21 Mar 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested the DBS checks made on a named landlord. The Council of the Borough of South Tyneside (“the Council”) refused the request on the basis of section 14(1) (vexatious requests) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council were entitled to refuse the request on the basis of section 14(1). The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14(1)
View South Tyneside Council
21 Mar 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the ICO doesn’t hold any further information within scope of the complainant’s request for information regarding Devon and Cornwall Police and their time arrangements for processing information requests.The ICO has complied with section 1(1)(a) and 10(1) of FOIA and it’s not necessary for the ICO to take any corrective steps.This decision notice concerns a complaint made against the Information Commissioner (‘the Commissioner’). The Commissioner is both the regulator of FOIA and a public authority subject to FOIA. He’s therefore under a duty as regulator to make a formal determination of a complaint made against him as a public authority. It should be noted, however, that the complainant has a right of appeal against the Commissioner’s decision, details of which are given at the end of this notice. In this notice the term ‘ICO’ is used to denote the ICO dealing with the request, and the term ‘Commissioner’ denotes th
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10
View Information Commissioner
21 Mar 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information obtained by the Serious Fraud Office (SFO) during its criminal investigation into Airbus SE (Airbus) that resulted in a Deferred Prosecution Agreement (DPA) in January 2020. The SFO confirmed it holds information, but refused to provide it, citing sections 30(1)(b)(c) (investigations and proceedings), 31(1)(a)(b)(c) (law enforcement), 40(2) (personal information) and 27(1)(a) (international relations) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that section 27(1)(a) is engaged in respect of all the requested information, and that the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosing the information. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: FOI 27
View Serious Fraud Office
21 Mar 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant made multiple requests for information relating to a road development from Buckinghamshire Council (the Council). The Council refused the requests under regulation 12(4)(b) of the EIR (manifestly unreasonable). The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council is entitled to refuse all the requests under regulation 12(4)(b). The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(b)
View Buckinghamshire Council
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 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
21 Mar 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested specific information about a ‘Domestic Homicide Report’ that was commissioned by the Safer Waverly Partnership. Guildford Borough Council responded that it did not hold the requested information. The Commissioner’s decision is that the information is not held. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Guildford Borough Council
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
20 Mar 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information about a specific property. Newport City Council (the Council) disclosed the information held relevant to the request, subject to some information being redacted under regulation 13 (personal data) of the EIR. The complainant considered that additional information was held relevant to the request. During the course of the Commissioner’s investigation, the Council disclosed some of the information it had originally redacted under regulation 13 of the EIR. It also introduced reliance on section 38 (health and safety) of the FOIA in relation to other information. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities the Council does not hold any additional information relevant to the request, other than the redacted documents it has disclosed. The Commissioner has also determined that the Council correctly relied on regulation 13 of the EIR in respect of the remaining information held relevant to the request. The Commissioner does not re
Exemptions cited: EIR 13; EIR 5
View Newport City Council
20 Mar 2024Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from Financial Ombudsman Service Limited (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 provide a substantive response to the request in accordance with its obligations under FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
20 Mar 2024Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information about dog breeding and pet selling licences issued to a specific breeder. Warrington Borough Council (the “council”) refused the request under the exemptions for personal information (section 40(2)) and commercial interests (section 43(2)). The Commissioner’s decision is that the council wrongly applied section 40(2) to the information and that, whilst the exemption in section 43(2) is engaged, the public interest favours disclosing the information. The Commissioner requires the council to disclose the licences specified in part 1 of the request.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40(2); FOI 43(2)
View Warrington Council
20 Mar 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested from Lancashire Constabulary (the Constabulary) information regarding speed cameras on the A682 between March 2022 and May 2023. The Constabulary provided some information relating to the request but refused to disclose a breakdown of the information, and withheld this under sections 31(1)(a) and (b) (law enforcement) of FOIA.The Commissioner’s decision is the Constabulary was entitled to rely on sections 31(1)(a) and (b) of FOIA to refuse to provide some of the information requested. The Commissioner does not require the Constabulary to take any steps as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: FOI 31(1)(a); FOI 31(1)(b)
View Lancashire Constabulary
20 Mar 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to a criminal investigation, from the Metropolitan Police Service (the “MPS”). The MPS would neither confirm nor deny holding any information, citing sections 30(3) (Investigations and proceedings), 31(3) (Law enforcement), 40(5B)(a)(i) (Personal information) and 42(2) (Legal professional privilege) of FOIA.The Commissioner’s decision is that section 40(5B)(a)(i) is properly engaged. No steps are required.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View Metropolitan Police Service
20 Mar 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant made a request for information relating to a variable speed limit in a certain area of the M25 motorway. National Highways has confirmed that it does not hold the information requested under section 1(1)(a) of FOIA. The Commissioner considers that National Highways was correct to confirm that it does not hold the requested information. However, the Commissioner also considers that National Highways breached section 1(1)(a) of FOIA as it did not inform the complainant within 20 working days of the request that it did not hold the requested information.The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View National Highways
20 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 NHS England
20 Mar 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about bathroom adaptions for houses. Oxford City Council disclosed some information but withheld the remainder under section 40(2) (personal information) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council is entitled to rely on section 40(2) to refuse to provide the information. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40(2)
View Oxford City Council
20 Mar 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information relating to a particular traffic reduction scheme. London Borough of Tower Hamlets (“the Council”) disclosed some information. The complainant considers that further information is held by the Council. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the Council is correct when it says that it does not hold any further information falling within the scope of the request.The Commissioner does not require the Council to take any further steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 5(1)
View London Borough of Tower Hamlets
20 Mar 2024Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
Summary wording for website: The complainant requested unpublished digital photographs taken at a named individual’s ‘leaving do’. The Cabinet Office neither confirmed nor denied holding the requested information, citing sections 31(3) (law enforcement) and 40(5B) (personal information) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Cabinet Office is not entitled to refuse to confirm or deny holding the requested information under sections 31(3) and 40(5) of FOIA. The Cabinet Office is required to confirm or deny whether or not it holds recorded information of the nature specified in the request in accordance with section 1(1)(a) of FOIA. It is also required to comply with section 1(1)(b) of FOIA unless it does not hold any recorded information or considers some or all of it is exempt from disclosure under FOIA. If it is the latter, the Cabinet Office is then required to issue an appropriate refusal notice in accordance with section 17 of FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 31(3); FOI 40(5)
View Cabinet Office
19 Mar 2024Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information held by North Yorkshire Council (the council) about safeguarding and risk assessments associated with a Drag Queen Story Hour event held at Skipton Library. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council is entitled to rely on section 14(1)(vexatious requests) of FOIA, as its basis for refusing the request. However, by failing to issue a refusal notice within 20 working days, the Commissioner has found that the council has breached section 17(1) of FOIA. The Commissioner does not require further steps to be taken by the council.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14(1); FOI 17
View North Yorkshire County Council
19 Mar 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information relating to a planning application from Cheshire West and Chester Council (“the Council”). The Council disclosed some information within the scope of the request, however, it withheld other information citing regulation 12(5)(f) (interests of the information provider) and regulation 13 (personal data) as its bases for doing so. The complainant believes that the Council holds further information within the scope of the request. However, the Council’s position is that it has disclosed or issued a valid refusal notice for all of the information held within the scope of the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that: on the balance of probabilities, the Council does not hold further information within the scope of the request; the Council is entitled to withhold the information withheld under regulation 12(5)(f) (interests of the information provider) on this basis; the Council is entitled to withhold the information withheld under regulation 13 (per
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(f); EIR 13; EIR 5(1)
View Cheshire West and Chester Council
19 Mar 2024Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested statistical information about the number of employees working outside the UK, or who have been given permission to. West Sussex County Council refused to comply with the request under section 12(1) of FOIA (cost of compliance). The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has correctly applied section 12(1), and has complied with the duty to provide advice and assistance under section 16. However, the Council breached section 17 by failing to issue a refusal notice within the statutory period. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12(1); FOI 16; FOI 17
View West Sussex County Council
19 Mar 2024Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about Sheffield City Council’s (“the Council”) involvement with the Prevent programme. The Council advised that it did participate in the Prevent programme but that it did not hold any of the requested information. It also provided arguments in respect of section 24 (1) (National security) of FOIA were the Commissioner to disagree with its position.The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has taken too narrow a view and it does hold information within the scope of the request. However, he finds that the Council was entitled to rely on section 24(1) of FOIA to withhold any information held. In failing to respond to the request and issue an adequate refusal notice within 20 working days, the Commissioner has found breaches of sections 10(1), 17(1) and 17(3) of FOIA. No steps are required.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10; FOI 17; FOI 24
View Sheffield City Council
19 Mar 2024Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information concerning the Resignation Honours List of Prime Minister Theresa May in 2019, particularly that pertaining to the nomination of Damehood for (then serving) Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, Cressida Dick. The Cabinet Office initially stated that they did not hold any information within parts 1.2 to 1.6 of the request. They confirmed that they held information within part 1.1 of the request but this was exempt from disclosure under section 37(1)(b) FOIA (the conferring by the Crown of any honour or dignity). At internal review the Cabinet Office confirmed that they did in fact hold relevant information within scope of part 1.4 of the request but that this was exempt from disclosure under section 37(1)(b). The Cabinet Office also revised their previous position in neither confirming nor denying (NCND) whether they held information within parts 1.3, 1.5 and 1.6 of the request. During the course of the Commissioner’s investigation the Cabin
Exemptions cited: FOI 1(1); FOI 10(1); FOI 17; FOI 37
View Cabinet Office
19 Mar 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information about the death of a named individual in a particular accommodation. The Home Office provided some information with redactions but withheld the remainder citing sections 38(1)(a) and (b) (health and safety), 40(2) (personal information) and 41(1)(b) (information provided in confidence) of FOIA. The complainant is concerned only with the information withheld in its entirety so the Commissioner has not needed to consider the redactions within the disclosed information. Furthermore, the complainant said he was not interested in the disclosure of any personal information bar that of the named individual. Section 40(2) cannot apply to deceased individuals so the Commissioner has not considered the Home Office’s reliance on section 40(2) of FOIA any further. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Home Office was entitled to rely on section 41(1)(b) of FOIA. He has therefore not deemed it necessary to consider the Home Office’s reliance on section 38 of
Exemptions cited: FOI 41
View Home Office
19 Mar 2024Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested from Tees Valley Combined Authority (‘TVCA’) information about a land sale at Teesworks. Although TVCA disclosed some information, it withheld some information about valuations, citing section 43 (Commercial interests) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the requested information is environmental information within the definition at regulation 2(1)(c) of the EIR. The request should therefore have been handled under the EIR rather than FOIA. By failing to respond to the request within the statutory time for compliance, TVCA breached regulation 5(2) of the EIR. The Commissioner requires TVCA to reconsider the information held under points (1), (2) and (8) of the request, under the provisions of the EIR, and issue a fresh response accordingly. Information Tribunal FT/EA/2024/0171 appeal dismissed.
Exemptions cited: EIR 2(1)(c); EIR 5(2)
View Tees Valley Combined Authority
19 Mar 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a two part request to the Ministry of Defence (MOD) seeking information it held regarding Boris Johnson’s visits to Ukraine and his meetings with President Zelensky. The MOD explained that it did not hold any information falling within the first part of the request and that the information it held falling within the second part of the request was exempt from disclosure on the basis of the following exemptions: 23(1) (security bodies) and 24(1) (national security) cited in the alternative, 26 (defence), 27(1)(a) and (c) (international relations), 40 (personal data). The Commissioner’s decision is that on the balance of probabilities the MOD does not hold any information falling within the scope of the first part of the request and the information it does hold in the second part of the request is exempt from disclosure on the basis of sections 27(1)(a) and (c) of FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 26
View Ministry of Defence
19 Mar 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested from the Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs (Defra) information relating to ecollars within a certain timeframe. Defra provided some information but refused other information under sections 35(1)(a) (formulation and development of government policy), 21 (information accessible to the applicant by other means) and 40(2) (personal information) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that section 35(1)(a) of FOIA is engaged and that the public interest favours non-disclosure of the information. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 35
19 Mar 2024Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested from South Ribble Borough Council (the Council) information relating to a planning application and matters regarding the planned upgrade of outdoor sports facilities at Lostock Hall Academy. The Council provided some information but relied on regulations 12(4)(e) (internal communications), 12(5)(b) (course of justice) and 13 (personal data) of the EIR to withhold the remaining information. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council is entitled to rely on regulation 12(4)(e) to refuse to comply with the request. He also finds that the Council had issued its review response in accordance with regulation 11(4) of the EIR, and it complied with its obligations under regulation 9 of the EIR to offer advice and assistance. However, the Commissioner finds that the Council breached regulations 5(2) and 14(2) of the EIR by failing to respond to the request within 20 working days. The Commissioner does not require the Council to take any further steps as a result of
Exemptions cited: EIR 11(4); EIR 12(4)(e); EIR 14(2); EIR 5(2); EIR 9
View South Ribble Borough Council
19 Mar 2024Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested ecological surveys in respect of a planning application. North Northamptonshire Council stated that the information was held but already publicly available for the purposes of regulation 6(1)(b) (information already publicly available) of the EIR. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has not demonstrated that the information is already publicly available. The Commissioner requires the Council to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: Issue a fresh response to the request under the terms of the EIR. If the Council applies regulation 6(1)(b) again, it should specifically direct the complainant to those documents it considers relevant to the request.
Exemptions cited: EIR 6(1)(b)
View North Northamptonshire Council
18 Mar 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from the London Borough of Southwark (the Council) regarding resident units and tenants. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council, on the balance of probabilities, does not hold information within the scope of the request for question 1.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Southwark Council
18 Mar 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about the numbers of current General Medical Council staff that have criminal convictions or community resolution orders, have received police warnings or cautions, or are under police investigation. The General Medical Council (‘the 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.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14(1)
View GMC
18 Mar 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information regarding a parking enforcement camera installed by the Royal Borough of Greenwich (the Council). The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the Council does not hold any further requested information.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Royal Borough of Greenwich
18 Mar 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information concerning correspondence with Prince William on the subject of homelessness and housing from the London Borough of Lambeth (the “Council”). The Council ultimately refused to comply with the request as it claimed that to confirm or deny whether any information was held would exceed the cost limit at section 12(2) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that some of the requested information, if held, would be environmental as defined by the EIR. There is no equivalent ‘neither confirm nor deny’ provision within the EIR regulations, so the Commissioner has determined that the Council was entitled to refuse those parts of the request by virtue of the exception in Regulation 12(4)(b) (Manifestly unreasonable) of the EIR. For the remainder of the request, the Council was entitled to rely on section 12(2) of FOIA. The Commissioner also finds that the Council complied with its obligations under Regulation 9 of the EIR and section 16 of FOIA to offer
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(b); EIR 9; FOI 12; FOI 16
View London Borough of Lambeth
18 Mar 2024Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information from Hertfordshire County Council (“the Council”) relating to recycling of Tesco’s products and packaging. The Council’s position is that it does not hold any information within the scope of the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council failed to comply with regulation 5(1) of the EIR as it did not interpret the request in line with the objective reading of the request. The Commissioner requires the Council to take the following step to ensure compliance with the legislation: Either disclose the correspondence it holds relating to the deposit return scheme or, if the information is exempt from disclosure under the EIR, issue a valid refusal notice.
Exemptions cited: EIR 5(1)
View Hertfordshire County Council
18 Mar 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant submitted a request for information relating to the redesigning of Central Hill Estate's MUGA. London Borough of Lambeth (the Council) refused to provide the information requested citing regulation 12(4)(b) (manifestly unreasonable) of the EIR. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council was entitled to rely on regulation 12(4)(b) to withhold the information in scope of the request and that the public interest favours maintaining the exception. However, the Council breached regulation 14 of the EIR by failing to issue its refusal notice within 20 working days. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(b)
View London Borough of Lambeth
18 Mar 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested the Trisha Jarman announcements that are onboard Northerns Trains ‘TrainFX’ system. Northern Trains Limited (Northern) refused the request under section 12(1), section 14(1), section 43(1), section 24 and section 38 of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that Northern has demonstrated the request is vexatious under section 14(1) of FOIA. He has therefore not gone on to consider the other exemptions and he requires no steps to be taken.Keywords: Trisha Jarman Announcements, train announcements, onboard sound files, TrainFX system
Exemptions cited: FOI 14(1)
View Northern Rail
18 Mar 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from DLUHC regarding the contract Barratt Developments PLC has signed regarding work to address life-critical fire-safety defects arising from the design and construction of buildings 11 metres and over, under the developer remediation contract. DLUHC has refused the request under section 14(1) of FOIA (vexatious requests) on the grounds that to comply with the request would be excessively burdensome. The Commissioner’s decision is that DLUHC is entitled to refuse the request under section 14(1) of FOIA. Information Tribunal FT/EA/2024/0128 under appeal. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14(1)
View Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government
16 Mar 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested communications about Queens University Belfast sent to and from the Vice-Chancellor of Harper Adams University (‘the University’). The Commissioner’s decision is that the University doesn’t hold the requested information for the purposes of FOIA and that it’s 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 Harper Adams University
15 Mar 2024Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information from Westmorland and Furness 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 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 issue a substantive response to the request in accordance with its obligations under the EIR.
Exemptions cited: EIR 5(2)
View Westmorland and Furness Council
14 Mar 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from Westminster City Council (the Council), regarding the decision to merge with other Council’s and the decision to end that agreement. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council was entitled to rely on section 14 when refusing the request. The Commissioner does not require any further steps to be taken. Information Tribunal FT/EA/2024/0143 appeal Allowed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14(1)
View Westminster Council
14 Mar 2024Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested copies of communications between Oxford Direct Services Ltd (ODSL) and its auditors that related to ODSL’s financial accounts for 2021-22. ODSL initially refused to provide the requested information under section 43(2) - commercial interests, of FOIA, and then upheld this decision at the internal review stage. During the Commissioner’s investigation, ODSL revised its position, and issued a fresh response to the complainant which confirmed that it was now relying on section 12(1) – cost limits, of FOIA as its basis for refusing to comply with the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that ODSL has failed to demonstrate that section 12(1) of FOIA is engaged, and therefore, it is not entitled to rely on this exemption. The Commissioner requires ODSL to issue a fresh response to the request which does not rely on section 12(1) of FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12(1)
14 Mar 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information about roads which are subject to a reduction in speed limit. Swansea Council (“the Council”) stated that it does not hold the requested information.
The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the Council is correct when it says that it does not hold the requested information. Information Tribunal FT/EA/2024/0144 appeal Allowed.
The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(a)
View Swansea Council
14 Mar 2024Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information from London Borough of Southwark (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 issue a substantive response to the request in accordance with its obligations under the EIR. 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 Freedom of Information Act and may be dealt with as a contempt of court.
Exemptions cited: EIR 5(2)
View Southwark Council
14 Mar 2024Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested a document that was about to be placed in the public domain - the impact assessment into the cost effectiveness of the COVID-19 autumn 2023 vaccination programme . The Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC) refused to provide the requested information, citing sections 21(1) of FOIA and 43(2) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that section 21(1) is not engaged but that section 43(2) is engaged regarding the withheld information and the public interest favours non-disclosure. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 21; FOI 43(2)
View Department of Health and Social Care
14 Mar 2024Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about non-crime hate incidents from West Midlands Police (‘WMP’). WMP disclosed summary information, but refused to disclose logs of individual incidents, citing sections 30(1) (Investigations and proceedings), 31(1) (Law enforcement), 38(1) (Health and safety) and 40(2) (Personal information) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that section 30(1)(a) was applied correctly to withhold the incident logs. However, it breached section 17(3) of FOIA by failing to cite valid exemptions in its initial response to the request.
Exemptions cited: FOI 17; FOI 30
View West Midlands Police
14 Mar 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested the most recent Data Strategy document from the Department for Work and Pensions. DWP provided a copy of the Data Strategy 2020 draft document and advised that this was the only version they had located.
The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, DWP does not hold any further information that falls within the scope of the request.
The Commissioner does not require any further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Department for Work and Pensions
14 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 Waltham Forest Council
14 Mar 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
In a seven-part request, the complainant has requested information from Channel 4 about complaints about bullying submitted through its ‘Speak Up’ facility. Channel 4 considers two parts of the request aren’t valid requests under FOIA. It has refused the remaining five parts under section 40(2) and 40(5) of FOIA - personal information, section 41 – information provided in confidence and section 36(3) of FOIA – prejudice to the effective conduct of public affairs. The Commissioner’s decision is as follows: Parts 3 and 4 of the request aren’t valid requests under section 8 of FOIA. Channel 4 correctly applied section 36(3) to the remaining five parts of the complainant’s request. It’s entitled to neither confirm nor deny it holds information that’s relevant to these parts as to do so would be likely to prejudice the effective conduct of public affairs. It’s not necessary for Channel 4 to take any corrective steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 36; FOI 8
View Channel 4
13 Mar 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about complaints “for the last 5 years” from NHS England (NHSE). NHSE originally withheld the information under section 21 and 22 of FOIA. This is because some of the information was already accessible to the complainant and because, at the time of the request, the remainder was intended for future publication. NHSE subsequently disclosed information relevant to the request. The complainant is dissatisfied because NHSE disclosed the information in financial years and the complainant considers it was clear that they wanted the information in calendar years. The Commissioner’s decision is that NHSE’s interpretation of the request as being for information in financial years was reasonable and that it complied with section 1(1) of FOIA. It’s not necessary for NHSE to take any corrective steps. Information Tribunal FT/EA/2024/0089 appeal dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View NHS England
13 Mar 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, Kent Community Health NHS Foundation Trust (‘the Trust’) doesn’t hold information within scope of the request for changes made to a report template and has complied with section 1(1) of FOIA. It’s not necessary for the Trust to take any corrective steps. Information Tribunal FT/EA/2024/0095 appeal withdrawn.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Kent Community Health NHS Foundation Trust