FT/EA/2024/0464 - [2025] UKFTT 01131 (GRC)

He had provided the Commissioner with evidence which showed that, on the balance of probabilities, the Council held more information than that which they provided to him at the time that his request had been made;

The Commissioner was treating his two requests in the same way, which was unfair. The Commissioner had focused the scope of his investigation on the information that was held by the Council “today” and not what was held at the time of the request. The Appellant accepted that anything that was held “today” would have been disclosed to him pursuant to the EIR request that he made on 14 September 2023;

The Appellant referenced an email from the Council which indicated that they had started to gather information in relation to his request by 07 June 2023 at the latest. As such, he stated that he should have been provided with all of the CCTV from 08 May 2023 to 29 May 2023, and to the CCTV from the waste vehicle from its shifts on 12, 19 and 26 May 2023. Even if the Council had only started to gather the requested information on the day of their response to him, 15 June 2023, he calculated that he should still have been provided with the CCTV from the public space cameras from 16 May 2023 to 29 May 2023, and from the waste vehicle for 19 and 26 May 2023. In fact, he had not received any footage at all from the public space cameras pursuant to this EIR, and had only viewed footage from the 26 May 2023 (the last collection date prior to his accident) from the waste vehicle;

He stated that the scope of the Decision Notice was flawed and incorrect as the Commissioner had focused their investigation on the information held by the Council more latterly and not what was held at the time of his request;

The Appellant repeated his assertion that the Commissioner was failing to investigate wrongdoing on the part of the Council relating to the way in which they responded to his request.