The outcome shown is this site's grouping of the per-section labels in the ICO search index: upheld if every label is Upheld, not upheld if every label is Not upheld, and partly upheld for other stated combinations. Index labels and references can differ from the notice. Read the notice for the Commissioner's decision. Each notice's summary is the ICO's own text.
Decision notices 26,684 records
17 Oct 2026Partly upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000Sections decided: FOI 12(1); FOI 16(1); FOI 17(5)
ICO summary: The complainant requested information on the Cabinet Office’s expenditure on two communication and marketing agencies. The Cabinet Office disclosed some information and withheld the remainder under sections 43(2) and 27(1)(a) of FOIA. These exemptions concern commercial interests and international relations. During the Commission’s investigation the Cabinet Office revised its position. Its final position is that the remaining information engages section 12(1) of FOIA, which concerns the cost of compliance. The Commission’s decision is that section 12(1) of FOIA is engaged and there was no breach of section 16(1), which concerns advice and assistance. However, the Cabinet Office did not comply with section 17(5) of FOIA because it did not issue a section 12 refusal notice within the statutory timeframe. No steps are necessary.
16 Oct 2026UpheldFreedom of Information Act 2000Sections decided: FOI 10
ICO summary: 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 Commission, by the date of this notice the public authority has not issued a substantive response to this request. Therefore, the Commission 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.
16 Oct 2026Not upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000Sections decided: FOI 40
ICO summary: The complainant requested information about any internal investigation into the case of an unlawfully detained prisoner. The above public authority disclosed some information but withheld the remainder under section 40(2) of FOIA. The Commission’s decision is that the public authority was entitled to rely on section 40(2) of FOIA to withhold the information with the exception of one paragraph. The Commission requires the public authority to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: Disclose paragraph 7.1.4 of the withheld information.
16 Oct 2026UpheldFreedom of Information Act 2000Sections decided: FOI 36
ICO summary: The complainant requested information from the Department of Health and Social Care (“DHSC”) about the Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis (“MCDA”) undertaken as part of the review of the New Hospital Programme. DHSC disclosed some information but withheld the information falling within part 1 of the request under section 36(2)(c) of FOIA. The Commission’s decision is that the requested information is statistical information for the purposes of section 36(4) of FOIA and DHSC was therefore not required to obtain the opinion of a qualified person. Section 36(2)(c) is engaged because disclosure would be likely to cause a limited degree of prejudice to the effective conduct of public affairs; but in all the circumstances of this case, the public interest in maintaining the exemption does not outweigh the public interest in disclosure. The Commission therefore requires DHSC to disclose the information falling within part 1 of the request, namely the names of the schemes falling within the upper, middle and lower thirds of prioritisation scoring under each of the three MCDA scenarios.
16 Oct 2026Partly upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000Sections decided: FOI 12(2); FOI 16
ICO summary: The complainant requested information about the fixed custody CCTV system at Folkestone Police Station. Kent Police refused the request under section 12(2) of FOIA, arguing that determining whether the information was held would exceed the cost limit. The Commissioner found that Kent Police was entitled to rely on section 12(2), but failed to provide adequate advice and assistance under section 16. The Commissioner has ordered Kent Police to provide reasonable advice and assistance to help the complainant refine the request, if possible.
16 Oct 2026Partly upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004Sections decided: EIR 14; EIR 5(1); EIR 5(2)
ICO summary: The complainant requested legal advice obtained by Warminster Town Council (“the council”) about the Local Green Space designation at Folly Lane, Warminster, together with the instructions to the solicitor and associated information. The council initially dealt with the request under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA) and withheld the information under section 42 of FOIA. The Commission’s decision is that the requested information falls under the EIR to be considered. The refusal did not therefore comply with Regulation 14(3) of the EIR. During the Commission’s investigation, the council reconsidered its position and disclosed the legal advice and other information within the scope of the request. As the information was not made available within 20 working days, the council breached Regulation 5(2) of the EIR. The Commission has also decided that the council has not provided the complainant with the date on which the legal advice was sought, and therefore it has not fully complied with Regulation 5(1) of the EIR. The Commission requires the council to take the following step to ensure compliance with the legislation:To provide the complainant with the date on which the legal advice was sought, or, if the council does not hold recorded information establishing that date, to confirm this to the complainant.
16 Oct 2026Not upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004Sections decided: EIR 5(1)
ICO summary: The complainant requested information from Warminster Town Council (“the council”) about the Local Green Space designation at Folly Lane, Warminster, within the Warminster Neighbourhood Plan. The council said that it had previously provided the information that it holds to the complainant. The complainant, however, argued that further information will be held by it.The Commission has decided that, on the balance of probabilities, the council does not hold any further information falling within the scope of the request. The Commission does not require the council to take any steps.
16 Oct 2026Partly upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004Sections decided: EIR 12(4)(b); EIR 9
ICO summary: The complainant requested an update or summary of various information regarding progress against the Government’s Greening Government Commitments. The above public authority relied on regulation 12(4)(b) of the EIR to refuse the request as manifestly unreasonable. The Commission’s decision is that regulation 12(4)(b) is engaged and that the balance of the public interest favours maintaining the exception. However, the public authority failed to comply with its obligation, under regulation 9 of the EIR, to provide advice and assistance.The Commission does not require further steps to be taken.
16 Oct 2026Not upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000Sections decided: FOI 1; FOI 12; FOI 16; FOI 44
ICO summary: The complainant submitted a request to HM Revenue & Customs (HMRC) seeking information about VAT compliance checks on UK sellers of disability aids and information it held about its exchanges with Amazon UK on this subject. HMRC refused part of the request on the basis of section 12(1) (cost limit) of FOIA, explained that it did not hold some of the information sought by another part of the request, and refused to confirm or deny whether it held information falling within the remainder of the request on the basis of section 44(2) (prohibition on disclosure). The Commission’s decision is that HMRC can rely on section 12(1) of FOIA to refuse to comply with part 1 of the request; on the balance of probabilities, HMRC does not hold any information falling within the first half of part 2 of the request; HMRC can rely on section 44(2) to refuse to confirm or deny whether it holds any information falling within the remaining half of part 2 of the request and part 3 of the request; and that HMRC complied with its obligations under section 16(1) of FOIA in respect of the advice and assistance it provided to the complainant.
16 Oct 2026Partly upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000Sections decided: FOI 43(2)
ICO summary: The complainant submitted an information request to Northumbria Primary Care Limited (NPC) for a copy of its Business Transfer Agreement. NPC withheld the requested information under section 43(2) (commercial interests) of FOIA. However, during the Commission’s investigation it disclosed a redacted version of the agreement. The Commission’s decision is that NPC was entitled to withhold a limited amount of information under section 43(2) of FOIA and that the public interest favoured maintaining the exemption, in respect of that information. The Commission also finds that NPC beached sections 1(1) (b) and 10(1) of FOIA as it disclosed information falling within the scope of the request at a later stage. The Commission requires NPC to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. Disclose all the withheld information, except for the information contained within clause three of the agreement.
16 Oct 2026Partly upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000Sections decided: FOI 1; FOI 43(2); FOI 17(1)
ICO summary: The complainant has requested various information about the sale of Shay Stadium. Calderdale Metropolitan Borough Council disclosed some information but withheld the remainder under the exemptions provided by section 36 (Prejudice to effective conduct of public affairs) and section 43(2) (Commercial interests). The complainant was dissatisfied with the Council’s application of exemptions, and further, disputed the Council’s position that no information was held that would fall within the scope of part 2 of the request. The Commission’s decision is that the Council was entitled to refuse to disclose the withheld information in accordance with section 43(2) of FOIA and the public interest lies in maintaining the exemption. Further, the Commission is satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that the Council does not hold any recorded information falling within the scope of part 2 of the request. However, the Council breached section 17(1) of FOIA by failing to issue a valid refusal notice within the time for
compliance. The Commission does not require further steps.
16 Oct 2026Partly upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000Sections decided: FOI 1; FOI 10
ICO summary: The complainant requested information about the introduction and operation of a Practice Direction. The above public authority disclosed the recorded information it held and stated that it held no further information within the scope of the valid requests. The Commission’s decision is that, to the extent that the request was valid, on the balance of probabilities, the public authority has provided all the information it holds. The remaining parts of the correspondence either do not constitute valid requests for recorded information or concern information which, if it existed, would be held by the judiciary. As the public authority did not disclose the recorded information that it did hold within 20 working days, it breached section 10 of FOIA. The Commission does not require further steps to be taken.
16 Oct 2026UpheldFreedom of Information Act 2000Sections decided: FOI 10
ICO summary: 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 Commission, by the date of this notice the public authority has not issued a substantive response to this request. Therefore, the Commission 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.
15 Oct 2026Not upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000Sections decided: FOI 1; FOI 40
ICO summary: The complainant requested information relating to indemnity arrangements, including those applicable to a specified individual. The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) denied holding some of the requested information and would neither confirm nor deny (NCND) holding the remainder. The Commission’s decision is that the MoJ was entitled to rely on section 40(5B)(a)(i) (personal information) of FOIA to issue an NCND response to part (1) of the request. It is also satisfied that, on the balance of probabilities, the MoJ does not hold information in scope of parts (2) and (3) of the request and has therefore complied with section 1 (general right of access) of FOIA. The Commission requires no steps to be taken as a result of this decision.
15 Oct 2026Not upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000Sections decided: FOI 1
ICO summary: The complainant requested information from the Department for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) about the Gambling Commission’s decision to remove machine specific data from regulatory returns. DCMS stated that it did not hold any information within the scope of the request but the complainant considers the information is held. The Commission’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, DCMS does not hold the requested information. The Commission does not require DCMS to take any further steps.
15 Oct 2026Partly upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000Sections decided: FOI 1; FOI 40
ICO summary: The complainant has requested information concerning the former Vice-Chancellor, information about the suspension of particular individuals, and the costs of university rebranding. The University of Greater Manchester (‘the university’) provided responses to questions one, two, three and five of the request and relied on section 40(2) of FOIA (third party personal information) to withhold the information requested in question four of the request. The Commission’s decision is that the university has not demonstrated, on the balance of probabilities, that it holds no further information within the scope of question three of the request. The university therefore failed to comply with section 1(1) of FOIA in relation to that part of the request. The Commission is satisfied that, on the balance of probabilities, the university does not hold further information within the scope of question two and that it provided the information requested in questions one and five. The Commission also finds that the university was entitled to rely on section 40(2) of FOIA to withhold the information requested in question four. The Commission requires the university to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: Carry out fresh searches for recorded information falling within the scope of question three of the request. If information is held, the university must disclose it to the complainant or issue a valid refusal notice that complies with section 17 of FOIA.
15 Oct 2026Not upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000Sections decided: FOI 36
ICO summary: The complainant requested from the Cabinet Office a copy of its internal guidance on answering written Parliamentary Questions. The Cabinet Office withheld the information under section 36(2)(c) of FOIA, prejudice to the effective conduct of public affairs. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Cabinet Office was entitled to rely on section 36(2)(c) of FOIA to withhold the requested information.
15 Oct 2026Partly upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000Sections decided: FOI 1; FOI 38; FOI 40
ICO summary: The complainant has requested copies of agendas, minutes, terms of reference, and information about the formation, membership and statutory duties of the Northern Ireland Electronic Care Record (NIECR) steering group. Western Health and Social Care Trust (‘the trust’) initially stated that it did not hold the requested agendas and minutes but later identified that it held some information within scope of this part of the request. It maintained that it did not hold information about the group’s formation and statutory duties. The trust provided redacted copies of the terms of reference documents and relied on section 40(2) of FOIA (third party personal information) and section 38 of FOIA (health and safety) to withhold the job titles of steering group members. The Commission’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the trust does not hold information on the steering group’s formation and its statutory duties. However, as the trust is still in the process of identifying and retrieving potentially in-scope information from its email archives, the Commission finds that, on the balance of probabilities, the trust holds further information falling within the scope of the request for agendas and minutes. The Commission also finds that the trust was not entitled to rely on sections 40(2) and 38 of FOIA to withhold the job titles of the steering group members. As the trust did not confirm that it held some of the requested information and did not provide this to the complainant within 20 working days, the trust also breached sections 1(1)(a) and 1(1)(b) of FOIA. The Commission requires the trust to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: Complete all reasonable searches, including the outstanding email-archive retrieval process, for agendas and minutes falling within the scope of the request. For any information identified, disclose it to the complainant. If no further information can be retrieved, inform the complainant of the outcome of those searches; Provide the terms of reference, agendas and minutes without withholding the job titles of steering group members under sections 38 or 40(2) of FOIA.
14 Oct 2026Partly upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004Sections decided: EIR 12(4)(b); EIR 6(1)(b)
ICO summary: The complainant has requested a complete list of planning applications submitted by, on behalf of or involving St John’s College Cambridge since 1974. Thanet District Council (TDC) refused the request, citing regulation 6(1)(b) (Information accessible to the applicant) of the EIR in respect of some information which it said was available via its online planning portal. It applied regulation 12(4)(b) (Manifestly unreasonable request) in respect of older information, which it said was not held in an accessible way. The Commission’s decision is that regulation 6(1)(b) of the EIR is not engaged because not all the information to which it was applied was publicly available and easily accessible to the complainant. However, having considered the request in its entirety, including the information which cannot readily be identified through TDC’s online planning portal, the Commission is satisfied that compliance would impose a manifestly unreasonable burden on TDC. The Commission therefore finds that regulation 12(4)(b) of the EIR is engaged in respect of all of the requested information and that the public interest favours maintaining the exception.
14 Oct 2026UpheldFreedom of Information Act 2000Sections decided: FOI 1; FOI 11
ICO summary: The complainant requested an organogram or structure chart showing the names, positions and email addresses of senior officers dealing with transport, traffic and highways planning and the implementation of related schemes. The London Borough of Lambeth (“the Council”) provided a list of six officers. At internal review it said that it did not hold a structure chart containing that staffing information and referred the complainant to a webpage about how the Council is organised.The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council failed to establish, on the balance of probabilities, that it had identified and communicated all recorded information falling within the scope of the request. Its internal review adopted an unduly narrow, document-specific interpretation and it supplied no evidence of the searches undertaken. The Council therefore breached section 1(1) of FOIA.The Commissioner also finds that the Council did not demonstrate that it considered the complainant’s expressed preference for information in the form of an organogram or structure chart, as required by section 11 of FOIA, and did not provide reasonable advice and assistance concerning the recorded information it held, contrary to section 16(1).
14 Oct 2026UpheldFreedom of Information Act 2000Sections decided: FOI 10
ICO summary: The complainant requested from Central Bedfordshire Council information relating to a vehicle crossover application for [address redacted].
The Commission’s decision is that the public authority failed to respond to the request within 20 working days and has therefore breached section 10 of FOIA. The public authority must provide a substantive response to the request in accordance with its obligations under FOIA.
14 Oct 2026Not upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000Sections decided: FOI 1(1)(a); FOI 10(1)
ICO summary: The complainant has requested information about the costs to Ofgem associated with investigating the possibility of introducing no or reduced rate standing charges. Ofgem’s position is that it does not hold the requested information. The Commission’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, Ofgem does not hold information falling within the scope of the request and complied with sections 1(1)(a) and 10(1) of FOIA. The Commission does not require further steps.
14 Oct 2026Partly upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004Sections decided: EIR 11(4); EIR 12(4)(a); EIR 12(5)(e); EIR 14
ICO summary: The complainant requested information about traffic-detection and pedestrian-crossing technology. Newcastle City Council (the “council”) disclosed some information, stated that other information was not held and withheld pricing information on the basis of commercial confidentiality. The council handled the request under FOIA. During the Commission’s investigation, it accepted that the requested information was environmental information and reconsidered the request under the EIR. The Commission decided that the council did not hold information falling within parts 1, 2, 4, 5 and 7 of the request and that regulation 12(4)(a) was engaged. However, it had not demonstrated that regulation 12(5)(e) applied to the pricing information falling within part 3. The council also breached regulations 14(2), 14(3) and 11(4). The Commission requires disclosure of the information withheld under regulation 12(5)(e).
14 Oct 2026Partly upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000Sections decided: FOI 36; FOI 40; FOI 41
ICO summary: The complainant requested information relating to an independent review commissioned by NHS England ("NHSE") concerning Freedom to Speak Up ("FTSU") concerns at West Midlands Ambulance Service University NHS Foundation Trust ("WMAS"). NHSE disclosed the Terms of Reference in redacted form and the recommendations arising from the review but withheld the Executive Summary and the remaining substantive content of the report. NHSE relied on sections 36(2)(b)(i), 36(2)(b)(ii), 36(2)(c), 40(2) and section 41 of FOIA. The Commission is satisfied that section 36 is engaged. In relation to the information outside the Executive Summary, the Commission has concluded that the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosure. In respect of the Executive Summary, which comprises pages 2 to 8 of the report, the Commission finds that the public interest in maintaining section 36 does not outweigh the public interest in disclosure of the Executive Summary. The Commission also concludes that neither section 40 nor section 41 are engaged in respect of information in the Executive Summary. The Commission requires NHSE to disclose the Executive Summary at pages 2-8 of the NHSE WMAS Review Report 24 November 2022.
14 Oct 2026Not upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000Sections decided: FOI 40(5)
ICO summary: The complainant requested information from Merseyside Police (MP) relating to police incidents, attendances, reports, investigations and associated records connected to a specified address. MP refused to confirm or deny holding the information citing section 40(5B) of FOIA. The Commission’s decision is that MP was entitled to rely on section 40(5B) of FOIA to neither confirm nor deny whether it holds the requested information. The Commission does not require further steps.
14 Oct 2026UpheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004Sections decided: EIR 12(5)(d); EIR 12(5)(e)
ICO summary: The complainant requested information relating to the selection of a site for a proposed waste vehicle depot and Planning Application P25/S1653/FUL. South Oxfordshire District Council (the Council) disclosed some information but withheld other information under regulations 12(5)(d) and 12(5)(e) of the EIR. The Commission’s decision is that regulation 12(5)(d) is engaged but the balance of the public interest favours disclosure. The Commission also finds that regulation 12(5)(e) is not engaged. The Commission requires the Council to disclose the withheld information.
14 Oct 2026Not upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000Sections decided: FOI 1(1)(a); FOI 10(1)
ICO summary: The complainant requested information about whether NHS England (NHSE) had received or used behavioural assessment material originating from HS2. NHSE said that it held no information within the scope of the request. The Commission’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, NHSE does not hold information within the scope of the request and complied with sections 1(1)(a) and 10(1) of FOIA. The Commission does not require further steps.
14 Oct 2026UpheldFreedom of Information Act 2000Sections decided: FOI 32
ICO summary: 1. The complainant has requested information from London Borough of Tower Hamlets (the Council). The Council refused to disclose the requested information, citing section 32 of FOIA (court records) as a basis for non-disclosure. The Council also cited section 40 of FOIA (personal data) in respect of some of the requested information.
2. The Commission’s decision is that the Council has correctly applied section 32 of FOIA to the requested information.
3. The Commission does not require further steps.
14 Oct 2026UpheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004Sections decided: EIR 5(2)
ICO summary: A public authority will breach regulation 5(2) of the EIR if it fails to respond to a request within 20 working days. Based on evidence available to the Commission, by the date of this notice the public authority has not issued a substantive response to this request. Therefore the Commission finds a breach of regulation 5(2). The public authority must provide a substantive response to the request in accordance with its obligations under the EIR.
14 Oct 2026UpheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004Sections decided: EIR 12(4)(a)
ICO summary: The complainant requested information about the location of all outdoor public litter and recycling bins. London Borough of Barnet (the Council) stated that it did not hold any information relevant to the request and as such it was relying on regulation 12(4)(a) (information not held) of the EIR. The Commission’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the Council has not demonstrated that it did not hold information within the scope of the request when the request was received. The Council was therefore not entitled to rely on regulation 12(4)(a) of the EIR. The Commission requires the Council to carry out fresh and appropriately targeted searches for information falling within the scope of the request and issue a fresh response to the complainant under the EIR. The Council must disclose any information identified by the searches, unless it considers that an exception applies.
14 Oct 2026Not upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004Sections decided: EIR 13(5)
ICO summary: The complainant requested a copy of a Community Protection Notice (CPN) in relation to a specific property. Rugby Borough Council (the Council) relied on regulation 13(5A) of the EIR (third party personal information) to neither confirm nor deny that it holds the requested information. The Commission’s decision is that the Council was entitled to rely on regulation 13(5A) to neither confirm nor deny that it holds the requested information. The Commission does not require further steps.
14 Oct 2026UpheldFreedom of Information Act 2000Sections decided: FOI 10(1)
ICO summary: The complainant made a request for information about Wards and Councillors for the period since 2004. Taff's Well and Nantgarw Community Council failed to provide a response or refusal notice to the information request.
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 Commission, by the date of this notice the public authority has not issued a substantive response to this request. Therefore, the Commission 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 Commission 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.
14 Oct 2026Not upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004Sections decided: EIR 3; EIR 5(1)
ICO summary: The complainant requested information relating to expenditure and supporting documentation associated with the Mbale Trees initiative. The Welsh Government disclosed information in response to parts 1 and 3 of the request but stated that it did not hold the invoices, contracts and work orders requested in part 2. The Commission's decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the Welsh Government did not hold information falling within the scope of part 2 of the request. The Commission is also satisfied that the information requested is not held by another person, on behalf of the Welsh Government in accordance with regulation 3(2)(b) of the EIR. The Commission does not require any steps to be taken.
14 Oct 2026UpheldFreedom of Information Act 2000Sections decided: FOI 10
ICO summary: The complainant requested from Central Bedfordshire Council information relating to Arran Close concerning vehicle crossovers, dropped kerbs or parking.
The Commission’s decision is that the public authority failed to respond to the request within 20 working days and has therefore breached section 10 of FOIA. The public authority must provide a substantive response to the request in accordance with its obligations under FOIA.
14 Oct 2026Not upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000Sections decided: FOI 40(2)
ICO summary: The complainant requested a copy of a dataset containing the property identifier, January 1999 valuation, postcode and number of bedrooms for 2,865 council properties. Mid Devon District Council (“the council”) disclosed the dataset with the final two characters of the postcodes withheld under section 40(2) of FOIA (third party personal data). The Commission’s decision is that the council was correct to withhold the information under section 40(2) of FOIA. The Commission does not require the council to take any steps.
13 Oct 2026UpheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004Sections decided: EIR 5(2)
ICO summary: The public authority has failed to respond to this request within 20 working days, as specified in the EIR. The Commission requires it to provide the complainant with a response to this request within 30 calendar days in accordance with its obligations under the EIR.
13 Oct 2026Partly upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000Sections decided: FOI 1; FOI 16; FOI 31
ICO summary: The complainant has requested copies of particular Data Protection Impact Assessments (DPIAs). Sussex Police disclosed some information, but it withheld one DPIA, citing section 22 (Information intended for publication) of FOIA. It also withheld three DPIAs, citing section 31 (Law enforcement). The Commission’s decision is that Sussex Police was entitled to apply section 31(1)(a) to withhold sensitive operational information contained in the DPIAs in question. However, it found that the exemption was not engaged in respect of standard governance and generic legal compliance content contained in each DPIA. The Commission also found that Sussex Police did not in fact hold the DPIA to which section 22 had been applied. It therefore found that section 22 was not engaged and that Sussex Police failed to provide advice and assistance regarding the DPIA in question, under section 16. The Commission requires Sussex Police disclose the information which the Commission has determined does not engage section 31(1)(a) of FOIA.
13 Oct 2026UpheldFreedom of Information Act 2000Sections decided: FOI 10
ICO summary: The public authority has failed to respond to this request within 20 working days, as specified under FOIA. The Commission requires it to provide the complainant with a response to this request within 30 calendar days in accordance with its obligations under FOIA.
13 Oct 2026Not upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000Sections decided: FOI 1(1)
ICO summary: The complainant requested information about 89 loans taken out by the London Borough of Bexley (the Council) through the Public Works Loan Board (PWLB), including the purpose of each loan and its relationship to funding provided to BexleyCo.
The Council provided some information for parts three and seven of the request, but maintained that it held no recorded information of the description sought in parts one, two, and four to six of the request.
The Commission’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the Council does not hold recorded information falling within the scope of parts one, two, and four to six of the request. The Council has therefore complied with section 1(1) of FOIA.
The Commission does not require further steps.
13 Oct 2026UpheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004Sections decided: EIR 5(2)
ICO summary: The public authority has failed to respond to this request within 20 working days, as specified under the EIR. The Commission requires it to provide the complainant with a response to this request within 30 calendar days in accordance with its obligations under the EIR.
13 Oct 2026Not upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000Sections decided: FOI 41(2)
ICO summary: The complainant has requested an alleged whistleblower dossier and reports of any investigations resulting from it. The Ministry of Defence (MOD) neither confirmed nor denied it held information falling within scope of the request under sections 41(2), 40(5B) and 30(3) of FOIA. These provisions concern information provided in confidence, personal data and investigations, respectively. The Commission’s decision is that MOD was entitled to rely on section 41(2) of FOIA to refuse to confirm or deny whether it held the requested information. The Commission does not require further steps.
13 Oct 2026Partly upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000Sections decided: FOI 10(1); FOI 31
ICO summary: The complainant requested copies of email correspondence and meeting minutes relating to specified political donations involving Reform UK and Fiona Cottrell. Electoral Commission ("EC") initially withheld the information under section 41 of FOIA. However, during the Commission's investigation, EC also sought to rely on section 31(1)(g), read with section 31(1)(c) of FOIA. The Commission’s decision is that EC was entitled to rely on section 31(1)(g), by virtue of section 31(1)(c), of FOIA. As this exemption applied to all the withheld information, it was not necessary to consider section 41. EC breached section 10(1) of FOIA by failing to respond to the request within the statutory timeframe for compliance. The Commission does not require any further steps to be taken
13 Oct 2026UpheldFreedom of Information Act 2000Sections decided: FOI 10(1)
ICO summary: The complainant made a request for information about a asylum seekers who had been aged disputed and died. Home Office failed to provide a response or refusal notice to the information request.
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 Commission, by the date of this notice the public authority has not issued a substantive response to this request. Therefore, the Commission 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 Commission 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.
13 Oct 2026UpheldFreedom of Information Act 2000Sections decided: FOI 10; FOI 40
ICO summary: The complainant has requested job evaluation scores for five roles. The London Borough of Havering (the Council) initially refused the request as repeated under section 14(2) of FOIA. Following the Commission’s intervention it revised its position and refused the request under section 40(2) of FOIA on the basis that it comprised third party personal data. The Commission’s decision is that the Council was not entitled to refuse the request under section 40(2) of FOIA. The Commission requires the public authority to disclose the requested information to the complainant.
13 Oct 2026Not upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000Sections decided: FOI 24; FOI 40
ICO summary: The complainant has requested information about Andrew Mountbatten Windsor and royal protection officers from the Metropolitan Police Service (the “MPS”). The MPS said it did not hold some of the information and would neither confirm nor deny (NCND) holding the remaining information, citing sections 24(2) (National security), 31(3) (Law enforcement), 38(2) (Health and safety) and 40(5B)(a)(i) (Personal information) of FOIA. The Commission’s decision is that it was entitled to rely on sections 40(5B)(a)(i) and 24(2) of FOIA. No steps are required.
13 Oct 2026UpheldFreedom of Information Act 2000Sections decided: FOI 10
ICO summary: The Commission’s decision is that the public authority breached section 10(1) of FOIA by failing to provide a response within 20 working days.
13 Oct 2026UpheldFreedom of Information Act 2000Sections decided: FOI 1(1)(a); FOI 10(1)
ICO summary: The complainant requested the number of emails sent each month that included particular search terms. The final position of the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (FCDO) is that it does not hold information falling within the scope of the request. In the alternative, it considers that section 14(1) of FOIA applies to the request. That exemption concerns vexatious requests. The Commission’s decision is that FCDO does not hold information falling within scope of the request. However, FCDO breached sections 1(1)(a) and 10(1) of FOIA because it did not confirm within the statutory time for compliance that it did not hold the requested information. The Commission does not require further steps. This decision notice has been republished with a small amount of information redacted after the public authority advised the Commission that the information was sensitive. The redactions do not affect the Commission’s decision or reasoning.
12 Oct 2026UpheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004Sections decided: EIR 12(5)(e); EIR 14(2); EIR 5(2)
ICO summary: The complainant has requested the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG) disclose information relating to meetings and correspondence concerning the inclusion of additional land within the East Midlands Freeport. MHCLG disclosed some information but withheld the remainder citing regulations 12(5)(e) and 13 of the EIR. It also confirmed that it did not hold any further recorded information falling within the scope of the request. The complainant did not dispute the application of regulation 13 but disputed MHCLG’s reliance on regulation 12(5)(e) and considered that further recorded information was held. The Commission’s decision is that MHCLG has not demonstrated that regulation 12(5)(e) of the EIR is engaged in respect of the remaining withheld information. However, on the balance of probabilities, the Commission is satisfied that MHCLG does not hold any further information falling within the scope of the request beyond that which it has identified. The Commission also finds that MHCLG breached regulations 5(2) and 14(2) of the EIR by failing to make information available and issue its refusal notice within 20 working days. MHCLG also breached regulation 5(2) by failing to disclose an additional document within the statutory time for compliance. The Commission requires MHCLG to disclose to the complainant the information withheld under regulation 12(5)(e) of the EIR.
12 Oct 2026Partly upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000Sections decided: FOI 10; FOI 14; FOI 16
ICO summary: The complainant has requested information about a named police operation from Northumbria Police. Northumbria Police refused to provide the requested information, finding that the request was overly burdensome and therefore exempt from disclosure by virtue of section
14(1) (Vexatious requests) of FOIA. The Commission’s decision is that section 14(1) is properly engaged and it finds no breach of section 16 (1) (Advice and assistance). However, in failing to issue a refusal notice in a timely manner, Northumbria Police breached section 10 (Time for compliance) of FOIA. No steps are required.
12 Oct 2026Not upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004Sections decided: EIR 2(1)
ICO summary: The complainant requested information about the operation of South West Water’s WaterCare tariff. This included its eligibility criteria, assessment methods, staff guidance and review procedures. South West Water is a public authority for the purposes of the EIR and must respond to requests for environmental information under that legislation. It is not, however, subject to FOIA. The Commission’s decision is that the requested information is not environmental information, as defined by regulation 2(1) of the EIR. South West Water was therefore not required to deal with the request under the EIR. The Commission does not require South West Water to take any steps.