18 Aug 2026Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant made a request for information about council tax liability orders. Although it disclosed some information, the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) said it did not hold the majority of the requested information. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the
MoJ does not hold the requested information. He also finds no breach of section 16 (Advice and assistance).
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 16
View Ministry of Justice
15 Aug 2026Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The Commissioner’s decision is that information in the reports that the complainant has requested is exempt information under section 40(2) of FOIA. The information is the personal data of a third person and it would be unlawful to disclose it. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40(2)
View South Central Ambulance Service NHS Foundation Trust
15 Aug 2026Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about the basis for Maria Caulfield’s 23 May 2022 statement that Northumbria Police found no evidence of wrongdoing by North East Ambulance Service in its coronial reporting practices.The Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC) disclosed the relevant information it held with redactions made to it under sections 21(1), 36(2) and 40(2) of FOIA. These exemptions concern information accessible to the applicant by other means, prejudice to the effective conduct of public affairs and personal data, respectively. DHSC advised that it did not hold the remainder of the requested information. The Commissioner’s decision is as follows: The information to which DHSC has applied section 36(2)(b)(i) of FOIA engages that exemption and the public interest favours maintaining it. Other than the information that it has disclosed and withheld, on the balance of probabilities DHSC holds no further information falling within scope of the request. It is not nece
Exemptions cited: FOI 1(1); FOI 36(2)(b)(i)
14 Aug 2026Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested annual figures for the previous five years for overseas first child passport applications involving surrogacy, together with the grades of passport officers assigned to those cases. The Home Office relied on section 12 of FOIA (cost of compliance) to refuse the request.
The Commissioner’s decision is that the Home Office was entitled to rely on section 12(1) of FOIA to refuse the request. The Commissioner also finds that the public authority complied with its section 16 obligation to offer advice and assistance.
The Commissioner does not require further steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12
View Home Office
14 Aug 2026Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
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 Commissioner, by the date of this notice the public authority has not issued a substantive response to this request. Therefore the Commissioner 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.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Sheffield City Council
14 Aug 2026Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information about London Borough of Merton’s (“the council’s”) Special Educational Needs (SEN) processes, GDPR compliance arrangements, email tracking practices, complaint handling procedures and the operation of the South London Legal Partnership (SLLP). The council provided some information, stated other information was not held and refused to provide other information as it would exceed the cost limit under section 12 FOIA. The Commissioner has concluded that, on the balance of probabilities, the council identified and disclosed the information it holds falling within the scope of the request and that no further information has been shown to be held. The Commissioner is also satisfied that the council correctly relied on section 12(1) of FOIA in relation to the requested consultation statistics and complied with its duty to provide advice and assistance under section 16. However, as the council failed to provide its response within 20 working days, the Comm
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10; FOI 12; FOI 16
View Merton Council
14 Aug 2026Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about compulsory recordings in magistrates’ courts. The above public authority noted that recording was not compulsory and thus no information was held. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities. the public authority does not hold information within the scope of the request. The Commissioner does not require further steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Ministry of Justice
14 Aug 2026Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to housing applications requiring a medical assessment similar to their own circumstances. The council refused the request under section 12 FOIA as it would exceed the appropriate cost limit to comply. The Commissioner finds that the council correctly relied on section 12(1) FOIA to refuse the request. The Commissioner also finds that the council complied with its obligations under section 16(1) FOIA. No steps are required.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12; FOI 16
View Westminster Council
13 Aug 2026Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested details of complaints submitted about a named Family Court Advisor. The Children and Family Court Advisory Support Service (CAFCASS) refused to confirm or deny whether it held information within the scope of the request and relied on section 40(5B) (third party personal data) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that CAFCASS is entitled to rely on section 40(5B) of the FOIA to refuse to confirm or deny whether it holds the information. The Commissioner does not require any steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service
13 Aug 2026Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The public authority has failed to respond to this request within 20 working days, as specified under FOIA. The Commissioner requires it to provide the complainant with a response to this request within 30 calendar days in accordance with its obligations under FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10(1)
View Ministry of Justice
13 Aug 2026Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information about documents allegedly transmitted via Interpol. The above public authority refused to confirm or deny that the information was held – relying on section 23 of FOIA (security bodies) in order to do so. The Commissioner’s decision is that the public authority was entitled to rely on section 23(5) of FOIA to refuse to confirm or deny that the information was held. The public authority breached section 17 of FOIA as it failed to issue its refusal notice within 20 working days. The Commissioner does not require further steps to be taken.
Keywords: National Crime Bureau, International Crime Bureau, National Crime Agency
Exemptions cited: FOI 17; FOI 23
View Home Office
13 Aug 2026Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to the monitoring of complaints about “Prevent” (the Government’s counter-terrorism programme) by the Standards and Compliance Unit at the Commission for Countering Extremism. The Home Office provided some information, but withheld the remainder under section 38(1) of FOIA (endangerment to health and safety). The Commissioner’s decision is that the Home Office has failed to demonstrate that section 38(1) of FOIA is engaged. It also breached section 17 of FOIA because it responded outside the statutory time limit for compliance. The Commissioner requires the Home Office to take the following step to ensure compliance with the legislation: Disclose the information to the complainant.
Exemptions cited: FOI 17; FOI 38
View Home Office
13 Aug 2026Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested the total spend, excluding VAT, on external physical forensic science services for the most recent available financial year, broken down by lot code, lot description, total spend and supplier name. Following refinement, the complainant sought total spend by lot without supplier names. West Midlands Police (WMP) relied on section 12 of FOIA (cost of compliance) to refuse the request.
The Commissioner’s decision is that WMP was entitled to rely on section 12(1) of FOIA to refuse the request. The Commissioner also finds that WMP complied with its section 16 obligation to offer advice and assistance.
The Commissioner does not require further steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12(1)
View West Midlands Police
13 Aug 2026Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
1. The complainant requested information from Fylingdales Parish Council (“the council”) about planning applications and associated communications relating to their property. The council disclosed some information but withheld other information under FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council should have considered the request under the Environmental Information Regulations 2004 (“the EIR”). However, having reviewed the withheld information, the Commissioner’s decision is that the substantive withheld information constitutes the complainant’s own personal data. By virtue of Regulation 5(3), the duty to make environmental information available under Regulation 5(1) does not apply to that information. However, the Commissioner has also decided that the council breached Regulations 5(2) and 14(3) of the EIR. The Commissioner does not require the council to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 13; EIR 14(3); EIR 5(1); EIR 5(2)
13 Aug 2026Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The public authority has failed to respond to this request within 20 working days, as specified under FOIA. The Commissioner requires it to provide the complainant with a response to this request within 30 calendar days in accordance with its obligations under FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Mersey and West Lancashire Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust
13 Aug 2026Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information about Council accommodation. 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 Commissioner, by the date of this notice the public authority has not issued a substantive response to this request. Therefore the Commissioner finds a breach of section 10.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Waltham Forest Council
12 Aug 2026Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested recorded information from the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) about how Upper Tribunal and Supreme Court decisions had been considered and implemented in relation to the Personal Independence Payment scheme. DWP initially refused to confirm or deny whether it held the requested information, relying on section 12(2) of FOIA. At internal review, DWP confirmed that this was incorrect and instead relied on section 12(1), on the basis that the cost of complying with the request would exceed the appropriate limit. The Commissioner’s decision is that DWP was entitled to rely on section 12(1) of FOIA to refuse to comply with the request. The Commissioner is also satisfied that DWP complied with its duty to provide advice and assistance under section 16(1) of FOIA. The Commissioner does not require DWP to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12; FOI 16
View Department for Work and Pensions
12 Aug 2026Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to the Report of the Commission on Human Medicines' Expert Working Group on Hormone Pregnancy Tests. The Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) disclosed some information and withheld the remaining information under sections 21(1), 27(2), 40(2) and 41(1) FOIA. These exemptions concern information accessible to the applicant by other means, international relations, personal data and information provided in confidence, respectively. The Commissioner’s decision is that MHRA was entitled to rely on section 21(1) for information that was reasonably accessible to the complainant by other means. He also finds that the withheld information is exempt under sections 27(2), 40(2) and 41(1) FOIA. However, MHRA’s refusal notice did not comply with section 17(1). The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40(2); FOI 41(1); FOI 17(1); FOI 21(1); FOI 27(2)
View Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency
12 Aug 2026Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information on recruitment within the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP). The Commissioner’s decision is that DWP is not entitled to rely on section 14(1), vexatious requests, to refuse to comply with the request. The Commissioner also finds that DWP breached section 17(5) of FOIA by failing to issue its refusal notice within the statutory timeframe. The Commissioner requires DWP to issue a fresh response that does not rely on section 14(1) and complies with the procedural requirements of FOIA. The public authority must take these steps within 30 calendar days of the date of this decision notice. Failure to comply may result in the Commissioner making written certification of this fact to the High Court pursuant to section 54 of FOIA and may be dealt with as a contempt of court.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14; FOI 17
View Department for Work and Pensions
12 Aug 2026Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to the Prioritising Probation Framework (PPF) status of Probation Delivery Units (PDUs). The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) confirmed it holds some of the requested information but refused to provide it, citing section 36 (prejudice to effective conduct of public affairs) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the MoJ was entitled to apply section 36(2)(c) to refuse the request. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: FOI 36
View Ministry of Justice
12 Aug 2026Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
In a four part request, the complainant requested information about the Financial Conduct Authority’s use of its investigatory powers under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000. For one part of the request the Home Office provided links to relevant published information. It refused the remaining three parts under sections 23(1), 23(5), 30(2)(b), 30(3), 31(1)(a), 31(3) and 35(1)(a). These exemptions concern information supplied by or relating to security matters, investigations and proceedings, law enforcement and the formulation and development of government policy, respectively. The Commissioner’s decision is as follows: Part 1 – section 31(3) is engaged and the public interest favours maintaining this exemption Part 2 – section 23(5) is engaged Part 3 – sections 23(1), 30(2)(b), 31(1)(a) and 35(1)(a) are engaged. In respect of the timeliness of the Home Office’s response, there was no breach of sections 10(1) or 17(1), nor was there a breach of section 16(1) which concerns
Exemptions cited: FOI 10(1); FOI 16(1); FOI 31(1)(a); FOI 31(3); FOI 35(1)(a); FOI 17(1); FOI 23(1); FOI 23(5); FOI 30(2)(b)
View Home Office
12 Aug 2026Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about legal advice reportedly provided to the government on UK involvement in military action against Iran. The Attorney General’s Office (the AGO) would neither confirm nor deny (NCND) whether it held the requested information, citing section 35(3) (Formulation of government policy, etc) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the AGO was entitled to rely on section 35(3) to NCND holding the requested information.
Exemptions cited: FOI 35
View Attorney General's Office
12 Aug 2026Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information relating to a planning application, including representations and correspondence from the applicant to Croydon Borough Council (“the council”). The council disclosed some information but withheld information in relation to correspondence with the applicant/agent under regulation 12(5)(f) EIR. The Commissioner considers the council has demonstrated regulation 12(5)(f) is engaged in relation to the withheld information and that the balance of the public interest favours maintaining the exception and withholding the information. No steps are required.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(f)
View London Borough of Croydon
11 Aug 2026Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from Leicester City Council ("the council") about a Court of Appeal judgment in a specified case, and the costs of that case. The council said that the Court of Appeal Judgment was not held, and applied section 31(1)(c) to withhold the information relating to costs. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the council did not hold the Court of Appeal judgment at the time it received the request. The council therefore complied with section 1(1)(a) of FOIA in respect of the judgment. He has, however, decided that the council was not correct to apply section 31(1)(c) to withhold information relating to costs. The Commissioner requires the council to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. To disclose the withheld costs information falling within the scope of the request of 3 August 2025.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1(1)(a); FOI 31(1)(c)
View Leicester City Council
11 Aug 2026Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from the Home Office about fear, intimidation and safety concerns affecting the Jewish community. The Home Office withheld the information under section 35(1)(a) of FOIA (formulation or development of government policy). The Commissioner’s decision is that the exemption at section 35(1)(a) of FOIA is engaged and the balance of the public interest favours the exemption being maintained. He does not require the Home Office to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 35
View Home Office
11 Aug 2026Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from St George’s University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust (the 'public authority’) about patient-facing displays, governance, safeguarding, neutrality, and related matters. The public authority has failed to respond to this request within 20 working days. 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.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View St George's University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust
11 Aug 2026Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to Westminster City Council (the Council) seeking information about the basis upon which homelessness applications had been closed. The Council initially responded by stating that it did not hold the requested information but subsequently amended its position to rely on section 12(2) of FOIA and explained that it could not confirm whether it held the requested information within the cost limit. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council can refuse to comply with the request on the basis of section 12(2) of FOIA. However, it breached section 16(1) of FOIA by failing to provide the complainant with advice and assistance to help him submit a refined request.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12; FOI 16
View Westminster Council
11 Aug 2026Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The public authority has failed to respond to this request within 20 working days, as specified under FOIA. The Commissioner requires it to provide the complainant with a response to this request within 30 calendar days in accordance with its obligations under FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Worthing Borough Council
11 Aug 2026Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant made a multi-part request for information about council tax liability orders. The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) refused most parts of the request on the grounds that they were not requests for recorded information. The Commissioner’s decision is that the requests were valid requests for recorded information for the purposes of FOIA. However, he is satisfied that, on the balance of probabilities, the MoJ does not hold the requested information. He finds no breach of section 16 (Advice and assistance) but he does find breaches of sections 1, 10 and 17 of FOIA in respect of the MoJ’s handling of its response.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10; FOI 16; FOI 17
View Ministry of Justice
11 Aug 2026Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about a working group relating to the British Coal Staff Superannuation Scheme (“BCSSS”). The Department for Energy Security & Net Zero (“DESNZ”) stated that it did not hold information within scope of the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the civil standard of the balance of probabilities, DESNZ does not hold information within the scope of the request. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Department for Energy Security and Net Zero
11 Aug 2026Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested criminal information about a named party from the Metropolitan Police Service (the “MPS”). The MPS would neither confirm nor deny (“NCND") holding the requested information. It cited sections 30(3) (Investigations and proceedings), 31(3) (Law enforcement) and 40(5B)(a)(i) (Personal information) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the MPS was entitled to rely on section 40(5B)(a)(i). No steps are required.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View Metropolitan Police Service
10 Aug 2026Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to the Police Service of Northern Ireland’s (PSNI) Close Protection Unit. PSNI refused to confirm or deny whether it held the requested information, relying on section 31(3) (law enforcement), section 38(2) (health and safety) and section 40(5B) (a)(i) (personal information) of FOIA to refuse to confirm or deny (NCND) whether it holds the information. The Commissioner’s decision is that PSNI was entitled to rely on section 31(3) of FOIA to neither confirm nor deny whether it holds the requested information. However, PSNI breached section 10(1) of FOIA by failing to respond to the request within 20 working days. The Commissioner does not require further steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 31(3)
View Police Service of Northern Ireland
10 Aug 2026Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to three meetings about football regulation in 2024 between Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) Ministers and the Premier League. DCMS initially made a partial disclosure of attendance lists but refused to provide the remainder of the information citing section 36(2)(b) (effective conduct of public affairs) and section 40(2) (third party personal data). DCMS maintained its position at internal review. During the course of the Commissioner’s investigation DCMS changed its position to rely on section 35(1)(a) (formulation or development of government policy), section 36(2)(b)(ii), and section 40(2). The Commissioner’s decision is that DCMS is entitled to rely on sections 35(1)(a), 36(2)(b)(ii) and 40(2) to withhold the information and that the public interest favours maintaining the exemption. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 35(1)(a); FOI 36(2)(b)(ii)
View Department for Culture, Media and Sport
10 Aug 2026Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from the Home Office (”HO”) relating to Data Protection Impact Assessments (DPIAs), ICO consultation records, internal authorisations, prior published FOI activity and ICO case reference numbers or withheld information concerning GOV.UK One Login and/or the UK Digital Identity Framework. The Home Office (“HO”) relied on section 12(2) of FOIA (cost of compliance) to refuse the request.
The Commissioner’s decision is that the HO was entitled to rely on section 12(2) of FOIA to refuse the request. The Commissioner also finds that the HO complied with its section 16 obligation to offer advice and assistance.
The Commissioner does not require further steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12(2)
View Home Office
10 Aug 2026Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The public authority has failed to respond to this request within 20 working days, as specified under FOIA. The Commissioner requires it to provide the complainant with a response to this request within 30 calendar days in accordance with its obligations under FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View AWE PLC
7 Aug 2026Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from London Borough of Southwark relating to traffic conventions. The Commissioner’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.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Southwark Council
7 Aug 2026Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information about a named individual, including correspondence, notes, recordings and CCTV footage. Westminster City Council withheld some information under sections 40(2) and 41 of FOIA and said that some information was not held. The Commissioner found that the council failed to properly identify all information held within the scope of the request and breached sections 1(1)(a) and 1(1)(b) of FOIA. However, the Commissioner was satisfied that sections 40(2) and 41 were correctly applied to the other withheld information. The Commissioner requires the council to carry out further searches, including considering information that may be held on its behalf by a service provider, and issue a fresh response.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 40(2); FOI 41
View Westminster Council
7 Aug 2026Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from the University of Manchester relating to membership of an All-Party Parliamentary Group for Energy Studies. The Commissioner’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.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View The University of Manchester
7 Aug 2026Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested a copy of their late father’s service records. The National Archives (TNA) disclosed some of the records but relied on section 41 of FOIA (information provided in confidence) to redact medical information. The Commissioner’s decision is that TNA is entitled to rely on section 41(1) of FOIA to withhold the redacted information. He also finds that TNA breached section 10(1) of FOIA by failing to provide the requested information or a refusal notice within the statutory time for compliance.The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 41
View The National Archives
7 Aug 2026Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
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 Commissioner, by the date of this notice the public authority has not issued a substantive response to this request. Therefore the Commissioner 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 Commissioner making written certification of this fact to the High Court pursuant to section 54 of FOIA and may be dealt with as a contempt of court.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Ministry of Justice
7 Aug 2026Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant made two requests for information relating to a police investigation concerning a fatal fire at a specified address. Kent Police refused the request under section 30(1) (investigations) and section 40(2) (personal information) of FOIA.
The Commissioner’s decision is that Kent Police was entitled to rely on section 30(1)(a) of FOIA to withhold the requested information. As the Commissioner has found section 30(1)(a) to be engaged, he has not found it necessary to consider Kent Police’s application of section 40(2).
The Commissioner does not require Kent Police to take any further steps
Exemptions cited: FOI 30(1)
View Kent Police
7 Aug 2026Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from Kent County Council about Supported Living Schemes. The Commissioner’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.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Kent County Council
6 Aug 2026Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to the use of Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation (TMS) stimulators. The MHRA confirmed information was held but determined it could not be provided as it was personal data under section 40(1) and 40(2) FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the MHRA does not hold any further information within the scope of part 2 of the request and therefore complied with section 1(1) of FOIA. The Commissioner is also satisfied that the information held within scope constitutes personal data and that the MHRA was entitled to withhold it under section 40(2) of FOIA. The complainant's own personal data falls outside the scope of FOIA by virtue of section 40(1). No steps are required.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 40
View Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency
6 Aug 2026Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from South Yorkshire Mayoral Combined Authority relating to the South Yorkshire People’s Network. The Commissioner’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.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View West Yorkshire Combined Authority
6 Aug 2026Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information about the number of contacts relating to overage payments in relation to properties in Hatherley Street, L8 2TJ. Liverpool City Council (the Council) provided some information, but the complainant alleged that the Council had failed to provide the specific information requested in relation to parts 2 and 3 of the request. During the course of the Commissioner’s investigation the Council sought to rely on regulations 12(4)(a) (information not held) and 12(4)(b) (manifestly unreasonable request) of the EIR. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council correctly relied on regulation 12(4)(a) in relation to verbal and face to face contacts. The Commissioner has also determined that the Council is not entitled to rely on regulation 12(4)(b) in relation to the number of written contacts. The Commissioner requires the Council to issue a fresh response which does not rely on regulation 12(4)(b) in relation to the number of written contacts.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(a); EIR 12(4)(b)
View Liverpool City Council
6 Aug 2026Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about the number of youths on remand. The Ministry of Justice (“MoJ”) relied on section 40(2) (personal information) of FOIA to withhold some of the requested information. The Commissioner’s decision is that the MoJ has correctly relied on section 40(2) of FOIA to withhold the information. The Commissioner does not require the MoJ to take any further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View Ministry of Justice
6 Aug 2026Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information from London Borough of Croydon in relation a Final Certificate. The Commissioner’s decision is that the public authority failed to respond to the request within 20 working days and has therefore breached regulation 5(2) of the EIR. The public authority must provide a substantive response to the request in accordance with its obligations under the EIR.
Exemptions cited: EIR 5(2)
View London Borough of Croydon
5 Aug 2026Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about offences mentioning “Grok” from the Metropolitan Police Service (the “MPS”). The MPS initially advised that the request was vexatious on the grounds of burden, citing section 14(1) (Vexatious requests) of FOIA. During the Commissioner’s investigation, the MPS revised its position, instead relying on section 12(2)(Cost of compliance) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the MPS was entitled to do so. No steps are required.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12; FOI 16
View Metropolitan Police Service
5 Aug 2026Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The public authority has failed to respond to this request within 20 working days, as specified under FOIA. The Commissioner requires it to provide the complainant with a response to this request within 30 calendar days in accordance with its obligations under FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10(1)
View Brighton and Hove City Council
5 Aug 2026Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The public authority has failed to respond to this request within 20 working days, as specified under FOIA. The Commissioner requires it to provide the complainant with a response to this request within 30 calendar days in accordance with its obligations under FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Warrington Council