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 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)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 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 requested information from Aston Community Education Trust (ACET) relating to a parent/carer governor election process. ACET refused to provide the requested information, citing section 14(1) of FOIA – vexatious request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the request was vexatious and that ACET was entitled to rely on section 14(1) of FOIA.The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14(1)
View ASTON COMMUNITY EDUCATION TRUST
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
27 Mar 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested communications between members of the University Executive of Cranfield University (‘the University’) and the Universities & Colleges Employers Association. The University disclosed some relevant information and withheld the remainder under section 41 of FOIA, which concerns information provided in confidence. It subsequently also applied section 40 and 43 to the withheld information, which concern personal data and commercial interests respectively. The Commissioner’s decision is that the University doesn’t hold the requested information for the purposes of FOIA and is entitled to rely on section 3(2)(a) of FOIA to refuse the request. It’s not necessary for the University to take any corrective steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 3
View Cranfield University
27 Mar 2024Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about advice given in 2022 by the Cabinet Office’s Propriety and Ethics Team (PET) to the Prime Minister and the Cabinet Secretary relating to ministerial conflicts of interest. Specifically, the complainant requested 1) the number of occasions that the PET gave such advice to the Prime Minister and the Cabinet Secretary; 2) the number of occasions where that advice was actioned and not actioned by the relevant minister, and 3) the name of any case management database used by the PET to manage such cases.The Cabinet Office originally advised that they could neither confirm nor deny (NCND) whether they held the information requested in parts 1 and 2 of the request by virtue of section 36(3) of FOIA (prejudice to effective conduct of public affairs), and they refused part 3 of the request as vexatious under section 14(1). Following an internal review the Cabinet Office withdrew reliance on section 14(1) in respect of part 3 of the request and i
Exemptions cited: FOI 1(1); FOI 10(1); FOI 36
View Cabinet Office
27 Mar 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant wrote to the Cabinet Office, asking three questions in relation to the minimum five-week period that individuals must wait after applying for Universal Credit before receiving their first payment. The Commissioner’s decision is that question three of the request did not meet the criteria of section 8(1)(c) of FOIA and was therefore not a valid request. He is also satisfied that the Cabinet Office met its obligation under section 16 to offer reasonable advice and assistance. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken as a result of this decision notice. Information Tribunal FT/EA/2024/0107 appeal dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 16; FOI 8
View Cabinet Office
27 Mar 2024Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The public authority has failed to respond to this request within 20 working days, as specified under FOIA. The Commissioner requires it to provide the complainant with a response to this request within 35 calendar days in accordance with its obligations under FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10(1)
View Surrey Police
27 Mar 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested from Aberystwyth University (the University) information relating to communications between the University’s former Vice-Chancellor Professor Elizabeth Treasure and the Universities & Colleges Employers Association (UCEA). The University stated that the requested information is not held for the purposes of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the University does not hold the requested information for the purposes of FOIA, and the University is entitled to rely on section 3(2)(a) of FOIA to refuse the request. Therefore, the Commissioner does not require the University to take any further steps as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: FOI 3
View Aberystwyth University
27 Mar 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information from Devon County Council (“the Council”) regarding a public footpath, specifically confirmation of whether the landowners bore a consultation fee for a diversion proposal and a copy of a form sent to the landowners regarding an obstruction. The Council has withheld the information on the grounds that it is personal data under regulation 13 of the EIR. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council is entitled to rely on regulation 13 of the EIR to withhold the requested information. The Commissioner does not require further steps. Information Tribunal FT/EA/2024/0145 appeal dismissed.
Exemptions cited: EIR 13
View Devon County Council
27 Mar 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested, from Oxford Direct Services Limited (ODSL’), information on investigations regarding its employees for accepting undeclared gratuities. ODSL applied section 30(3) to neither confirm nor deny whether it holds relevant information. During the course of the Commissioner's investigation ODSL amended its decision to apply section 31(3) to neither confirm nor deny whether relevant information is held. The Commissioner’s decision is that ODSL was correct to apply section 31(3) to refuse to confirm or deny whether it holds relevant information. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 30(1)
27 Mar 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested copies of correspondence with a named individual and their solicitor. Powys County Council (“the Council”) withheld the information under sections 40(2) (personal data) and 42 (legal professional privilege) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council is entitled to withhold the information under sections 40(2) and 42. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40(2); FOI 42
View Powys County Council
27 Mar 2024Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information with regards to pre-application advice for a planning matter. Mid Devon District Council (“the council”) refused part of the request as personal data, identified another part as not being a valid request for information, and refused the remaining under regulation 12(4)(a) as information not held. The complainant disputed that the information was not held and the handling of the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that regulation 12(4)(a) is engaged to the information the council stated was not held. But he finds that the council breached regulation 14 as it did not issue a valid refusal notice. The Commissioner does not require any steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(a); EIR 14
View Mid Devon District Council
27 Mar 2024Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information from the Royal Borough of Greenwich (the public authority) in the form of correspondence about the ULEZ scrappage scheme. The Commissioner’s decision is that the above public authority breached regulation 5(2) of the EIR by failing to provide a valid response to the request within the statutory time frame of 20 working days. The Commissioner does not require further steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: EIR 5(2)
View Royal Borough of Greenwich
27 Mar 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a follow-on request for information regarding councillor’s email addresses used for Council business to Kelbrook & Sough Parish Council (the Council). The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council is entitled to rely on section 14(1) (vexatious request) of FOIA to refuse to provide the requested information. Information Tribunal FT/EA/2024/0130 appeal dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14
27 Mar 2024Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The public authority has failed to respond to this request within 20 working days, as specified under FOIA. The Commissioner requires it to provide the complainant with a response to this request within 35 calendar days in accordance with its obligations under FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10(1)
View Department for Science, Innovation and Technology
27 Mar 2024Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The public authority has failed to respond to this request within 20 working days, as specified under FOIA. The Commissioner requires it to provide the complainant with a response to this request within 35 calendar days in accordance with its obligations under FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10(1)
View Sussex Police
27 Mar 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested the DHSC to disclose any correspondence between the DHSC and NHS England that refers to paragraph 1.54 of the Long Term Plan for the six months before 23 December 2020. The DHSC responded, advising the complainant that it does not hold the requested information. The Commissioner’s decision is that on the balance of probabilities the DHSC does not hold any recorded information falling within the scope of the complainant’s request. He therefore does not require any further action to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Department of Health and Social Care
26 Mar 2024Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information from Chorley Borough Council (“the Council”) relating to the Strawberry Fields Digital Hub. The Council has disclosed some information within the scope of the request, but withheld other information under regulation 12(5)(e) (confidentiality of commercial information) and regulation 13 (personal data) of the EIR. In addition, the complainant is not satisfied that the Council has identified all of the information it holds within the scope of the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that: on the balance of probabilities, the Council has now identified all of the information it holds within the scope of the request; the Council breached regulation 5(2) by failing to comply with the request in full within 20 working days; the Council breached regulation 11(4) by failing to provide an internal review within 40 working days; the Council is entitled to withhold the information it has withheld under regulation 12(5)(e) (confidentiality of commercial inf
Exemptions cited: EIR 11(4); EIR 12(5)(e); EIR 13; EIR 5(1); EIR 5(2)
View Chorley Borough Council
26 Mar 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about a civil litigation case instituted The complainant has requested information about a civil litigation case instituted by a member of staff, against a third party, for which Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council (SMBC) met the costs. SMBC disclosed some information. It said that the withheld information, a letter of complaint, was exempt under sections 40 (Personal information) and 42 (Legal Professional Privilege) of FOIA. It said it did not hold a copy of a legal opinion independently commissioned by external auditors. The Commissioner’s decision is that section 40(2) of FOIA was applied correctly to withhold the letter and that, on the balance of probabilities, SMBC does not hold the legal opinion provided to the external auditors.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 40
View Sandwell Council
26 Mar 2024Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested minutes of meetings relating to discussions on the use of face coverings during the COVID-19 pandemic. The Cabinet Office withheld the minutes, citing section 35(1)(b) (ministerial communications) of the FOIA as its basis for doing so. The Commissioner’s decision is that section 35(1)(b) is engaged, but that the public interest favours disclosure of the withheld information. The Commissioner requires the Cabinet Office to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. • Disclose the withheld information, as identified separately to the Cabinet Office. The Cabinet Office 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 FOIA and may be dealt with as a contempt of court. Information Tribunal FT/EA/2024/0136 under appeal.
Exemptions cited: FOI 35(1)(b)
View Cabinet Office
26 Mar 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information relating to legal costs paid to solicitors/barristers by Cotham Academy School (the school) in connection with defending the claim of the land, namely Stoke Lodge Playing Fields (SLPF), from 2018 to 2023. The school refused the request as manifestly unreasonable citing regulation 12(4)(b) of EIR as the basis for doing so.The Commissioner’s decision is that the school is entitled to rely on regulation 12(4)(b) of EIR to refuse to comply with the request. However, the school has breached regulation 9 by failing to provide advice and assistance.The Commissioner requires the school to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation.• Provide the complainant with advice and assistance in accordance with regulation 9 of EIR.The school 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
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(b)
View COTHAM SCHOOL
26 Mar 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about changes to the parking warden phone line. The London Borough of Bexley (“the Council”) provided a narrative response to each part of the request, but stated that recorded information of the type sought by the request was not held. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council does not hold any recorded information within scope of all parts of the request further than that which has already been provided, either in its initial response or during the course of the Commissioner’s investigation. The Commissioner does not require any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1(1)
View Bexley Council
26 Mar 2024Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information with regards to Oxford Direct Services accounts. Oxford City Council (the council) refused the request under section 12 of the FOIA as it considered that the cost of compliance would exceed the appropriate limit set by section 12 of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that section 12 of the FOIA is not engaged. The Commissioner requires the council to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. Issue a fresh response to the complainant’s request without relying on section 12 of FOIA. 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 FOIA and may be dealt with as a contempt of court.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12
View Oxford City Council
26 Mar 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information from Rushmoor Borough Council (“the Council”) relating to a specific development.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. The Commissioner also finds that the Council complied with its obligations under regulation 9 of the EIR to offer advice and assistance.The Commissioner does not require the Council to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(b); EIR 9
View Rushmoor Borough Council
26 Mar 2024Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole Council (“the Council”) regarding the qualification and training records of individuals who had carried out risk assessments at a golf course. The Council withheld the requested information under section 40(2) of FOIA (personal information). The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council is entitled to withhold the requested information under section 40(2) of FOIA. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40(2)
View BCP Council
26 Mar 2024Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to correspondence between The Rt Hon Michael Gove MP and Baroness Michelle Mone OBE sent from their private email accounts. The Cabinet Office’s position is that the information is not held. The Commissioner's decision is that the Cabinet Office failed to comply with section 1(1) of FOIA due to it omitting to ask Mr Gove whether he holds information falling within the scope of the request at the time the request was made. The Commissioner requires the Cabinet Office to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation:• Ask Mr Gove to confirm whether he holds information falling within the scope of the request and whether he held any such information at the time the request was made. • If no information is held (or was held at the time of the request), the Cabinet Office must confirm this in writing to the complainant. • If information is held (or was held at the time of the request), the Cabinet Office must issue the
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Cabinet Office
26 Mar 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) to disclose any photographs or live footage of the accident involving Andrew Flintoff at Dunsfold Park Aerodrome on 13 December 2022. HSE disclosed the recorded information it holds. The complainant however believes HSE holds further recorded information to that disclosed. The Commissioner’s decision is that on the balance of probabilities HSE does not hold any further recorded information to that already disclosed. He is therefore satisfied that HSE has complied with the request, in accordance with its obligations under FOIA. He does not require any further action to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Health and Safety Executive
26 Mar 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
In a four part request, the complainant requested information about companies or sectors exporting to the European Union post Brexit. The Department for Business & Trade (“DBT”) initially disclosed some information for questions 3 and 4 of the request and relied on section 1 (information not held) of FOIA for questions 1 and 2. In subsequent correspondence the complainant further clarified his request and DBT responded again citing section 12 (cost of compliance) of FOIA.During the course of the Commissioner's investigation DBT confirmed that it sought to rely on section 12 (cost of compliance) of FOIA to refuse the entire request.The Commissioner’s decision is that DBT was entitled to rely on section 12(1) of FOIA to refuse the entire request. The Commissioner also finds that DBT complied with its section 16 obligation to offer advice and assistance.The Commissioner does not require further steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12(1); FOI 16
View Department for Business and Trade
26 Mar 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information about the proposal for the extension of Brett Aggregate’s operations at the Port of Ramsgate. Thanet District Council (the Council) withheld the information requested under regulation 12(5)(e) (Confidentiality of commercial or industrial information) of the EIR. During the course of the Commissioner’s investigation, the Council also sought to rely on regulation 12(5)(f) in relation to the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has correctly applied regulation 12(5)(e) to the request. The Commissioner does not require any steps to be taken. Information Tribunal FT/EA/2024/0184 appeal dismissed.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(e)
View Thanet District Council
26 Mar 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from Northumbria University (NU), regarding positions their son had applied for. NU disclosed information in scope of the request and explained that it was withholding the remainder under section 40(2) – personal information, due to small numbers and the fact it constituted special category data. The Commissioner’s decision is that NU was entitled to withhold the requested information under section 40(2) of FOIA. The Commissioner does not require any steps as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40(2)
25 Mar 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information associated with a meeting between the Rt Hon Chris Philp MP and Facewatch Ltd from the Home Office. The Home Office disclosed some information, with redactions under sections 35(1)(a) of FOIA (the formulation or development of government policy), 40 (personal information) and 43 (commercial interests). The Home Office withheld some further information (a briefing document) by virtue of section 36(2)(b)(i) of FOIA (the free and frank provision of advice). The Commissioner’s decision is that the Home Office was entitled to withhold the requested information within the readout under section 35(1)(a) of FOIA. As he has found section 35(1)(a) to apply to all the redactions within the disclosed readout, the Commissioner has not needed to consider the Home Office’s reliance on sections 40 and 43 of FOIA. He also finds that the Home Office was entitled to withhold the briefing document in its entirety by virtue of section 36(2)(b)(i) of FOIA, In both cases
Exemptions cited: FOI 35; FOI 36
View Home Office
25 Mar 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) for information relating to decision notice FS50812627. The Commissioner’s decision is that on the balance of probabilities, DWP does not hold any information within scope of the request and has therefore complied with section 1(1) of FOIA.The Commissioner does not require further steps, as a result of this decision notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1(1)
View Department for Work and Pensions
25 Mar 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information from Herefordshire Council (“the Council”) relating to conservation areas.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. He also finds that the Council complied with its obligations under regulation 9 of the EIR to offer advice and assistance.The Commissioner does not require the Council to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(b); EIR 9
View Herefordshire Council
25 Mar 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has submitted a request for information relating to a cold case murder investigation to South Wales Police. The Commissioner’s decision is that South Wales Police are entitled to rely on section 14(1) (vexatious request) of the FOIA to refuse to provide the requested information.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14
View South Wales Police
25 Mar 2024Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested correspondence related to a specified request previously made under FOIA. The Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) originally relied on section 14(1) to refuse to comply with the request, however, during the Commissioner’s investigation DWP changed its position and relied on section 12(1) as complying with the request would exceed the appropriate limit. The Commissioner’s decision is that DWP is entitled to rely on section 12(1) to refuse to comply with the request. The Commissioner does, however, find that DWP failed to provide reasonable advice and assistance in accordance with section 16 to aid the complainant in refining their request. The Commissioner therefore requires DWP to provide the complainant with advice and assistance regarding how to refine their request. 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 th
Exemptions cited: FOI 12; FOI 16
View Department for Work and Pensions
25 Mar 2024Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested correspondence exchanged between Rt Hon Rishi Sunak MP (when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer) and Theleme Partners (including named individuals). HM Treasury (“HMT”) refused to provide it citing section section 35(1)(d) (operation of ministerial private office), section 40(2) (personal data), section 41(1)(b) (information provided in confidence) and section 43(2) (commercial interests) as its basis for doing so. It upheld this at internal review. The Commissioner’s decision is that HMT is not entitled to rely on section 35(1)(d) in respect of some of the requested information. It is, however, entitled to rely on section 40(2), section 41(1)(b) and section 43(2) in respect of the remainder. The Commissioner requires HMT to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: Disclose the information identified as correspondence from Rishi Sunak in this Notice. This does not include any email addresses contained in that correspondence. HMT
Exemptions cited: FOI 35; FOI 40; FOI 41; FOI 43
View HM Treasury
24 Mar 2024Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant made a meta request to Ofgem for the information it held that had lead the officer/Ofgem to reach a decision that section 30 of FOIA applied to an earlier request they had made. Ofgem interpreted the request incorrectly but during the Commissioner’s investigation it rectified this and disclosed some information to the complainant. It withheld the remainder under sections 40 and 42 of FOIA. No complaint was made about Ofgem’s application of section 40 of FOIA. The Commissioner’s investigation therefore focused on Ofgem’s application of section 42 of FOIA and any procedural breaches of FOIA in terms of how the request was handled. The Commissioner’s decision is that Ofgem is entitled to refuse to disclose the remaining withheld information under section 42 of FOIA. He has however found Ofgem in breach of sections 1, 10 and 17 of FOIA. The Commissioner does not require further steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10; FOI 17; FOI 42
View Office of Gas and Electricity Markets
24 Mar 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested the University of Oxford (the University) to disclose communications sent and received to the Vice Chancellor in relation to a Pay and Conditions Report. The University disclosed some information but withheld the remainder citing sections 36(2)(b)(i) and (ii), 40(2) and 42 of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the University is entitled to rely on sections 36(2)(b)(i) and (ii), 40(2) and 42 of FOIA. He has also decided that on the balance of probabilities, the University does not hold any further recorded information. He has however recorded breaches of section 1, 10 and 17, as a result of the manner in which the request was handled. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 36(2)(b); FOI 40; FOI 42
View The University of Oxford
24 Mar 2024Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
to disclose internal correspondence held in relation to its handling of their first information request. The University disclosed some information but withheld the remainder, citing sections 36(2)(b)(i) and (ii) and 40(2) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the University is entitled to refuse to disclose the remaining withheld information in accordance with sections 36(2)(b)(i) and (ii) and 40(2) of FOIA. He finds that the University interpreted the information request correctly and what information falls in scope and that it complied with section 10 of FOIA, by responding to the request promptly and within 20 working days of receipt. The Commissioner does not require further steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 36(2)(b)(i); FOI 36(2)(b)(ii); FOI 40
View The University of Oxford
22 Mar 2024Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested from Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council (the Council) information regarding Serco Waste Contract. The Council refused to disclose information to questions 1 and 2 of the request and cited regulation 12(5)(e) (commercial confidentiality) of the EIR. The Commissioner’s decision is that regulation 12(5)(e) is engaged, but the public interest favours disclosure. Therefore, the Council is not entitled to rely on this exception 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 information withheld under regulation 12(5)(e) of the EIR, ensuring that any personal data is redacted where necessary.The Council 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
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(e)
View Sandwell Council
22 Mar 2024Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The public authority has failed to respond to this request within 20 working days, as specified in the EIR. The Commissioner requires it to provide the complainant with a response to this request within 35 calendar days in accordance with its obligations under the EIR.
Exemptions cited: EIR 5(2)
View Kirklees Council
22 Mar 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information held by Bristol City Council (the Council) relating to websites it operates. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the civil standard of the balance of probabilities, the Council has provided all the information it holds falling within the scope of the request and that it has complied with its obligations under section 1(1) of FOIA. However, in failing to respond to the request within 20 working days, the Commissioner has found a breach of section 10(1) of FOIA. The Commissioner does not require the Council to take any steps as a result of this decision notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1(1)
View Bristol City Council
22 Mar 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested from HM Treasury (HMT) information regarding “Introduction of earnings-related national insurance contributions (ER-NIC) 1975/76”. HMT stated it does not hold any information relating to this request. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, HMT does not hold the information falling within scope of the request, and it has complied with section 1(1)(a) of FOIA. Therefore, the Commissioner does not require HMT to take any further steps as a result of this decision. Information Tribunal FT/EA/2024/0147 appeal dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1(1)(a)
View HM Treasury
22 Mar 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested whether a manufacturer or plane owner made an application to reregister. The Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) refused to confirm or deny whether it held the requested information, citing section 44(2) of FOIA – prohibitions on disclosure. The Commissioner’s decision is that the CAA has correctly cited section 44(2) of FOIA to neither confirm nor deny (NCND) whether it holds the requested information. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 44
View Civil Aviation Authority
21 Mar 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about a named individual from the Metropolitan Police Service (the “MPS”). The MPS would neither confirm nor deny holding any information, citing section 40(5B)(a)(i) (Personal information) of FOIA.The Commissioner’s decision is that section 40(5B)(a)(i) is properly engaged. No steps are required. Information Tribunal appeal UA-2025-000490-GIA PTA refused.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View Metropolitan Police Service
21 Mar 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
21 Mar 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about the failure of electronic passport gates (‘eGates’) at Uk airports in May 2023. The Home Office refused the request, citing section 31(1)(e) (Law enforcement) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that section 31(1)(e) was applied correctly to withhold the information.
Exemptions cited: FOI 31
View Home Office