26 May 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 Local Government Association
26 May 2026Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information from Amber Valley Borough council (“the council”) relating to financial or in kind contributions made by Chevin Homes to the council and/or its councillors, including section 106 agreements and Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) payments linked to a specified planning application. The Commissioner has decided that, on the balance of probabilities, the council does not hold further recorded environmental information within scope in respect of most of the request, and that Regulation 12(4)(a) was correctly applied to those elements. However, the Commissioner finds that the council’s searches were incorrectly limited in respect of one element of the request. Where relevant information is publicly available, the council was entitled to rely on Regulation 6(1)(b). The Commissioner also finds that the council failed to comply with Regulation 11(4) of the EIR, as it did not complete its internal review within 40 working days. The Commissioner requires th
Exemptions cited: EIR 11(4); EIR 12(4)(a); EIR 5(2); EIR 6(1)(b)
View Amber Valley Borough Council
26 May 2026Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information relating to planning approvals, enforcement and compliance monitoring from Amber Valley Borough Council (“the council”). The council refused the request on the basis that Regulations 12(4)(a), (information not held), 12(4)(b) (manifestly unreasonable request), and Regulation 13 (personal data) applied. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council was not correct to rely upon Regulation 12(4)(a) to refuse the request, however, it was entitled to refuse the entire request under Regulation 12(4)(b). As such, he has not found it necessary to consider the application of Regulation 13. He has, however, decided that the council’s response failed to comply with the requirements of Regulation 5(2) in that it did not provide its response to the request within 20 working days of the receipt of the request. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 11(4); EIR 12(4)(a); EIR 12(4)(b); EIR 5(2)
View Amber Valley Borough Council
26 May 2026Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information about planning applications, approvals and refusals. Amber Valley Borough Council (“the council”) disclosed some information, however it withheld other information on the grounds that section 21 of FOIA applied (information easily accessible by other means). The Commissioner’s decision is that the council was not correct to apply section 21 of FOIA as the information falls under the EIR to consider. The Commissioner has also decided that the council is not able to rely upon Regulation 6(1)(b) of the EIR to refuse the request. He has also decided that the council did not comply with Regulation 5(2) of the EIR, nor Regulation 5(1). The Commissioner requires the council to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. To provide the complainant with a digest or summary of the information falling within parts 3 to 5 of the request.
Exemptions cited: EIR 5(1); EIR 5(2); EIR 6(1)(b)
View Amber Valley Borough Council
26 May 2026Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested environmental information from Amber Valley Borough council (“the council”) relating to planning approvals, planning conditions, compliance monitoring and planning enforcement activity. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council was entitled to rely on Regulations 12(4)(a), 12(4)(b) and 12(5)(b) of the EIR where applicable to refuse parts of the request. However, the Commissioner has decided that the council failed to comply with Regulation 5(2) of the EIR by not responding to the request within 20 working days, and that it failed to comply with Regulation 11 by not carrying out a proper internal review within the statutory timeframe. The Commissioner does not require any further steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 11(4); EIR 12(4)(a); EIR 12(4)(b); EIR 12(5)(b)
View Amber Valley Borough Council
26 May 2026Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information relating to a specified planning reference from Amber Valley Borough Council (“the council”) . The council disclosed some information, provided links to other information and said that this was all of the information it holds. The complainant considered further information should be held, and questioned the manner in which the information was disclosed. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the council does not hold any further environmental information falling within the scope of the request for the purposes of Regulation 5(1) of the EIR. However he has also decided that the council failed to comply with Regulation 5(2) of the EIR by not providing the requested information within 20 working days, and that it failed to comply with Regulation 11(4) in failing to provide a review response within 40 working days. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 11(4); EIR 5(1); EIR 5(2)
View Amber Valley Borough Council
22 May 2026Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested records about the use of taped and welded joints in the waterproof membrane at the Welsh Medium Primary School building projects. Blaenau Gwent County Borough Council (“the Council) refused the request on the basis of regulation 12(4)(b) (manifestly unreasonable). The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council is entitled to rely on regulation 12(4)(b) to refuse the request. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(b)
View Blaenau Gwent County Borough Council
22 May 2026Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from. By the date of this notice the public authority had not issued a substantive response to this request. Within the statutory time frame of 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 Swansea Council
22 May 2026Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about the alleged victims of crime of a named person from the Police Service of Northern Ireland (PSNI). PSNI initially refused the request on section 12(1) of FOIA, later revising their position to rely on section 12(2) of FOIA (Cost of compliance) to refuse the request.
The Commissioner’s decision is that PSNI was entitled to rely on section 12(2) of FOIA to refuse the request. The Commissioner also finds that PSNI 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); FOI 16
View Police Service of Northern Ireland
22 May 2026Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information about sewerage, drainage, groundwater issues and environmental aspects of development and neighbourhood planning in Denmead. The council provided some information and signposted material already published online. The Commissioner found that the council did not carry out reasonable and proportionate searches for all the information it holds, breaching regulation 5(1) of the EIR, and has ordered it to carry out further searches and either disclose any additional information or issue a compliant refusal notice, including in relation to two sets of minutes identified during the Commissioner’s investigation.
Exemptions cited: EIR 5(1)
22 May 2026Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about the Access for All scheme. The London Borough of Wandsworth (“the Council”) refused the request with reliance on section 22 of FOIA (information intended for future publication). The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council was not entitled to rely on section 22 to withhold information within scope of parts 1(b) to (f), 1(h) and 3 of the request as the information was not held at the time the request was received, therefore the exemption cannot apply. The Commissioner finds that the Council failed to engage section 22(1)(b) in respect of parts 1(a) and (g) of the request, therefore the exemption cannot apply. The Commissioner requires the Council to provide the complainant with a fresh response to parts 1(a) and (g) of the request. Specifically, the Council is required to provide the complainant with total usage data from the date that these services were offered under the Access for All scheme until the date the request was received.
Exemptions cited: FOI 22
View London Borough of Wandsworth
22 May 2026Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
1. The complainant has requested for the (then) Interim Chair of the Competition Markets Authority’s conflict of interest declaration form and its associated correspondence. The Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) disclosed the redacted version of the declaration form but refused to disclose the remaining information citing sections 42 (Legal professional privilege), 40(2) (Personal information), 41(Information provided in confidence and section 36 (Effective conduct of public affairs) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that CMA was correct to rely on section 36 to withhold the information. He does not require further steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 36(2)(b)(i); FOI 36(2)(b)(ii); FOI 36(2)(c)
View Competition and Markets Authority
22 May 2026Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from the London Borough of Bromley on 14 October 2025.
By the date of this notice London Borough of Bromley had not issued a substantive response to this request.
The Commissioner’s decision is that London Borough of Bromley has breached section 10(1) of FOIA in that it failed to provide a valid response to the request within the statutory time frame of 20 working days. The Commissioner requires London Borough of Bromley to take the following step to ensure compliance with the legislation.
• London Borough of Bromley must provide a substantive response to the request in accordance with its obligations under FOIA.
London Borough of Bromley 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 FOIA and may be dealt with as a contempt of court.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Bromley Council
22 May 2026Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested correspondence between an acoustic specialist and North Warwickshire Borough Council. The council disclosed the information it holds, with some commercially sensitive details redacted, which the complainant did not dispute, but they believed more information was held. The Commissioner finds that, on the balance of probabilities, no further information is held, but there was a procedural breach of regulations 5(1) and 5(2) of the EIR. No steps are required.
Exemptions cited: EIR 5(1); EIR 5(2)
View North Warwickshire Borough Council
21 May 2026Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information about an investigation concerning an allegation of trespass with criminal damage to public open space. Essex Police provided some of the requested information with redactions to withhold personal information. The Commissioner’s decision is that Essex Police was entitled to rely on regulations 5(3) and 13 of the EIR to redact personal information. He is also satisfied that, on the balance of probabilities, Essex Police does not hold further information within scope of the request. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 11; EIR 13; EIR 5(1); EIR 5(3)
View Essex Police
21 May 2026Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested any material discussing a recent open letter involving 20 members of staff. The Open University (‘the university’) disclosed a redacted copy of an email. It relied on section 40(2) of FOIA (third party personal information) to withhold the redacted information. The Commissioner’s decision is that the university was entitled to rely on section 40(2) of FOIA to withhold the redacted information. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40(2)
View The Open University
21 May 2026Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information relating to the appointment of John Fingleton to conduct the Fingleton Review, including procurement route, tender documentation, and contract award documentation from Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (DESNZ) on 16 February 2026.
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 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 regulation 5(2).
The public authority must provide a substantive response to the request in accordance with its obligations under the EIR.
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 w
Exemptions cited: EIR 5(2)
View Department for Energy Security and Net Zero
21 May 2026Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested a business case from Cotswold District Council (“the Council”) relating to a specific planning application. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council is entitled to rely on regulation 12(5)(e) (commercial or industrial information) to withhold the requested information. The Commissioner does not require the Council to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(e)
View Cotswold District Council
21 May 2026Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested recorded information explaining why wording and structural changes were made to GOV.UK guidance and the application form for Specified Adult Childcare Credits (SACC) between 20 April 2022 and 27 July 2023, including (in particular) the replacement of the word ‘entitled’ with ‘claimed’ and the removal of a section headed ‘Eligibility’. HMRC confirmed it held information within scope and provided a response, disclosing recorded information but withholding some information. The Commissioner’s decision is that HMRC complied with section 1(1) of FOIA. The Commissioner also finds that HMRC was entitled to rely on section 40(2) (personal data), section 44(1)(a) (prohibition on disclosure) and Section 31(1)(a) (prevention or detection of crime) to withhold information.
Exemptions cited: FOI 31; FOI 44
View HM Revenue & Customs
21 May 2026Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about visits to a named prisoner in 2010. The Department of Justice (“the Department) refused the request, stating the information was no longer held. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the Department does not hold any further recorded information within the scope of the request. The Commissioner does not require steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
21 May 2026Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
In a four part request, the complainant requested information about student exclusions and school placement processes. London Borough of Wandsworth (‘the council’) disclosed information relevant to one part and originally withheld the remaining information under section 40 of FOIA, which concerns personal data. The council’s final position is that it doesn’t hold information within scope of one part of the request and is refusing two parts under section 12(1), which concerns the cost of compliance. It maintained its reliance on section 40 in respect of the fourth part. The Commissioner’s decision is that part 2 of the request engages the exemption under section 40(5B) of FOIA and parts 1 and 4 engage section 12(1). On the balance of probabilities, the council doesn’t hold further recorded information within scope of part 3. Finally, the council’s response to the request didn’t comply with sections 16(1) and 17(5) of FOIA in respect of timeliness and advice and assistance. The council m
Exemptions cited: FOI 12(1); FOI 16(1); FOI 17(5); FOI 40(5)(b)
View London Borough of Wandsworth
21 May 2026Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from the Ministry of Defence (MOD) about the alleged deployment of anti-drone technology to US air force bases in the UK. The MOD refused to confirm or deny whether it held any information falling in the scope of the request on the basis of sections 23(5) (security bodies), 24(2) (national security), 26(3) (defence), 27(4) (international relations) and 31(3) (law enforcement) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the MOD was entitled to refuse to confirm or deny whether it held any information falling within the scope of the request on the basis of section 27(4) and that in all the circumstances of the request the public interest favours maintaining the exemption.
Exemptions cited: FOI 27
View Ministry of Defence
21 May 2026Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to meetings between the Home Office and food delivery companies regarding illegal working in the ‘gig economy’. The Home Office disclosed some information. It also withheld some information, citing sections 31(1) (a) and (e) (Law enforcement), 35(1)(a) and (b) (Formulation of government policy etc), 40(2) (Personal information), 41(1) (Information provided in confidence) and 43(2) (Commercial interests) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Home Office was entitled to rely on sections 31(1)(a) and (e), 35(1)(a) and 41(1) of FOIA to withhold the information.
Exemptions cited: FOI 31; FOI 35; FOI 41
View Home Office
21 May 2026Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested from the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (the FCDO) information about the funding received by local organisations in Yemen.
The FCDO refused to comply with the request citing section 12 (cost of compliance exceeds appropriate limit) of FOIA.
The Commissioner’s decision is that the FCDO was entitled to rely on section 12(1) to refuse to comply with the request. The Commissioner is also satisfied that the FCDO complied with its duty to provide advice and assistance under section 16.
The Commissioner does not require any further steps to be taken by the FCDO in this case.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12; FOI 16
View Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office
21 May 2026Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant submitted three requests to the London Borough of Ealing (the Council) seeking communications between it and Citisense about controlled parking zones (CPZs). The Council refused the first two requests under regulation 12(4)(b) (manifestly unreasonable) of the EIR. It has not responded to the third request. The Commissioner has decided that the Council breached regulation 5(2) by failing to provide any response to the third request, and breached regulation 14(2) by failing to issue refusal notices for the first and second request, which cited regulation 12(4)(b), within 20 working days of these requests.
Exemptions cited: EIR 14(2); EIR 5(2)
View Ealing Council
21 May 2026Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information about complaints. Betsi Cadwaladr University Health Board (‘the board’) partly complied with one element of the request but relied on section 12 of FOIA to refuse to comply fully with that element because of the excessive cost involved. The board refused the remainder of the request, relying on section 40 of FOIA, including section 40(5B) in respect of the duty to confirm or deny. The Commissioner’s decision is that the board is entitled to rely on section 12(1), and sections 40(2) and 40(5B) of FOIA to refuse to comply with parts of the request. However, the board didn’t comply with its duty under section 16(1) (advice and assistance) and the timeliness of its response didn’t comply with sections 1(1), 10(1) and 17. It’s not necessary for the board to take any steps.
Correction: contrary to findings in this decision notice, the board’s response to the request did not breach sections 1(1), 10(1) and 17 of FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10(1); FOI 12(1); FOI 16(1); FOI 17; FOI 40
View Betsi Cadwaladr University Health Board
21 May 2026Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
1. The complainant requested information from Wandsworth Borough Council (“the Council”). The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council was entitled to refuse to comply with the request in accordance with section 12(1) (cost limit) of the FOIA.
2. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council was entitled to rely on section 12(1) of FOIA to refuse to disclose the withheld information. He finds no failure to comply with section 16 (Advice and assistance) of FOIA.
3. The Commissioner does not require steps as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12; FOI 16
View London Borough of Wandsworth
20 May 2026Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information regarding Chris McNabb’s removal from post. This included minutes, messages, emails and briefings and any messages sent to Jayne Brady’s phone during a two day period on any subject. The Executive Office confirmed information was held but considered this exempt under sections 35(1)(a) and 40(2) FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Executive Office has correctly applied these exemptions and the public interest favours maintaining the exemptions and withholding the information. No steps are required.
Exemptions cited: FOI 35; FOI 40
View The Executive Office (Northern Ireland)
20 May 2026Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested a copy of an auditor’s report about ‘Stepping Up,’ a Community Interest Company. Bristol City Council (‘the council’) withheld the report under sections 36(2)(b)(i) and (2)(b)(ii) of FOIA, which concern prejudice to the effective conduct of public affairs. The Commissioner’s decision is that the withheld report does not engage sections 36(2)(b)(i) or 36(2)(b)(ii) of FOIA. The Commissioner requires the council to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: Communicate the requested report to the complainant, having first redacted personal data from it under section 40(2) of FOIA. This must include the names and job titles under ‘Key Witnesses’ at section 4 of the report.
Exemptions cited: FOI 36(2)(b)(i); FOI 36(2)(b)(ii)
View Bristol City Council
20 May 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 of FOIA. 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 Department for Education
20 May 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 Solihull Council
20 May 2026Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The Commissioner’s decision is that the public authority breached section 10(1) of FOIA by failing to provide a response within 20 working days.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View North Cumbria Integrated Care NHS Foundation Trust
20 May 2026Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about a particular contract. The University of Roehampton (‘the university’) relied on section 43(2) of FOIA (commercial interests) to withhold the requested information in parts one, two and three of the request. For part four, it stated that it did not hold the requested information. The Commissioner’s decision is that the university was not entitled to rely on section 43 of FOIA to withhold the information requested in parts one, two and three of the request. The Commissioner requires the university to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: Disclose the information in parts one and three of the request that it has relied on section 43 of FOIA to withhold.
Exemptions cited: FOI 43
20 May 2026Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested leaflets about miscarriage from Guy’s and St Thomas’ NHS Foundation Trust (‘the trust’). The trust communicated some relevant information in response to the request but subsequently identified further relevant information that it held. The Commissioner’s decision is that the trust didn’t comply with sections 1(1) and 10(1) of FOIA as it didn’t communicate all the information it held within the statutory timescale. The Commissioner requires that the trust takes the following step to ensure compliance with the legislation: If it hasn’t already done so at the date of this notice, communicate to the complainant the additional relevant information that it has now identified that it holds, as described at paragraph 12 of this notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1(1); FOI 10(1)
View Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust
20 May 2026Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested emails between named councillors. Bristol City Council (the council) refused the request under section 12 of the FOIA – appropriate limit. The Commissioner’s decision is that section 12 of FOIA is not engaged in relation to this this request. The Commissioner requires the council to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. Issue a fresh response to the complainant’s request without relying on section 12 of the FOIA. The public authoritycouncil 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 the Act and may be dealt with as a contempt of court.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12
View Bristol City Council
20 May 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 Department for Business and Trade
19 May 2026Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from North Tyneside Council (the Council) relating to Councillors who have received a court summons for council tax arrears. The Council refused the request citing section 40(2) (personal data) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council correctly applied section 40(2) to the name of one councillor, but it is not entitled to rely on section 40(2) to refuse to provide the names of the two other councillors.The Commissioner requires the Council disclose the names of councillors A and D.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View North Tyneside Council
19 May 2026Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to audit reports and associated correspondence. Potto Parish Council (the “council”) stated that some information was not held and, in relation to other information, indicated that it would be provided on payment of a fee.The Commissioner’s decision is that the council has:
• breached section 1(1) and section 10(1) of FOIA by failing to confirm whether it holds the requested information and by failing to communicate information within the statutory time for compliance; and
• breached section 17(1) of FOIA by failing to issue a refusal notice compliant with FOIA.
• The Commissioner also finds that, on the evidence available, the council was not entitled to require payment as a condition of compliance in the manner described.
The Commissioner requires the council to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation:
• Issue a fresh response to the request of 28 June 2025 which:
• confirms whether it holds the requested info
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10; FOI 17
19 May 2026Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information about the costs associated with a formal complaint which was independently investigated by external individuals. Bridgend County Borough Council (the Council) withheld the information requested by virtue of section 40(2) (personal data) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council is not entitled to rely on section 40(2) of the FOIA to withhold the information requested.The Commissioner requires the disclose the withheld information.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View Bridgend County Borough Council
19 May 2026Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from the Health and Safety Executive relating to an inspection at Airedale Centre for Mental Health and why a Notice of Contravention was issued. 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 Health and Safety Executive
19 May 2026Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from the Cabinet Office about whether, within the last three years, any FOIA request relating to the Gatwick Airport drone incident and/or Operation Trebor had been flagged for the clearing house, referred to the National Security Liaison Group (NSLG), or referred as a ‘round robin’. The Cabinet Office’s original response neither confirmed nor denied whether it held the requested information, relying on section 24(2) of FOIA (national security). During the Commissioner’s investigation the Cabinet Office confirmed that no information is held in relation to the ‘round robin’ element of the request, and clarified that it relies on section 24(2) only in relation to the NSLG element. The Commissioner’s decision is as follows:
• On the balance of probabilities, the Cabinet Office does not hold any information within the scope of the request about ‘round robin’ referrals. However, by failing to confirm that this information was not held in its response t
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Cabinet Office
19 May 2026Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested various information in respect of Non-Disclosure Agreements or Settlement Agreements for the years 2023-2024 and 2024-2025 . In respect of the total number of agreements for the year 2024-2025 Monmouthshire County Council (the Council) confirmed the total was less than five and cited section 40(2) (personal information) of the FOIA on the basis that individual(s) could be identified from the small numbers. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council was entitled to rely on section 40(2) of the FOIA to refuse to provide the actual numbers for 2024-2025. The Commissioner does not require any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40(2)
View Monmouthshire County Council
18 May 2026Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The public authority has failed to respond to this request within 20 working days, as specified in the EIR. The Commissioner requires it to provide the complainant with a response to this request within 30 calendar days in accordance with its obligations under the EIR.
Exemptions cited: EIR 5(2)
View Hammersmith and Fulham Council
18 May 2026Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information about the Exploring Climate Cooling programme. The Advanced Research and Invention Agency (‘ARIA’) provided a link to information about the programme on its website. It then provided copies of the project proposals in its internal review response. It advised that, due to the early stages of the programme it did not hold further detailed information within scope of the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, ARIA did not hold further information within scope of the request at the time the request was made. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 5
View Advanced Research and Invention Agency
18 May 2026Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from the London Borough of Southwark (the Council) about cleaning graffiti from signage for a specific parking bay. The Council provided some information falling within the scope of the request and advised that other information was not held.
The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the Council does not hold information falling within the scope of the refined request.
The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Southwark Council
18 May 2026Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information relating to a dropped kerb application. The London Borough of Barking and Dagenham Council (the Council) provided some information and stated that other information was not held.
The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the Council does not hold any additional information relevant to the request.
The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 5
View Barking and Dagenham Council
18 May 2026Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested the Competition and Markets Authority (the CMA) to disclose a list of the specific medications that were included in a statistic it published. The CMA refused to disclose the information citing sections 44(1)(a) and 31(1)(g) by virtue of section 31(2)(c). The Commissioner’s decision is that the CMA is entitled to rely on section 44(1)(a) of FOIA. The Commissioner does not require further steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 44(1)(a)
View Competition and Markets Authority
18 May 2026Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The public authority has failed to complete its public interest test considerations within a reasonable time in accordance with its obligations under FOIA. The Commissioner requires it to provide a substantive response to the request within 30 calendar days in accordance with its obligations under FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 17
View Department for Work and Pensions
18 May 2026Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about policing a particular demonstration from the Metropolitan Police Service (the “MPS”). The MPS refused to provide the requested information, citing section 12(1) (Cost of compliance exceeds appropriate limit) of FOIA.
The Commissioner’s decision is that the MPS was entitled to rely on section 12(1) of FOIA. He also finds that there was no failure to comply with section 16(1) (Advice and assistance) of FOIA, although it did breach section 10(1) in providing a late response. No steps are required.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 12; FOI 16
View Metropolitan Police Service
18 May 2026Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
1. The complainant has requested all information held by West Midlands Police in relation to a specific person in relation to a specific investigation.
2. West Midlands Police withheld the requested information, citing sections 30(3) (investigations and proceedings) and 40(5) of FOIA.
3. The Commissioner’s decision is that West Midlands Police were entitled to rely on section 30(3) to NCND holding the requested information. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 30(3)
View West Midlands Police