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
9 Apr 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested a list of empty abandoned properties. Newark and Sherwood District Council (the Council) withheld the information requested under section 31(1)(a) of the FOIA (law enforcement and the prevention or detection of crime). The Commissioner’s decision is that that the Council appropriately applied the exemption contained in section 31(1)(a) to withhold the information. The Commissioner does not require any steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 31
View Newark and Sherwood District Council
9 Apr 2024Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to the land at Oakwood Close, Walsall Wood. Walsall Council’s (“the council”) position is that it has provided all the information that is available. The Commissioner's decision is that the council failed to comply with section 1(1) of FOIA due to it not conducting proper searches for information falling within the scope of the request. The Commissioner requires the council to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. If it hasn’t already done so, the council must disclose to the complainant the 2003 public inquiry inspector’s report and the Aldridge / Brownhills Local Plan. The council 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.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Walsall Council
9 Apr 2024Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information relating to specific planning applications. Rochdale Borough Council (the “council”) refused the request, citing the exceptions for internal communications (regulation 12(4)(e) and interests of the information provider (regulation 12(5)(f)). The Commissioner’s decision is that the council has failed to demonstrate that the exception in regulation 12(5)(f) is engaged and that, in relation to its application of regulation 12(4)(e), the public interest favours disclosure. The Commissioner requires the council to disclose the withheld information to the complainant.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(e); EIR 12(5)(f)
View Rochdale Metropolitan Borough Council
9 Apr 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested CCTV footage of a ticket barrier area at Euston Station. Network Rail relied on section 24 of FOIA (national security), section 31 of FOIA (law enforcement) and section 38 of FOIA (health and safety) to withhold the requested information. The Commissioner’s decision is that Network Rail is entitled to rely on section 24 of FOIA to withhold the requested information. The Commissioner does not require further steps. Information Tribunal FT/EA/2024/0134 appeal withdrawn.
Exemptions cited: FOI 24
View Network Rail
9 Apr 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant sent a four-part follow-on request for information to the Crown Prosecution Service (the CPS) relating to specific proceedings. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the CPS does not hold information within the scope of parts three and four the request. The Commissioner does not require any steps to be taken as a result of this decisionKeywords: HS2, Home Secretary, Attorney General.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Crown Prosecution Service
9 Apr 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information about a new detention centre in France. The Home Office initially relied on the exemptions in sections 27(1)(a) (international relations) and 40(2) (personal information) of FOIA to refuse the request. During the Commissioner’s investigation, the Home Office revised its position and instead cited section 12(1) of FOIA (the cost of compliance exclusion). The Commissioner’s decision is that the Home Office has properly relied on section 12(1) of FOIA to refuse the request. The Commissioner also considers that the Home Office has complied with its obligations under section 16(1) of FOIA to provide adequate advice and assistance. The Commissioner does not require any steps to be taken as a result of this notice.Keywords: Asylum seekers, small boats
Exemptions cited: FOI 12; FOI 16
View Home Office
9 Apr 2024Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information contained within an investigation report from Derbyshire Fire and Rescue Service (DFRS). DFRS 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
View Derbyshire Fire and Rescue Service
9 Apr 2024Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information about air pollution monitoring data. Oxford City Council refused to disclose the information under regulation 12(4)(b) (manifestly unreasonable requests) and regulation 12(4)(d) (material in the course of completion). The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council is not entitled to withhold the information under regulation 12(4)(b) or regulation 12(4)(d). The Commissioner requires the Council to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: Disclose the information.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(b); EIR 12(4)(d)
View Oxford City Council
9 Apr 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested legal advice relating to the collapse of a dormice bridge on a particular road in February 2016. Rhondda Cynon Taf County Borough Council (the Council) withheld the information requested under regulation 12(5)(b) (Legal Professional Privilege) of the EIR. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has correctly applied regulation 12(5)(b) to the withheld information. The Commissioner does not require any steps to be taken. Information Tribunal FT/EA/2024/0157 appeal dismissed.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(b)
View Rhondda Cynon Taf County Borough Council
9 Apr 2024Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested access to a number of files held by the Northern Ireland Office (the NIO). The NIO exceeded the statutory time limit for compliance in issuing a substantive response. The Commissioner’s decision is that the NIO failed to comply with sections 1(1)(a), 1(1)(b), 10(1) and 17(3) of FOIA. No steps are required.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10; FOI 17
View Northern Ireland Office
9 Apr 2024Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to the archival policies of Blackpool Aspire Academy (the school). The school 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
9 Apr 2024Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
: The complainant requested information relating to ‘small boats’, including a copy of a Lessons Learned Review which was mentioned in a 2019 ICIBI [Independent Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration] report. The Home Office denied holding some of the requested information. It refused to provide the Lessons Learned Review, citing sections 27 (international relations), 31 (law enforcement), 35 (formulation of government policy) and 40 (personal information) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Home Office was entitled to rely on sections 27(1)(a) and 31(1)(a)(b)(e) of FOIA to withhold information within the requested review. However, he finds that while section 35(1)(a) is engaged, the public interest favours disclosing some of the information caught by this exemption. The Commissioner requires the Home Office to take the following step to ensure compliance with the legislation: disclose the recommendations, withheld only by virtue of section 35, within the ‘Summary of R
Exemptions cited: FOI 27; FOI 31; FOI 35
View Home Office
9 Apr 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from HM Revenue and Customers (HMRC) in relation to the impact of changes to the National Minimum Wage on the Tax Gap and Compliance Yield. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, HMRC does not hold information within the scope of the request. The Commissioner does not require HMRC to take any steps as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
8 Apr 2024Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from East Riding of Yorkshire Council (“the Council”) relating to East Yorkshire Parent Carer Forum.The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council is entitled to rely on section 12(1) (cost limit) of FOIA to refuse to provide the information requested in parts 2 and 3 of the request. 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 requires the Council to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation.The Council must provide the complainant with advice and assistance to help them submit a request falling within the appropriate limit.The Council 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 o
Exemptions cited: FOI 12(1); FOI 16
View East Riding of Yorkshire Council
8 Apr 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (‘MHRA’), relating to data gathered about a cohort of pregnant women via the Yellow Card Monitor. The MHRA cited section 22 of FOIA and refused to provide the requested information because it was intended for future publication. The Commissioner’s decision is that the MHRA was correct to apply section 22 of FOIA at the time of the request. No steps are required as a result of this notice. Information Tribunal FT/EA/2024/0169 appeal dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 22
View Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency
8 Apr 2024Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from Liverpool City Council relating to Councillors who have received a court summons for council tax arrears. The Commissioner’s decision is that Council is not entitled to rely on section 40(2) (personal information) of FOIA to refuse to provide the withheld information. The Commissioner requires the Council to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: Disclose the withheld information.
Exemptions cited: FOI 17; FOI 40(2)
View Liverpool City Council
8 Apr 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information from Bath and North East Somerset Council (“the Council”) relating to a specific planning application and planning enforcement matter.The Commissioner’s decision is that on the balance of probabilities, the Council does not hold further information within the scope of the request that has not already been disclosed to the complainant or withheld under an exception.The Commissioner does not require the Council to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 5(1)
View Bath and North East Somerset Council
8 Apr 2024Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about the “Right Care Right Person” model from the Metropolitan Police Service (the “MPS”). The MPS refused to disclose this information citing sections 31(1)(a) and (b) (Law enforcement) and 40(2) (Personal information) of FOIA.The Commissioner’s decision is that the MPS was entitled to rely on sections 31(1)(a) and (b) of FOIA to withhold the requested information. However, in responding late to the request, it breached section 10(1) (Time for compliance) of FOIA. No steps are required.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10(1); FOI 31(1)
View Metropolitan Police Service
5 Apr 2024Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to the decision to change their address. The London Borough of Merton (“the Council”) disclosed the information within the scope of the request.The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the Council does not hold any further information within the scope of the request. However, the Commissioner finds that the Council breached section 10(1) of FOIA as some of the information within the scope of the request was not disclosed to the complainant until after the statutory 20 working days.The Commissioner does not require the Council to take any further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10
View Merton Council
5 Apr 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to the Air Travel Trust (‘ATT’). The Civil Aviation Authority (‘the CAA’) explained that it doesn’t hold the requested information for the purposes of FOIA, and therefore can’t provide it. The Commissioner’s decision is that, under schedule 3(2) (public authorities), the CAA doesn’t hold the requested information for the purposes of FOIA. The Commissioner does not require further steps. Information Tribunal FT/EA/2024/0133 appeal struck out.
Exemptions cited: FOI 3
View Civil Aviation Authority
5 Apr 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested audit information on a specific company. Companies House (“CH”) initially refused the request in reliance of FOIA section 14(1) – vexatious requests. At the time of the Commissioner’s investigation CH reviewed its position and relied on the exemptions at section 41(1) – information provided in confidence and section 40(2) – personal information. The Commissioner’s decision is that CH has appropriately relied on FOIA section 41(1) to withhold the requested information. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 41(1)
View Companies House
5 Apr 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested copies of any current contracts or formal agreements between the British Museum (the Museum) and BP. The Museum provided a number of contracts it held, but specified that no further information was held. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Museum, on the balance of probabilities, does not any additional information within the scope of the request. The Commissioner does not require further steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View British Museum
4 Apr 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information relating to planning applications for a specific site. East Lindsay District Council (the Council) provided some information and stated that no further information was held.
The Commissioner is satisfied that, on the balance of probabilities, the Council does not hold any further information relevant to the request.
The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 5(1)
View East Lindsey District Council
4 Apr 2024Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested the readiness and scaling assessments for Managed Migration used by the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) in its roll out of ‘Move to Universal Credit’. DWP relied on sections 22 and 35(1)(a) to withhold the requested information. The Commissioner’s decision is that section 22 is not engaged and whilst section 35(1)(a) is engaged the public interest favours disclosure. The Commissioner requires DWP to disclose the requested information. 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 FOIA and may be dealt with as a contempt of court. Information Tribunal FT/EA/2024/0188 under appeal.
Exemptions cited: FOI 22; FOI 35
View Department for Work and Pensions
4 Apr 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested assessment information from the Financial Conduct Authority (‘FCA’) which demonstrate the impacts of Stereotyping, Bias, Prejudice and Discrimination. The FCA relied on section 12 of FOIA (cost of compliance) to refuse the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that: The FCA was entitled to rely on section 12 of FOIA when refusing this request for information. The FCA complied with its section 16 obligation to offer advice and assistance.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12; FOI 16
View Financial Conduct Authority
3 Apr 2024Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information about an Asset of Community Value. Womenswold Parish Council (the “council”) responded but did not provide the information or cite a relevant exception. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council failed to provide a response in accordance with the EIR and breached regulation 5(2). The Commissioner requires the council either disclose the requested information to the complainant or issue a refusal notice in accordance with regulation 14 which specifies the reasons not to disclose the information requested. Information Tribunal FT/EA/2024/0112 under appeal.
Exemptions cited: EIR 5(2)
3 Apr 2024Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information held by Derby City Council (the council) about the widening and resurfacing of a local pathway. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council is entitled to rely on regulation 12(4)(b) - manifestly unreasonable, of the EIR, as its basis for refusing to comply with the request. However, the Commissioner finds that the council breached regulation 9 of the EIR by not providing the complainant with adequate advice and assistance. The Commissioner has also found a breach of regulation 11(4) as the council failed to provide its internal review response within 40 working days. The Commissioner requires the council to provide the complainant with advice and assistance to help them to submit a request that does not create an unreasonable burden.
Exemptions cited: EIR 11(4); EIR 12(4)(b); EIR 9
View Derby City Council
3 Apr 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from Cheltenham Borough Council (“the Council”) relating to Civil Enforcement Officers and secondary employment. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council is entitled to rely on section 40(5B) (personal information) to refuse to confirm or deny whether the information requested in parts 2 and 3 of the request is held.The Commissioner does not require the Council to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40(5)
View Cheltenham Borough Council
3 Apr 2024Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested communications between Adam Smyth and representatives of political parties in Northern Ireland. The BBC responded that the majority of the requested information was covered by the derogation and so was excluded from FOIA. However, the BBC also applied section 40(2) of FOIA (personal data) to a small amount of relevant information it held. The Commissioner’s decision is that the majority of the information is held by the BBC for the purposes of journalism, art or literature and so isn’t covered by FOIA. The remaining information is exempt from disclosure under section 40(2) of FOIA. The BBC breached section 10(1) and 17(1) of FOIA as it didn’t issue a response, or a valid refusal notice in respect of the personal data, within 20 working days of the request. It’s not necessary for the BBC to take any steps. Information Tribunal FT/EA/2024/0132 appeal dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 17; FOI 3
View BBC
3 Apr 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a two-part request to the University Hospitals of Derby and Burton NHS Foundation Trust (‘the Trust’) about its membership of a vascular network. The Commissioner’s decision is first, that the first part of the request isn’t a valid request for information under section 8 of FOIA. Second, the Commissioner finds that the Trust doesn’t hold recorded information within scope of the second part and has complied with section 1(1)(a) of FOIA. It’s not necessary for the Trust to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 8
View University Hospitals of Derby and Burton NHS Foundation Trust
3 Apr 2024Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information used by National Highways (NH) to make a decision to pull Costain from the Northern Trans-Pennine upgrade project A66. The Commissioner’s decision is that section 43(2) of FOIA – commercial interests is engaged, however, the balance of the public interest favours disclosing the information in this case. He further finds that the majority of the withheld information is not in scope of the request as it relates to which of the remaining providers should undertake particular work. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following step to ensure compliance with the legislation: To disclose pages 1 and 2 of the withheld information. 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 the Act and may be dealt with as a contempt of court.Keywords: A66 Nor
Exemptions cited: FOI 43(2)
View National Highways
3 Apr 2024Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from Warrington Borough Council (“the Council”) relating to Council investments.The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council is entitled to rely on section 12(1) (cost limit) to refuse to provide some information within the scope of part 1 of the request. However, he finds that the Council failed to provide reasonable advice and assistance and therefore failed to meet its obligations under section 16(1) of FOIA. The Commissioner also finds that the Council breached section 10(1) (time for compliance) of FOIA by failing to respond to the request within the statutory timeframe of 20 working days.The Commissioner requires the Council to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation.The Council must provide the complainant with advice and assistance to help them submit a request falling within the appropriate limit.The Council must take these steps within 35 calendar days of the date of this decision notice. Failure to comply ma
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 12(1); FOI 16
View Warrington Council
2 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 35 calendar days in accordance with its obligations under FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
2 Apr 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The Commissioner’s decision is that the complainant’s request for information broadly about safeguarding matters is a vexatious request under section 14(1) of FOIA. It’s not necessary for Four Oaks Primary School to take any steps. Information Tribunal FT/EA/2024/0151 appeal withdrawn.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14
View BURNT ASH PRIMARY SCHOOL
2 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 35 calendar days in accordance with its obligations under FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Ministry of Defence
2 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 35 calendar days in accordance with its obligations under FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Department for Science, Innovation and Technology
2 Apr 2024Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The internal review finding in this notice is incorrect; the Commissioner was subsequently advised that the University had provided a review response.
The Commissioner’s decision is that Lancaster University (‘the University’) is entitled to rely on section 40(2) of FOIA to withhold some of the requested information in a report. The information is the personal data of a third party and disclosing it would be unlawful. The University did, however, breach sections 1(1), 10(1) and 17(1) of FOIA in respect of the timeliness of its response to the request. It’s not necessary for the University to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10; FOI 17; FOI 40
View The University of Lancaster
2 Apr 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, NHS England (NHSE) doesn’t hold the requested information about orthodontic activity and spend and has complied with section 1(1)(a) of FOIA. It’s not necessary for NHSE to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View NHS England
28 Mar 2024Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information about a Covered Market Roof Refurbishment. Oxford City Council (the “council”) disclosed some information and withheld other information under the FOIA exemption for commercial interests (section 43(2)). The council subsequently reconsidered the request under the EIR, disclosed some information, and refused to provide the outstanding information under the exception for manifestly unreasonable (regulation 12(4)(b)). The Commissioner’s decision is that the council initially wrongly handled the request under the FOIA and breached regulation 5(1) and regulation 14(1) of the EIR but that it correctly applied regulation 12(4)(b) to refuse to provide the requested information. The Commissioner does not require the council to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(b); EIR 14(1); EIR 5(1)
View Oxford City Council
28 Mar 2024Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant submitted a request to the Ministry of Defence (MOD) seeking the evidence base for the decision to terminate a memorandum of understanding (MOU) with the League Against Cruel Sports. The MOD disclosed two photographs falling within the scope of the request but sought to withhold three further photographs on the basis of regulation 12(3) (personal data) of the EIR. The Commissioner’s decision is that one of these photographs does not constitute personal data and therefore is not exempt from disclosure on the basis of regulation 12(3). However, he is satisfied that the remaining two photographs do constitute personal data and furthermore that they are exempt from disclosure on the basis of regulation 12(3).
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(3)
View Ministry of Defence
28 Mar 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has made three requests for a variety of information, including procedures for Parliamentary Questions and meeting notes for a number of groups. The Department of Health and Social care (“the DHSC”) refused to comply with the requests, citing section 14(1) (vexatious) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the DHSC are entitled to refuse the requests under section 14(1). The Commissioner does not require further steps.Keywords: COVID-19, evusheld
Exemptions cited: FOI 14(1)
View Department of Health and Social Care
28 Mar 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested National Highways (NH) to disclose information relating to a culvert near Welkin Mill in Stockport. NH refused to comply with the request citing regulation 12(4)(b) of the EIR. The Commissioner’s decision is that NH is entitled to rely on regulation 12(4)(b) of the EIR. He does not therefore require any further action to be taken.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(b); EIR 16
View National Highways
28 Mar 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested, from Oxford Direct Services Limited (‘ODSL’), information on whether a particular company has had any business dealings with specified companies named on ODSL’s contracts list. ODSL said that it does not hold any relevant information. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on a balance of probabilities, ODSL was correct to state that it does not hold any information falling within the scope of the complainant's request for information. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
28 Mar 2024Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information about a Covered Market Roof Refurbishment. Oxford City Council (the “council”) disclosed some information and withheld other information under the FOIA exemption for commercial interests (section 43(2)). The council subsequently reconsidered the request under the EIR and refused to provide the outstanding information under the exception for manifestly unreasonable (regulation 12(4)(b)). The Commissioner’s decision is that the council initially wrongly handled the request under the FOIA and breached regulation 5(1) and regulation 14(1) of the EIR but that it correctly applied regulation 12(4)(b) to refuse to provide the information in part 3 of the request. The Commissioner does not require the council to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(b); EIR 14(1); EIR 5(1)
View Oxford City Council
28 Mar 2024Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant submitted an information request to the Cabinet Office for correspondence between the then Prince of Wales, Prince Charles, and the former Prime Minister John Major, relating to organic farming between 1 January 1993 and 31 December 1993. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the Cabinet Office does not hold the requested environmental information and therefore has complied with regulation 12(4)(a) of the EIR.The Commissioner additionally finds that the Cabinet Office was entitled to neither confirm nor deny whether they held any non-environmental information within scope of the request, under section 37(2) by virtue of 37(1)(aa) of FOIA.The Commissioner does not require further steps, as a result of this decision notice.
Exemptions cited: EIR 11(4); EIR 12(4)(a); FOI 37(2)
View Cabinet Office
28 Mar 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to selection exercises for specified judicial positions and for minutes of meetings. The Judicial Appointments Commission (JAC) provided some information within the scope of the request but withheld the remainder, citing sections 36 (prejudice to effective conduct of public affairs) and 40 (personal information) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the JAC was entitled to withhold the information by virtue of sections 36(2)(c) and 40(2) of FOIA. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken as a result of this decision. Information Tribunal FT/EA/2024/0146 appeal part allowed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 36; FOI 40
View Judicial Appointments Commission
28 Mar 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant made an information request to each of the eight Traffic Commissioners for their email address. The Office of the Traffic Commissioner (OTC) has handled the requests on behalf of the Traffic Commissioners and it refused to disclose the information in accordance with section 36(2)(c) of FOIA. During the Commissioner’s investigation the OTC withdrew its application of section 36(2)(c) of FOIA and claimed a late reliance on section 40(2). The Commissioner’s decision is that the OTC is entitled to rely on section 40(2) of FOIA. He therefore does not require any further action to be taken.
Case Reference: IC-289107-W6T7, IC-288817-B4W1, IC-289104-Q8F9, IC-288816-H3D7, IC-289103-D6T8, IC-288815-C8H1, IC-294829-S4D7, IC0288818-K0R1
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View Office of the Traffic Commissioner
28 Mar 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information which was considered by Hywel Dda University Health Board (UHB) during its investigation into a complaint about the treatment and care of a third party at Glangwili General Hospital. UHB refused to disclose the information citing sections 21 (information reasonable accessible to applicant) and 31(1)(g) (law enforcement) by virtue of section 31(2)(b) of FOIA.The Commissioner’s decision is that UHB was entitled to rely on sections 21 and 31 to withhold the information. He does not require UHB to take any further steps. Information Tribunal FT/EA/2024/0150 under appeal.
Exemptions cited: FOI 21; FOI 31(1)(g)
View Hywel Dda University Health Board