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
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
15 May 2026Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from Cheshire East Council (CEC) relating to business rates and council tax collected by CEC from the former Macclesfield Borough Council (MBC) area. The Commissioner’s decision is that CEC is not entitled to rely on section 12(1) (cost limit) of FOIA to refuse to provide the requested information. He also finds that CEC has breached section 1(1)(a) of FOIA by failing to clearly confirm or deny whether it holds an estimate of the council tax and business rates it has collected from the former MBC area. The Commissioner requires CEC to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. CEC must issue a fresh response to the request which does not rely on section 12(1) of FOIA. CEC must issue a fresh response to the request which clearly confirms or denies whether an estimate of the council tax and business rates it has collected from the former MBC area is held. CEC must take these steps within 30 calendar days of the date of this d
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 12
View Cheshire East Council
15 May 2026Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about the Disguised Remuneration Steering Group. HM Revenue and Customs (“HMRC”) provided the complainant with some information within scope of the request and withheld the remainder with reliance on sections 31(1)(d)(prejudice to the assessment or collection of tax), 35(1)(a)(formulation of government policy), 40(2)(personal data), 42(1)(legal professional privilege) and 44(1)(a)(prohibitions on disclosure). During the course of the Commissioner’s investigation HMRC disclosed some information previously withheld under sections 31(1)(d) and 35(1)(a) but continued to withhold the remainder with reliance on the exemptions listed at paragraph 1 above. The Commissioner’s decision is that HMRC is entitled to continue to withhold information with reliance on sections 31(1)(d) and 35(1)(a). As the complainant focused their scope of their complaint on the handling of information withheld under these exemptions the Commissioner has not considered the ap
Exemptions cited: FOI 35(1)(a); FOI 31(1)(d)
View HM Revenue & Customs
15 May 2026Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from the College of Policing Limited about a Home Office PNC Supply Agreement. The Commissioner’s decision is that the public authority failed to complete its public interest test considerations within a reasonable time in accordance with its obligations under FOIA. The public authority must provide a substantive response to the request in accordance with its obligations under FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 17(3)
View College of Policing
15 May 2026Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted two requests to Downton Parish Council (the council) for information relating to council spending.
The council refused both requests, relying upon section 14(1) (vexatious requests) of FOIA.
The Commissioner’s decision is that both requests were vexatious and therefore the council was entitled to rely upon section 14(1) of FOIA to refuse them. However, in relation to request one, in failing to issue a refusal notice, relying upon section 14, the council breached section 17(5) (refusal of request) of FOIA.
The Commissioner does not require further steps as a result of this notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14(1); FOI 17(5)
15 May 2026Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from Cheshire East Council (CEC) relating to the demographics of the CEC area and the former Macclesfield Borough Council (MBC) area. The complainant also requested information relating to business rates and council tax collected by CEC and from the former MBC area. The Commissioner’s decision is that CEC is not entitled to rely on section 12(1) (cost limit) of FOIA to refuse to provide the information requested in parts 2b and 3b of the request. The Commissioner requires CEC to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. CEC must issue a fresh response to parts 2b and 3b of the request which does not rely on section 12(1) of FOIA. CEC 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 Cheshire East Council
15 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, the public authority did not provide a valid response within the statutory time frame. 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 London Borough of Havering
15 May 2026Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information about Pembroke Terrace Play Area and a potential change of use or closure. Penarth Town Council (the council) provided some information but withheld information under regulations 12(4)(d) (material in the course of completion), 12(4)(e) (internal communications), 12(5)(e) (commercial confidentiality), 12(5)(f) (Financial or other detriment of others) and 13 (personal data) of the EIR.
The Commissioner’s decision is he is not persuaded that the council was entitled to apply regulations 12(4)(d), 12(4)(e), 12(5)(e) and 12(5)(f) to withhold information falling within scope of the request. However, the council was entitled to apply regulation 13.
The Commissioner requires the council to take the following step to ensure compliance with the legislation.
• disclose the information within scope of the request with redactions made for personal data.
The public authority must take this step within 30 calendar days of the date of this decision notice. Fail
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(d); EIR 12(4)(e); EIR 12(5)(e); EIR 12(5)(f); EIR 13
15 May 2026Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested the source of figures relating to landlord homes for Jigsaw Homes Group Limited.
The Housing Ombudsman Service (HOS) initially relied on section 21 of FOIA but later confirmed, at internal review, that it does not hold the requested information.
The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the HOS does not hold information within the scope of the request. However, it breached section 16 of FOIA by failing to provide adequate advice and assistance in its original response.
The Commissioner does not require any steps as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1(1); FOI 16
View Housing Ombudsman
14 May 2026Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC). The Commissioner’s decision is that this information, if held at all, is held by the BBC for the purposes of journalism, art or literature and so is not covered by FOIA. He therefore upholds the BBC’s position and requires no steps to be taken in this case.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View BBC
14 May 2026Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested Anglian Water (AW) to disclose information relating to the design and operation of the Henderson Park sewer system. They also requested any correspondence and agreements between AW, Bellway Homes and Scotts Residential in relation to the impact of the pumped connection on the Henderson Park sewer system. AW disclosed the information with personal data redacted under regulation 13 of the EIR. The complainant however disputes that all the recorded information held has been located and disclosed and disagrees with the application of regulation 13 of the EIR. The Commissioner’s decision is that on the balance of probabilities AW does not hold any further recorded information to that already disclosed. AW was also correct to withhold the personal data under regulation 13 of the EIR. He has however recorded a breach of regulation 5(2) of the EIR, as AW identified and disclosed late information to which the complainant was entitled within 20 working days of their
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(a); EIR 13; EIR 5(2)
14 May 2026Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested Anglian Water (AW) to disclose copies of a 104 agreement and information relating to any assessment or monitoring of their local sewer system. Initially, AW applied regulation 12(4)(d) (information in the course of completion) of the EIR and argued that the telemetry data it holds does not fall under the EIR. During the Commissioner’s investigation the 104 agreement and the telemetry data were disclosed to the complainant. The only withheld information at the time of writing was some personal data contained in the two versions of the 104 agreement, to which regulation 13 (personal data) of the EIR was applied. The Commissioner’s decision is that regulation 13 of the EIR applies and AW breached regulations 5(2) and 14(4) of the EIR. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 13; EIR 14(4); EIR 5(2)
14 May 2026Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to a site visit following an incident at a wedding venue. Some information was disclosed with personal information redacted under section 40(2). The remaining information was withheld under section 31(1)(g) with 31(2)(a) and (c) FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that ECFRS has correctly withheld information under section 31(1)(g). In terms of section 40(2) the Commissioner is satisfied this has been applied appropriately to redact names of junior staff and third parties such as complainant’s names from the information disclosed. However, for Directors of companies he has determined that section 40(2) doesn’t apply. The Commissioner requires ECFRS to disclose the names of Directors redacted from the information already disclosed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 31; FOI 40
View Essex County Fire and Rescue Service
14 May 2026Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a four part request to Dronfield Town Council (the council) for information about staff conduct complaints received within a 12 month period. For part 1 of the request, the council confirmed that it had received one complaint about staff conduct within the last 12 months, which was not upheld. It refused to provide any further information, citing section 40(2) (third party personal information). The council took the view that parts 2, 3 and 4 of the request were only relevant if it relied on section 12 (cost limits). As it did not rely on section 12, it said that it did not consider it necessary to address those parts further. The Commissioner has decided that the council is entitled to rely on section 40(2) to withhold the information falling within scope of part 1 of the request. He is also satisfied that the council complied with its obligations under FOIA in its handling of parts 2, 3 and 4 of the request.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40(2)
14 May 2026Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from the Home Office about a Home Office PNC Supply Agreement. 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 Home Office
14 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(1)
View Walsall Council
14 May 2026Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested the internal courier address list for the Department for Work and Pensions. The Commissioner’s decision is that DWP is entitled to withhold the requested addresses on the basis of section 31(1)(a), prevention or detection of crime. The Commissioner does not require DWP to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 31
View Department for Work and Pensions
14 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
14 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 Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office
14 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 Law Commission
14 May 2026Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested Anglian Water (AW) to disclose information relating to a sewer connection and the telemetry monitoring at a pumping station. AW confirmed that it did not hold the requested information (regulation 12(4)(a) of the EIR) and that telemetry data does not fall within the scope of the EIR.
During the Commissioner’s investigation AW disclosed some additional information it identified, with personal data redacted under regulation 13 of the EIR and accepted telemetry data is covered by the EIR and disclosed this information too. The Commissioner’s decision is that on the balance of probabilities AW does not hold any further recorded information to that already disclosed and was correct to apply regulation 13 of the EIR to the personal data it redacted. He has however recorded breaches of regulation 5(2), 14(2) and 14(3) of the EIR in this case. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(a); EIR 13; EIR 14(3); EIR 14(2); EIR 5(2)
13 May 2026Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about HM Revenue and Customs’ (HMRC) use of Fujitsu software and services. HMRC initially stated that it did not hold information within scope of the request, however, during the course of the Commissioner’s investigation identified and disclosed some information to the complainant. The Commissioner’s decision is that HMRC did not comply with the requirements of section 1(1)(general right of access) of FOIA by failing to provide information within scope of the request within the statutory timeframe. The Commissioner also records a breach of section 10(time limits). As information within scope has since been provided, the Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10
View HM Revenue & Customs
13 May 2026Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from the Home Office about VFS Global. The Home Office provided some information, but withheld the majority under section 43(2) of FOIA – prejudice to commercial interests. The Commissioner’s decision is that the exemption has been applied correctly to the requested reporting and performance level data, and that the balance of the public interest favours the exemption being maintained. However, he has decided that the exemption is not engaged with regard to some of the requested information; specifically, a list of Visa Application Centre subcontractors. The Commissioner requires the Home Office to disclose the list of Visa Application Centre subcontractors to the complainant.
Exemptions cited: FOI 43(2)
View Home Office
13 May 2026Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about data protection complaints.
The Home Office (the “public authority”) provided the complainant with some
information.
The Commissioner’s decision is that no further information is held.
The Commissioner’s decision is that the public authority failed to provide a full response to the request within the statutory time limit. Consequently the Commissioner finds that the public authority breached section 10(1) of the FOIA in respect of the request.
The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10(1)
View Home Office
13 May 2026Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested signed data-sharing agreements between the Home Office and three named delivery companies. The Home Office initially responded by saying that the information in scope of the request was exempt from disclosure on the basis of section 31(1) (law enforcement) of FOIA. The Home Office ultimately disclosed some information, withholding a small amount citing sections 31, 43(2) (commercial interests) and 40(2) (personal information) of FOIA. However, it transpired that this information was not actually available at the time of the request. Accordingly, the Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the Home Office does not hold any information falling within the scope of this request. In failing to confirm or deny holding the requested information when it was required to do so the Commissioner finds a breach of section 1(1)(a). The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Home Office
13 May 2026Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information about the monitoring of internal email accounts from the Metropolitan Police Service (the “MPS”). The MPS provided some information but it initially withheld an internal form, citing sections 31(1)(a) and (b) (Law enforcement) of FOIA. Following the partial disclosure of this form, the complainant advised that he wanted a ‘completed’ form, as he believed he had personally been subject to such monitoring. The Commissioner’s decision is that information of this description was not within the scope of the request and so the MPS was not required to consider any such information as may be held, for disclosure.
The MPS subsequently located further information. It advised the Commissioner that some of this could be disclosed but that the remainder was being withheld under sections 31(1)(a) and (b) (Law enforcement) and 40(2) (Personal information) of FOIA. Where cited, the Commissioner finds that both these exemptions are properly engaged. He finds no b
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10; FOI 16; FOI 31; FOI 40
View Metropolitan Police Service
13 May 2026Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from Potto Parish Council (the Council). The Council stated that the information was not held.
The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the Council does not hold the requested information. However, he finds that there was a breach of section 1(1)(a) as the Council failed to confirm if it held the information or not.
The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1(1)(a)
13 May 2026Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The Commissioner’s decision is that the public authority has breached regulation 11 of the EIR by failing to provide a reconsideration (internal review) of a response within 40 working days. The Commissioner requires it to provide the complainant with the internal review within 30 calendar days in accordance with its obligations under the EIR.
Exemptions cited: EIR 11
View Westminster Council
12 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 Liverpool City Council
12 May 2026Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
Based on evidence available to the Commissioner, 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.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea
12 May 2026Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to stalking and harassment in Spain between specified dates. The Home Office refused to confirm or deny whether any information was held in relation to parts a and c of the request, relying on the ‘neither confirm nor deny’ provisions in sections 27 (international relations) and 31 (law enforcement) of FOIA. The Home Office said it would respond to part b of the the request separately given this constitutes a ‘subject access request’ for the complainant’s own information, so this aspect has been excluded from any further consideration in this notice. During the course of the Commissioner’s investigation, the Home Office revised its position in light of a statement made by the complainant in his grounds of complaint, and now said it did not hold the requested information for parts a and c of the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, no recorded information is held by the Home Office in relation to p
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10; FOI 17
View Home Office
12 May 2026Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested planning information in relation to a proposed development site. The London Borough of Redbridge (the Council) provided some information and confirmed that other information was not held. The complainant considers that further information is held.
The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has failed to demonstrate that it has carried out adequate searches for the requested information in order to determine whether any information is held and, during the course of the investigation, appears to have advised that further information is held. Therefore, on the balance of probabilities, the Commissioner considers the Council does hold further information falling within the scope of the request.
Furthermore, the Commissioner has found that the Council’s handling of the request breached regulation 5(2) of the EIR.
The Commissioner requires the Council to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation.
• Conduct a further search of its
Exemptions cited: EIR 14; EIR 5(2)
View Redbridge Council
12 May 2026Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information held by Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council (the council) relating to the Birkenhead Market investigation. The council initially refused the request under section 12 of FOIA (cost of compliance exceeds the appropriate limit). During the Commissioner’s investigation, the council advised that it now wished to rely upon section 14(1) (vexatious requests) on the grounds of burden, and section 12 in the alternative. The Commissioner finds that the council is entitled to rely on section 14(1) to refuse the request because compliance would impose a grossly oppressive burden. However, as the council failed to issue a refusal notice within the required 20 working days, the Commissioner has found a breach of section 17(1) of FOIA. The Commissioner does not require the council to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14(1); FOI 17(1)
View Wirral Council
12 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 Sunderland City Council
12 May 2026Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to National Asylum Stakeholder Forum (NASF) and Strategic Engagement Group (SEG) meetings. The Home Office refused the request, citing sections 36(2)(b)(i) and (ii) and 36(2)(c) (Prejudice to effective conduct of public affairs), and 38(1)(a) and (b) (Health and safety) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Home Office was entitled to apply sections 36(2)(b)(i) and (ii) and 36(2)(c) to refuse the majority of the request. However, he finds that the Home Office was not entitled to rely on any of the cited exemptions to withhold meeting agenda headings. The Commissioner requires the Home Office to disclose the meeting agenda headings for the five NASF and SEG meetings falling in the request’s scope, with any personal data redacted.
Exemptions cited: FOI 36; FOI 38
View Home Office
12 May 2026Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant submitted an information request to Erewash Borough Council (the council) for comprehensive records of interactions, arrangements and policies governing contact between council planning staff and third-party agents, acting on behalf of developers, since 2020.
The council relied upon regulations 12(4)(b) (manifestly unreasonable) and 12(5)(d) (confidentiality of proceedings) of the EIR to withhold information in relation to question one of the request.
The Commissioner’s decision is that the council was entitled to apply regulation 12(4)(b) of the EIR to question one of the request, and that the public interest in maintaining the exception, outweighs the public interest in disclosure. However, he finds that the council failed to comply with regulation 9 of the EIR because it did not provide advice and assistance on refining question one of the request, when it would have been reasonable to do so.
The Commissioner requires the council to take the following steps to ensur
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(b); EIR 9
View Erewash Borough Council
12 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 London Borough of Hounslow
12 May 2026Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information on forecasts of emissions savings generated by planned policies. DESNZ relied on EIR regulation 12(4)(d) – material in the course of completion and regulation 12(4)(e) – internal communications, to refuse the request. However, during the course of the Commissioner’s investigation and following the publishing of the Carbon Budget and Growth Delivery Plan (“CBGDP”) on 29 October 2025, DESNZ changed its response and no longer relied on regulation 12(4)(d), nevertheless maintaining that it had been correct in its reliance on this exception at the time of its initial response to the complainant. DESNZ continued to rely on regulation 12(4)(e). The Commissioner’s decision is that DESNZ has breached regulation 5(2) and must comply with points (a) to (c) of the request. He finds that with regard to point (d) regulation 12(4)(e) is engaged and the public interest narrowly favours maintaining the exception. The Commissioner requires DESNZ to take the fol
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(e); EIR 5(2)
View Department for Energy Security and Net Zero
11 May 2026Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested copies of any reports and other work produced by Cives Consultancy Limited.
Avon and Somerset Police and Crime Commissioner (“the public authority”) relied on section 41(1) of FOIA (information provided in confidence) to withhold the information.
The Commissioner’s decision is that the public authority was entitled to rely on section 41(1) of FOIA to withhold the requested information.
The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 41(1)
11 May 2026Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant asked Kent County Council (the council) for policy information about Education, Health and Care Plans. The council did not respond within 20 working days, as required by FOIA. The Commissioner requires the council to respond to the request within 30 calendar days of this notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Kent County Council
11 May 2026Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information with regards to a specific lychgate. The Commissioner’s decision is that the request falls under both the FOIA and the EIR and that Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council (the council), on the balance of probabilities, has provided all the information it holds falling within the scope of the request. The Commissioner finds that the council has therefore complied with both section 1 of the FOIA and Regulation 5(1) of the EIR.
Exemptions cited: EIR 5(1); FOI 1
View Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council
11 May 2026Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to the police handling of the death of a named individual. West Mercia Police refused the request, but it did not cite any exemption under FOIA to justify its position. The Commissioner’s decision is that West Mercia Police has not complied with sections 1(1) (General right of access), 10 (Time for compliance) and 17 (Refusal of request) of FOIA. The Commissioner requires West Mercia Police to issue a fresh response to the request, confirming or denying whether information is held. If held, the requested information must either be disclosed or a refusal notice issued that complies with section 17(1) of FOIA. If West Mercia Police reasonably requires further information in order to locate any relevant information, it may ask the complainant to provide clarifying information before complying.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10; FOI 17
View West Mercia Police
11 May 2026Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about DWP‑funded Employment Services within Talking Therapies. North East London NHS Foundation Trust (‘the trust’) advised it doesn’t hold some of the requested information and withheld the relevant contract it does hold under section 43(2) of FOIA. This information concerns commercial interests. The Commissioner’s decision is that the information the trust is withholding doesn’t engage section 43(2) of FOIA.
The Commissioner requires that the trust takes the following step to ensure compliance with the legislation: Disclose to the complainant the information that it withheld under section 43(2) of FOIA, with personal data redacted.
Exemptions cited: FOI 43(2)
View North East London NHS Foundation Trust
11 May 2026Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested from the London Borough of Richmond (the Council) information relating to Richmond Park Special Areas of Conservation (SAC) in the June 2024 Habitats Regulations Assessment (HRA) of the new Richmond Local Plan.
The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council was entitled to rely on regulation 12(4)(b) (manifestly unreasonable) to refuse the request. However, the Commissioner finds the Council in breach of regulation 9 (advice and assistance)
The Commissioner does not require the Council to take any further steps in relation to this complaint.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(b); EIR 9
View Richmond upon Thames Council
11 May 2026Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to online firearm applications. The Police Service Northern Ireland (PSNI) cited section 42(1) of FOIA, legal professional privilege, to refuse the request.
The Commissioner’s decision is that PSNI was correct to apply section 42(1) of FOIA to refuse the request and that, in this case, the public interest favours maintaining the exemption.
However, in failing to issue a refusal notice within 20 working days PSNI has breached section 17 of FOIA.
The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 42(1); FOI 17(1)
View Police Service of Northern Ireland
11 May 2026Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested, from Armagh City, Banbridge & Craigavon Borough Council (‘the council’), copies of legal correspondence and documents related to agreements between the former Craigavon Borough Council and Lough Neagh Sailing Club dating to “circa 1992”. The council maintains that it doesn’t hold the requested information. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the council doesn’t hold the requested information. The Commissioner doesn’t require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
11 May 2026Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information concerning the treatment of dual British–Russian nationals in passport applications. The Home Office refused to disclose the requested information, citing sections 24(1) (national security), 31(1)(a) and (e) (law enforcement) and 21 (information accessible to applicant by other means) of FOIA. It would also neither confirm nor deny (NCND) holding further information in scope of the request, citing section 23(5) (security bodies). The complainant disputed the application of sections 23, 24 and 31. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Home Office was entitled to rely on the exemption at section 31 to refuse to disclose the requested information and was also entitled to rely on section 23(5) to NCND whether it holds further information. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: FOI 23; FOI 31
View Home Office
11 May 2026Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information about hotel and B&B accommodation funded by the Northern Ireland Housing Executive (NIHE). NIHE provided some of the requested information but refused the remainder in reliance on the exemptions at sections 38 (health and safety), 40 (personal data) and 43 (commercial interests). NIHE subsequently relied on the appropriate limit at section 12 to refuse the request. The complainant did not dispute NIHE’s reliance on section 12. The Commissioner’s decision is that NIHE contravened section 1(1)(b) and section 10 of FOIA in that it disclosed some of the requested information outside the statutory time for compliance. It also contravened section 17 of FOIA in that it issued the refusal notice citing section 12 outside the statutory time limit. No steps are required.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10; FOI 17
View Northern Ireland Housing Executive
8 May 2026Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about the number of homes on St Helens Council’s housing register and a breakdown of allocations by citizenship status. St Helens Council (the council) stated that it did not hold information in scope of part one of the request and withheld information in scope of part two under section 38 of FOIA (health and safety). The Commissioner’s decision is that the council, on the balance of probabilities, does not hold information in scope of part one of the request. The Commissioner also finds that the council was entitled to rely on section 38 of FOIA to withhold information falling in scope of part two of the request. The Commissioner has recorded a procedural breach of section 10(1) of FOIA in relation to part three of the request. The Commissioner does not require any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10(1); FOI 38
View St Helens Council