13 Mar 2024Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS). 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 Crown Prosecution Service
13 Mar 2024Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has submitted a 10-part request to Kent Community Health NHS Foundation Trust (‘the Trust’) about autism-ADHD assessments. The Trust provided information relevant to seven parts, confirmed it doesn’t information relevant to one part and relied on section 12 of FOIA to refuse two parts. Section 12 concerns the cost of complying with a request. With regard to the four parts of the request in scope of this investigation, the Commissioner’s decision is as follows: On the balance of probabilities, the Trust holds no further information within scope of part 2 and part 6 of the request. However, the Trust didn’t comply with section 1(1) and 10(1) of FOIA with regard to part 6 as it didn’t confirm it doesn’t hold relevant information within the statutory timeframe. The Trust is entitled to rely on section 12 of FOIA to refuse part 1 of the request. There was no duty to offer advice and assistance in respect of part 1 or part 5 of the request and as such there was no breach of s
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10; FOI 12; FOI 16
View Kent Community Health NHS Foundation Trust
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
13 Mar 2024Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The Commissioner’s decision is that Kent Community Health NHS Foundation Trust (‘the Trust’) doesn’t hold the requested information about autism assessment outcomes but that it didn’t comply with section 1(1)(a) and 10(1) of FOIA. This is because the Trust didn’t confirm it doesn’t hold the information within the statutory timeframe. It’s not necessary for the Trust to take any corrective steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10
View Kent Community Health NHS Foundation Trust
13 Mar 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The Commissioner’s decision is that Kent Community Health NHS Foundation Trust (‘the Trust’) has satisfactorily addressed the complainant’s request for outcomes of particular autism assessments and has complied with section 1(1) of FOIA. It’s not necessary for the Trust to take any corrective steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Kent Community Health NHS Foundation Trust
13 Mar 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from London Borough of Hillingdon for the numbers of individuals placed on the Restricted Persons Register between 1st January 2020 and 31 December 2022 by year.The Commissioner’s decision is that, on a balance of probabilities, LBH does not hold the requested information. The Commissioner does not require LBH to take any further steps to ensure compliance with the legislation.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Hillingdon Council
13 Mar 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The Commissioner’s decision is that the Kent Community Health NHS Foundation Trust (‘the Trust’) correctly applied section 43(2) of FOIA to the request for an autism assessment report template. This exemption concerns commercial interests. It’s not necessary for the Trust to take any corrective steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 43
View Kent Community Health NHS Foundation Trust
13 Mar 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about the Culture, Media and Sport Committee’s decision to write to broadcasters and social media platforms in the wake of allegations about Russell Brand. The House of Commons (HoC) would neither confirm nor deny that it held information falling within scope of the request, citing section 34(2) (Parliamentary privilege) of FOIA. It issued a certificate under section 34(3) confirming that the exemption applied. The Commissioner’s decision is that section 34(2) of FOIA was correctly applied.
Exemptions cited: FOI 34
View Corporate Officers of the House of Commons
13 Mar 2024Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested various information in respect of a return flight the then Prime Minister took from London Stanstead airport to Valley Anglesey on a specified date. The Cabinet Office provided some information, but refused to provide details of the cost of hiring the plane, citing section 22 (information intended for future publication) FOIA. During the course of the Commissioner’s investigation the Cabinet Office disclosed the withheld information. The Commissioner has recorded a breach of section 10(1) (time for compliance) FOIA as a result of the Cabinet Office failure to provide the information within the statutory timescales specified under the FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Cabinet Office
12 Mar 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about defined contribution pension schemes and the usage of annual leave entitlements by NHS staff. NHS England confirmed that it did not hold the requested information under section 1(1)(a) FOIA. The Commissioner considers that on the balance of probabilities NHS England does not hold the requested information under section 1(1)(a) FOIA. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View NHS England
12 Mar 2024Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request the Ministry of Defence (MOD) seeking a range of information about the Army Officer Selection Board (AOSB), including “detailed selection criteria and [the] pre-set standard” against which candidates are assessed. The MOD initially responded to this part of the request by stating that it did not hold any information in scope. At the internal review stage, it explained that it had identified a “framework” which it considered to fall within the scope of the request. However, the MOD withheld this on the basis of section 26(1)(b) (defence) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the withheld information is exempt from disclosure on the basis of section 26(1)(b) of FOIA and that in all the circumstances of the request the public interest favours maintaining the exemption. However, it did breach section 17(1) of FOIA by failing to provide the complainant with a refusal citing section 26(1)(b) with 20 working days of the request.
Exemptions cited: FOI 17; FOI 26
View Ministry of Defence
12 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 Haringey Council
12 Mar 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about risk assessments for preventing transmission of Covid-19 at 10 Downing Street. The Cabinet Office disclosed one risk assessment document and stated no further information in scope of the request was held. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Cabinet Office has complied with its obligations under section 1 of the FOIA and provided all the recorded information it holds in scope of the request.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Cabinet Office
12 Mar 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information from Bristol City Council relating to a specific planning application and development.
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 Commissioner does not require the Council to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 5(1)
View Bristol City Council
12 Mar 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from Hackney London Borough Council (‘the Council’), relating to an innovation application and a third-party demonstration. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council, on the balance of probabilities, has conducted adequate searches for the requested information and does not hold any information within the scope of question The Commissioner does not require further steps
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View London Borough of Hackney
12 Mar 2024Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested complaints-related information submitted about a named asylum seekers’ accommodation provider over a specified time period. The Home Office provided a summary of the numbers of complaints broken down into various categories together with the redacted complaint notification emails, but withheld the content of each complaint (or ‘service request’) citing section 40(2) of FOIA – the exemption for personal information. The complainant is concerned only with the service request information, which has been withheld in its entirety, but he is happy for any ‘personal data’ to be withheld. The Commissioner’s decision is that not all of the withheld information is personal information and that it can be partially redacted to remove identifying material; something which the Home Office accepted during the investigation. The Commissioner requires the Home Office to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation within 35 calendar days of the date of th
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View Home Office
12 Mar 2024Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has made three requests for information from Bristol City Council relating to a specific planning application and development. The Council aggregated all three requests and refused to comply with them on the grounds of cost under regulation 12(4)(b) (manifestly unreasonable requests) of the EIR. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council is entitled to aggregate Request 1 and Request 2 and refuse to comply with them under Regulation 12(4)(b). However, the Council is not entitled to aggregate Request 3. The Commissioner requires the Council to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: Issue a fresh response to Request 3 (Council reference 39640709). The Council should either disclose the information or, in respect of any information it intends to withhold, issue a refusal notice within the meaning of regulation 14 of the EIR providing a basis for withholding information. In doing so, the Council should note the points raised in ‘Other matte
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(b)
View Bristol City Council
12 Mar 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a multipart request to the Ministry of Defence (MOD) seeking information about a UK drone strike in Syria in 2015 which killed three individuals, two of whom were UK nationals. The MOD confirmed that it held information falling within the scope of the request but sought to refuse this on the basis of range of exemptions, namely section 23(1) or section 24(1) cited in the alternative for parts 1-3 of the request, section 23(1) for parts 4a) to c) of the request; and sections 26 (defence), 27 (international relations), 35(1)(a) (formulation or development of government policy), 35(1)(c) (Law officers’ advice) and 42 (legal professional privilege) of FOIA for various parts of the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the information in scope of parts 1 to 3 of the request is exempt from disclosure on the basis of section 23(1) or section 24(1) of FOIA, and that the information in the scope of parts 4a) to c) of the request is exempt from disclosure on the
Exemptions cited: FOI 23; FOI 24
View Ministry of Defence
12 Mar 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about the awarding of a peerage to Evgeny Lebedev. The Cabinet Office refused the request, citing section 37(1)(b) (The conferring by the Crown of any honour or dignity) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that section 37(1)(b) of FOIA was applied correctly to withhold the requested information. However, the Commissioner found that the Cabinet Office did not complete its deliberations on the balance of the public interest within a reasonable time, which was a breach of section 17(3) of FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 37
View Cabinet Office
12 Mar 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to the Ministry of Defence (MOD) seeking a range of information about how assessors at the Army Officer Selection Board (AOSB) assess and mark candidates. The MOD withheld the information falling within the scope of this request on the basis of section 26(1)(b) (defence) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the withheld information is exempt from disclosure on the basis of section 26(1)(b) of FOIA and that in all the circumstances of the request the public interest favours maintaining the exemption.
Exemptions cited: FOI 26
View Ministry of Defence
12 Mar 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested Boad of Governors meeting minutes and pupil statistics. Hensall Community Primary School (“the School”) refused the request as vexatious. The Commissioner’s decision is that the request was vexatious and the School was entitled to rely on section 14(1) to refuse it. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14(1)
View RENDELL PRIMARY SCHOOL
12 Mar 2024Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from North Lincolnshire Council (“the Council”) relating to the names and contact details of senior Council Officers.
The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council is not entitled to rely on section 21 (information accessible to the applicant by other means) to withhold the requested information.
The Commissioner requires the Council to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation.
Disclose the withheld information.
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 21
View North Lincolnshire Council
11 Mar 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant made a 15-part request about the Government Legal Department’s (‘GLD’) roles and responsibilities. GLD addressed each part of the request, stating that some information was not held. It said that one part was not a request for recorded information and the remainder was exempt by virtue of section 21 of FOIA (reasonably accessible to applicant by other means). GLD provided advice and assistance as per section 16 of FOIA for some parts of the request. Ultimately, GLD explained that the majority of the requested information was not held and that section 21 of FOIA only applied to one part of the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, where stated GLD does not hold the information requested. He also finds that GLD was entitled to rely on section 21 of FOIA for part of the request and that it complied with its advice and assistance obligations under section 16 of FOIA. No steps are required as a result of this notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 16; FOI 21
View Government Legal Department
11 Mar 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The Commissioner’s decision is that the Valuations Office Agency (VOA) is entitled to withhold information about demolished properties under section 44(1)(a) of FOIA as there’s a prohibition on its disclosure. It’s not necessary for VOA to take any corrective steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14
View Valuation Office Agency
11 Mar 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested the model of all Metrocount devices used to record traffic in September 2022. The Royal Borough of Greenwich (the Council) stated the information was not held. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the requested information is not held by the Council. The Commissioner does not require any steps as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Royal Borough of Greenwich
11 Mar 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The Commissioner’s decision is that the National Lottery Community Fund is entitled to rely on section 36(2)(c) of FOIA to withhold the requested information about funding recipients. This is because disclosure would be likely to otherwise prejudice the effective conduct of public affairs. It’s not necessary for the National Lottery Community Fund to take any corrective steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 36
View The National Lottery Community Fund
11 Mar 2024Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to several complaints adjudicated by Croydon Council. The LGSCO provided some information and refused to provide other information under section 14(2). The Commissioner’s decision is that the LGSCO has complied with section 1 of FOIA by providing recorded information in scope of part of the request. The Commissioner finds the LGSCO incorrectly applied section 14(2) to refuse to provide other information but section 40(2) does provide a basis for refusing this part of the request. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 14(2); FOI 40
View Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman
11 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 Southend-on-Sea City Council
11 Mar 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, Liverpool University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust (‘the Trust’) doesn’t hold the requested explanation about two “contradictory” answers and has complied with section 1(1)(a) and 10(1) of FOIA. It’s not necessary for the Trust to take any corrective steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10
View Liverpool University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust
11 Mar 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about the employment of a named Council officer. City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council (the Council) withheld the information under section 40(2) (personal data) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has correctly relied on section 40(2) of FOIA. The Commissioner does not require any steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council
11 Mar 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested a copy of “any action plan or similar document” on how to increase the use of facial recognition in policing. The Home Office refused to disclose the requested information citing section 35(1)(a) of FOIA (the exemption for the formulation or development of government policy). Following its internal review, the Home Office maintained that section 35(1)(a) applied to all the withheld information but additionally relied on sections 31(1)(a) (the exemption for the prevention or detection of crime) and 40(2) (the exemption for personal information) of FOIA for some parts of the information in scope of the request. During the latter stages of the Commissioner’s investigation, the Home Office said it no longer wished to rely on section 31(1)(a) of FOIA. In addition, the complainant confirmed that she was not concerned with the information being withheld under section 40(2) of FOIA so the Commissioner has disregarded this aspect. The Commissioner’s decision is tha
Exemptions cited: FOI 35
View Home Office
11 Mar 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from Gloucestershire County Council (“the Council”) relating to its children’s social services department.
The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council is entitled to rely on section 12(1) (cost limit) to refuse to comply with the request. He also finds that the Council met its obligations under section 16(1) of FOIA to offer advice and assistance.
The Commissioner does not require the Council to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12(1); FOI 16
View Gloucestershire County Council
11 Mar 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested from Homes England information relating to redemption of Help to Buy loans . The above public authority (“Homes England”) relied on section 12 of FOIA (cost of compliance) to refuse the request.
The Commissioner’s decision is that the public authority was entitled to rely on section 12(1) of FOIA to refuse the request. The Commissioner also finds that the public authority complied with its section 16 obligation to offer advice and assistance.
3. The Commissioner does not require further steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12
View Homes England
11 Mar 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to personal data breaches. The University of Birmingham (‘the University’) refused the entirety of the request under section 31(1)(a) (law enforcement). The Commissioner’s decision is that the University was correct to withhold the information it did under section 31(1)(a). The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 31
View The University of Birmingham
11 Mar 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The Commissioner’s decision is that Ofgem is entitled to withhold the requested information about an Independent Distribution Network Operators licence under section 44(1) of FOIA as there’s a prohibition on its disclosure. It’s not necessary for Ofgem to take any corrective steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 44
View Office of Gas and Electricity Markets
11 Mar 2024Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about a potential appearance by Sue Gray before a House of Commons Select Committee.
The above public authority (“the Cabinet Office”) relied on section 36 of FOIA (prejudice to the effective conduct of public affairs) to withhold the information.
The Commissioner’s decision is that the Cabinet Office has correctly applied section 36(2)(b)(i), 36(2)(b)(ii) and 36(2)(c) to the withheld information.
The Commissioner considers that the Cabinet Office has breached section 17(3) of FOIA by failing to complete its deliberations on the balance of the public interest within a reasonable time.
The Commissioner does not require further steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 17(3); FOI 36(2)(b)(i); FOI 36(2)(b)(ii); FOI 36(2)(c)
View Cabinet Office
9 Mar 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested communications between AECC University College’s senior management team and the Universities & Colleges Employers Association. AECC University College (‘the University’) originally refused the request under section 43(2) of FOIA (commercial interests). Its position now is that it doesn’t hold the requested information. 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. Information Tribunal FT/EA/2024/0098 appeal withdrawn.
Exemptions cited: FOI 43(2)
8 Mar 2024Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information relating to Surrey County Council’s (the Council) decision to approve works without a Temporary Traffic Regulation Order. The Council provided some of the information falling within scope of the request but refused to disclose the remainder of the information citing regulation 12(5)(f) (interest of the confider) of EIR as the basis for doing so.
The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has failed to demonstrate that the exception in regulation 12(5)(f) is engaged.
The Commissioner requires the Council to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation.
Disclose the withheld information or issue a fresh response that does not rely on regulation 12(5)(f).
The public authority must take these steps within 35 calendar days of the date of this decision notice. Failure to comply may result in the Commissioner making written certification of this fact to the High Court pursuant to section 54 of the Act and may
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(f)
View Surrey County Council
8 Mar 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested copies of communication between any member of The Royal Parks (“TRP”) and the managing agent of the properties let out to third parties over a 24 month time period. TRP relied on section 12 of FOIA (cost of compliance) to refuse the request.
The Commissioner’s decision is that the public authority was entitled to rely on section 12(1) of FOIA to refuse the request. The Commissioner also finds that the public authority 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
View Royal Parks
8 Mar 2024Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information from Mid Sussex District Council (“the Council”) relating to a specific planning application.
The Commissioner’s decision is that on the balance of probabilities, the Council does not hold further information within the scope of the request which has not already been disclosed to the complainant or withheld under an exception. He also finds that the Council is entitled to rely on regulation 12(5)(b) (course of justice) to withhold some information within the scope of the request.
The Commissioner finds that the Council is entitled to rely on regulation 13(1) (personal data) to withhold some information within the scope of the request. However, it is not entitled to rely on regulation 13(1) to withhold a payment reference.
The Commissioner requires the Council to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation.
Disclose the withheld payment reference to the complainant.
The Council must take these steps within
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(b); EIR 13(1); EIR 5(1)
View Mid Sussex District Council
8 Mar 2024Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information regarding the use of battens to reinforce roofs. The London Borough of Lambeth (“the Council”) relied on section 12 of FOIA (cost of compliance) to refuse the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council was entitled to rely on section 12(1) of FOIA to refuse the request. The Commissioner also finds that the Council did not comply with its section 16 obligation to offer advice and assistance. The Commissioner requires the Council to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. Provide the complainant with appropriate advice and assistance to help them submit a request that falls within the appropriate limit.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12(1); FOI 16
View London Borough of Lambeth
8 Mar 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested the unit cost paid to NHS Supply Chain Coordination Ltd (SCCL) for the purchase of certain items. SCCL refused to provide the requested information, citing section 43(2) (commercial interests) of FOIA. Later SCCL also cited section 41(1) of FOIA (information provided in confidence). The Commissioner’s decision is that SCCL appropriately withheld the requested information under section 43(2) of FOIA. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 43(2)
8 Mar 2024Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested a range of accounting information. Goldshaw Booth Parish Council (the “council”) provided some information. The complainant considers that the council failed to deal with their request in accordance with the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council has not complied with section 1(1) of the FOIA and that it has failed to do this in the timeframe set in section 10(1). The Commissioner requires the council issue a new response which either confirms or denies whether the requested information is held and, where it is held, provides it; or cites a relevant provision which removes this duty. In doing so the council should note the observations contained in this decision notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1(1); FOI 10(1)
8 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 Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office
7 Mar 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about ICO case logs and meetings minutes related to the Facewatch decision making process as well as copies of ICO policy and performance management documents. The Information Commissioner’s Office (‘the ICO’) relied on section 21 of FOIA (information accessible by other means) for the part of the request concerning ICO policy and performance management documents and section 42 of FOIA (legal professional privilege) to withhold the remainder of the requested information. The Commissioner’s decision is that the ICO is entitled to rely on sections 21 and 42 of FOIA to withhold the requested information. The Commissioner does not require further steps. Information Tribunal appeal UA-2025-000432-GIA PTA refused.
Exemptions cited: FOI 21; FOI 42
View Information Commissioner
7 Mar 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information regarding the UK Youth Mobility Scheme under Immigration Rules.
The Home Office relied on section 12 (cost limit) of FOIA to refuse the request.
The Commissioner’s decision is that the Home Office was entitled to refuse to comply with the request in accordance with section 12(1).
The Commissioner finds that the Home Office has complied with its obligations under section 16 of FOIA to offer advice and assistance.
The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12(1); FOI 16
View Home Office
7 Mar 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested a copy of the Honours Secretaries' Handbook and related validation forms. The Cabinet Office disclosed the forms in full, and the Handbook with redactions made under sections 23(1) (Information supplied by, or relating to, bodies dealing with security matters) or 24(1) (National security) in the alternative, section 37(1)(b) (The conferring by the Crown of any honour or dignity) and section 40(2) (Personal information) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that section 37(1)(b) was applied correctly to all of the withheld information. The Cabinet Office did not complete its deliberations on the balance of the public interest within a reasonable time, and therefore breached section 17(3) of FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 37
View Cabinet Office
7 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
7 Mar 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested members lists’ for the Guild of Cambridge Benefactors and the University Vice Chancellor’s Circle. The University of Cambridge (“the University”) withheld the information under sections 40(2) (personal data) and 43(2) (commercial interests) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the University correctly relied on sections 43(2). Due to this decision, it has not been necessary for the Commissioner to consider the application of other exemptions. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 43(2)
View The University of Cambridge
7 Mar 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information about a complaint they had made in respect of a communications mast near their home. Luton Borough Council refused to comply with the request on the basis that it was vexatious under regulation 12(4)(b) (manifestly unreasonable requests) of the EIR. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council is entitled to refuse to comply with the request under regulation 12(4)(b). The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)
View Luton Borough Council