1. IC-47646-B2M8

    The complainant requested information about the appointment of election monitors. The British-Russia Centre and East-West Centre stated that it did not hold the requested information but argued that it was no longer a public authority for the purposes of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that, whilst the Centre is indisputably listed in schedule 1 of the FOIA, it no longer satisfies the second condition set out in section 4(3) of the FOIA. Therefore, by virtue of section 4(4) of the FOIA, the Centre has ceased to be a public authority for the purposes of the FOIA and it was not obliged to comply with the request. As the Centre is not a public authority, the Commissioner has no power to require it to take further steps. Given the implications of her decision and her general duties under section 47 of the FOIA, the Commissioner considers it necessary to make recommendations to the Cabinet Office. These are discussed under the “Other Matters” section of this notice.
  2. IC-44600-W1N3

    The complainant submitted two requests to HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) both of which sought details of allegations and investigations into HMRC staff who were alleged to have committed a number of specified offences when applying for jobs. HMRC refused the first request on the basis of section 12(1) (appropriate cost limit) and argued that the information falling within the scope of the second request was exempt from disclosure on the basis of section 40(2) (personal data) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that HMRC is entitled to refuse the first request on the basis of section 12(1) of FOIA and that the information sought by the second request is exempt from disclosure on the basis of section 40(2) of FOIA.
  3. IC-46902-Q8R1

    The complainant has requested details from Tamworth Borough Council (“the Council”) regarding the details of meetings and people who conducted a previous internal review. The Council stated that it did not hold all of the information within the scope of the complainant’s request but it provided some of the information that it did hold.  It also withheld part of the held information and relied on section 40 of the FOIA to do so. The Commissioner’s decision is that she is satisfied that the Council only holds some of the information within the scope of the request and that  the Council has correctly relied upon section 40(2) to withhold the information it has done. The Commissioner therefore does not require any further steps to be taken.
  4. IC-47854-C1C8

    The complainant has requested a range of information from the Academies Trust (“the Trust”) relating to budget planning, costs saving, staffing and other subjects. The Trust responded to several parts of the request but withheld information from a financial recovery plan on the basis of section 36 and 43 of the FOIA. The complainant also considered part 8 of the request had not been fully responded to. The Commissioner’s decision is that section 36 is engaged but the public interest favours disclosure of the information in the recovery plan. The Commissioner did not find the section 43 exemption to be engaged. In terms of the information requested at part 8 of the request, the Commissioner finds that the Trust has not explicitly confirmed if this information is held and has therefore failed to comply with section 1(1)(a) of the FOIA. The Commissioner requires the public authority to disclose the information from the recovery plan referred to in part 2 of the request; and confirm if the information requested and clarified in part 8 of the request is held and, if so disclose this or issue a refusal notice clearly explaining the reasons for withholding the information.
  5. IC- 45100-Y6C5

    The complainant has requested Highways England (HE) to disclose information in relation to the A5036 Port of Liverpool Access Scheme. It disclosed some information but refused to disclose the remainder citing regulations 12(5)(e), 12(5)(f) and 13 of the EIR. The complainant raised no concerns in respect of regulation 13, so the Commissioner’s investigation has focussed on HE’s application of regulations 12(5)(e) and 12(5)(f) of the EIR. With regards to document 3 and HE’s application of regulation 12(5)(e), the Commissioner is satisfied that this exception applies and the public interest rests in maintaining this exception. Regarding document 5 and HE’s application of 12(5)(f) of the EIR, the Commissioner has decided that this exception does not apply. The Commissioner therefore requires HE to disclose the information redacted from document 5 under regulation 12(5)(f) to the complainant.