ICO The complainant submitted a request to the Ministry of Defence (MOD) for a copy of the minutes of a meeting of the Advisory Military Sub Committee held in August 2013. The MOD withheld the minutes on the basis of section 35(1)(a) of FOIA. The Commissioner is satisfied that the minutes fall within the scope of the exemption and that the public interest favours withholding the information.
FOI 35: Not upheld

[2015] UKICO FS50584583
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 08 January 2022; Ref: scu.556712

ICO The complainant has requested information from Mole Valley District Council (‘the council’) that relates to a corporate complaint about the council’s investigation into a specified address. The council refused to comply with the requests as it considered them to be vexatious under section 14(1) of the Freedom of Information Act (‘the FOIA’) and manifestly unreasonable under regulation 12(4)(b) of the Environmental Information Regulations (‘the EIR’). The Commissioner’s decision is that the council has correctly refused the requests as vexatious under section 14(1) of the FOIA and manifestly unreasonable under regulation 12(4)(b) of the EIR. He requires no steps to be taken by the council.
FOI 14: Not upheld EIR 12(4)(b): Not upheld

[2015] UKICO FS50589693
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 08 January 2022; Ref: scu.556716

ICO The complainant requested information about counsel fees. The Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency (DVLA) withheld the information, citing the exemption under section 40(2) of the FOIA (third party personal data) as its basis for doing so. The Commissioner’s decision is that DVLA has correctly applied this exemption and does not require the Trust to take any steps.
FOI 40: Not upheld

[2015] UKICO FS50593599
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 08 January 2022; Ref: scu.556692

ICO The complainant requested information relating to the misconduct figures published by the College of Policing (the College). The College refused the request, citing section 40(2) (personal information) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the College has incorrectly applied the exemption for personal data at section 40(2) of the FOIA as the withheld information is sufficiently anonymised to take it out of the definition of personal data. The Commissioner requires the College to disclose the withheld information. 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.
FOI 40: Upheld

[2015] UKICO FS50585821
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 08 January 2022; Ref: scu.556684

ICO The complainant has requested information about a relationship between an undercover officer and a woman from the Metropolitan Police Service (the ‘MPS’). The MPS would neither confirm nor deny holding the requested information citing sections 30(3)(investigations and proceedings), 40(5)(personal data) and 42(2)(legal professional privilege). During the Commissioner’s investigation, the MPS amended its position to advise that some parts of the request were not valid as they were questions rather than requests for recorded information. The Commissioner’s decision is that two parts of the request were not valid as per section 8 of the FOIA. He also agrees that the MPS was entitled to rely on section 40(5)(b)(i) to neither confirm nor deny holding the requested information. No steps are required.
FOI 8: Not upheld FOI 40: Not upheld

[2015] UKICO FS50576051
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 08 January 2022; Ref: scu.556685

ICO The complainant has requested information in relation to correspondence received from the Local Government Ombudsman. The council provided its response, but provided its response outside the required 20 working days following receipt of the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council has breached section 10(1) of the FOIA, in responding outside the required timeframe. As the council has provided a response, the Commissioner does not require it to take any steps.
FOI 10: Upheld

[2015] UKICO FS50593561
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 08 January 2022; Ref: scu.556674

ICO The complainant has requested information which concerns the procedures followed by Cheshire West and Chester Council in responding to his previous requests for information. The Commissioner’s decision is that Chester West and Chester Council has breached section 10 of the Freedom of Information Act by failing to fully respond to the complainant’s request within the twenty working day compliance period. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take no further action in this matter.
FOI 10: Upheld

[2015] UKICO FER0596766
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 08 January 2022; Ref: scu.556680

ICO The complainant asked Chester West and Chester Council for its procedure for investigating complaints about planning matters. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council failed to respond the to the complainant’s request within the twenty day compliance period provided by section 10 of the FOIA. The Council has therefore breached section 10. The Commissioner does not require the Council to take any further action in this matter.
FOI 10: Upheld

[2015] UKICO FS50593051
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 08 January 2022; Ref: scu.556681

ICO The complainant has made two separate information requests with regards to wheeled bins. Ashford Borough Council (the council) refused both requests relying on section 14(1) of the FOIA as it considered them to be vexatious. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council is able to rely on section 14(1) of the FOIA to refuse the two requests. The Commissioner does not require the council to take any steps. This decision notice is currently under appeal to the Tribunal.
FOI 14: Not upheld

[2015] UKICO FS50593162
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 08 January 2022; Ref: scu.556673

ICO The complainant submitted a request to the public authority for information in relation to flight and immigration records for the Island of Diego Garcia which had been subjected to some water damage. The Commissioner’s decision is that the public authority was entitled to withhold information within the scope of the relevant part of the request (the disputed information) on the basis of the exemptions at sections 36(2)(b)(i) and (ii) FOIA. The Commissioner however finds the public authority in breach of section 10(1) FOIA for failing to respond to the request within 20 working days. No steps are required.
FOI 10: Upheld FOI 36: Not upheld

[2015] UKICO FS50584411
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 08 January 2022; Ref: scu.556693

ICO The complainant submitted a request to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) for information relating to communications between it and Tony Blair about Egypt. The FCO confirmed that it held information falling within the scope of the request but considered this to be exempt from disclosure on the sections 27(1)(a), (c) and (d) (international relations), section 40(2) (personal data) section, 41(1) (information provided in confidence) and section 21 (information reasonably accessible to the applicant). The Commissioner is satisfied that the FCO is entitled to rely on these various exemptions to withhold the information falling within the scope of the complainant’s request.
FOI 21: Not upheld FOI 27: Not upheld FOI 40: Not upheld FOI 41: Not upheld

[2015] UKICO FS50585275
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 08 January 2022; Ref: scu.556694

ICO The complainant requested the names of the nurses overnight on a date in 2013 at Burton Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust (the Trust). The Trust withheld the information, citing the exemption under section 40(2) of the FOIA (third party personal data) as its basis for doing so. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Trust has correctly applied this exemption and does not require the Trust to take any steps.
FOI 40: Not upheld

[2015] UKICO FS50588851
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 08 January 2022; Ref: scu.556676

ICO The complainant has requested information relating to newspaper reports that FBI agents will be coming to the UK to guard UK airports against ‘jihadi fanatics’. The Cabinet Office refused to confirm or deny whether it held any such information and cited the exemptions provided by sections 23(5) (information relating to or supplied by security bodies) and 24(2)(national security) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Cabinet Office was entitled to rely on the exemptions at sections 23(5) and 24(2) to neither confirm nor deny whether it held information within the scope of the request which, if held, would be exempt by virtue of sections 23(1) and 24(1) FOIA.
FOI 23: Not upheld FOI 24: Not upheld

[2015] UKICO FS50561061
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 08 January 2022; Ref: scu.556678

ICO The complainant submitted a request to the public authority for copies of correspondence between Ministers and officials in relation to the Government’s position on the European Union’s (EU) proposals for a circular economy package. The Commissioner’s decision is that the public authority was entitled to withhold the information held within the scope of the request (‘the disputed information’) on the basis of the exception at regulation 12(4)(e) of the EIR. No steps are required.
EIR 12(4)(e): Not upheld

[2015] UKICO FS50575044
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 08 January 2022; Ref: scu.556679

[2014] UKFTT 2012 – 0090 (GRC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 08 January 2022; Ref: scu.526460

Application for permission to appeal against a decision in a case concerning the alleged misuse of confidential information in the shape of what was effectively a customer list.

Lewison LJ
[2015] EWCA Civ 985
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 07 January 2022; Ref: scu.556222

ICO The complainant requested legal advice about changes to the structure of Wrexham County Borough Council (‘the Council’) and compliance with the Local Government (Wales) Measure 2011. The Council withheld the information on the basis that it was subject to legal professional privilege, and was therefore exempt under section 42(1) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has correctly applied section 42(1) to the withheld information. The Commissioner does not require any steps to be taken. This decision notice is currently under appeal to the Tribunal.
FOI 42: Not upheld

[2015] UKICO FS50588991
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 07 January 2022; Ref: scu.556002

ICO The complainant made a request to Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council (‘the Council’) for information about emails sent from members of the public to Councillors being diverted to a specific email inbox, following a report in the local press. The Council refused the request by explaining that the information was not held or else was exempt under sections 40(2) (personal information) and/or section 36(2)(b) (free and frank exchange of views / provision of advice) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that some of the requested information is not held and some information is exempt under section 40(2). However, the Commissioner has also found that for the remaining information section 40(2) is not engaged and this information should be disclosed. The Commissioner requires the public authority disclose to the complainant the information in part 3 of the request. 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 (or the Court of Session in Scotland) pursuant to section 54 of the Act and may be dealt with as a contempt of court.
FOI 40: Partly upheld

[2015] UKICO FS50589778
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 07 January 2022; Ref: scu.556001

ICO The complainant has requested information relating to the occupation of the first floor of the old Church of England school building in Surrey Street, Arundel. The Council refused to comply with the request under section 14(1) FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has correctly applied section 14(1) FOIA to the request. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken.
FOI 14: Not upheld

[2015] UKICO FS50591737
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 07 January 2022; Ref: scu.555999

ICO The complainant has requested two fees notices attached to specific invoices held by Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council (‘the Council’). The Council stated this information was exempt on the basis of section 43(2) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the section 43(2) exemption is not engaged. The Commissioner requires the public authority to disclose the fees notices relating to the invoices as set out in the request. 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.
FOI 43: Upheld

[2015] UKICO FS50585536
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 07 January 2022; Ref: scu.556000

ICO The complainant has requested information from Yeovil District Hospital NHS Foundation Trust on public health funerals carried out by the Trust since January 2014. The Trust provided information for some of the request but refused to provide the names, last known addresses, dates of birth and dates of death of individuals who had a public health funeral on the basis of section 41 of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Trust has correctly applied the provisions of section 41 to withhold all but the dates of death. The Commissioner requires the public authority to disclose the dates of death of any individuals who received a public health funeral from the Trust since January 2014. 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.
FOI 41: Partly

[2015] UKICO FS50584671
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 07 January 2022; Ref: scu.556003

The complainant has submitted multiple requests for information to Scarborough Borough Council (the Council) and it relied on section 14(1) not to comply with them. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council’s reliance on section 14(1), not to comply with the requests, was correct. The Commissioner requires the Council to take no steps to ensure compliance with the legislation.
FOI 14: Not upheld

[2015] UKICO FS50561428, FS505
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 07 January 2022; Ref: scu.555987

ICO The complainant has requested a copy of a report into the Hastings Local Development Plan. The Planning Inspectorate disclosed some information and subsequently disclosed further information during the Commissioner’s investigation. The Commissioner’s decision is that The Planning Inspectorate has disclosed the requested information and complied with regulation 5(1) of the EIR. However, in providing the information outside 20 working days The Planning Inspectorate breached regulation 5(2) of the EIR. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps.
EIR 5(1): Not upheld EIR 5(2): Upheld

[2015] UKICO FER0590308
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 07 January 2022; Ref: scu.555980

ICO The complainant requested notes of site visits by South Oxfordshire District Council officers to the site of works that had been taking place within an area of woodland. He also asked to see related correspondence between SODC and third parties including the Forestry Commission. SODC initially responded under FOIA but subsequently applied the Environmental Information Regulations 2004 (SI 2004 No 3391) (the EIRs) and disclosed a considerable volume of information, including items from its correspondence with the Forestry Commission. SODC withheld some personal information relying on the EIR regulation 13(2) exception and additionally relied on the exception in regulation 12(4)(a) in maintaining that no more information was held that came within the scope of the request. The complainant did not challenge the application of the regulation 13(2) exception to the personal information being withheld. However, he remained dissatisfied and approached the Commissioner who investigated and made detailed enquiries of SODC. The Commissioner is satisfied on the balance of probabilities that SODC is not withholding further information and therefore he upheld the SODC reliance on the regulation 12(4)(a) EIR exception. He also found that SODC did not fully comply with regulation 5(2) in that not all of the requested information had been provided within 20 working days of the date of the request. The Commissioner requires no further steps to be taken.
EIR 5(2): Upheld EIR 13(2): Not upheld EIR 12(4)(a): Not upheld

[2015] UKICO FS50576350
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 07 January 2022; Ref: scu.555990

ICO The complainant requested information related to a clinical trial concerning treatments for chronic fatigue syndrome (‘CFS’) carried out by Queen Mary University of London (‘the University’). The University withheld the information under the exemptions in sections 22A, 40(2), 41 and 43(2) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the University has incorrectly applied sections 22A, 40(2), 41 and 43(2) of FOIA to the withheld information. The Commissioner requires the public authority to disclose to the complainant the information to which it has applied sections 22A, 40(2), 41 and 43(2) of FOIA. 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
FOI 22: Upheld FOI 40: Upheld FOI 40: Upheld FOI 41: Upheld FOI 43: Upheld

[2015] UKICO FS50565190
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 07 January 2022; Ref: scu.555985

ICO The complainant requested from Rothbury Parish Council (the Council) various information relating to complaint procedures, records management and a contract for gardening services. The Council refused the requests as vexatious under section 14(1) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council cited section 14(1) correctly and so it was not obliged to comply with the complainant’s requests. This decision notice is currently under appeal to the Tribunal.
FOI 14: Not upheld

[2015] UKICO FS50584415
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 07 January 2022; Ref: scu.555986

ICO The complainant has requested the school to confirm whether any teachers or members of the senior leadership team were suspended, subject to disciplinary action or dismissed between September 2013 and the date of his request. The council responded to the request, advising the complainant that the answer to each question was less than five. It stated that it considered a more accurate response was exempt from disclosure under section 40 of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the school issued an appropriate response in this case and was correct to refuse to disclose a more accurate response under section 40 of the FOIA. The Commissioner therefore requires no further action to be taken.
FOI 40: Not upheld

[2015] UKICO FS50579928
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 07 January 2022; Ref: scu.555993

ICO The complainant has requested responses from 2 councillors as part of a standards investigation into complaints made about them. The council supplied the information on one of the councillors however it withheld the response of the other under section 40(2) (personal data). The Commissioner’s decision is that the council was correct to apply section 40(2). The Commissioner does not require the council to take any steps, however he would draw the council’s attention to the comments made in the ‘Other Matters’ section of this decision notice.
FOI 40: Not upheld

[2015] UKICO FS50585217
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 07 January 2022; Ref: scu.555989

ICO The complainant has requested information from the University College London (‘UCL’) relating to the UCL institution in Australia. The Commissioner’s decision is that the UCL has correctly applied section 36(2)(b)(ii) to the request. The Commissioner requires the UCL to take no steps.
FOI 36: Not upheld

[2015] UKICO FS50587002
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 07 January 2022; Ref: scu.555996

ICO The complainant requested details of closed council tax accounts with credit balances where the liable party is deceased. The Commissioner’s decision is that Southwark Council is entitled to rely on the exemption from disclosure at s31(1)(a). He requires no steps.
FOI 31: Not upheld

[2015] UKICO FS50580210
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 07 January 2022; Ref: scu.555991

ICO The complainant requested minutes of Lancashire Police and Crime Commissioner’s (LPCC) Strategic Scrutiny meetings. LPCC withheld information within the scope of the request on the basis that section 22 of FOIA (information intended for future publication) applied. It subsequently published that information. The complainant disputes that the published information is the information she requested. The Commissioner has investigated LPCC’s response to the request. The Commissioner’s view is that the published information is within the scope of an objective reading of the request and as this information has already been made public the Commissioner does not require the LPCC to take any steps as a result of this decision notice. However, he finds that LPCC breached section 17(1) of FOIA by failing to issue a valid refusal notice within the statutory time limit.
FOI 17: Upheld

[2015] UKICO FS50587095
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 07 January 2022; Ref: scu.555982

ICO The complainant has requested information from the University College London (‘UCL’) relating to UCL Australia. The Commissioner’s decision is that the UCL has correctly applied section 12(1) of the FOIA to the request. The Commissioner requires the UCL to take no steps.
FOI 12: Not upheld

[2015] UKICO FS50582561
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 07 January 2022; Ref: scu.555995

ICO The complainant has requested an ‘authenticated’ copy of a report relating to the Hastings Local Plan. The Planning Inspectorate stated it had previously disclosed the identified report to the complainant and also previously confirmed that an ‘authenticated’ version of the report, as defined by the complainant, was not held. The Commissioner’s decision is that The Planning Inspectorate correctly confirmed that it does not hold an ‘authenticated’ copy of the requested information and that it complied with regulation 5(1) of the EIR. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps.
EIR 5(1): Not upheld

[2015] UKICO FER0601857
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 07 January 2022; Ref: scu.555981

ICO The complainant has requested information relating to allegations of high treason and sedition recorded by the Police Service of Northern Ireland (the PSNI). The Commissioner’s decision is that PSNI does not hold any recorded information relevant to the request. No further steps are required.
FOI 1: Not upheld

[2015] UKICO FS50578209
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 07 January 2022; Ref: scu.555983

ICO The complainant has requested a copy of legal advice the Welsh Government had received in relation to an issue between himself and the Welsh Government regarding its Welsh for Adults policy. The Welsh Government refused the request by virtue of section 42(1) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Welsh Government was correct to rely on section 42(1) of the FOIA. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps.
FOI 42: Not upheld

[2015] UKICO FS50572310
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 07 January 2022; Ref: scu.555998

ICO The complainant has requested information from St Edmundsbury Borough Council about planning matters in relation to two specific planning reference numbers, including all communication relating to pre-application meetings and discussions. The request also sought information about Development Control Meetings on specific dates. St Edmundsbury Borough Council disclosed some information and stated that it did not hold the remaining information. The Commissioner is satisfied that St Edmundsbury Borough Council has disclosed all of the information it holds but in disclosing some information outside of the statutory time limit has breached regulation 5(2) of the EIR. He does not require the public authority to take any further steps.
EIR 5(2): Upheld

[2015] UKICO FER0581184
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 07 January 2022; Ref: scu.555992

ICO The complainant requested information from Oxfordshire County Council (the Council) relating to meetings within a specified timeframe between the Council and various parish councils, including the agenda and minutes of a meeting on a specific date. The Council provided some information but denied holding the remainder. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the remaining requested information is not held and therefore he requires no further action to be taken.
FOI 1: Not upheld

[2015] UKICO FS50587759
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 07 January 2022; Ref: scu.555979

ICO The complainant has requested information regarding financial assistance Sheffield City Council has given to every bowling club which is a Sheffield City Council asset. The Commissioner’s decision is that Sheffield City Council has correctly relied on section 17(6) of the FOIA and was therefore not obliged to respond to the information request.
FOI 17: Not upheld

[2015] UKICO FS50578709
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 07 January 2022; Ref: scu.555988

ICO The complainant has requested from Transport for Greater Manchester (TfGM) information about Metrolink. TfGM released some of the information, said it did not hold some information and said that some of the information is exempt under section 21 (information already accessible) and section 42 (legal professional privilege). The Commissioner’s decision is that TfGM: Breached section 10(1) and 10(3) because it did not provide a response within 20 working days or within a reasonable extension to this limit. Breached section 16 as it did not offer the complainant satisfactory advice and assistance within an appropriate timescale. Breached section 17 because it did not issue a refusal notice within 20 working days. Correctly applied the exemption at section 42 to some of the information it has withheld. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps.
FOI 10: Upheld FOI 16: Upheld FOI 17: Upheld FOI 42: Not upheld

[2015] UKICO FS50588003
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 07 January 2022; Ref: scu.555994

ICO The complainant has requested information from the University of Reading (‘the University’) relating to a former employee. The Commissioner’s decision is that the University has correctly applied section 40(2) of the FOIA to the request. The Commissioner requires the University to take no steps.
FOI 40: Not upheld

[2015] UKICO FS50586288
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 07 January 2022; Ref: scu.555997

ICO The complainant has requested information relating to a complaint he made. Potto Parish Council disclosed some information, explaining that it did not hold any further information. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council does not hold any further information and has complied with section 1 of the FOIA. The Commissioner does not require Potto Parish Council to take any steps as a result of this decision notice.
FOI 1: Not upheld

[2015] UKICO FS50572254
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 07 January 2022; Ref: scu.555984

ICO The complainant has requested access to databases listing properties at risk of low water pressure (DG2) and properties at risk of internal sewer flooding (DG5). Northumbrian Water Ltd applied the exceptions at regulations 13(1), 12(4)(b), 12(5)(c) and 12(5)(f) of the EIR to the DG5 database and said that the DG2 database does not constitute environmental information but if the Commissioner decides that it does, the same exceptions apply. The Commissioner’s decision is that the DG2 database does constitute environmental information and that Northumbrian Water Ltd has correctly withheld the requested information under the exception for personal data at regulation 13. He does not require any steps to be taken.
EIR 13(1): Not upheld

[2015] UKICO FER0588641
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 07 January 2022; Ref: scu.555975

ICO The complainant has requested information in response to a council letter regarding a parking restriction proposal. Medway Council (the council) provided some information and refused parts of the request that it considered to be third party personal data – initially refused under section 40(2) of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), but later amended it to regulation 13 of the EIR. Lastly it advised that it did not hold some of the requested information. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council does not hold any more information, other than what has been identified by the council. With regards to the information refused under regulation 13 of the EIR, the Commissioner found, in a separate decision notice under reference FER0582993, where the same information had been requested by the complainant, that some of the withheld information should be provided to the complainant, and the remaining information was correctly withheld. The Commissioner requires the public authority to comply with the steps ordered by the Commissioner in decision notice FER0582993. 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.
EIR 5(1): Not upheld

[2015] UKICO FS50577302
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 07 January 2022; Ref: scu.555963

ICO The complainant has made a request to One Education Ltd (‘the authority’) for the handwritten notes or draft minutes of a meeting. The authority refused the request under section 22 of the Freedom of Information Act (‘the FOIA’), which the complainant disputed. The Commissioner’s decision is that the authority has correctly refused the request under the exemption provided by section 22. However, in failing to provide a valid refusal notice within the time for compliance, the authority breached the requirement of section 17(1). The Commissioner does not require any steps to be taken.
FOI 17: Upheld FOI 22: Not upheld

[2015] UKICO FS50579547
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 07 January 2022; Ref: scu.555978

ICO The complainant has requested information from the London Borough of Newham (‘the Council’) relating to his property. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council does not hold the information requested at request 3. The Commissioner requires the Council to take no steps.
FOI 1: Not upheld

[2015] UKICO FS50568405
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 07 January 2022; Ref: scu.555971

ICO The complainant has made a request to Northumberland County Council (‘the council’) for information about spending on broadband provision. The council provided held information, but the complainant contested whether this was complete. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council has disclosed all held information. However in failing to disclose all held information within the time for compliance the council breached section 10(1). The Commissioner does not require any steps to be taken.
FOI 1: Not upheld FOI 10: Upheld

[2015] UKICO FS50579990
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 07 January 2022; Ref: scu.555974

ICO The complainant has requested information from the London Borough of Lambeth (‘the Council’) relating to the Rateable Values of the Vauxhall Gardens Estate in Kennington/Vauxhall. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has correctly applied section 40(2) of the FOIA to the information withheld under the scope of request 2. The Commissioner requires the Council to take no steps.
FOI 40: Not upheld

[2015] UKICO FS50586531
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 07 January 2022; Ref: scu.555959

ICO The complainant has requested information regarding advice North Yorkshire County Council (NYCC) received regarding the exclusion of a particular bus service from the English National Concessionary Travel Scheme. NYCC has withheld the information which it says is exempt from disclosure under section 42(1) of the FOIA (legal professional privilege). The Commissioner’s decision is that: NYCC has correctly applied section 42(1) to the information because it is subject to legal professional privilege; and that the public interest favours withholding the information. He does not require North Yorkshire County Council to take any steps.
FOI 42: Not upheld

[2015] UKICO FS50582987
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 07 January 2022; Ref: scu.555973

ICO The complainant requested information relating to the identity of the certificate provider who signed a Lasting Power of Attorney document. The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) refused the request, relying on section 40(2) (personal information) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that MoJ was not obliged to confirm or deny if the requested information was held under section 40(5)(b)(i) of FOIA. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken as a result of this decision.
FOI 40: Not upheld

[2015] UKICO FS50588912
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 07 January 2022; Ref: scu.555966

ICO The complainant has requested a supplier by supplier position on repayments to customers on calorific value (CV) miscalculations. Ofgem refused to provide the requested information, relying on section 44 of FOIA (prohibitions on disclosure) in order to do so. In particular Ofgem cited the statutory prohibition on disclosure created under the terms of Section 105 of the Utilities Act 2000. The Commissioner’s decision is that Ofgem has correctly applied section 44(1)(a) and the Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps.
FOI 44: Not upheld

[2015] UKICO FS50591526
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 07 January 2022; Ref: scu.555977

ICO The complainant has requested information in response to a council letter regarding a parking restriction proposal. Medway Council (the council) provided the complainant with the information it held. The complainant considered that further information was held by the council. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council has provided all the information it holds within the scope of the request. The Commissioner does not require the council to take any steps
EIR 5(1): Not upheld

[2015] UKICO FS50571880
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 07 January 2022; Ref: scu.555962

ICO The complainant has requested information in response to a council letter regarding a parking restriction proposal. Medway Council (the council) provided the complainant with some information, refused other information that it considered to be third party personal data. Lastly it advised that it did not hold some of the requested information. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council was correct to withhold some information under regulation 13 of the EIR, but considers some information should be released. He also determined that no other information was held to the remaining parts of the request. The Commissioner requires the public authority provide the complainant with a copy of the information as explained in paragraph 39 of the decision notice below. 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.
EIR 13: Partly upheld

[2015] UKICO FER0582993
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 07 January 2022; Ref: scu.555961

ICO The complainant has requested recorded information which relates to North Huish Council’s decision not to remove information associated with the complainant from its website and parish noticeboards and to a complaint made by the complainant in regards to this. The Commissioner’s decision is that North Huish Parish Council has correctly applied section 14(1) and consequently the Council is not required to respond to the complainant’s four requests considered in this notice on the grounds that the requests are vexatious. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take no further action in this matter.
FOI 14: Not upheld

[2015] UKICO FS50583287
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 07 January 2022; Ref: scu.555972

ICO The complainant has requested details of dog grooming conducted at a specific property. Medway Council disclosed some information and stated that other information falling within the request scope was not held. The Commissioner’s decision is that Medway Council has correctly confirmed that it does not hold the requested information and that it complied with section 1 of the FOIA. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps.
FOI 1: Not upheld

[2015] UKICO FS50589627
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 07 January 2022; Ref: scu.555964

ICO The complainant made a request for information to the Office for National Statistics (ONS) for information regarding a dispute about infringement of copyright. The ONS disclosed some of the requested information but withheld some information under the exemption in section 42 (legal professional privilege). The Commissioner’s decision is that the section 42 exemption was correctly applied and the public interest in maintaining that exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosure. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken.
FOI 42: Not upheld

[2015] UKICO FS50581470
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 07 January 2022; Ref: scu.555976

ICO The complainant requested information about a tripartite review. The Commissioner’s decision is that Network Rail breached section 1(1) and section 10(1) of the FOIA because it did not provide the complainant with a response within 20 working days of receiving his request. Network Rail has now provided a response and the Commissioner does not require it to take any steps.
FOI 1: Upheld FOI 10: Upheld

[2015] UKICO FS50593069
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 07 January 2022; Ref: scu.555970

ICO The complainant has requested information about material that has been redacted and/or removed from the file PREM 19/588 which is available to view in the National Archives. TNA refused to provide the requested information under section 23(1), section 36(2)(b)(ii) and 36(2)(c) and 40(2) FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that TNA has correctly applied section 23(1), section 36(2)(b)(ii) and section 40(2) to the withheld information apart from, in relation to the redaction of one name throughout, which the Commissioner considers was incorrectly withheld under section 40(2) FOIA. The Commissioner requires TNA to remove the redactions to the name, but not contact details, of the individual referred to in the Confidential Annex attached to this Notice. 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.
FOI 23: Not upheld FOI 36: Not upheld FOI 40: Partly upheld

[2015] UKICO FS50586954
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 07 January 2022; Ref: scu.555969

ICO The complainant has requested information on the recovery of legal costs by the General Medical Council (GMC). The GMC refused to comply with the request under section 14(1) of FOIA on the basis that it was vexatious. The Commissioner’s decision is that the GMC was entitled to find the request was vexatious. He does not require the GMC to take any further action in this matter.
FOI 14: Not upheld

[2015] UKICO FS50578188
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 07 January 2022; Ref: scu.555934

ICO The complainant has requested information on the ethnicity and religion of the General Medical Council’s (GMC’s) staff. The GMC refused to comply with the request under section 14(1) of FOIA on the basis that it was vexatious. The Commissioner’s decision is that the GMC was entitled to rely on section 14(1). The GMC is not required to take any further action in this matter.
FOI 14: Not upheld

[2015] UKICO FS50585623
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 07 January 2022; Ref: scu.555935

The complainant requested information relating to allegations of child sexual abuse in and around the Palace of Westminster. The Home Office stated that it was unable to establish whether it held this information within the cost limit and refused the request under section 12(2) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Home Office cited section 12(2) correctly and so it was not obliged to confirm or deny whether it held the requested information. The Commissioner also found, however, that the Home Office breached section 17(5) of the FOIA by failing to respond to the request within 20 working days of receipt.
FOI 12: Not upheld

[2015] UKICO FS50583743
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 07 January 2022; Ref: scu.555948

ICO The complainant requested information regarding a blocked online forum. Gloucestershire Constabulary refused to provide the requested information citing section 14 of FOIA (vexatious request). The Commissioner’s decision is that Gloucestershire Constabulary was entitled to apply section 14. He requires no steps to be taken.
FOI 14: Not upheld

[2015] UKICO FS50584451
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 07 January 2022; Ref: scu.555937

ICO The complainant has requested information with regards to a private cabinet meeting. Kirklees Council (the council) responded to the request after the complainant requested an internal review. The complainant was not satisfied with the time it took the council to respond to his request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council has breached section 10(1) of the FOIA as it did not respond to the request within the required 20 workings following receipt of the request. As the council has now responded, the Commissioner does not require it to take any steps.
FOI 10: Upheld

[2015] UKICO FS50586175
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 07 January 2022; Ref: scu.555958

ICO The complainant requested information concerning immigration and asylum. The Home Office failed to respond substantively to this request and the Commissioner finds that, in so doing, it breached sections 1(1) and 10(1) of the FOIA. The Commissioner requires the Home Office to respond to the request. The Home Office 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 FOIA and may be dealt with as a contempt of court.
FOI 1: Upheld FOI 10: Upheld

[2015] UKICO FS50594018
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 07 January 2022; Ref: scu.555951

ICO The complainant has requested information about an investigation he believes is or was conducted by the Insolvency Service. It relied on sections 31(3) and/or 43(3) to neither confirm nor deny that the requested information was held. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Insolvency Service has not persuaded him that the aforesaid sections permit it to neither confirm nor deny it holds the information requested by the complainant. The Commissioner requires the Insolvency Service to issue a reconsidered response to the request that is compliant with the requirements of section 1 and/or section 17 but does not seek to rely on sections 31(3) and/or 43(3). 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.
FOI 31: Upheld FOI 43: Upheld

[2015] UKICO FS50574519
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 07 January 2022; Ref: scu.555955

The complainant requested information relating to deprivation of British citizenship. The Home Office failed to respond substantively to this request and the Commissioner finds that, in so doing, it breached sections 1(1) and 10(1) of the FOIA. The Commissioner requires the Home Office to respond to the request. The Home Office 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 FOIA and may be dealt with as a contempt of court.
FOI 1: Upheld FOI 10: Upheld

[2015] UKICO FS50594015
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 07 January 2022; Ref: scu.555950

ICO The complainant has requested information about any disciplinary action that might have been taken by Kent Police (the police) against a police officer and a civilian police employee arising from an incident. The Commissioner’s decision is that police correctly relied on the section 40(5)(b)(i) FOIA in neither confirming nor denying holding the information requested; he does not require the police to take any steps to ensure compliance with the legislation.
FOI 40: Not upheld

[2015] UKICO FS50591480
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 07 January 2022; Ref: scu.555956

ICO The complainant made 7 requests to the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) between 20 March 2015 and 17 April 2015 for various information including metadata, the use of debit and credit cards by ICO officials, legal costs, travel and accommodation costs and information relating to legal arguments and the ICO’s vexatious guidance. The ICO refused to comply with the requests as it considers they are vexatious under section 14(1) of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). The Commissioner’s decision is that the ICO has correctly applied section 14(1) FOIA in this case, it was not therefore obliged to comply with the requests. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken.
FOI 14: Not upheld

[2015] UKICO FS50582996
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 07 January 2022; Ref: scu.555954

ICO The complainant has requested information relating to the Javelin Park incinerator. The Commissioner’s decision is that Gloucestershire County Council has failed to demonstrate that the exception where disclosure would have an adverse effect upon the confidentiality of commercial or industrial information where such confidentiality is provided by law to protect a legitimate economic interest is engaged (regulation 12(5)(e)). The Commissioner has also decided that Gloucestershire County Council has failed to demonstrate that regulation 6(1)(b) applies. The Commissioner requires the public authority to disclose the withheld information to the complainant. The public authority must take this step within 35 calendar days of the date of this decision notice. Failure to comply may result in the Commissioner making written certification of this fact to the High Court pursuant to section 54 of the Act and may be dealt with as a contempt of court.
EIR 6(1)(b): Upheld EIR 12(5)(e): Upheld

[2015] UKICO FER0579974
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 07 January 2022; Ref: scu.555939

ICO The complainant has requested recorded information from the Borough of King’s Lynn and West Norfolk Council. The complainant seeks information relating to planning applications concerning the home of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge at Anmer Hall on the Sandringham Estate. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has correctly applied Regulation 12(5)(a) of the EIR. The Commissioner finds that disclosure of the requested information would adversely affect the national security of the United Kingdom and it is for this reason that the Commissioner finds that the Council is entitled to withhold the information which the complainant seeks. The Commissioner does not require the Council to take any further action in this matter.
EIR 12(5)(a): Not upheld

[2015] UKICO FER0573096
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 07 January 2022; Ref: scu.555957

ICO The complainant has requested information about a particular member of staff at The Oldham Academy North. E-ACT has determined that the request for information is vexatious in accordance with the FOIA section 14(1). The Commissioner’s decision is that E-ACT is entitled to rely on section 14(1) to refuse this request. He does not require the public authority to take any further steps.
FOI 14: Not upheld

[2015] UKICO FS50579334
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 07 January 2022; Ref: scu.555924

ICO The complainant has requested information with regards to the awarding of a Sexual Health contract. The council provided its response but the complainant considered that further information was held to parts of his request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council does not hold any further information within the scope of the request other than that provided. The Commissioner does not require the council to take any steps.
FOI 1: Not upheld

[2015] UKICO FS50585306
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 07 January 2022; Ref: scu.555905

ICO Central government
The complainant has requested from the Department for Education (‘DfE’) copies of letters sent to Free School applicants in Wave 1, 2 and 3 of the Free Schools programme informing them of the decision to either accept or reject their application and the reasons why. The DfE has disclosed copies of the decision letters sent to the successful applicants but withheld the letters sent to the unsuccessful ones under section 36(2)(c) (prejudice to the effective conduct of public affairs). The Commissioner’s decision is that section 36(2)(c) does not apply to the information withheld by the DfE (namely the letters sent to the unsuccessful applicants) as the public interest in maintaining the exemption does not outweigh the public interest in disclosure. The Commissioner requires the public authority disclose to the complainant: Copies of all 590 rejection letters held by the DfE and sent to the unsuccessful applicants to set up Free Schools in Wave 1, 2 and 3 of the Free Schools programme; The DfE is not required to disclose the names, addresses or other personal data of individuals contained within any of the above documents where it believes that the information is exempt from disclosure under section 40(2). 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.
FOI 36: Upheld

[2015] UKICO FS50565574
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 07 January 2022; Ref: scu.555916

ICO The complainant has requested information from the Education Authority (EANI) regarding a fatal road traffic accident which occurred in November 2014. The EANI disclosed some of the requested information to the complainant but refused to disclose the remainder, citing the exemptions under sections 36(2) and 40(2) as a basis for non-disclosure. The Commissioner’s decision is that the EANI has correctly applied the above exemptions to the information not disclosed to the complainant. Therefore the Commissioner requires no steps to be taken.
FOI 36: Not upheld FOI 40: Not upheld

[2015] UKICO FS50578840
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 07 January 2022; Ref: scu.555930

The complainant submitted a request to the public authority for information relating to the award of honours to the late Sir Cyril Smith, former MP for Rochdale. The public authority disclosed the vast majority of the information held within the scope of the request. The remaining information was withheld by the authority on the basis of the exemptions at sections 37(1)(b) and 40(2) FOIA. It also relied on the provisions in sections 23(5) and 24(2) FOIA as the basis for neither confirming nor denying whether the public authority held any information in scope subject to the exemptions at sections 23(1) and 24(1) FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that: The public authority was entitled to rely on the exemption at section 37(1)(b), and The public authority was entitled to rely on sections 23(5) and 24(2). No steps are required.
FOI 23: Not upheld FOI 24: Not upheld FOI 37: Not upheld

[2015] UKICO FS50579583
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 07 January 2022; Ref: scu.555895

Central government
The complainant requested information relating to service charges for tenants in receipt of housing benefit. The Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) denied holding any relevant information. The Commissioner’s decision is that on the balance of probabilities the DWP is unlikely to hold any information relevant to the complainant’s request.
FOI 1: Not upheld

[2015] UKICO FS50583626
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 07 January 2022; Ref: scu.555919

ICO The complainant requested information from Copeland Borough Council (‘the council’) relating to a collection of art works known as ‘The Copeland Collection’. The council sent a reply however it took longer than 20 working days to respond and it did not complete an internal review. The complainant complained about these issues and also alleged that the council had not provided all the recorded information held. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council breached section 1(1)(a) and 10(1) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (‘the FOIA’) for not confirming that it held some of the information and that some of it was not held within 20 working days. It also breached section 1(1)(b) and section 10(1) because it did not respond to the request within 20 working days and it did not provide all the information it held at the time. The Information Commissioner (‘the Commissioner’) does not require any steps to be taken.
FOI 1: Upheld FOI 10: Upheld

[2015] UKICO FS50563387
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 07 January 2022; Ref: scu.555910

iCO Central government
The complainant has requested wide-ranging information about two meetings between the Prince of Wales and two Secretaries of State. DEFRA identified that the information described in the request spanned two access regimes, the FOIA and the EIR. It refused to comply with the request on the basis that to do so would exceed the appropriate limit under section 12(1) of the FOIA; and, to the extent that it also sought access to environmental information, responding to the request would also be manifestly unreasonable under regulation 12(4)(b) of the EIR. The Information Commissioner’s decision is that complying with the request would exceed the appropriate cost limit under section 12(1) of the FOIA for some of the information. In relation to the information which constitutes environmental information, it is also a manifestly unreasonable request by virtue of cost under regulation 12(4)(b) of the EIR and the public interest favours maintaining the exception. DEFRA is therefore entitled to refuse to comply with the request. However, the Commissioner found that DEFRA breached regulation 11(3) of the EIR by failing to provide an internal review. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken.
FOI 12: Not upheld EIR 11(3): Upheld EIR 12(4)(b): Not upheld

[2015] UKICO FER0570314
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 07 January 2022; Ref: scu.555918

ICO Local government (Parish council)
The complainant requested to know the reason for the exclusion of the press and public from parts of the meetings of Codsall Parish Council (‘the council’) as well as the outcomes or resolutions. The council indicated the general reason why the press and public had been excluded but it said that details of the resolutions or outcomes was exempt information under section 40(2), 41 and 42 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (‘the FOIA’). These exemptions relate to third party personal data, information provided in confidence and legal professional privilege. During the Commissioner’s investigation, the council also said that it wished to argue that the request was vexatious under section 14(1). The Commissioner’s decision is that section 14(1) was correctly applied except in relation to some information that was environmental and should have been considered under the Environmental Information Regulations 2004 (‘the EIR’). This information was excepted under regulation 12(4)(b) and the public interest favoured maintaining the exception. He finds that the council breached section 17(5) for not relying on section 14(1) initially. The council also breached regulations 14(1) and 14(2) of the EIR for not relying on regulation 12(4)(b). The Commissioner does not require any steps to be taken.
FOI 14: Not upheld FOI 17: Upheld EIR 12(4)(b): Not upheld EIR 14(1): Upheld EIR 14(2): Upheld

[2015] UKICO FS50582494
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 07 January 2022; Ref: scu.555906

ICO The complainant made a freedom of information request to the Charity Commission for details of complaints made against Charities which involved issues of radicalisation and extremism. The Charity Commission refused the request under section 12(1) of FOIA (appropriate limit). The Commissioner has investigated the complaint and found that the Charity Commission applied section 12(1) correctly but that it had failed to provide advice and assistance in accordance with section 16. The Commissioner requires the public authority to provide the complainant with advice as to how his fourth request of 23 December 2014 could be refined to bring it within the cost limit or else it should confirm that it is not possible to refine the request and no information can be supplied within the appropriate limit. 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 (or the Court of Session in Scotland) pursuant to section 54 of the Act and may be dealt with as a contempt of court.
FOI 12: Not upheld FOI 16: Upheld

[2015] UKICO FS50570535
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 07 January 2022; Ref: scu.555900

ICO Central government
On 9 December 2013 the Commissioner served a decision notice that found the Department for Education (DfE) had correctly withheld copies of the drafts of the national curriculum for history under the ‘information relation to the development or formulation of government policy’ (section 35(1)(a)) exemption in FOIA. Referencing the passage of time that had elapsed since that decision, the complainant in this case made a request for the same information and for any other documents from around the same time that would shed light on the public policy process. The DfE decided that section 35(1)(a) continued to apply but also considered that the information would engage the ‘prejudice to the effective conduct of public affairs’ (sections 36(2)(b) and (c)) exemptions in FOIA. With respect to each of the exemptions applied, the DfE exercised the public interest test and concluded that the public interest favoured withholding the information. The Commissioner considers that section 35(1)(a) of FOIA is engaged and that on balance the public interest favours maintaining the exemption. He does not therefore require any steps to be taken as a result of this notice.
FOI 35: Not upheld

[2015] UKICO FS50580887
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 07 January 2022; Ref: scu.555917