8 Apr 2026Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a three-part request to Castle Point Borough Council (the council) for emails exchanged between named individuals, together with copies of relevant agendas and meeting minutes. The complaint concerns the council’s handling of parts 1 and 2 of the request, which it initially refused under various provisions of section 40 (third party personal information) and section 41 (information provided in confidence) of FOIA. During the Commissioner’s investigation, the council advised that it does not hold information within the scope of part 1 of the request and confirmed that it relied on section 40 to withhold all of the information it had identified as falling within the scope of part 2 of the request. The council said it considered that the exemption in section 36 (prejudice to the effective conduct of public affairs) was also applicable to some of the information held in relation to part 2 of the request. The Commissioner is satisfied that, on the balance of probab
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 40
View Castle Point Borough Council
8 Apr 2026Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information from the London Borough of Newham (“the Council”) relating to complaints and concerns about student accommodation known as Stratford One in East London. The Council relied on regulation 12(5)(b) of the EIR – adverse effect on the course of justice, etc – to withhold information. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has correctly withheld information under regulation 12(5)(b). He does not require the Council to take any steps in order to comply with the EIR.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(b)
View Newham Council
8 Apr 2026Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from the Black Country Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust (BCHFT) about African Caribbean Community Initiative who provide mental health services. The BCHFT 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 Black Country Healthcare NHS Foundation
8 Apr 2026Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from the Chief Constable of Northumbria Police (“Northumbria Police”) relating to Operation Eustace. The Commissioner’s decision is that on the balance of probabilities, Northumbria Police does not hold information within the scope of the request. The Commissioner does not require Northumbria Police to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Northumbria Police
8 Apr 2026Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted an information request to the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons (RCVS) regarding complaints handled by the Veterinary Client Mediation Service (VCMS).
The RCVS informed the complainant that the requested information was not held.
The Commissioner’s decision is that on the balance of probabilities, the RCVS does not hold the requested information.
The Commissioner does not require further steps as a result of this notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1(1)(a)
View Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons
7 Apr 2026Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested copies of text messages considered by the Crown Prosecution Service (“CPS”) as evidence in relation to particular criminal allegations. The CPS refused to disclose the requested information, citing section 30(1)(c) (any criminal proceedings which the authority has power to conduct) and section 40(2) (personal information) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the CPS correctly relied on section 30(1)(c) of FOIA to withhold the requested information. The Commissioner does not require the CPS to take any further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 30
View Crown Prosecution Service
7 Apr 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 The University of Bradford
7 Apr 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
7 Apr 2026Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information on the building of a drive at a specific address. Brighton & Hove City Council (the “council”) disclosed some information and withheld other information under section 21 of the FOIA (information accessible by other means). The Commissioner’s decision is that the request falls to be considered under the EIR and that, in handling the request under the FOIA, the council breached regulation 5(1) and regulation 14(1). The Commissioner requires the council to reconsider the request under the EIR and issue a fresh response to the complainant, ensuring that any environmental information relevant to the request is disclosed unless valid exceptions are applicable.
Exemptions cited: EIR 14(1); EIR 5(1)
View Brighton and Hove City Council
7 Apr 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 Kent County Council
7 Apr 2026Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information about invoices paid from 1 April 2019. Birmingham City Council (the Council) provided some information but the complainant pointed out that it had not provided all of the information relevant to the request. In its internal review the Council stated that it was now relying on section 12 (appropriate limit) of the FOIA as compliance with the request would exceed the appropriate limit. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council is not entitled to rely on section 12 to refuse the request. The Commissioner requires the Council issue a fresh response to the request that does not rely on section 12(1) of FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12
View Birmingham City Council
7 Apr 2026Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about a named individual from the Metropolitan Police Service (the “MPS”). The MPS would neither confirm nor deny (“NCND”) whether the named individual worked for them, citing section 40(5B)(a)(i) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that it was entitled to do so. No steps are required.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View Metropolitan Police Service
7 Apr 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
3 Apr 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 London Borough of Croydon
2 Apr 2026Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to meetings and correspondence between ministers and officials at HMT and Labour Together.HMT stated that it did not hold the information within the scope of the request.The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, HMT does not hold requested information for the purposes of section 1(1)(a) of FOIA. A public authority will breach section 10 if it fails to respond to a request within 20 working days. The request was made on 7 November 2024. HMT did not seek clarification of the request until 16 January 2025, which was outside the statutory 20 working days. The Commissioner therefore finds a breach of section 10(1) of FOIA.The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View HM Treasury
2 Apr 2026Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The Complainant requested information about the salaries paid to celebrities taking part in the 2025 series of The Celebrity Traitors and the amount donated to the winner’s nominated charity. The Commissioner’s decision is that this information, if held at all, would be 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 remedial steps to be taken in this case.
Exemptions cited: FOI 3
View BBC
2 Apr 2026Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested an unredacted copy of the public authority’s fish kill protocol. The Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs (“DAERA”) refused the request on the basis of regulation 13 (personal data) and 12(5)(g) (protection of the environment). The Commissioner’s decision is that DAERA is entitled to withhold the requested information under 12(5)(g) and 13. The timeliness of DAERA’s internal review, however, didn’t comply with regulation 11(4). The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 11(4); EIR 12(5)(g); EIR 13
View Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs (Northern Ireland)
2 Apr 2026Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about “smashed gangs”. The Cabinet Office stated that it did not hold information within scope of the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Cabinet Office does not hold information within scope of the request. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Cabinet Office
2 Apr 2026Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about a vacant property. Blackburn with Darwen Borough Council (‘the council’) relied on section 40(2) of FOIA (third party personal information) and section 31 of FOIA (law enforcement) to withhold the requested information. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council was entitled to rely on section 40(2) of FOIA to withhold the requested information. However, he also finds that the council breached section 17 of FOIA for failing to issue a refusal notice stating it was relying on sections 40(2) and 31 within 20 working days of receipt of the original request. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 17; FOI 40
View Blackburn with Darwen Council
2 Apr 2026Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information about the awarding of an advertising contract concerning the Bobby Moore Bridge. London Borough of Brent (the council) provided some background information but cited regulation 12(4)(e) (internal communications) of the EIR to withhold further information.
The Commissioner’s decision is that the council was entitled to apply regulation 12(4)(e) to withhold information in scope of the request, and the balance of the public interest favours maintaining the exception.
The Commissioner does not require any steps as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(e)
View London Borough of Brent
2 Apr 2026Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about bids received during a procurement exercise. Cheshire East Council withheld some of the requested information under section 43(2) (Commercial interests). The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council is entitled to withhold the information under section 43(2). The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 43(2)
View Cheshire East Council
2 Apr 2026Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
1. The Commissioner’s decision is that at the time of the request the Department was entitled to withhold some of the information the complainant has requested (the remainder not being held by the Department) under regulation 12(5)(e) of the EIR, which concerns commercial interests. The Department breached regulation 14(3) of the EIR as its initial refusal notice did not specify the exception(s) it sought to apply.
2. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(e); EIR 14
1 Apr 2026Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information about financial matters from South Wonston Parish Council (“the parish council”). The parish council relied on section 14(1) of FOIA (vexatious requests) to refuse the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the request was vexatious and the parish council was entitled to rely on section 14(1) of FOIA to refuse it. The Commissioner does not require the parish council to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14
1 Apr 2026Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
1. The complainant has requested information from UK Export Finance relating to the financing of a specific project. UK Export Finance provided some information, stated that it did not hold other information, and refused to disclose the remainder, citing regulation 12(5)(a) as a basis for non-disclosure.
2. The Commissioner’s decision is that UK Export Finance has correctly applied regulation 12(5)(a) to the withheld information.
3. The Commissioner does not require UK Export Finance to take any steps as a result of this decision notice.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(a)
View UK Export Finance
1 Apr 2026Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about the Developed Vetting (DV) of a former senior police officer. Northamptonshire Police confirmed that it held some information but refused to disclose it, citing section 21(1) (Information reasonably accessible to applicant by other means). The complainant disagreed with the application of the exemption and also believed that Northamptonshire Police had failed to respond to other parts of the request in accordance with FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that Northamptonshire Police was entitled to rely on section 21(1) to refuse to disclose the information requested at Q4 of the request. However, he finds that its response to Q5 was not compliant with section 1(1) (General right of access) of FOIA. The Commissioner requires Northamptonshire Police to issue a fresh response to Q5 of the request. It must confirm or deny whether it holds any recorded information within scope and, if information is held, either disclose it or issue a refu
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 12
View Northamptonshire Police
1 Apr 2026Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about someone he described as a deceased Nazi sympathiser from the Metropolitan Police Service (the “MPS”). The MPS would neither confirm nor deny (“NCND”) holding any information, citing sections 23(5) (Information supplied by, or relating to, bodies dealing with security matters), 24(2) (National security), 30(3) (Criminal investigations), 31(3) (Law enforcement) and 40(5B)(a)(i) (Personal information) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that section 23(5) was cited correctly so the MPS was not obliged to confirm or deny whether the requested information was held.
Exemptions cited: FOI 23
View Metropolitan Police Service
1 Apr 2026Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to a specific piece of correspondence. Staffordshire Police advised that it did not hold the requested information.
The Commissioner’s decision is that Staffordshire Police failed to conduct adequate searches to locate information falling within the scope of the request.
The Commissioner requires Staffordshire Police to issue the complainant with a fresh response to their request following searches aimed at identifying all information held within the scope of the request.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1(1)
View Staffordshire Police
31 Mar 2026Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to the London Borough of Redbridge (the Council) seeking the dates which it had inspected the rental properties owned by the (then) Councillor Athwal. The Council withheld the requested information on the basis of section 40(2) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the dates the properties were inspected are not exempt from disclosure on the basis of section 40(2) (personal data) but the addresses of the properties are exempt from on the basis of section 44(1)(a) (statutory prohibition) of FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40; FOI 44
View Redbridge Council
31 Mar 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(3)
View Home Office
31 Mar 2026Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to the vehicle of a named third party. Merseyside Police would neither confirm nor deny (NCND) holding the requested information, citing sections 31(3) (law enforcement) and 40(5B) (personal information) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that Merseyside Police is entitled to NCND whether the requested information is held, by virtue of section 40(5B)(a)(i) of FOIA. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View Merseyside Police
31 Mar 2026Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to the London Borough of Redbridge (the Council) seeking emails from senior staff about whether an investigation into (then) Councillor Athwal should be commenced in respect of him not holding a landlord licence. The Council withheld the information on the basis of section 40(2) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the majority of the information in scope is not exempt from disclosure on the basis of section 40(2) of FOIA, the exception being a spreadsheet described in the decision notice below which the Commissioner accepts is exempt from disclosure on the basis of this exemption. The Commissioner has concluded that the addresses of the rental properties are exempt from disclosure on the basis of section 44(1)(a) (statutory prohibition) of FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View Redbridge Council
31 Mar 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 Bury Council
31 Mar 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 Queen Mary University of London
31 Mar 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 Home Office
31 Mar 2026Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a muti-part information request to College Park School (the school) for various policies and teaching materials. The school initially refused the request under both section 12(1) (cost of compliance) and section 14(1)(vexatious requests) of FOIA. As a result of the investigation, the school confirmed that it was relying upon section 14(1) of FOIA to refuse the request.
The Commissioner’s decision is that the request was vexatious and therefore the school was entitled to rely upon section 14(1) of FOIA to refuse it. However, the Commissioner found that the school breached sections 1(1)(a), 10(1) and 17(5) of FOIA regarding the timeliness of its response.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1(1)(a); FOI 10(1); FOI 14(1); FOI 17(5)
31 Mar 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 Sheffield City Council
31 Mar 2026Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about a surveillance tower from the Home Office. The Home Office advised that some information was not held and that the remaining information was exempt from disclosure, citing sections 31(1)(a), (b) and (e) (Law enforcement) and 43(2) (Commercial interests) of FOIA.
The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the civil standard of the balance of probabilities, the information requested at part (10) of the request is not held. In respect of parts (3), (8), (9) and (13) of the request, it is unclear what is held and the Commissioner finds a breach of section 1(1)(a) in this regard (this means it is unnecessary to consider section 43(2) of FOIA). In respect of section 31(1) of FOIA, he has found that this is only partly engaged.
The Commissioner requires the Home Office to take the following steps:
• Issue a fresh response to parts (3), (8), (9), (13) and the second part of part (11) of the request, clearly identifying what is or is not held. It m
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Home Office
31 Mar 2026Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested a copy of the road maintenance policy and the road repair history for a specific road. Gwynedd Council (the Council) provided a copy of its road maintenance policy but withheld information about the road repair history for the road in question under regulation 12(5)(b) (course of justice) of the EIR. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has correctly applied regulation 12(5)(b). The Commissioner does not require steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(b)
View Gwynedd Council
31 Mar 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 Leeds City Council
31 Mar 2026Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about a current missing persons investigation. West Midlands Police (WMP) refused to disclose most of the requested information, citing sections 31(1)(a) (Law enforcement) and 40(2) (Personal information) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that WMP was entitled to rely on section 31(1)(a) of FOIA to refuse the request. He also found no failure to comply with section 16 (Advice and assistance) of FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 31
View West Midlands Police
31 Mar 2026Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information about the condition in a planning application. West Northamptonshire Council referred the complainant to information already in the public domain, and stated that no further information was held. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the Council does not hold any further information relevant to the request. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 5(1); EIR 5(2)
View West Northamptonshire Council
31 Mar 2026Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from London Borough of Waltham Forest. 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 Waltham Forest Council
31 Mar 2026Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information held by Cheltenham Borough Council (the council) about a potential loan taken out to cover an overspend on the budget for the Minster Exchange development project. Whilst the council handled the request under FOIA, the Commissioner considers the EIR to be the correct access regime. However, he has decided that, on the balance of probabilities, the requested information is not held by the council, and it is therefore entitled to rely on regulation 12(4)(a) (information not held) of the EIR to refuse the complainant’s request.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(a)
View Cheltenham Borough Council
31 Mar 2026Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to the London Borough of Redbridge (the Council) seeking correspondence between correspondence between it and the (then) Councillor Athwal's managing agents about his rental properties. The Council withheld this information on the basis of section 40(2) (personal data) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the correspondence is not exempt from disclosure on the basis of section 40(2) although the addresses of the properties are exempt from disclosure on the basis of section 44(1)(a) (statutory prohibition) of FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40; FOI 44
View Redbridge Council
31 Mar 2026Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to the London Borough of Redbridge (the Council) seeking a list of addresses of rental properties owned by the (then) Councillor Athwal and correspondence between him and the Council about the property licences for such properties. The Council withheld the addresses on the basis of section 44(1)(a) (statutory prohibition) and the correspondence on the basis of section 40(2) (personal data) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the addresses of the properties are exempt from disclosure on the basis of section 44(1)(a) of FOIA. The correspondence is not exempt from disclosure on the basis of section 40(2).
Exemptions cited: FOI 40; FOI 44
View Redbridge Council
31 Mar 2026Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information about Council Tax and Non Domestic Rating, monitoring and liability orders. The MoJ relied on section 14(1) of FOIA (vexatious) to refuse the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the request was vexatious and therefore the MoJ was entitled to rely upon section 14(1) of FOIA to refuse it. The Commissioner does not require the MoJ to take any further steps on this matter.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14
View Ministry of Justice
31 Mar 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 North East London NHS Foundation Trust
31 Mar 2026Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested communications between the Chief Medical Officer and a specific Taskforce. The DHSC disclosed a number of emails but the complainant considered this was not the extent of the information held. They also queried the redaction of certain names from the disclosed emails. The Commissioner finds that the DHSC has not provided all the information it holds in scope of the request as it has restricted the scope to only emails containing the keyword “Evusheld” in the subject line and not the body of the email. The Commissioner finds this was an unnecessary restriction on the scope of the request and as such the DHSC has failed to comply with section 1 FOIA. However, the Commissioner accepts the DHSC was correct to withhold the names of junior officials from the emails already disclosed under section 40(2). The Commissioner requires the DHSC to carry out a new search that includes ‘Evusheld’ in the body of the email and confirm whether such emails are held and eithe
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 40
View Department of Health and Social Care
31 Mar 2026Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested copies of correspondence between itself and a named party from the Metropolitan Police Service (the “MPS”). The MPS provided some information regarding the first part of the request, but would neither confirm nor deny (“NCND”) holding information about the second part citing sections 23(5) (Information supplied by, or relating to, bodies dealing with security matters), 24(2) (National security), 30(3) (Criminal investigations), 31(3) (Law enforcement) and 40(5)(B)(a)(i) (Personal information) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that sections 23(5), and 24(2) in the alternative, were cited correctly so the MPS was not obliged to confirm or deny whether the requested information was held.
Exemptions cited: FOI 23; FOI 24
View Metropolitan Police Service
31 Mar 2026Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to the London Borough of Redbridge (the Council) seeking information the number of notices issued to selective licence landlords during a particular period, the names of the landlords and contents of the notices. The Council provided the complainant with the number of notices issued but withheld the remaining information on the basis of section 40(2) (personal data) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that only some of the withheld information is exempt from disclosure on the basis of section 40(2) of FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View Redbridge Council