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 upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested various information relating to council decisions and about councillors training and interests from Dodderhill Parish Council (“the council”). The council withheld the information, applying section 14 of FOIA (vexatious requests). During the Commissioner's investigation, the council withdrew its reliance upon section 14 of FOIA. The Commissioner has therefore decided that the council has not complied with the requirements of section 1 of FOIA, nor the requirements of section 10 of FOIA. He therefore requires the council to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. To respond to the complainant again as required by section 1 of FOIA, without relying upon section 14.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1(1); FOI 10
7 Mar 2024Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about CCTV cameras. The British Broadcasting Corporation (‘the BBC’) relied on section 38 of FOIA (health and safety) and section 31 of FOIA (law enforcement) to withhold the requested information. The Commissioner’s decision is that the BBC is entitled to rely on section 31(1)(a) to withhold the remainder of the requested information. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10; FOI 31
View BBC
7 Mar 2024Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted request to the Cabinet Office for file PREM 19/3917, “ROYAL FAMILY. Marriage and separation of Prince Andrew”. The Cabinet Office withheld the file on the basis of the exemptions contained at sections 23(1) (security bodies), 37(1)(a) (communications with the Sovereign), 40(2) (personal data) and section 41(1) (information provided in confidence). The Commissioner’s decision is that these exemptions only provide a basis to withhold some of the information contained in the file. The Commissioner therefore requires the Cabinet Office to disclose the information he has identified in the confidential annex. Information Tribunal FT/EA/2024/0113 under appeal.
Exemptions cited: FOI 23; FOI 37; FOI 40
View Cabinet Office
6 Mar 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information about training, including on matters relating to diversity and inclusion. Bedfordshire Police refused to comply with the request, citing section 12 (cost of compliance) of FOIA as its basis for doing so. The Commissioner’s decision is that Bedfordshire Police is entitled to refuse to comply with the request in accordance with section 12(1) of FOIA. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12
View Bedfordshire Police
6 Mar 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to The House of Lords Appointments Commission (HOLAC) seeking information it held relating to Ross Kempsell and Charlotte Owen both of whom received peerages in Boris Johnson’s resignation honours list. HOLAC confirmed it held information falling within the scope of the request but withheld this on the basis of sections 37(1)(b) (honours), 41(1) (information provided in confidence) and 40(2) (personal data) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the withheld information is exempt from disclosure on the basis of section 37(1)(b) and that in all the circumstances of the case the public interest favours maintaining the exemption. Information Tribunal FT/EA/2024/0108 appeal part allowed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 37
View House of Lords Appointments Commission
6 Mar 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information on any legal advice provided by the Attorney General’s Office (‘the AGO’) regarding the UK government’s response to the current Israel-Gaza war. The AGO would neither confirm nor deny whether it held some information, citing section 35(3) with section 35(1)(c) of FOIA. Together, these sections provide that the duty to confirm or deny holding information does not arise in relation to information which is (or would be, if held) exempt from disclosure because it relates to the provision of advice by any of the Law Officers. The AGO also confirmed that it held some information relating to advice provided by AGO officials, but that this was exempt from disclosure under section 42(1) (Legal Professional Privilege) of FOIA. Commissioner’s decision is that the AGO cited both exemptions correctly.
Exemptions cited: FOI 35; FOI 42
View Attorney General's Office
6 Mar 2024Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested from the Home Office copies of written communications between the then Home Secretary, Suella Braverman, and her office and civil servants where the ethnicity of grooming gangs was referenced. The complainant also asked for any research and evidence to support the Home Secretary’s claims regarding British Pakistani predominance in these gangs and related claims and any press briefings provided to her on this subject. At first, the Home Office refused to provide the information it held citing sections 27, 31, 40(2) and 42(1) of FOIA. It later decided that it did not, in fact, hold any information falling within scope. Having conducted further searches, the Home Office did locate some information that fell within scope but withheld it under section 36 of FOIA – prejudice to the effective conduct of public affairs. The Commissioner’s decision is that section 36 of FOIA is engaged but that the public interest favours disclosure. The Commissioner requires the
Exemptions cited: FOI 17; FOI 36
View Home Office
6 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 Cabinet Office
6 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
6 Mar 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested a copy of an advice document relating to pension rules from the Cabinet Office. The Cabinet Office refused the request on the basis that section 36(2)(b)(i) and 36(2)(c) of FOIA applied (Effective conduct of public affairs). The Commissioner’s decision is that the Cabinet Office was correct to apply the exemptions cited to withhold the information from disclosure. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 36(2)(b)(i); FOI 36(2)(c)
View Cabinet Office
5 Mar 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to investigation of thefts. The National Police Chiefs’ Council (NPCC) relied on section 14(1) of FOIA (vexatious) to refuse the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the request was vexatious and therefore the NPCC was entitled to rely upon section 14(1) of FOIA to refuse it. The Commissioner does not require any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14
View National Police Chiefs Council
5 Mar 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
Following its response to a subject access request, the complainant submitted a freedom of information request to the Cabinet Office seeking full copies of any documents, for a three year period, which included his name. The Cabinet Office refused the request on the basis of section 14(1) (vexatious) because of the burden in processing it. The complainant disputed this and also argued that the Cabinet Office should have provided him with advice and assistance to allow him to submit a refined version of this request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Cabinet Office is entitled to refuse to comply with the request on the basis of section 14(1) of FOIA. The Commissioner has also concluded that the Cabinet Office was not under a section 16 duty to offer advice and assistance in response to this request. Information Tribunal FT/EA/2024/0154 appeal withdrawn.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14(1); FOI 16
View Cabinet Office
5 Mar 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about vaccines. The MHRA (“the public authority”) refused to comply with the request, citing section 14(1) (vexatious requests). The Commissioner’s decision is that to comply with the request would incur a grossly oppressive burden on the public authority and it’s entitled to rely on section 14(1) in order to refuse it. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14(1)
View Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency
5 Mar 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested a copy of a weapon’s destruction order from the Police Service of Northern Ireland (“PSNI”). PSNI refused to disclose the requested document citing section 30(1) (Investigations and proceedings) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that section 30(1) is properly engaged and that the public interest favours maintaining the exemption. The Commissioner does not require further steps. Information Tribunal [FT/EA/2024/0111] appeal Withdrawn.
Exemptions cited: FOI 31(1)
View Police Service of Northern Ireland
5 Mar 2024Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested NHSBSA to disclose email correspondence between specified dates, relating to the Infected Blood’s second interim report. NHSBSA refused to disclose the information citing sections 36(2)(b)(i) and (ii) and 36(2)(c) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that NHSBSA is entitled to refuse to disclose the requested information in accordance with sections 36(2)(b)(i) and (ii) and 36(2)(c) of FOIA. The Commissioner does not require further steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 36(2)(b)(i); FOI 36(2)(b)(ii); FOI 36(2)(c)
View NHS Business Services Authority
5 Mar 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested communications associated with the Chair of Council of Brunel University London (‘the University’) about Queens University Belfast. The University has advised it doesn’t hold any relevant information. The Commissioner’s decision is that, if held, 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 Brunel University London
5 Mar 2024Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The Commissioner finds that the Environment Agency (EA) holds no further information within scope of the complainant’s request for information about the Devonport energy from waste plant. However, his decision is that EA did not comply with regulation 5(2) of the EIR as it took longer than 20 working days to make available all the relevant information it holds. It’s not necessary for the EA to take any corrective steps. Information Tribunal FT/EA/2024/0116 appeal Allowed.
Exemptions cited: EIR 5(1); EIR 5(2)
View Environment Agency
5 Mar 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested Worcester College London (the College) to disclose information relating to any donations made by Peter Frankopan and their family between specified dates. The College disclosed some information but refused to confirm or deny whether the remainder is held, citing section 40(5) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the College is entitled to refuse to confirm or deny holding the information under section 40(5) of FOIA. The Commissioner does not require further steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40(5)
5 Mar 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The Commissioner’s decision is that, under section 22A of FOIA, the University of York (‘the University’) is entitled to withhold the requested information about the ‘Safe to Speak Up?’ report. This is because the information is associated with an ongoing programme of research and disclosing it prematurely would be likely to prejudice the University’s interests. It’s not necessary for the University of York to take any corrective steps. Information Tribunal appeal UA-2025-000489-GIA PTA refused.
Exemptions cited: FOI 22A
5 Mar 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information about the Government Equalities Office’s consultation on conversion therapy. Ultimately, the Cabinet Office said that some of the information was exempt by virtue of section 35(1)(a) of FOIA (the exemption for the formulation or development of government policy). It also said it did not hold some of the requested information and that part of it was exempt under section 40(2) of FOIA (the exemption for personal information) in addition to being exempt under section 35(1)(a) of FOIA. The complainant advised he was not interested in securing any personal information so the Commissioner has not considered the Cabinet Office’s reliance on section 40(2) any further. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Cabinet Office was entitled to rely on section 35(1)(a) of FOIA for all parts of the request where it was cited. He also finds, on the balance of probabilities, that no recorded information is held by the Cabinet Office for the remainder of the request
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 35
View Cabinet Office
5 Mar 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The Commissioner’s decision is that the advice note prepared by legal advisors that the complainant has requested is exempt from disclosure under section 42(1) of FOIA as it attracts legal professional privilege. It’s not necessary for Ordnance Survey to take any corrective steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 42
View Ordnance Survey
4 Mar 2024Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The Commissioner’s decision is that the public authority breached section 10(1) of FOIA by failing to provide a response within 20 working days.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10(1)
View Information Commissioner
4 Mar 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to a specified court case involving a fine. The Ministry of Justice (the ‘MOJ’) refused the request citing section 40(2) of FOIA – the exemption for personal information. The Commissioner’s decision is that the MOJ was entitled to rely on section 40(2) of FOIA to withhold the requested information. No steps are required as a result of this notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View Ministry of Justice
4 Mar 2024Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested Royal Holloway University (the University) to disclose the number of unique locations, both private dwellings and non private dwellings, which have been deemed a chronic issue in terms of antisocial behaviour, broken down by calendar month and year. The University disclosed some information but withheld the remainder citing section 40(2) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the University is not entitled to rely on section 40(2) of FOIA in this case. The Commissioner requires the University to disclose the remaining withheld information to the complainant in relation to part b) and c) of the request.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40(2)
4 Mar 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to Whistleblowing complaints. The Financial Conduct (“the public authority”) disclosed some information but withheld the rest, citing section 31 (law enforcement). The Commissioner’s decision is that the public authority was correct to withhold the information it did under section 31(1)(g). The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 31(1)(g)
View Financial Conduct Authority
4 Mar 2024Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information about a specific planning application. North Northamptonshire Council disclosed information to the complainant. The complainant considers that the council has not disclosed all the relevant information that it holds. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council disclosed all the relevant information it holds and complied with regulation 5(1) but that it disclosed some of the information outside the time for compliance and failed to complete an internal review within the statutory timeframe and, in doing so, it breached regulation 5(2) and regulation 11(4). The Commissioner does not require the council to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 11(4); EIR 5(1); EIR 5(2)
View North Northamptonshire Council
1 Mar 2024Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from Humberside Police (“the public authority”), in relation to a phone call made to its call centre. The public authority refused to provide the information, relying on section 40(2) of FOIA - personal information and section 31 of FOIA – Law Enforcement. The Commissioner’s decision is that the public authority has correctly relied on section 40(2) of FOIA to withhold some of the information. He also considers that the public authority was entitled to rely on section 31 of FOIA to withhold some of the information. However, he considers that the remaining information is not covered by either exemption. The Commissioner has however, found that the public authority didn’t comply with section 10(1) of FOIA, as it did not provide a response within the statutory timeframe. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation.• Provide the complainant with a copy of the call log, with th
Exemptions cited: FOI 10(1); FOI 31(1)(a); FOI 40(2)
View Humberside Police
1 Mar 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from North East Lincolnshire Council (“the Council”) relating to a car registration plate. The Council denied holding information within the scope of the request.The Commissioner’s decision is that on the balance of probabilities, the Council does not hold information within the scope of the request. The Commissioner does not require the Council to take any steps. Information Tribunal FT/EA/2024/0085 appeal withdrawn.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View North East Lincolnshire Council
1 Mar 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from the BBC regarding TV licences, assessment information, misconduct allegations, employment statistics and whistleblowing information. The Commissioner’s decision is that the BBC was entitled to rely on section 12 when refusing these requests. The Commissioner also finds that the BBC met its obligation under section 16 to offer advice and assistance. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12; FOI 16
View BBC
1 Mar 2024Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to the Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office (FCDO) seeking copies of audit reports concerning the ‘Palestinian Recovery and Development Program’, a World Bank multi donor trust fund for the period 2015 to 2022. The FCDO confirmed it held information falling within the scope of the request but withheld this on the basis of section 27(1)(a) (international relations) and section 40(2) (personal data) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the withheld information is exempt from disclosure on the basis of section 27(1)(a) but that in all the circumstances of the case the public interest favours disclosure of the information. However, the Commissioner accepts that the names and signatures contained in the information are exempt from disclosure on the basis of section 40(2) of FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 27
View Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office
29 Feb 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested a copy of a policy on the use of facial recognition in policing from the Home Office. The Home Office refused to disclose the requested information citing section 35(1)(a) (Formulation of government policy) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Home Office was entitled to rely on this exemption. He does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 35(1)
View Home Office
29 Feb 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information regarding the Duke of York from the Department for Business and Trade (‘DBT’). The Commissioner’s decision is that on the balance of probabilities, DBT does not hold the requested information. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Department for Business and Trade
29 Feb 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested a breakdown of costs for the Migration and Economic Development Partnership (MEDP) between Rwanda and the UK. The Home Office provided links to some information in the public domain and cited sections 22 (Information intended for future publication), 27 (International relations) and 43 (Commercial interests) of FOIA to refuse to disclose the more detailed breakdown specified in the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Home Office was entitled to rely on section 27(1)(a) of FOIA to withhold the information. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 27
View Home Office
29 Feb 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
In a three-part request, the complainant requested information from the Department for Education (DfE) about Early Career Framework providers. DfE addressed two parts and relied on section 43(2) of FOIA (commercial interests) to refuse to disclose the information requested in Q2. The complainant was dissatisfied with DfE’s response to Q2 and Q3. During the Commissioner’s investigation DfE confirmed it’s relying on section 43(2) of FOIA in respect of Q3 and that it has also now applied section 36(2)(c) to both Q2 and Q3. Section 36 concerns prejudice to the effective conduct of public affairs. The Commissioner has decided that the information the complainant has requested in Q2 and Q3 is exempt from disclosure under 43(2) of FOIA. It’s not necessary for DfE to take any corrective steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 43
View Department for Education
29 Feb 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information about his leasehold property . The Royal Borough of Greenwich relied on regulation 12(4)(b)(manifestly unreasonable) not to provide the complainant with the requested information. The Commissioner’s decision is that as the complainant was seeking his own personal data, regulation 5(3) of the EIR provides that the duty to make environmental information available on request does not apply to information that is the personal data of the requester.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12
View Royal Borough of Greenwich
29 Feb 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested details of a contract between Oxford Direct Services Limited (‘ODSL’) and another company, Cuckoo Fish Limited. ODSL said that it does not hold any information, but clarified that its associated company, Oxford Direct Services Trading Limited (‘ODSTL’), would do. At review stage, ODSL upheld its decision that it does not hold the requested information. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, ODSL was correct to state that it does not hold the requested information for the purposes of section 1 of FOIA. The Commissioner does not require ODSL to take any steps.
The public authority must take these steps within 35 calendar days of the date of this decision notice. Failure to comply may result in the Commissioner making written certification of this fact to the High Court pursuant to section 54 of the Act and may be dealt with as a contempt of court.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
29 Feb 2024Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information on penalty charge notices (“PCNs”)fining out of borough drivers using particular roads during the “Clean AirNeighbourhood” scheme. The Council refused the request in reliance on FOIAsection 22 – information intended for future publication. The Commissioner’sdecision is that the request should have been considered under the EIR notFOIA. As the Council maintained its response under FOIA and the EIR does notcontain a similar exception to the section 22 exemption the Commissionerrequires the Council to respond to the complainant and the Commissioner underthe EIR.The public authority must take these steps within 35 calendar days of the dateof this decision notice. Failure to comply may result in the Commissioner makingwritten certification of this fact to the High Court pursuant to section 54 of theAct and may be dealt with as a contempt of court.
Exemptions cited: EIR 2
View Hammersmith and Fulham Council
29 Feb 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about a deleted email account from the Crown Prosecution Service (the “CPS”). In compliance with an earlier decision notice, the CPS disclosed some information but the complainant remained dissatisfied with the format of that disclosure and the lack of other information to substantiate the CPS’ position that all relevant recorded information had been disclosed. The Commissioner’s decision is that, in line with the wording of the original request, the CPS complied with its duties under section 1(1) of FOIA. He also finds that no further information was held. No steps are required as a result of this decision. Information Tribunal FT/EA/2024/0106 appeal part allowed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Crown Prosecution Service
29 Feb 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested communications between the Vice Chancellor of the University of Leicester (‘the University’) and the Universities and Colleges Employers Association. 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.
Exemptions cited: FOI 3
View The University of Leicester
29 Feb 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from Carmarthenshire County Council (the Council) relating to the Wales Pension Partnership’s (WPP) investment in Bute Energy. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the Council does not hold information within the scope of the request. The Commissioner does not require the Council to take any steps as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Carmarthenshire County Council
29 Feb 2024Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant submitted a request to Tees Valley Combined Authority (TVCA) for information relating to the sale of land on which SeAH is building its plant at Teesworks.The Commissioner’s decision is the requested information is environmental information within the definition at regulation 2(1)(c) of the EIR. The request should have therefore been handled under the EIR rather than FOIA. Information Tribunal FT/EA/2024/0120 under appeal.The Commissioner requires TVCA to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation:• Reconsider the request and its scope under the provisions of the EIR and issue a fresh response.The public authority must take these steps within 35 calendar days of the date of this decision notice. Failure to comply may result in the Commissioner making written certification of this fact to the High Court pursuant to section 54 of the Act and may be dealt with as contempt of court. Information Tribunal FT/EA/2024/0120 appeal dismissed.
Exemptions cited: EIR 2(1)(c)
View Tees Valley Combined Authority
29 Feb 2024Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant made a two part request for information relating to asylum seekers who have died in Home Office accommodation between 1 January 2023 and 1 June 2023. The Home Office provided all information in relation to part one of the request but only provided partial disclosure in relation to part two, relying on section 38(1)(a) and section 38(1)(b) of the FOIA to withhold some of the information. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Home Office was not entitled to rely on section 38(1)(a) of FOIA to withhold the remaining information at part two of the request. The Commissioner requires the public authority disclose all the information at part two of the request.
Exemptions cited: FOI 38(1)(a)
View Home Office
28 Feb 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 Ministry of Justice
28 Feb 2024Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information regarding murders which had occurred within a year. The Commissioner’s decision is that the above public authority (“the public authority”) breached section 10(1) of FOIA by failing to confirm or deny holding the requested information, and section 17(1) by failing to issue an appropriate refusal notice within the statutory time frame of 20 working days. The Commissioner does not require further steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10(1); FOI 17
View Greater Manchester Police
28 Feb 2024Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information about the removal of an automatically generated response which the council previously used to send in response to emails it received from the Whatdotheyknow website. Cherwell District Council (“the council”) said that no information is held by it. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council was correct to state that no information is held by it. The council has therefore decided that the council’s response complied with the requirements of section 1 of FOIA. However the Commissioner has also decided that the council did not comply with the requirements of section 10 of FOIA. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10
View Cherwell District Council
28 Feb 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested legal advice in relation to the handling of a previous request for information. Northumberland County Council (the Council) withheld the information requested under section 42 (legal professional privilege). The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council correctly applied section 42 to the request. He does not require any steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 42
View Northumberland County Council
28 Feb 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information relating to damaged ULEZ cameras. Transport for London (“the public authority”) refused the request, citing regulation 12(5)(b). The Commissioner’s decision is that the requested information is exempt from disclosure under regulation 12(5)(b). The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(b)
View Transport for London
28 Feb 2024Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about public spending of money received from the Public Works Loan Board (PWLB). The London Borough of Lambeth (“the Council”) stated it did not hold recorded information within scope of the request and provided the complainant with a narrative response. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council does not hold recorded information within scope of the request further to the narrative response provided. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View London Borough of Lambeth
28 Feb 2024Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to the Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office (FCDO) seeking revisions to a statement on “Freedom of Religion and Belief and Gender Equality” issued in July 2022 following an international conference hosted by the UK. The FCDO confirmed that it held information falling within the scope of the request but considered this to be exempt from disclosure on the basis of sections 35(1)(a) (formulation or development of government policy), 27(1)(a), (c) and (d) (international relations) and 40(2) (personal data) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that sections 27(1)(a), (c) and (d) and section 40(2) do not provide a basis to withhold the requested information and that whilst section 35(1)(a) is engaged, the public interest favours disclosing the information caught by this exemption.
Exemptions cited: FOI 27; FOI 35; FOI 40
View Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office