24 Mar 2026Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to the Renter’s Rights Bill. The Ministry of Housing, Communities & Local Government (“MHCLG”) refused the request under section 35 (formulation of government policy). The Commissioner’s decision is that MHCLG was entitled to withhold the requested information under section 35(1)(a) of the FOIA. The Commissioner does not require MHCLG to take further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 35(1)(a)
View Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government
24 Mar 2026Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted an information request to Mersey Care NHS Foundation Trust (the trust) requesting a specific policy and the rationale for changes to it. The trust initially responded to the request but later stated that it was causing harassment and distress to its staff.
The Commissioner’s decision is that the request was vexatious and therefore the trust was entitled to rely upon section 14(1) (vexatious requests) of FOIA to refuse it. However, in failing to issue a refusal notice, relying upon section 14, the trust breached section 17(5) (refusal of request) of FOIA.
The Commissioner does not require further steps as a result of this decision notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14(1); FOI 17(5)
View Mersey Care NHS Foundation Trust
24 Mar 2026Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested STDC to disclose copies of all current legal agreements it holds with a list of companies. STDC refused to comply with the request citing regulation 12(4)(b) of the EIR (manifestly unreasonable request). The Commissioner’s decision is that STDC was entitled to rely on regulation 12(4)(b) of the EIR. However, it breached regulations 9, 11(4) and 14(2) of the EIR. The Commissioner requires STDC to provide advice and assistance so far as it is reasonably practicable to do so, to the applicant in accordance with regulation 9 of the EIR.
Exemptions cited: EIR 11(4); EIR 12(4)(b); EIR 14(2); EIR 9
View Ebbsfleet Development Corporation
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
24 Mar 2026Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information about the cost of removal of bonfire materials from the Galliagh area during August 2023. The Department for Communities (DFC) stated that it did not hold information on the overall costs, and it relied on section 43 of FOIA (commercial interests) to withhold the cost information it did hold. The Commissioner’s decision is that the DFC was entitled to rely on regulation 12(5)(e) of the EIR (commercial confidentiality) to withhold the requested cost information. However, he also finds that it breached regulation 14 of the EIR by handling the request under FOIA rather than the EIR. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(e); EIR 14
24 Mar 2026Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from Warrington Borough Council (“the Council”) relating to the refurbishment of a Community Centre. The Commissioner’s decision is that on the balance of probabilities, the Council does not hold information within the scope of part 1 of the request. The Commissioner does not require the Council to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Warrington Council
24 Mar 2026Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information about HMO (Houses in Multiple Occupation). London Borough of Waltham Forest (the Council) stated that the information requested was exempt under section 21 (information accessible to the applicant by other means) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council is entitled to rely on section 21(2)(b) of FOIA as its basis for refusing the complainant’s request. The Commissioner does not require any steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 21
View Waltham Forest Council
23 Mar 2026Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested records relating to an Immigration Enforcement visit to a named business premises on a specified date. The Home Office refused to provide any information, citing section 31(1)(h), the FOIA exemption for prejudice to any civil proceedings which are brought by or on behalf of a public authority etcetera. At internal review, the Home Office additionally relied on section 40(2) of FOIA – personal information. During the course of the Commissioner’s investigation, the Home Office revised its position. It said it was no longer relying on section 31(1)(h) of FOIA and disclosed the report it held, with redactions for personal information under section 40(2). The Commissioner’s decision is that the Home Office was entitled to rely on section 40(2) of FOIA for all the redactions within the disclosed material. No steps are required as a result of this notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View Home Office
23 Mar 2026Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested a copy of the London Borough of Haringey’s (“the Council”) Families First Partnership Programme plan. The Council withheld the requested information, citing section 36 (prejudice to effective conduct of public affairs) of FOIA as its basis for doing so. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council was correct to rely on sections 36(2)(b)(ii) and (c) of FOIA to withhold the requested information. The Commissioner does not require the Council to take any further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 36
View Haringey Council
23 Mar 2026Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted an information request to the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) regarding the handling of personal data by Telegram and WhatsApp. The ICO relied upon section 12(2) (cost of compliance) of FOIA to refuse to comply with the request.
The Commissioner’s decision is that the ICO was entitled to rely upon section 12(2) of FOIA to refuse to comply with the request. He also finds that the ICO met its obligations under section 16(1) of FOIA to provide advice and assistance.
The Commissioner does not require further steps as a result of this decision notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12(2); FOI 16(1)
View Information Commissioner
23 Mar 2026Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested specified information relating to the operation of the UK’s national border. The Home Office refused to provide the requested information, relying on the FOIA exemptions in section 31(1)(a) – prejudice to the prevention or detection of crime and section 31(1)(e) – prejudice to the operation of the immigration controls. However, during the course of the Commissioner’s investigation, it became apparent that the Home Office had already addressed one part of the request (namely about whether it uses a single national IT platform), so the Commissioner has excluded this aspect from further consideration. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Home Office has correctly relied on both sections 31(1)(a) and (e) of FOIA to refuse the remainder of the request for the reasons set out in this notice. No steps are required as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: FOI 31
View Home Office
23 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
23 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 Invest Northern Ireland
23 Mar 2026Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested a copy of the London Borough of Lambeth’s (“the Council”) Families First Partnership Programme plan. The Council withheld the requested information, citing section 22 (information intended for future publication) and section 36 (prejudice to effective conduct of public affairs) of FOIA as its basis for doing so. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council was correct to rely on sections 36(2)(b)(i) and (b)(ii) of FOIA to withhold the requested information. The Commissioner does not require the Council to take any further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 36
View London Borough of Lambeth
23 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 Dartford Borough Council
23 Mar 2026Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested copies of the minutes from meetings held between the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG) and Property Redress. The MHCLG refused the complainant’s request, citing section 40 (third party personal information) and section 43(2) (commercial interests) of FOIA. During the Commissioner’s investigation, the MHCLG advised that it now wished to rely on FOIA section 35(1)(a) (formulation or development of government policy) to withhold part of the requested information. The Commissioner has decided that the majority, but not all, of the information withheld under section 40, is subject to that exemption. The Commissioner has also decided that section 43(2) is engaged in respect of some, but not all, of the information withheld by the MHCLG under that exemption. Where section 43(2) is engaged, the Commissioner has found that the public interest favours maintaining the exemption. Finally, whilst the Commissioner has decided that section 35(1)(a
Exemptions cited: FOI 35(1)(a); FOI 40; FOI 43(2)
View Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government
20 Mar 2026Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant made a request concerning the selective licensing scheme introduced by London Borough of Lewisham (the council), and a specific property address. The council provided information in scope of the request but withheld information it considered to be personal data. The council explained that it had provided all the information it held in scope of the request except for information withheld under section 40(2) (third-party personal information) of FOIA.
The Commissioner considers that section 40(2) of FOIA applies to the withheld information and that the council was entitled to rely on the exemption in this case. He also finds that on the balance of probabilities; the council had provided all the information it held within scope of the request.
However, the Commissioner finds the council breached section 17 of FOIA for failing to issue a refusal notice stating it was relying on section 40(2) within 20 working days of receipt of the original request.
The Commissioner does
Exemptions cited: FOI 17; FOI 40(2)
View Lewisham Council
20 Mar 2026Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information about sewer lining works, a wastewater pumping station and the monitoring and recording of downstream sewers. Southern Water Services Ltd (‘Southern Water’) disclosed relevant information and withheld a small amount under regulation 12(5)(a) of the EIR (public safety). The Commissioner finds that Southern Water was entitled to withhold the location of the sewer level monitor under regulation 12(5)(a), and that it holds no further relevant information beyond that already disclosed. However, its response wasn’t provided within the timescales required by regulations 5(2) and 14(2) of the EIR.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(a); EIR 14(2); EIR 5(1); EIR 5(2)
20 Mar 2026Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested detailed information about the time spent by council officers and the costs incurred in relation to several planning performance agreements for a proposed development. London Borough of Islington (the council) provided the complainant with the recorded information it considers itself to hold that falls within the scope of the request. The complainant believes that the council holds further information to which they are entitled. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the council does not hold any further information falling within the scope of the request. However, he has recorded a procedural breach of regulation 14 of the EIR. The Commissioner does not require the council to take any steps as a result of this decision notice.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(a); EIR 14; FOI 1
View Islington Council
20 Mar 2026Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information relating to road blocks installed by Bristol City Council (“the council”) as part of the East Bristol Liveable Neighbourhood project. The council refused the request as manifestly unreasonable under regulation 12(4)(b) EIR. The Commissioner’s decision is that the request has been incorrectly categorised as vexatious under the manifestly unreasonable exception at regulation 12(4)(b) EIR. The Commissioner requires the council to reconsider the request and provide the requested information or issue a valid response which does not rely on regulation 12(4)(b) of the EIR.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(b)
View Bristol City Council
20 Mar 2026Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
A public authority will breach section 10 of FOIA if it fails to respond to a request within 20 working days. Based on evidence available to the Commissioner, by the date of this notice, Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust has not issued a response to the request. 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 Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust
20 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 Department of Health and Social Care
19 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
19 Mar 2026Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested investigation reports into the conduct of the deceased former police officer Warren Arter, formerly a serving officer in the Metropolitan Police Service. The Independent Office for Police Conduct (“IOPC”) withheld the information, under section 30(1)(a)(i) FOIA: investigations and proceedings. The Commissioner’s decision is that section 30(1)(a)(i) is engaged, and the balance of the public interest favours the exemption being maintained. The Commissioner does not require the IOPC to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 30
View Independent Office for Police Conduct
19 Mar 2026Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested certain email correspondence held within the inboxes of three planning officers. Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames (‘the council’) initially refused the request on the basis of regulations 12(5)(d), 12(5)(f) and 13 of the EIR. These exceptions concern the confidentiality of proceedings, the interests of the person who provided the information and personal data respectively. However, the council’s final position is that it doesn’t hold the requested information – regulation 12(4)(a) of the EIR. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the requested information isn’t held and regulation 12(4)(a) is engaged. The timeliness of the council’s internal review, however, didn’t comply with regulation 11(4). The Commissioner doesn’t require further steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 11(4); EIR 12(4)(a)
View Kingston upon Thames Council
19 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
19 Mar 2026Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information about how historic child sexual abuse cases are investigated. Cleveland Police withheld the information under sections 31(1)(a) and (b) (the prevention or detection of crime and the apprehension or prosecution of offenders) of FOIA.
The Commissioner’s decision is that Cleveland Police was correct to withhold parts of the report under sections 31(1)(a) and (b). However, these exemptions do not apply to the entirety of the report. The parts of the report that are not exempt must now be disclosed.
The Commissioner requires Cleveland Police to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation.
• Disclose sections of the report as per the details provided separately to Cleveland Police.
Exemptions cited: FOI 31(1)(a); FOI 31(1)(b)
View Cleveland Police
19 Mar 2026Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested attendance notes and minutes from the Finance and Leasing Association’s meeting with HM Treasury (HMT) in 2024. HMT refused to provide this citing section 35 (formulation/development of government policy) as its basis for doing so. It upheld this at internal review. The Commissioner’s decision is that HMT is entitled to rely on section 35 as its basis for refusing to provide the withheld information. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 35
View HM Treasury
19 Mar 2026Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested on 29 January 2026 confirmation as to whether Department for Education (DfE) has issued any guidance stating a Personal Transport Budget may not be used flexibly by parents to fund student accommodation or similar non-transport costs; and if no such guidance exists, confirmation that there is no DfE restriction preventing such use. A public authority will breach section 10 of FOIA if it fails to respond to a request within 20 working days. Based on evidence available to the Commissioner, by the date of this notice DfE has not issued a substantive response to this request. Therefore the Commissioner finds a breach of section 10. DfE must provide a substantive response to the request in accordance with its obligations under FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Department for Education
19 Mar 2026Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested a copy of redacted data from expense reports. Oxford City Council (the Council) relied on section 40(2) of FOIA (third party personal information) to withhold 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 does not require further steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40(2)
View Oxford City Council
19 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
19 Mar 2026Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council (the council) for information relating to the costs to the council for each operator at Forge Island. The council refused to disclose the requested information, cutting section 43(2) (commercial interests) of FOIA as its basis for doing so.
The Commissioner’s decision is that the council has correctly applied section 43(2) of FOIA to withhold the requested information, and that the public interest favours maintaining the exemption.
The Commissioner does not require further steps as a result of this decision notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 43(2)
View Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council
18 Mar 2026Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information in relation to properties with specific postcodes paying the higher rate stamp duty in specific time periods. HMRC provided some information, it relied on section 44(1) of FOIA (statutory prohibition on disclosure) to withhold part of the information.
The Commissioner’s decision is that HMRC has correctly relied upon section 44(1) of FOIA.
The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 44(1)
18 Mar 2026Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested from HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) all IHT forms (inheritance tax forms) and related information about a named property and a named individual. HMRC provided some general information in response to the complainant’s questions but HMRC would neither confirm nor deny (NCND) holding information in relation to an identifiable individual and property citing section 44(2) (prohibitions on disclosure).
The Commissioner’s decision is that HMRC was correct to rely on section 44(2) to neither confirm nor deny whether it held the requested information. However, the Commissioner finds HMRC in breach of section 17.
The Commissioner does not require further steps to be taken by HMRC in relation to this complaint.
Exemptions cited: FOI 17; FOI 44(2)
18 Mar 2026Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from Bridgend County Borough Council. 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(1)
View Bridgend County Borough Council
18 Mar 2026Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information relating to the Mersey Gateway bridges. Halton Borough Council (the Council) advised that the information was publicly available and provided various links to the information.
The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has failed to demonstrate that it conducted a reasonable and proportionate search of its records to identify all information falling within the scope of the request. This means that it has not complied with regulation 5(1) of the EIR.
The Commissioner requires the Council to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation:
• Carry out further searches aimed at identifying all the information it holds falling within the scope of the request, and to issue the complainant with a fresh response which meets the requirements of the EIR.
Exemptions cited: EIR 5(1)
View Halton Council
18 Mar 2026Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from London Borough of Enfield. 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(1)
View Enfield Council
18 Mar 2026Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from Electoral Commission. 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(1)
View The Electoral Commission
18 Mar 2026Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about the withdrawal of the Rural Services Delivery Grant. The Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government stated that the information was withheld under the exemption provided by section 35(1)(a) (formulation or development of government policy) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the MHCLG was entitled to withhold the information under section 35(1)(a). The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 35(1)(a)
View Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government
18 Mar 2026Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information relating to waste management. London Borough of Richmond Upon Thames (the council) provided some of the information, but has withheld the remainder under regulations 12(5)(e) (Commercial or industrial information) and 13(1) (personal information) of the EIR. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council was correct to rely on regulation 12(5)(e) and 13(1) of the EIR to withhold the information. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(e); EIR 13(1)
View Richmond upon Thames Council
17 Mar 2026Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The Commissioner’s decision is that the requested information about the NHS Federated Data Platform contract with Palantir Technologies Ltd is exempt from disclosure under section 35(1)(a) of FOIA. This exemption concerns the formulation or development of government policy. The Commissioner doesn’t require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 35(1)(a)
View Department of Health and Social Care
17 Mar 2026Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about the decision to take the Suffolk Libraries service back in-house.
The public authority relied on section 12(1) (cost limit) of FOIA to refuse the request.
The Commissioner’s decision is that the public authority was entitled to refuse to comply with the request in accordance with section 12(1).
The Commissioner finds that the public authority complied with its obligations under section 16 of FOIA to offer advice and assistance.
No steps are required.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12(1); FOI 16
View Suffolk County Council
17 Mar 2026Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested the daily statistics of arrivals of small boat irregular migrants, broken down by specified categories and dates, in a two-part request. The Home Office provided the requested information for part 2 of the request, but refused to provide any information for part 1, citing section 40(2) – the FOIA exemption for personal information. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Home Office was not entitled to rely on section 40(2) in relation to part 1 of the request for the reasons set out in this notice. The Commissioner requires the Home Office to disclose the withheld information held in relation to part 1 of the request in its entirety, within 30 calendar days of the date of this decision notice.
Keywords: Immigration
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View Home Office
17 Mar 2026Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about data protection handling and governance. The University for the Creative Arts (UCA) refused information in scope of part one of the request under section 40(1) of FOIA (applicant’s own personal data). UCA directed the complainant to published information in response to part four of the request. UCA stated that it held no further information in scope of the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that UCA does not hold further information in scope of the request. As UCA did not provide a response to the request within 20 working days the Commissioner has recorded breaches of sections 1(1) and 10(1) of FOIA. As UCA did not provide a refusal notice stating its application of section 40(1) to refuse information in scope of the request within 20 working days, the Commissioner has also recorded a breach of section 17(1) of FOIA. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1(1); FOI 10(1); FOI 17(1)
View University for the Creative Arts
17 Mar 2026Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about operational firearms and ammunition from Hertfordshire Constabulary. Hertfordshire Constabulary initially disclosed some information, but refused to disclose the remainder, citing sections 24(1) (National security) and 31(1) (Law enforcement) of FOIA. It would also neither confirm nor deny (NCND) holding further information, citing sections 24(2) and 31(3) of FOIA.
During the Commissioner’s investigation, Hertfordshire Constabulary revised its position. It disclosed further information but would NCND holding anything further, maintaining its reliance on sections 24(2) and 31(3) of FOIA.
The Commissioner’s decision is that Hertfordshire Constabulary was entitled to rely on section 24(2) of FOIA to NCND holding the remaining information. He finds breaches of sections 10(1) (Time for compliance) and 17(1) and (3) (Refusal of request). He does not require any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 17; FOI 24
17 Mar 2026Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to whether the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) had revisited prosecution following a High Court judgment. The CPS would neither confirm nor deny (NCND) holding the requested information, citing section 31(3) (law enforcement) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the CPS is entitled to NCND whether the requested information is held, by virtue of section 31(3) of FOIA. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: FOI 31
View Crown Prosecution Service
17 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 Croydon
17 Mar 2026Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested various information in respect of the inspection of waste sites or facilities and in particular, in relation to Re-Gen Waste Management. The Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs (DAERA) provided some information, but withheld other information on the basis of regulation 12(5)(e) (confidentiality of commercial information) of the EIR. The complainant also expressed concern that its response in respect of item 5 of their request was evasive and incomplete. The Commissioner’s decision is that DAERA was entitled to refuse the withheld information by virtue of regulation 12(5)(e) of the EIR and that based on the balance of probabilities, it has complied with its obligations to provide all information it holds relevant to item 5 of the request. The Commissioner also finds that DAERA breached regulation 11(4) (Representations and Reconsideration) of the EIR by failing to provide the outcome of its internal review within 40 working days. The Commis
Exemptions cited: EIR 11(4); EIR 12(5)(e); EIR 5
View Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs (Northern Ireland)
17 Mar 2026Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about the release of individuals under the Early Release Scheme to a particular area of Middlesbrough. The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) argued that the requested information was not held for the purposes of FOIA because it did not currently exist in recorded form and could not be retrieved without creating new information. The Commissioner’s decision is that the MoJ was entitled to refuse the request on the basis that the information is not held by it for the purposes of FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Ministry of Justice
17 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.
The complainant is not able to provide a copy of their original request as the request for information was made via an online form.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View London Borough of Havering