Decision notices

1 Nov 2024, Central government

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 30 calendar days in accordance with its obligations under FOIA.

FOI 10: Complaint upheld

1 Nov 2024, Police and criminal justice

The complainant requested information from Cleveland Police about members of staff working on Operation Magnolia and their relevant training. Cleveland Police relied on section 14(1) of FOIA (vexatious) to refuse the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the request was vexatious and therefore Cleveland Police was entitled to rely upon section 14(1) of FOIA to refuse it. The Commissioner does not require any steps.

FOI 14(1): Complaint not upheld

1 Nov 2024, Local government

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 30 calendar days in accordance with its obligations under FOIA.

FOI 10: Complaint upheld

1 Nov 2024, Local government

The complainant requested road traffic information about a specific location. Oxfordshire County Council (the “Council”) disclosed some information, confirmed that other information was not held and withheld other information under the exception for information in the course of completion (regulation 12(4)(d)). The Commissioner considers that, on the balance of probabilities, the Council does not hold the information requested in part 1 of the request as it relates to the B4015 and that regulation 12(4)(a) of the EIR applies. The Commissioner does not require further steps to be taken.

EIR 12(4)(a): Complaint not upheld

1 Nov 2024, Police and criminal justice

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.

FOI 10: Complaint upheld

31 Oct 2024, Central government

The complainant has requested information regarding a member of staff of the Welsh Government. The Welsh Government informed the Commissioner it was relying on section 21 (Information accessible to applicant by other means) of FOIA to refuse to provide the requested information. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Welsh Government was entitled to rely on section 21. The Commissioner does not require further steps.

FOI 21: Complaint not upheld

31 Oct 2024, Central government

The complainant has requested copies of any documents or correspondence that contained the phrases “election interference” or “political interference” between 1 May 2024 and 22 July 2024. The Gambling Commission (‘the GC’) relied on section 30(3) of FOIA and section 31(3) of FOIA to neither confirm nor deny whether it held the requested information. The Commissioner’s decision is that, although the GC was entitled to rely on section 30 of FOIA, it was not entitled to neither confirm nor deny whether it held the requested information.

FOI 30: Complaint partly upheld

31 Oct 2024, Other

The Atomic Weapons Establishment (AWE) is an executive non-departmental public body, sponsored by the Ministry of Defence. The Commissioner’s decision is that AWE is entitled to withhold photographs the complainant has requested under sections 27(1)(a) and 27(2) of FOIA. These exemptions concern international relations and confidential information received from another State. It’s not necessary for AWE to take any corrective steps.

FOI 27: Complaint not upheld

31 Oct 2024, Local government

The complainant requested various information about the maintenance of roadside ditches. Kent County Council (the Council) provided some information, stated other information was not held and applied section 12 (appropriate limit) of the FOIA to other parts of the request. In its internal review, the Council reconsidered the request under the EIR, and stated that compliance with the request would be manifestly unreasonable and, as such, it considered regulation 12(4)(b) to apply. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has correctly applied regulation 12(4)(b) to the request. The Commissioner also finds that the Council complied with its obligation under regulation 9(1) to offer advice and assistance. The Commissioner does not require any steps to be taken.

EIR 9: Complaint not upheld EIR 12(4)(b): Complaint not upheld

31 Oct 2024, Local government

The complainant has requested a copy of invoices paid for legal advice and the details of pledges paid in regards to two planning applications. The Ticehurst Parish Council (“the Council”) provided some information within the scope of the request, but denied holding anything further. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the Council has failed to conduct adequate searches for the requested information and has now confirmed further information is held. The Commissioner requires the Council to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. Conduct a fresh search for the requested information and either disclose the information located or issue an appropriate refusal notice under EIR. The Council must take these steps within 30 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.

EIR 5: Complaint upheld

31 Oct 2024, Local government

The complainant has requested a copy of a receipt for the purchase of a burial plot from Broxbourne Borough Council (“the council”). The council refused to disclose the requested information citing section 40(2) of FOIA (third party personal information). The Commissioner’s decision is that the council has correctly relied on section 40(2) of FOIA to withhold the information. The Commissioner does not require further steps to be taken.

FOI 40(2): Complaint not upheld

31 Oct 2024, Private companies

The complainant requested information from United Utilities Water Limited about Calgarth Pumping Station and Broomhill Pumping Station. The Commissioner’s decision is that the public authority failed to respond to the request within 20 working days and has therefore breached regulation 5(2) of the EIR. As the public authority has now responded, the Commissioner does not require further steps to be taken.

EIR 5(2): Complaint upheld

31 Oct 2024, Police and criminal justice

The complainant has requested information about the Drew Report and the public authority’s handling of recent investigations into child sexual exploitation. The Chief Constable for South Yorkshire Police (“SYP”) refused parts of the request under section 41 (information provided in confidence) and stated other information was not held. The Commissioner’s decision is that SYP was entitled to rely on section 41 to refuse parts of the request. The Commissioner also finds some of the information requested represents the complainant’s own personal data, and therefore section 40(1) of the FOIA is engaged. The Commissioner does not require further steps.

FOI 40(1): Complaint not upheld FOI 41: Complaint not upheld

31 Oct 2024, Central government

The complainant has requested information related to the Probate return forms from the HM Revenue & Customs (HMRC). HMRC said that it did not hold the requested information. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, HMRC does not hold information within the scope of the request and has therefore complied with section 1(1) of FOIA. The Commissioner does not require HMRC to take any further steps.

FOI 1(1): Complaint not upheld

31 Oct 2024, Local government

The complainant has requested information from Mid Suffolk District Council (the Council) regarding a decision made in a complaint they submitted. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the Council does not hold any additional information within the scope of the request. The Commissioner does not require further steps.

FOI 1: Complaint not upheld

30 Oct 2024, Local government

The complainant requested a range of information relating to a specific councillor. Guildford Borough Council (the “Council”) relied on section 12 of FOIA (cost of compliance) to refuse the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has properly relied on section 12(1) of FOIA for the reasons set out in this notice. He also finds that the Council complied with its advice and assistance obligations in accordance with section 16 of FOIA. No steps are required as a result of this notice.

FOI 12: Complaint not upheld FOI 16: Complaint not upheld

30 Oct 2024, Central government

The complainant submitted a request to the Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office (FCDO) seeking correspondence between the FCDO in London and the British High Commission in Sri Lanka concerning David Cameron's involvement with the Colombo Port City. The FCDO disclosed some information in response to the request but sought to withhold further information on the basis of sections 27(1)(a), (c) and (d) (international relations) and 40(2) (personal data) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that these exemptions provide a basis upon which the FCDO can withhold the undisclosed information falling within the scope of the request. However, the Commissioner has concluded that the FCDO breached sections 10(1) and 17(1) of FOIA by failing to respond to the request within 20 working days. The Commissioner does not require further steps.

FOI 17: Complaint upheld FOI 10: Complaint upheld FOI 40: Complaint not upheld FOI 27: Complaint not upheld

30 Oct 2024, Other

The complainant has requested the entire contents of each of his complaint files. The above public authority’s final position was to rely on section 14 of FOIA (vexatious) to refuse the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the request was vexatious and therefore section 14(1) of FOIA was engaged. The public authority breached section 17 of FOIA as it failed to confirm, within 20 working days, that it was relying on section 14 to refuse the request. The Commissioner does not require further steps to be taken.

FOI 17: Complaint upheld FOI 14: Complaint not upheld

30 Oct 2024, Education

The complainant has requested information from the University of Liverpool (the University) on requests for flexible working arrangements. The Commissioner’s decision is that the University is not entitled to rely on section 12(1) (cost limit) FOIA to refuse to comply with the request. The Commissioner requires the University issue a fresh response to the request which does not rely on section 12 FOIA.

FOI 12: Complaint upheld

30 Oct 2024, Education

The Commissioner’s decision is that Goldsmiths’ College, (‘the College’) is entitled to rely on section 12(1) of FOIA to refuse the complainant’s request for information about contracts. This is because complying with the request would exceed the appropriate cost limit. However, the College should have offered the complainant advice and assistance to help them submit a refined request, and therefore it didn’t comply with its obligation under section 16(1) of FOIA. The Commissioner requires the College to take the following step to ensure compliance with the legislation: Provide the complainant with appropriate advice and assistance to help them formulate a request that is likely to fall within the appropriate cost limit.

FOI 12(1): Complaint not upheld FOI 16(1): Complaint upheld

30 Oct 2024, Local government

The complainant requested information from Cheshire West and Chester Council (“the Council”) regarding road closures. The Council has refused the request under regulation 12(4)(b) of the EIR (manifestly unreasonable) on the grounds that to comply with the request would incur unreasonable costs. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has failed to demonstrate that the exception at regulation 12(4)(b) is engaged. The Commissioner requires the Council to take the following step to ensure compliance with the legislation: issue a fresh response that does not rely on regulation 12(4)(b).

EIR 12(4)(b): Complaint upheld

30 Oct 2024, Local government

The complainant requested information associated with two meetings about the Deposit Return Scheme (DRS), and one meeting with the Net Zero Technology Centre (NZTC). Scotland Office disclosed some information and withheld the remainder under regulations 12(4)(e), 12(5)(f) and 13 of the EIR, which concern internal communications, the interests of the information provider and personal data, respectively. During the Commissioner’s investigation Scotland Office decided that the majority of the information wasn’t environmental information and applied various FOIA exemptions, though it also cited regulation 12(5)(e) of the EIR at this point. This exception concerns commercial confidentiality. However, Scotland Office’s final position is now that the majority of the information is environmental information, to which the above EIR exceptions apply. It considers section 35 of FOIA applies to the remainder. The Commissioner’s decision is as follows: Scotland Office correctly applied regulation 12(4)(e) of the EIR to some information in both the DRS and NZTC documents. The public interest favours maintaining this exception in respect of the DRS briefing documents and information in the NZTC briefing document, but the public interest favours disclosing the information in the DRS readout documents to which regulation 12(4)(e) has been applied. Scotland Office correctly applied regulation 12(5)(e) to some information in one of the DRS briefing documents and the readout documents and the public interest favours withholding this information. Regulation 12(5)(e) isn’t engaged in respect of the remaining information to which this exception has been applied. Regulation 12(5)(f) isn’t engaged in respect of information in the DRS briefing and readout documents to which Scotland Office has applied this exception.The remaining information in the NZTC briefing and readout documents is exempt from disclosure under section 35(1)(a) of FOIA. The Commissioner requires Scotland Office to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: Disclose the information in the DRS readout documents (Annex A2 and Annex B2) to which regulation 12(4)(e) solely has been applied. In addition, disclose the information marked as ‘Disclose’ in the Appendix to this notice.

FOI 35(1)(a): Complaint not upheld EIR 12(4)(e): Complaint partly upheld EIR 12(5)(e): Complaint partly upheld EIR 12(5)(f): Complaint upheld

30 Oct 2024, Other

The complainant has requested a copy of an investigation report and electronic communications concerning the investigation between UK Research and Innovation (‘UKRI’) and the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology (‘DSIT’). UKRI provided redacted copies of the requested information and relied on section 41 of FOIA and section 40(2) of FOIA to withhold the redacted information. It also relied on section 22 of FOIA to withhold draft social media guidance attached to one of the redacted copies of correspondence. The Commissioner’s decision is that UKRI was entitled to rely on sections 41 and 40(2) to withhold the redacted information. He also finds that UKRI was entitled to rely on section 22 to withhold the draft social media guidance. The Commissioner also finds that UKRI breached sections 10(1) and 17(1) of FOIA by failing to provide the requested information and to provide a refusal notice for withholding some of the requested information within 20 working days. The Commissioner does not require further steps.

FOI 17: Complaint upheld FOI 10: Complaint upheld FOI 41: Complaint not upheld FOI 40(2): Complaint not upheld FOI 22: Complaint not upheld

30 Oct 2024, Local government

The complainant requested information from Mid Devon District Council relating to a report produced by a working group into the lessons learned from 3 Rivers Developments. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the Council holds information within the scope of part 2 of the request and further information within the scope of part 3 of the request, beyond the list in the working group report. The Commissioner requires the Council to take the following step to ensure compliance with the legislation: issue a fresh response to the request to the complainant, having carried out further searches to identify any information held within the scope of parts 2 and 3 of the request. These searches should not be limited to identifying existing lists, but should be designed to identify any information held within the scope of these two parts of the request including “building blocks” of information.

FOI 1(1): Complaint upheld

30 Oct 2024, Central government

The Commissioner’s decision is that the information the complainant has requested about the Report Packaging Data (RPD) service is excepted from disclosure under regulation 12(5)(e) of the EIR, which concerns commercial interests. It’s not necessary for Defra to take any corrective steps.

EIR 12(5)(e): Complaint not upheld