Decision notices
Showing 1 to 25 of 21,825
London Borough of Bromley
7 Jun 2024, Local government
The public authority has failed to respond to this request within 20 working days, as specified in the EIR. The Commissioner requires it to provide the complainant with a response to this request within 30 calendar days in accordance with its obligations under the EIR.
EIR 5(2): Complaint upheld
Trafford Metropolitan Borough Council
7 Jun 2024, Local government
The complainant requested information from Trafford Metropolitan Borough 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 provide a substantive response to the request in accordance with its obligations under the EIR.
EIR 5(2): Complaint upheld
Dr Julian Medical Group Ltd
7 Jun 2024, Health
The complainant has requested from Dr Julian Medical Group Limited (the public authority) the name of a therapist’s professional membership body. During the course of the Commissioner’s investigation, the public authority applied section 14(1) of FOIA (vexatious request) to refuse the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that in failing to provide a response to the request that complies with section 1 of FOIA within 20 working days, and also in failing to issue a refusal notice that is compliant with section 17(1), the public authority has breached section 1(1), 10(1) and 17(1) of FOIA. The public authority is also not entitled to rely on section 14(1) in refusing to provide the requested information. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. Provide the requested information or issue an appropriate refusal notice which does not rely on section 14(1).
FOI 17: Complaint upheld FOI 10: Complaint upheld FOI 1: Complaint upheld
London Borough of Islington
7 Jun 2024, Local government
The complainant requested information about a survey report and all other information held by the London Borough of Islington (“the Council”) in relation to previous roofing work carried out on a residential building. The Council provided the complainant with some information within scope of their request, however stated that no further information is held. Throughout the Commissioner’s investigation, the Council located and disclosed further information within scope of their request. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the civil standard of the balance of probabilities, it is likely that the Council holds information within scope of the second part of the complainant’s request further than that which has already been provided. The Commissioner also finds that the Council has breached regulation 11 of the EIR in failing to provide the complainant with an internal review outcome within 40 working days. To ensure compliance with the legislation, the Council must issue a fresh response to the request following searches aimed at identifying all information held within scope of the second part of the request.
EIR 12(4)(a): Complaint partly upheld EIR 11: Complaint upheld
Office of Gas and Electricity Markets
7 Jun 2024, Other
The complainant has requested information about an application for an Independent Distribution Network Operator's Licence (IDNO). Ofgem refused the request, citing section 44(1) (prohibitions on disclosure). The Commissioner’s decision is that Ofgem was correct to refuse the request under section 44(1). The Commissioner does not require further steps.
FOI 44: Complaint not upheld
British Museum
7 Jun 2024, Other
The complainant has requested information from the British Museum (the Museum) regarding the Ethiopian tabots. The Museum provided some information but withheld other information citing section 14(2) (repeated request), section 21 (information accessible to the applicant by other means), section 27 (international relations), and section 36 (prejudice to the effective conduct of public affairs) of FOIA. The Museum also refused to confirm or deny whether it had sought legal advice (section 42(2) of FOIA). The Commissioner’s decision is that the Museum is entitled to rely on section 27(1) of FOIA and that the public interest favours non-disclosure. He has accepted that section 21 of FOIA is also engaged. However, the Commissioner has decided that the Museum has failed to demonstrate that issuing a confirmation or a denial would, in itself, disclose information to which legal professional privilege could be maintained and is therefore not entitled to rely on section 42(2) of FOIA. The Commissioner requires the Museum to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: • Confirm or deny whether it holds any information falling within the scope of part iv) of the request. • To the extent that any information is held, either disclose that information or issue a refusal notice that complies with section 17 of FOIA.
FOI 42(2): Complaint upheld FOI 21: Complaint not upheld FOI 27: Complaint not upheld
NHS Property Services Ltd
7 Jun 2024, Health
The complainant has requested correspondence and information between named people at NHS Property Services Limited (NHSPS) relating to Hightown Village Surgery and its lease between specific dates. NHSPS withheld information in scope of the request under section 40(2) and 43(2) FOIA.The Commissioner’s decision is that some of the information is reasonably accessible to the applicant by other means and therefore exempt under section 21 FOIA. For the remaining information, NHSPS has correctly applied section 40(2) to withhold personal information but has not demonstrated that section 43(2) is engaged in relation to information on lease negotiations, maintenance and supplier requests. The Commissioner requires NHSPS to disclose the information in the folders ‘Lease Negotiations’, ‘Letter to Landlord’, ‘Maintenance Correspondence’ and ‘Supplier Requests’, redact any names/contact information and exclude any information already accessible to the applicant as a recipient/sender.
FOI 21: Complaint not upheld FOI 43: Complaint upheld FOI 40: Complaint not upheld
Ministry of Justice
7 Jun 2024, Central government
The complainant requested information relating to an investigation report. The Ministry of Justice (the MoJ) 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 MoJ 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
Royal Borough of Greenwich
6 Jun 2024, Local government
The complainant requested a draft report and correspondence from Royal Borough of Greenwich (“the public authority”). The public authority refused to provide the requested information, citing regulation 12(5)(b) (the course of justice and inquiries exception). The Commissioner’s decision is that the regulation 12(5)(b) exception, as regards the “correspondence” is engaged and that the public interest was in maintaining the exception. The Commissioner further decided that the regulation 12(5)(b) exception, as regards the draft report, is not engaged.The Commissioner requires the public authority to provide the complainant with a copy of the draft report.
EIR 12(5)(b): Complaint partly upheld
House of Commons
6 Jun 2024, Central government
The complainant requested information from the House of Commons regarding staff time spent on various events. The House of Commons stated that it did not hold recorded information within the scope of the complainant’s request. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the House of Commons does not hold the requested information. The Commissioner does not require the House of Commons to take any steps as a result of this decision notice.
FOI 1: Complaint not upheld
Mid and South Essex Integrated Care System
6 Jun 2024, Health
The Commissioner’s decision is that Mid and South Essex Integrated Care System (‘the ICS’) doesn’t hold the requested information about legislation that supported its claimed non-compliance with certain Regulations. The ICS has complied with section 1(1)(a) of FOIA, and it doesn’t need to take any corrective steps.
FOI 1(1)(a): Complaint not upheld
Frimley Health NHS Foundation Trust
6 Jun 2024, Health
The complainant has requested information relating to Myasthenia Gravis diagnosis. Frimley Health NHS Foundation Trust (Frimley) disclosed the information it held. The Commissioner’s decision is that on the balance of probabilities, Frimley has complied with its obligations under sections 1 and 10(1) of FOIA and holds no further recorded information relevant to the complainant’s request. However, he also finds that Frimley did not provide adequate advice and assistance in line with its obligations under section 16 of FOIA. The Commissioner does not require further steps to be taken.
FOI 10(1): Complaint not upheld
Office of the Immigration Services Commissioner
6 Jun 2024, Central government
In a seven-part request, the complainant requested information about competence assessments. The Office of the Immigration Services Commissioner (OISC) advised it doesn’t hold some of the information and applied section 35 of FOIA to the remainder. OISC also applied section 43(2) to one part of the request. Its final position, however, is that it doesn’t hold information within scope of any part of the complainant’s request. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, OISC doesn’t hold the requested information. By relying on section 35 initially, OISC indicated that it held some relevant information within scope of parts 1, 2 and 3; as such it didn’t comply with section 1(1)(a) and 10(1) of FOIA as it didn’t confirm it didn’t hold any of the requested information within the statutory time period. It’s not necessary for OISC to take any corrective steps.
FOI 1(1)(a): Complaint upheld FOI 10(1): Complaint upheld
Secretary of State for Defence (Ministry of Defence)
6 Jun 2024, Central government
The complainant has submitted a request seeking information contained in JSP 441 (which concerns information management policies) on two particular topics. The MOD asked the complainant to clarify part of his request. The complainant disputes the MOD’s view that such clarification was needed, albeit as part of his correspondence with the MOD it then established what it understood this part of the request to be asking for. The MOD subsequently disclosed the information it held on one of the requested topics (subject access requests) and explained that it did not hold any information regarding the other topic (law enforcement processing). The complainant also disputes this latter finding. The Commissioner’s decision is that the MOD was correct, under section 1(3) of FOIA, to seek clarification of the request. Furthermore, he is satisfied that on the balance of probabilities the MOD does not hold any information falling within the part of the request seeking information about law enforcement processing.
FOI 1: Complaint not upheld
London Borough of Lambeth
6 Jun 2024, Local government
A public authority will breach section 10 of FOIA if it fails to respond to a request within 20 working days. Based on evidence available to the Commissioner, by the date of this notice the public authority has not issued a substantive response to this request. Therefore the Commissioner finds a breach of section 10. 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 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 FOIA and may be dealt with as a contempt of court.
FOI 10: Complaint upheld
Department for Energy Security & Net Zero
6 Jun 2024, Central government
The complainant has requested information on the future availability and cost of hydrogen for home heating. DESNZ refused the request in reliance of EIR regulation 12(4)(d) – material in the course of completion. The Commissioner’s decision is that the exception is not engaged. The Commissioner requires DESNZ to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation - Disclose the information withheld under regulation 12(4)(d) The public authority must take these steps within 30 calendar days of the date of this decision notice.
EIR 12(4)(d): Complaint upheld
British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC)
6 Jun 2024, Media
In two requests, the complainant has requested information about costs associated with ‘Strictly Come Dancing.’ The BBC explained that, in both cases, the information is derogated and excluded from FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that in both cases, if held, the BBC would hold the information for the purposes of ‘journalism, art or literature.’ The information isn’t therefore covered by FOIA, and the BBC doesn’t need to take any corrective steps.
FOI 3: Complaint not upheld
Swansea Council
6 Jun 2024, Local government
The public authority has failed to respond to this request within 20 working days, as specified in the EIR. The Commissioner requires it to provide the complainant with a response to this request within 30 calendar days in accordance with its obligations under the EIR.
EIR 5(2): Complaint upheld
British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC)
6 Jun 2024, Media
In two requests, the complainant has requested information about costs associated with ‘Strictly Come Dancing.’ The BBC explained that, in both cases, the information is derogated and excluded from FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that in both cases, if held, the BBC would hold the information for the purposes of ‘journalism, art or literature.’ The information isn’t therefore covered by FOIA, and the BBC doesn’t need to take any corrective steps.
FOI 3: Complaint not upheld
Office of Gas and Electricity Markets
6 Jun 2024, Other
The complainant has requested details of requests for information made to energy suppliers to check they are meeting requirements of the Gas Supply Licence. The Office of Gas and Electricity Markets (‘Ofgem’) applied section 44 of FOIA (prohibitions on disclosure) to refuse the first two parts of the request and advised it did not hold the information requested in the third part of the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that Ofgem is entitled to withhold the information requested in parts one and two of the request under section 44(1) of FOIA. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
FOI 10: Complaint not upheld FOI 44: Complaint not upheld FOI 1: Complaint not upheld
University of East Anglia
6 Jun 2024, Education
A public authority will breach section 10 of FOIA if it fails to respond to a request within 20 working days. Based on evidence available to the Commissioner, by the date of this notice the public authority has not issued a substantive response to this request. Therefore the Commissioner finds a breach of section 10. 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 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 FOIA and may be dealt with as a contempt of court.
FOI 10: Complaint upheld
Secretary of State for the Home Department (Home Office)
6 Jun 2024, Central government
The complainant has requested information from the Home Office relating to the Research, Information and Communications Unit (“RICU”). The Home Office refused to disclose that information, citing sections 24(1), 31(1)(a) and 40(2) of FOIA as a basis for non-disclosure. In relation to part 2 of the request, the Home Office later changed its stance and stated that it did not hold the information in that part of the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Home Office has appropriately applied the exemption contained in section 24(1) of FOIA to withhold the requested information in parts 1 and 3. As he considers that section 24(1) covers the entirety of the requested information in those parts, he has not considered the other exemptions applied. The Commissioner also accepts that the Home Office does not hold information within the scope of part 2 of the request. The Commissioner has also decided that the Home Office has breached sections 1(1)(a) and 10(1) of FOIA as it did not inform the complainant within 20 working days that it did not hold information within the scope of part 2 of their request. The Commissioner does not require the Home Office to take any steps to ensure compliance with the legislation.
FOI 10: Complaint upheld FOI 24: Complaint upheld FOI 1: Complaint upheld
Lancashire and South Cumbria Integrated Care Board
5 Jun 2024, Other
The complainant has requested copies of reports generated by a corporate services strategic value transformation review. Lancashire and South Cumbria Integrated Care Board (‘the ICB’) has disclosed the reports’ executive summaries but is withholding the full reports under sections 41 and 43 of FOIA. These exemptions concern information provided in confidence and commercial interests, respectively. The Commissioner’s decision is that section 41(1) isn’t engaged but that the ICB is entitled to rely on section 43(2) of FOIA to withhold the requested information. It’s not necessary for the ICB to take any corrective steps.
FOI 43(2): Complaint not upheld FOI 41(1): Complaint upheld
Greater London Authority
5 Jun 2024, Local government
The complainant has requested information about specific correspondence between the Mayor of London and the Leader of the Labour Party. Greater London Authority (“GLA”) advised the complainant that it did not hold any information in scope of the request. The Commissioner’s decision is as follows: • On the balance of probabilities, the GLA holds no recorded information relevant to the complainant’s request and has complied with section 1(1) of FOIA. • GLA breached section 10(1) of FOIA by failing to issue a response within 20 working days of the request. The Commissioner does not require the GLA to take any further steps.
FOI 1(1): Complaint not upheld FOI 10(1): Complaint upheld
Department for Culture, Media and Sport
5 Jun 2024, Central government
The complainant requested information from the Department for Culture, Media and Sport (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 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 FOIA and may be dealt with as a contempt of court.
FOI 10: Complaint upheld