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 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 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 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
30 Mar 2026Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested transcripts or records of meetings held with Chinese government officials since September 2024 from HM Treasury (HMT). HMT refused to provide this information citing section 12 as its basis doing so. The Commissioner’s decision is that HMT is entitled to rely on section 12 as its basis for refusing to provide the requested information. HMT also complied with its obligations under section 16 (advice and assistance) in its handling of the request. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12
View HM Treasury
30 Mar 2026Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to the Ministry of Defence (MOD) seeking summary statistics on the number of days the UK's four Vanguard-class submarines have each been at sea on patrol over the last ten years. The MOD confirmed that it held the requested information but it considered this to be exempt from disclosure on the basis of sections 24(1) (national security) and 26(1)(a) and (b) (defence) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the requested information is exempt from disclosure on the basis of sections 26(1)(a) and (b) and that the public interest favours maintaining each exemption.
Exemptions cited: FOI 26
View Ministry of Defence
30 Mar 2026Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to HM Treasury (HMT) for information relating to meetings held between Shein and HMT officials/ministers. HMT initially provided the complainant with some of the information requested, specifically the dates of two meetings held between ministers and Shein and two emails sent from FGS Global to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Rachel Reeves. HMT withheld all the remaining information held under section 43(2)(prejudice to commercial interests), section 29(1)(a)(prejudice to the UK’s economic interest), section 29(1)(b)(prejudice to the financial interests of the UK) and section 40(2)(third party personal data)
At internal review HMT withdrew section 29(1)(a) but maintained all the other exemptions to the request. In addition, they applied section 35(1)(d)(operation of any Ministerial office) to some of the information within scope.
During the Commissioner’s investigation, HMT provided the complainant with a revised response to his request, and disc
Exemptions cited: FOI 17; FOI 27; FOI 35; FOI 43
View HM Treasury
30 Mar 2026Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The Commissioner’s decision is that the Financial Conduct Authority was entitled to refuse the request for information about Barclays Woolwich mortgage terms under sections 44(1)(a), 44(2) and 21(1) of FOIA. These exemptions concern prohibitions on disclosure and information that’s accessible to the applicant by other means, respectively. The Commissioner doesn’t require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 44(2); FOI 44(1); FOI 21(1)
View Financial Conduct Authority
30 Mar 2026Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information held by Cherwell District Council (the council) regarding its costs in relation to empty units at Castle Quay Shopping Centre. The council provided the complainant with a link to information published on its website, and advised that it considered that it was entitled to withhold the remaining information held relevant to the request under the exemption at section 43(2) (commercial interests) of FOIA. During the Commissioner’s investigation, the council confirmed that it had misunderstood the terms of the request. The Commissioner is satisfied that the request has only one objective reading, and as the council failed to provide a response which addressed this objective reading, it did not comply with its duty under section 1 of FOIA. The Commissioner requires the council to issue a fresh response, based on the correct objective reading of the request.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Cherwell District Council
30 Mar 2026Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to HM Treasury (HMT) for information relating to meetings held between Shein and HMT officials/ministers. HMT initially withheld all of the information held within scope of the request under section 43(2)(prejudice to commercial interests), section 29(1)(a)(prejudice to the UK’s economic interest), section 29(1)(b)(prejudice to the financial interests of the UK) and section 40(2)(third party personal data).
At internal review HMT withdrew section 29(1)(b) but maintained all the other exemptions to the request. In addition, they applied section 35(1)(d)(operation of any Ministerial office) to some of the information within scope.
During the Commissioner’s investigation, HMT provided the complainant with a revised response to his request, and disclosed the information requested with redactions. HMT withdrew reliance on section 29(1)(a) and confirmed that they were withholding the redacted information under five exemptions, specifically, sections 27(
Exemptions cited: FOI 17; FOI 27; FOI 35; FOI 43
View HM Treasury
30 Mar 2026Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information on the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions overturning previous decisions. The Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) refused to comply with the request on the basis of section 14(1), vexatious requests. The Commissioner’s decision is that DWP is entitled to rely on section 14(1) to refuse to comply with the request. The Commissioner does however find that DWP breached section 17(5) as it provided its refusal notice outside of the statutory timeframe. The Commissioner does not require DWP to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14; FOI 17
View Department for Work and Pensions
30 Mar 2026Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to HM Treasury (HMT) for information relating to meetings held between Shein and HMT officials. HMT initially withheld all of the information held within scope of the request under sections 29(1)(a)(prejudice to the UK’s economic interest), 29(1)(b)(prejudice to the financial interests of the UK), 43(2)(prejudice to commercial interests) and 40(2)(third party personal data).
At internal review, HMT withdrew section 29(1)(b) but maintained all the other exemptions to the request. In addition, they applied section 35(1)(d)(operation of any Ministerial office) to some of the information within scope.
During the Commissioner’s investigation, HMT provided the complainant with a revised response to his request, and disclosed the information requested with redactions. HMT withdrew reliance on section 29(1)(a) and confirmed that they were withholding the redacted information under five exemptions, specifically, sections 27(1)(a)(prejudice to internati
Exemptions cited: FOI 17; FOI 27; FOI 35; FOI 43
View HM Treasury
30 Mar 2026Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about suspension of benefits. The Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) initially denied holding the requested information but amended its position to refuse to comply with the request on the basis of section 14(1), vexatious requests. The Commissioner’s decision is that DWP is entitled to rely on section 14(1) to refuse to comply with the request. The Commissioner does, however, find that DWP breached section 17(5) as it did not provide its section 14(1) refusal notice within the statutory timeframe. The Commissioner does not requite DWP to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14; FOI 17
View Department for Work and Pensions
30 Mar 2026Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information on the impact of a 2010 Conservative Party manifesto pledge on Employment Support Allowance (ESA) administration. The Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) refused to comply with the request on the basis of section 14(1), vexatious requests. The Commissioner’s decision is that DWP is entitled to rely on section 14(1) to refuse to comply with the request. The Commissioner does not require DWP to take any further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14
View Department for Work and Pensions
30 Mar 2026Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested internal communications from Estyn, the education and training inspectorate for Wales. Estyn relied on section 40(2) of FOIA (third party personal information) to withhold some of the information. The Commissioner’s decision is that the public authority has correctly relied on section 40(2) of FOIA to withhold the information. The Commissioner also considers that Estyn has, on the balance of probabilities disclosed all non-exempt information that it holds in scope of part four of the request. However, the Commissioner has recorded a breaches of section 1, section 10 and section 17 of FOIA. The Commissioner does not require further steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10; FOI 40(2); FOI 17(1)
View Estyn
30 Mar 2026Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
1. The complainant has requested information relating to the conviction and sentencing details for a named individual identified in news reports as having been convicted in February 2025 in Telford for the possession of child sexual abuse material. West Mercia Police (WMP) relied on section 40(2) (personal information) and section 21 (information reasonably accessible) of FOIA to withhold the information.
2. The Commissioner’s decision is that WMP was entitled to refuse the request under section 21 of FOIA and section 40(2) of FOIA.
3. The Commissioner does not require further steps as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: FOI 21; FOI 40(2)
View West Mercia Police
30 Mar 2026Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information on the Department for Work and Pensions’ (DWP) training materials relating to Universal Credit. The Commissioner’s decision is that DWP is entitled to rely on section 12(4) to aggregate his request with others made on similar topics. He also considers that DWP is entitled to rely on section 12(1) to refuse to comply with the aggregated requests as the cost of compliance exceeds the appropriate limit. The Commissioner is satisfied that DWP provided reasonable advice and assistance as required by section 16(1). The Commissioner does not require DWP to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12; FOI 16
View Department for Work and Pensions
30 Mar 2026Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information on benefit sanctions. The Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) refused to comply with the request on the basis of section 14(1), vexatious requests. The Commissioner’s decision is that DWP is entitled to rely on section 14(1) to refuse to comply with the request. The Commissioner does not require DWP to take any further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14
View Department for Work and Pensions
30 Mar 2026Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about certification of change of circumstances decisions in benefit claims. DWP provided some information and confirmed the remainder of the information was not held. It later amended its position to refuse to comply with the request on the basis of section 14(1), vexatious requests. The Commissioner’s decision is that DWP’s entitled to rely on section 14(1) to refuse to comply with the request. The Commissioner does, however, find that DWP breached section 17(5) as it did not provide its section 14(1) refusal notice within the statutory timeframe. The Commissioner does not require DWP to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14; FOI 17
View Department for Work and Pensions
30 Mar 2026Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information on “change of circumstances” letters. The Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) initially denied holding the requested information but amended its position to refuse to comply with the request on the basis of section 14(1), vexatious requests. The Commissioner’s decision is that DWP is entitled to rely on section 14(1) to refuse to comply with the request. The Commissioner does, however, find that DWP breached section 17(5) as it did not provide its refusal notice within the statutory timeframe. The Commissioner does not require DWP to take any further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14; FOI 17
View Department for Work and Pensions
30 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 London Borough of Havering
30 Mar 2026Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information on the suspension of Employment Support Allowance (ESA). The Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) has refused to comply with the request on the basis of section 14(1), vexatious requests. The Commissioner’s decision is that DWP is entitled to rely on section 14(1) to refuse to comply with the request. The Commissioner does, however, find that DWP breached section 17(5) as it did not provide the refusal notice within the statutory timeframe. The Commissioner does not require DWP to take any further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14; FOI 17
View Department for Work and Pensions
30 Mar 2026Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information relating to a consultation about parking charges. London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham (the council) doesn’t hold information within scope of three parts of the request. Its final position is that the information it holds that’s relevant to the final part of the request, part (d), is excepted from disclosure under regulation 12(5)(f) and regulation 13 of the EIR. These exceptions concern the interests of the person who provided the information and the protection of personal data, respectively. The Commissioner’s decision is that the information the council is withholding is excepted from disclosure under regulations 12(5)(f) and 13 of the EIR. It’s refusal of the request didn’t comply with regulation 14(3) of the EIR, however. He doesn’t require further steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(f); EIR 13; EIR 14(3)
View Hammersmith and Fulham Council
30 Mar 2026Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to the Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office (FCDO) seeking correspondence sent to the Chinese government regarding the use of Royal Mint Court, London as diplomatic premises. The FCDO withheld the requested information on the basis of sections 27(1)(a), (c), (d) and section 27(2) (international relations) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the requested information is exempt from disclosure on the basis of sections 27(1)(a), (c) and (d) and that the public interest favours maintaining each of the exemptions. However, the FCDO breached section 17(1) (refusal notices) of FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 17; FOI 27
30 Mar 2026Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant submitted a request to London Borough of Southwark (the council) for information regarding the commercial lease arrangements at Pullens Yard.
The council initially considered the request under FOIA and withheld the requested information under section 43(2) (commercial interests). As a result of the investigation, the council reconsidered the request under the EIR and withheld the requested information under regulation 12(5)(e) (commercial or industrial information).
The Commissioner’s decision is that the council was entitled to rely upon regulation 12(5)(e) of the EIR to withhold some of the requested information, and that, in relation to this information, the balance of the public interest favours maintaining the exception. However, he finds that with the exception of the financial and lease information, the council is not entitled to rely upon regulation 12(5)(e) to withhold the requested information. Furthermore, in initially handling the request under FOIA, and no
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(e); EIR 14(3); EIR 14(2); EIR 5(1)
View Southwark Council
30 Mar 2026Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to the Ministry of Defence (MOD) for statistics showing the number of Vanguard submarine crew members who have left the Royal Navy for personal reasons in each of the last ten years. The MOD confirmed that it held the requested information but it considered this to be exempt from disclosure on the basis of sections 24(1) (national security) and 26(1)(a) and (b) (defence) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the requested information is exempt from disclosure on the basis of sections 26(1)(a) and (b) and that the public interest favours maintaining each exemption. However, the MOD breached section 17(1) by failing to issue its refusal notice within twenty working days.
Exemptions cited: FOI 17; FOI 26
View Ministry of Defence
30 Mar 2026Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to HM Treasury (HMT) for information relating to correspondence and meetings between FGS Global and HMT ministers. HMT initially provided the complainant with some of the information held within scope of the request, with redactions for sections 40(2)(third party personal data) and 35(1)(d)(administration of a ministerial private office). HMT withheld the remainder of the information held under sections 29(1)(a)(prejudice to the UK’s economic interests), and 43(2)(prejudice to commercial interests). HMT maintained that position at the subsequent internal review.
During the Commissioner’s investigation, HMT provided the complainant with a revised response to his request and disclosed the information requested with redactions. HMT withdrew reliance on section 29(1)(a) and confirmed that they were withholding the redacted information under five exemptions, specifically, sections 27(1)(a)(prejudice to international relations), 35(1)(a)(formulation o
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 27; FOI 35; FOI 43
View HM Treasury
27 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 Greater London Authority
27 Mar 2026Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested copies of all information relating to two complaints which were transferred from the Public Health Services Ombudsman (PHSO) to the Public Service Ombudsman for Wales (PSOW) for investigation. PSOW stated that it did not hold the information for the purposes of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that on the balance of probabilities, PSOW holds the information for the purposes of FOIA. The Commissioner also determines that PSOW breached section 10(1) of FOIA. He does not require PSOW to take any further action.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10(1); FOI 3(2)(a)
View Public Services Ombudsman for Wales
27 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 London Borough of Lambeth
27 Mar 2026Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The Commissioner’s decision is that the requested information associated with a First-tier Tribunal appeal is exempt from disclosure under section 32(1) of FOIA, which concerns court records, etc. The Commissioner doesn’t require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 32(1)
View The University of Exeter
26 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 CABOT LEARNING FEDERATION
26 Mar 2026Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
1. The complainant has requested information from London Borough of Enfield (“the Council”) about use and performance of Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (“DoLs). The Council provided links to some information and stated that it did not hold further information in relation to the remainder. It also sought to apply section 21 of FOIA to the part of the information to which it provided links.
2. The Commissioner’s decision is as follows:
• On the balance of probabilities, the Council holds no further recorded information relevant to the complainant’s request and has complied with section 1(1) of FOIA in that respect.
• The Council has breached section 1(1)(1) of FOIA in that it has sought to apply section 21 of FOIA to information not held by it.
3. The Commissioner therefore does not require the Council to take any corrective steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 21
View Enfield Council
26 Mar 2026Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested from the Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC) information about its decision to appoint NHS England to lead the North East Ambulance Service review. DHSC provided some information but withheld part of it, applying section 42(1) FOIA - legal professional privilege. The complainant disputed whether this was all the information held by the DHSC. Later the DHSC also applied section 40(1) to the information it’s withholding, which concerns personal information. The Commissioner’s decision, first, is that DHSC has communicated all the non-exempt information that it holds. His decision is also that the information that DHSC is withholding isn’t exempt under section 42(1) of FOIA but that section 40(1) is engaged. Finally, there was no breach of section 16(1), which concerns advice and assistance. The Commissioner doesn’t require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 16; FOI 40(1); FOI 42(1)
View Department of Health and Social Care
26 Mar 2026Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to the Ministry of Defence (MOD) seeking a copy of the file DEFE 31/243, 'Joint Intelligence Organisation (JIO): the planning for and timing of the Argentinian invasion of the Falkland Islands'. The MOD withheld the requested file on the basis of sections 23(1) (security bodies) and 24(1) (national security) (cited in the alternative), 26(1)(a) and (b) (defence), and 27(1)(a) and (d) (international relations). The Commissioner’s decision is that the Commissioner has concluded that the requested file is exempt from disclosure on the basis of section 23(1) or section 24(1) of FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 23; FOI 24
View Ministry of Defence
26 Mar 2026Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested disclosure of any email address directly accessed by the Cabinet Secretary or assigned to discharging the Cabinet Secretary’s duties. The Cabinet Office withheld the information, citing section 40(2) (personal data) and, during the ICO’s investigation, also section 36(2)(c) (prejudice to the effective conduct of public affairs) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA).The Commissioner’s decision is that the Cabinet Office correctly relied on section 36(2)(c) to withhold the requested information.
Exemptions cited: FOI 36
View Cabinet Office
26 Mar 2026Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant submitted two requests to the Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office (FCDO) seeking information about the mining industry. The FCDO refused the requests on the basis of section 12(2) (cost limit) of FOIA and regulation 12(4)(b) (manifestly unreasonable) of the EIR. The Commissioner’s decision is that the FCDO can rely on section 12(2) of FOIA and regulation 12(4)(b) of the EIR to refuse the requests. The FCDO also complied with its obligations under section 16 of FOIA to provide the complainant with advice and assistance.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(b); EIR 9; FOI 12; FOI 16
26 Mar 2026Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from London Borough of Lambeth. 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 London Borough of Lambeth
26 Mar 2026Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from the Home Office about the organisation Palestinian Action. The Home Office withheld the information under section 35(1)(a) of FOIA – the formulation or development of government policy. The Commissioner’s decision is that section 35(1)(a) is engaged and that the balance of the public interest favours maintaining the exemption. The Commissioner notes that the Home Office was in breach of the requirements of section 10 of FOIA because it did not respond to the request within 20 working days. He does not require any steps as a result of this notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 35
View Home Office
26 Mar 2026Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested various information relating to taxi licensing, including that relating to themselves. Barnsley Metropolitan Borough Council refused the request under section 14(1) (vexatious requests) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council was entitled to refuse to comply with the request under section 14(1). The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14(1)
View Barnsley Council
26 Mar 2026Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to the Ministry of Defence (MOD) seeking a copy of the file DEFE 68/1153: Intelligence Services Bill. The MOD withheld the file on the basis of section 23(1) (security bodies) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the requested file is exempt from disclosure on the basis of section 23(1) of FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 23
View Ministry of Defence
25 Mar 2026Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested from NHS Business Services Authority (NHSBSA) the calculation mechanism from which NHS bursary payments for medical students are derived. NHSBSA’s final position was that it doesn’t hold this information. The Commissioner’s decision is that NHSBSA holds the requested information but that to communicate it to the complainant would exceed the time and cost limit under section 12(1) of FOIA. NHSBSA breached sections 16(1) and 17(5) of FOIA which concern advice and assistance and the time for providing a section 12 refusal notice. The Commissioner doesn’t require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12(1); FOI 16(1); FOI 17(5)
View NHS Business Services Authority
25 Mar 2026Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to Rapid Reviews conducted by London Borough of Havering (the council) following child deaths or serious injuries. The council provided some of the information falling within the scope of the request, but withheld the remainder under section 40(2) of FOIA (personal information) given the small numbers and information already within the public domain which would enable the identification to those individuals. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council was entitled to rely on section 40(2) of FOIA to withhold some of the requested information. The Commissioner does not require further steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View London Borough of Havering
25 Mar 2026Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested various information in respect of void properties. London Borough of Lewisham Council (the Council) refused the request citing section 14(1) (vexatious request) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council was entitled to refuse the request on the basis of section 14(1) of the FOIA. The Commissioner does not require any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14(1)
View Lewisham Council
25 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 Torbay and South Devon NHS Foundation Trust
25 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
25 Mar 2026Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested copies of correspondence or materials concerning the designation of Mineral Safeguarding Areas. Fermanagh and Omagh District Council (‘the Council’) provided a link to some of the requested information and relied on regulation 12(4)(d) of the EIR (material in the course of completion) to withhold the rest of the information. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council was entitled to rely on regulation 12(4)(d) of the EIR to withhold the remainder of the information. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(d)
25 Mar 2026Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant made a request for information relating to spending on Government Legal Department (“GLD”) cases at the First-tier Tribunal (information rights). GLD initially refused the request under section 31(1)(c) of FOIA (law enforcement). At internal review the GLD revised its position stating that it was also refusing the request under section 36(2)(c) (prejudice to the effective conduct of public affairs). During the Commissioner’s investigation, GLD disclosed some information within scope of the request, it however stated that it was withholding information relating to one live case and refused to provide the information under section 36(2)(c) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that GLD was entitled to withhold the remaining information within scope of the request under section 36(2)(c) of FOIA. The Commissioner does not require further steps are requires as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: FOI 36(2)(c)
View Government Legal Department
24 Mar 2026Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to the Ministry of Defence (MOD) seeking a list of the standard voice warning phrases used by the cockpit voice in the RAF’s Eurofighter Typhoon aircraft along with documentation explaining their meaning and usage. The MOD disclosed a small number of phrases which were referred to in a television documentary but withheld the remaining information on the basis of sections 24(1) (national security), 26(1)(b) (defence), 27(1)(a) and (b) and 27(2) (international relations) and 43(2) (commercial interests). The Commissioner’s decision is that the withheld information is exempt from disclosure on the basis of section 27(1)(b) and that the public interest favours maintaining this exemption. The Commissioner has also concluded that the public interest favours maintaining this exemption. However the Commissioner has concluded that he MOD breached section 17(1) by failing to issue its refusal notice within 20 workings of the request.
Exemptions cited: FOI 17; FOI 27
View Ministry of Defence