 40 of FOIA. It later withdrew its NCND response and the citing of section 44. It maintained its citing of sections 41 (information provided in confidence) and 40 (personal information), additionally relying on section 27 (international relations) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the FRC cited section 27 correctly and that the public interest in favour of maintaining the exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosing the requested information. He has also decided that the FRC correctly cited section 41(1) of FOIA. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 27; FOI 41(1)
View Financial Reporting Council
15 Apr 2024Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The Commissioner’s decision is that Wyedean School and Sixth Form Centre (WSSFC) doesn’t hold any information within scope of the two requests for information about an Ofsted inspection. Regarding the request of 30 November 2023, WSSFC didn’t comply with section 1(1)(a) and 10(1) of FOIA as it didn’t confirm it doesn’t hold this information within the statutory time limit. It’s not necessary for WSSFC to take any steps. FOI 1 – complaint partly upheld; FOI 8 – complaint not upheld; FOI 10 – complaint partly upheld
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10; FOI 8
View WYEDEAN SCHOOL AND SIXTH FORM CENTRE
15 Apr 2024Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested various information in respect of a training contract with HyperionDev/CoGrammar (‘CoGrammar’). West Yorkshire Combined Authority (‘the Authority’) provided most of the information, but withheld some information on the basis of section 42 (Legal Professional Privilege) FOIA. During the course of the Commissioner’s investigation the Authority withdrew its reliance on section 42 and stated that the information it held, did not fall within the scope of item 11 of the request. In the alternative, it cited section 32 (court records), section 43 (commercial interests) and section 31 (law enforcement) FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Authority has not complied with section 1(1) FOIA in respect of item 10 of the request as it does not appear to have communicated its amended position to the complainant. He has also determined that it does hold relevant information in respect of item 11 of the request, and that it has failed to demonstrate that sections 32,
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 31; FOI 32; FOI 43
View West Yorkshire Combined Authority
15 Apr 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The Commissioner’s decision is that His Majesty’s Land Registry (HMLR) doesn’t hold the requested lists of all the documents associated with particular land titles and that the information it does hold for the land titles is exempt under section 21(1) of FOIA as it’s already reasonably accessible to the complainant. It’s not necessary for HMLR to take any steps. FOI 1 – complaint not upheld; FOI 21 – complaint not upheld. Information Tribunal FT/EA/2024/0182 appeal dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 21
View HM Land Registry
15 Apr 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information regarding the allocation of properties and information surrounding the tenancies. South Tyneside Council (‘the Council’) relied on section 40(2) of FOIA (third party personal information) to withhold some of the information and section 36(3) to neither confirm or deny holding the remaining information. The Commissioner’s decision is that: The Council has correctly relied on section 40(2) of FOIA to withhold some of the information. The Council was entitled to rely on section 36(3) when refusing to confirm or deny holding the remaining information. The Commissioner does not require further steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 36; FOI 40(2)
View South Tyneside Council
15 Apr 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information from Oldham Council (“the Council”) relating to Oldham Coliseum and the proposed construction of a new theatre. 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 in its entirety. He also finds that the Council is entitled to rely on regulation 12(4)(b) (manifestly unreasonable) to refuse to comply with parts 2 and 3 of the request. The Commissioner finds that the Council met its obligations under section 16(1) of FOIA and regulation 9 of the EIR to offer advice and assistance. The Commissioner does not require the Council to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(b); EIR 9; FOI 12(1); FOI 16
View Oldham Council
15 Apr 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information regarding the staffing levels and absences, and names and positions of those employed at Bradford County Court between 17th of March 2022 until 6th of November 2023. The Ministry of Justice (the ‘MOJ’) refused the request citing section 40(2) of FOIA (third party personal information). The Commissioner’s decision is that the MOJ was entitled to rely on section 40(2) of FOIA to withhold the requested information.No steps are required as a result of this notice.FOI s40(2) – Complaint not upheld
Exemptions cited: FOI 40(2)
View Ministry of Justice
15 Apr 2024Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from Central Bedfordshire Council (the public authority). By the date of this notice the public authority had not issued a substantive response to this request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the public authority has breached section 10(1) of FOIA in that it failed to provide a valid response to the request within the statutory time frame of 20 working days. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following step to ensure compliance with the legislation. The public authority must provide a substantive response to the request in accordance with its obligations under FOIA. The public authority must take this step within 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.FOI 10 – Complaint Upheld
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Central Bedfordshire Council
15 Apr 2024Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested from the Department for Transport (DfT) a copy of an Equality impact Assessment related to proposed redeployment of former ticket office staff. The DfT refused to provide the information citing section 35(1)(a) (formulation and development of government policy) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the DfT has correctly relied on section 35(1)(a) FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is also that the DfT has not complied with sections 1(1)(a) and 10(1) of FOIA as it did not provide a response to the complainant’s request within 20 working days.The Commissioner does not require any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10; FOI 17; FOI 35
View Department for Transport
12 Apr 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information in relation to a planning application. Lake District National Park Authority (LDNPA) disclosed information in response to the request. The complainant considered further information was held, specifically a report and records of discussions. The Commissioner’s decision is that LDNPA has complied with regulation 5(2) of EIR as it has disclosed all of the information it held within the scope of the request. The Commissioner does not, therefore, require LDNPA to take any further steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 5(2)
View Lake District National Park Authority
12 Apr 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information held by the Northern Ireland Assembly in connection with Private Members’ Bills to ban fracking. The Assembly stated that it was acting in a legislative capacity as set out at regulation 3(3) of the EIR, therefore it was not required to process the request under the EIR. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Assembly is acting in a legislative capacity, therefore the Assembly is not required to respond to the request under the EIR. However the Commissioner finds that the Assembly is required to respond to the request under FOIA. The Assembly is not entitled to refuse the request in reliance on the exemption at section 39 of FOIA. Keywords: Interpretation, access regime
Exemptions cited: EIR 3
12 Apr 2024Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested DFT to disclose the information it based its decision to add and keep South Africa on the travel list in 2021. They also requested information on the banning of flights from the small window in November 2021 from South Africa. DfT refused to disclose the information citing sections 27(1)(a) and (c) and 35(1)(b) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that section 27(1)(a) and (c) is not engaged. In terms of section 35(1)(b) the Commissioner found that this only applied to some of the withheld information, not all, and for that which it did, the public interest in favour of maintaining the exemption is outweighed by the public interest in favour of disclosure. Information Tribunal FT/EA/2024/0177 appeal allowed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 27; FOI 35
View Department for Transport
12 Apr 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested any internal correspondence relating to a BBC Panorama programme where a Trust doctor appeared. Leeds and York Partnership NHS Foundation Trust (the Trust) confirmed no notes or minutes were held but considered any internal emails were exempt under all the limbs of section 36(2) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Trust has correctly applied section 36(2) and the public interest in section 36(2)(b)(i) and (ii) outweighs the public interest in disclosure. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 36
View Leeds and York Partnership NHS Foundation Trust
12 Apr 2024Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from Staffordshire 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 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.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Staffordshire Police
11 Apr 2024Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested a copy of a final report produced by South Wales Police (SWP) that relates to Operation Dolomite. SWP disclosed a redacted version of the document, citing a number of exemptions under FOIA; section 31(1) – law enforcement, section 38 – Health and Safety, section 40(2) – personal information and section 42(1) - legal professional privilege. The Commissioner’s decision is that the exemptions cited are not applicable to all the withheld information. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: To disclose the information identified in a confidential annex which has been provided solely to SWP. The public authority must take these steps 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 the Act and may be dealt with as a contempt of court.Keywords: C
Exemptions cited: FOI 31(1)(c); FOI 38(1)(a); FOI 40(2)
View South Wales Police
11 Apr 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to ear syringing services. Lancashire and South Cumbria Integrated Care Board (“the public authority”) explained that it didn’t hold the requested information. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the public authority doesn’t hold the requested information and therefore has complied with section 1 (general right of access to information) of FOIA. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View NHS Lancashire and South Cumbria ICB
11 Apr 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to the application of section 14 from the Information Commissioner’s Office (‘ICO’). The ICO relied on section 14(1) of FOIA (vexatious request) to refuse the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the request was vexatious and therefore the ICO was entitled to rely upon section 14(1) of FOIA to refuse it. The Commissioner does not require any steps. Information Tribunal FT/EA/2024/0206 appeal dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14
View Information Commissioner
11 Apr 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested copies of briefings provided to the University of Sheffield (the University) by Horus Security Consultancy Ltd and information on how much the University has spent on services provided by Horus Security Consultancy Ltd. The University refused the request under section 41 (provided in confidence), section 43 (commercial interests) and section 40 (personal information) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the University was entitled to rely on sections 41 and 43 of FOIA to refuse the request. The Commissioner does not require further steps. Information Tribunal FT/EA/2024/0175 appeal withdrawn.
Exemptions cited: FOI 41; FOI 43
10 Apr 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested from London Borough of Harrow (the Council) information regarding the names of individuals for certain roles within the Council. The Council determined the request vexatious and refused it under section 14(1) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is the request was vexatious and therefore the Council was entitled to rely on section 14(1) of FOIA to refuse to comply with the request for information. The Commissioner does not require the Council to take any steps as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14(1)
View Harrow Council
10 Apr 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about the number of complaints received concerning a named doctor. The General Medical Council (‘the GMC’) relied on section 40(2) of FOIA (personal information) to withhold the requested information. The Commissioner’s decision is that the GMC is entitled to rely on section 40(2) of FOIA to withhold the requested information. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40(2)
View GMC
10 Apr 2024Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information concerning an area of land known as Arnold’s Fields in Rainham, East London.London Borough of Havering (the Council) confirmed that they held some information within scope of the request and provided the complainant with some documents but did not specify which of the three parts of his request these related to. In their original response the Council advised that some of the requested information was exempt from disclosure under regulations 12(4)(b)(adversely affect the course of justice), 12(4)(e)(internal communications) and 13(1)(third party personal data) of the Environmental Information Regulations 2004 (EIR) but did not explain what information these exceptions were being applied to. At internal review, the Council advised that regulation 12(5)(e)(commercial confidentiality) applied to some of the information held but did not specify such information.During the course of the Commissioner’s investigation the Council withdrew their reliance
Exemptions cited: EIR 11(4); EIR 12(4)(b); EIR 12(4)(e); EIR 13(1); EIR 5(2)
View London Borough of Havering
10 Apr 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information about people from Fujitsu and the Post Office Limited who gave assurances about the Horizon IT system as mentioned in a letter by the former Chief Executive. The Post Office Limited (‘the Post Office’) refused to comply with the request citing section 12 (cost limit) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Post Office was entitled to refuse to comply with the request in accordance with section 12(1) of FOIA. The Commissioner also finds that the Post Office complied with its obligations under section 16 to offer advice and assistance. The Commissioner does not require the Post Office to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12; FOI 16
View Post Office Ltd