Decision notices

22 May 2024, Other

The complainant has requested information relating to complaints closed under section 50 FOIA. The Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) refused the request under section 14(1) – vexatious requests. The Commissioner’s decision is that the ICO has incorrectly applied section 14(1) to categorise the request as vexatious. The Commissioner requires the public authority to disclose the requested information or issue a fresh response to the complainant’s request that does not rely on section 14(1).

FOI 14: Complaint upheld

22 May 2024, Local government

The complainant requested information from Warwick District 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 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

22 May 2024, Central government

The complainant submitted a request to the Ministry of Defence (MOD) seeking information about a contract between it and WholeShip Limited relating to the use of Predannack Airfield. The MOD disclosed some information within the scope of the request but withheld the remainder on the basis of section 43(2) (commercial interests) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the remaining withheld information is exempt from disclosure on the basis of section 43(2) and that in all the circumstances of the case the public interest favours maintaining the exemption. However, the MOD breached section 10(1) of FOIA by failing to disclose the information it did not consider to be exempt within 20 working days of the request. The Commissioner does not require further steps.

FOI 43: Complaint not upheld FOI 10: Complaint upheld

22 May 2024, Central government

The complainant has requested information about the temporary £20-per week benefit uplift put in place at the start of the Covid-19 pandemic. HM Treasury (“HMT”) refused to provide it citing section 35 (formulation/development of government policy) and section 40(2) (personal data). The complainant made it clear in their request for internal review that they did not seek access to any personal data. On internal review, HMT introduced reliance on section 42 (legal professional privilege). During the Commissioner’s investigation, HMT withdrew reliance on section 42 and introduced reliance on section 36 (effective conduct of public affairs). It maintained reliance on section 35 in respect of a small amount of the requested information. The Commissioner’s decision is that HMT is not entitled to rely on section 35 and section 36 as its basis for withholding the requested information. The Commissioner requires HMT to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: Disclose the information it holds within the scope of the complainant’s request. The public authority 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.

FOI 35: Complaint upheld FOI 36: Complaint upheld

22 May 2024, Education

The complainant has requested information from King’s College London (KCL) relating to donations made by a named donor. KCL provided some information but withheld other information, citing sections 41(1) (information provided in confidence), 43(2) (commercial interests) and 40(2) (personal information) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that KCL correctly cited sections 41(1) and 43(2) of FOIA. The public interest regarding section 43 lies in non-disclosure. The Commissioner finds that KCL breached sections 1(1)(b) and 10(1) of FOIA by disclosing information to which the complainant was entitled beyond the legislative timeframe. It breached section 17(1) of FOIA by later relying on exemptions it had not included in the refusal notice. The Commissioner does not require further steps.

FOI 17: Complaint upheld FOI 43(2): Complaint not upheld FOI 41(1): Complaint not upheld FOI 1: Complaint upheld FOI 10(1): Complaint upheld

21 May 2024, Local government

The complainant requested legal advice relating to a playing field. Redcar & Cleveland Borough Council (the “Council”) withheld the information under the exception for the course of justice (regulation 12(5)(b)). The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council correctly withheld the requested information under regulation 12(5)(b) but that it failed to complete an internal review in time and breached regulation 11(4). The Commissioner does not require further steps.

EIR 11(4): Complaint upheld EIR 12(5)(b): Complaint not upheld

21 May 2024, Health

The complainant has requested information from Oxford University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust (the Trust). By the date of this notice the Trust had not issued a substantive response to this request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Trust 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 Trust to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation.

FOI 10: Complaint upheld

21 May 2024, Media

The complainant requested information from the BBC about a BBC Verify article. The BBC responded that the requested information was covered by the derogation and hence excluded from FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that this information, if held at all, is held by the BBC for the purposes of journalism, art or literature and so is not covered by FOIA. He therefore upholds the BBC’s position and requires no steps to be taken in this case.

FOI 3: Complaint not upheld

21 May 2024, Local government

The complainant has submitted a request to South Kesteven District Council (the council) for information relating to specific planning applications. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council is entitled to rely on regulation 12(4)(b)(manifestly unreasonable) to refuse to provide the requested information. However, the Commissioner finds that the council did not comply with its obligations under regulation 9(1) of the EIR to offer advice and assistance. The Commissioner has also concluded that the council breached regulations 5(2) and 14(2) of the EIR by failing to respond and issue a refusal notice to the request within 20 working days. The Commissioner requires the council to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: • Provide the complainant with advice and assistance to help them submit a less burdensome request.

EIR 12(4)(b): Complaint not upheld EIR 9(1): Complaint upheld EIR 5(2): Complaint upheld EIR 14(2): Complaint upheld

21 May 2024, Health

The complainant has requested information about the parking contract between Somerset NHS Foundation Trust and Q-Park. Somerset NHS Foundation Trust (‘the Trust’) provided copies of the contract and relevant schedules and advised that some information had been redacted under section 43 of FOIA (commercial interests). The Commissioner’s decision is that the Trust was entitled to apply section 43(2) to withhold the redacted information. The Commissioner requires no steps as a result of this decision.

FOI 43: Complaint not upheld

21 May 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 30 calendar days in accordance with its obligations under FOIA.

FOI 10: Complaint upheld

21 May 2024, Central government

The complainant requested information about the Judicial Appointments Commission’s (the ‘JAC’) use of section 36 (prejudice to effective conduct of public affairs) of FOIA. He particularly sought information about the associated ‘qualified person’, who must be recognised under FOIA, and whom is required to give their opinion as to whether any part of section 36 is engaged in relation to an FOIA request. The JAC responded to each part of the complainant’s request. It cited sections 32(1) (court records) and 42(1) (legal professional privilege) of FOIA for some of the request. It also said some information was not held and that parts of the request were not requests for recorded information under FOIA. The complainant objected to all of the foregoing and also asked the Commissioner to consider the delay in providing the substantive response in this case and whether the JAC had complied with its section 16 (advice and assistance) of FOIA obligations. The Commissioner’s decision is that sections 32(1)(a) and (b) and 42(1) of FOIA are engaged. The Commissioner finds that the JAC complied with sections 8 and 16(1) of FOIA for the reasons set out in this notice. The JAC breached sections 10(1) and 17(1) of FOIA as it did not issue a response, or a valid refusal notice in respect of the exempted information, within 20 working days of the request. As the Commissioner has not been able to reach a conclusion, on the balance of probabilities, as to whether or not any information is held for part of the request as a result of a lack of evidence as to the searches undertaken, he requires the JAC to conduct a further search for the information requested at parts 2b and 2c of the request and issue a fresh response which either discloses that information or issue an appropriate refusal notice. The JAC must take this step within 30 calendar days of the date of this decision notice.

FOI 42: Complaint not upheld FOI 10: Complaint upheld FOI 32: Complaint not upheld FOI 8: Complaint not upheld FOI 17: Complaint upheld FOI 16: Complaint not upheld FOI 1: Complaint upheld

21 May 2024, Local government

The complainant made a request for the Islington (Prescribed Routes) (No. 5) Traffic Order 2023. The London Borough of Islington (the Council) provided a copy of the order with the signature redacted. It relied on section 40(2) of FOIA to withhold the signature. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council should have dealt with the request under the EIR. However, having done so, it would have been entitled to rely on Regulation 13 of the EIR to withhold the information. The public authority breached regulation 14 of the EIR as it failed to deal with the request under the EIR. The Commissioner does not require further steps.

EIR 13: Complaint not upheld

21 May 2024, Other

The complainant has requested information relating to a complaint they had submitted Northern Ireland Public Services Ombudsman (NIPSO) in respect of alleged maladministration. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, NIPSO does not hold any further information within scope of the request. The Commissioner does not require further steps.

FOI 1: Complaint not upheld

21 May 2024, Local government

The complainant requested information about a parking survey from Hampshire County Council (“the council”). The Council withheld information under Regulation 12(4)(e) (internal communications), Regulation 12(5)(e), (commercial confidentiality), and Regulation 13 (personal data). The Commissioner’s decision is that the council was correct to withhold some information under Regulation 12(5)(e) and Regulation 13, however it was not correct to withhold information under Regulation 12(4)(e) of the EIR. The Commissioner requires the council to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. To disclose copies of all correspondence withheld under Regulation 12(4)(e), with appropriate redactions of personal data falling within the scope of Regulation 13. To disclose all information which has been withheld under Regulation 12(5)(e) with the exception of: the breakdown of prices, the framework document, (with the exception of the completed the completed ‘scope’ section of the document, and the completed ‘Brief summary of the service’ on the ‘Expression of interest’ form), appropriate redactions of personal data falling within the scope of Regulation 13.

EIR 12(4)(e): Complaint upheld EIR 12(5)(e): Complaint partly upheld

21 May 2024, Local government

The complainant has requested information regarding a specified property. London Borough of Barnet (“the Council”) relied on regulation 13 of the EIR (third party personal information) to withhold some of the requested information and stated that it did not hold any further information, citing regulation 12(4(a) of the EIR. The Commissioner’s decision is that the public authority has correctly relied on regulations 12(4)(a) and 13 of the EIR. The Commissioner does not require further steps to be taken.

EIR 13: Complaint not upheld EIR 12(4)(a): Complaint not upheld

21 May 2024, Central government

The complainant requested information relating to a travel services framework agreement. The Cabinet Office disclosed some information, stated that it did not hold some information, and withheld some information in reliance on the exemption at section 43 of FOIA (prejudice to commercial interests). The Commissioner’s decision is that the Cabinet Office does not hold any information other than that which it has disclosed to the complainant. No steps are required.

FOI 1: Complaint not upheld

21 May 2024, Local government

The complainant has requested correspondences from Somerset County Council (the Council) which related to a specific planning application. The Commissioner’s decision is that on the balance of probabilities, the Council does not hold any additional information in the scope of the request. The Commissioner also finds that the Council breached regulation 5(2) by failing to disclose all the requested information within 20 working days. The Commissioner does not require further steps.

EIR 5(1): Complaint not upheld EIR 5(2): Complaint upheld

20 May 2024, Central government

The complainant has requested information regarding drug testing and security scanning on members of staff from the Ministry of Justice (the MoJ). The MoJ advised that some of the requested information was not held and relied on section 12 of FOIA (cost of compliance) to refuse the remaining parts of the request. The Commissioner’s decision is as follows: On the balance of probabilities the MoJ does not hold any information within the scope of question 1. The MoJ was entitled to rely on section 12(1) of FOIA to refuse the request. The MoJ complied with its section 16 obligation to offer advice and assistance. The Commissioner does not require further steps to be taken. Published decision notice redacted at the request of the MoJ.

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

20 May 2024, Local government

The complainant has requested information contained in two planning applications for properties which share a boundary with their home. London Borough of Ealing (the “Council”) disclosed some information and relied on regulation 13 of the EIR (third party personal information) to withhold other parts of the requested information. During the course of the Commissioner’s investigation, the Council additionally sought to rely on regulation 12(5)(d) of the EIR (confidentiality of proceedings) to withhold a part of the requested information. The Commissioner’s decision is that regulation 13 applies to all the withheld information. However, the Council breached regulation 11(4) of the EIR as it did not provide its internal review outcome within 40 working days. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps to ensure compliance with the legislation.

EIR 13: Complaint not upheld EIR 11(4): Complaint upheld

20 May 2024, Private companies

The Commissioner’s decision is that the requested information about discharges at combined sewer overflows doesn’t engage regulation 12(5)(b) of the EIR, which concerns the course of justice. The Commissioner requires Northumbrian Water Ltd to take the following step to ensure compliance with the legislation: Disclose the requested information.

EIR 12(5)(b): Complaint upheld

20 May 2024, Central government

The complainant has requested a copy of the Enhanced Quality Assurance Framework (‘EQAF’). The Commissioner’s decision is that the Department for Work and Pensions (‘DWP’) fully considered all the information specified in the complainant’s request and interpreted it correctly. On the balance of probabilities, DWP also holds no further recorded information relevant to the complainant’s request and has complied with section 1(1) of FOIA. The Commissioner does not therefore require DWP to take further steps.

FOI 1: Complaint not upheld

20 May 2024, Central government

The complainant has requested to know the salary of a named judge and detailed information about any periods of absence they have had. The Ministry of Justice (‘MoJ’) refused the request, citing section 40(2) (Personal information) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the MoJ was entitled to apply section 40(2) to refuse the request.

FOI 40: Complaint not upheld

20 May 2024, Local government

The complainant requested information from Birmingham City Council (“the Council”) relating to the suspension of two parking bays. 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 is not entitled to refuse 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, as the exemption is not engaged. The Commissioner requires the Council issue a fresh response to the request, which does not rely on the exception at regulation 12(4)(b) of the EIR, to ensure compliance with the legislation.

EIR 12(4)(b): Complaint upheld

20 May 2024, Other

The complainant requested a copy of a tracker spreadsheet held by Homes England, relating to Help to Buy Equity Loans for properties that have undergone an EWS1 assessment. Homes England refused to provide the requested information, citing section 40(2) of FOIA (personal information) and section 43(2) of FOIA (commercial interests) as its bases for doing so. The Commissioner’s decision is that: Homes England is entitled to rely on section 40(2) of FOIA to withhold some, but not all, of the information it has withheld on this basis; Home England is entitled to rely on section 43(2) of FOIA to withhold some, but not all, of the information it has withheld on this basis. The Commissioner requires Homes England to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: Disclose all of the headings of the columns on the spreadsheet (ie all of the information in row 1), with the exception of the staff initials included in the heading of column AB as these can be redacted under section 40(2) on the same basis as the other staff initials on the spreadsheet considered in this notice; disclose all of the information in columns A-U, X, AB-AE, AH-AI.

FOI 43(2): Complaint partly upheld FOI 40(2): Complaint partly upheld