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 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
16 Mar 2026Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested various information in respect of all Children’s Services Departments for the period from 1 January 2022 to 31 December 2024. Torfaen County Borough 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 Torfaen County Borough Council
16 Mar 2026Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about the false social media personas register. Cleveland Police would neither confirm nor deny (NCND) holding the requested information, citing sections 23(5) (Information supplied by or relating to security bodies), 24(2) (National security), 30(3) (Investigations and proceedings) and 31(3) (Law enforcement) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that Cleveland Police was not entitled to rely on the cited exemptions to issue an NCND response. The Commissioner requires Cleveland Police to issue a fresh response to the request, confirming or denying whether Cleveland Police holds the information specified in the request. If held, it should either disclose the information or issue a refusal notice compliant with section 17(1) of FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 23; FOI 24; FOI 30; FOI 31
View Cleveland Police
16 Mar 2026Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested from Thurrock Council (the Council) information relating to the National Investigation Service (NATIS). The Council confirmed it held information but said it was exempt from disclosure under sections 36(2)(b)(i) and (ii) (Prejudice to the effective conduct of public affairs) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council was entitled to apply the cited exemptions to withhold the requested information.
Exemptions cited: FOI 36
View Thurrock Council
16 Mar 2026Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request for information to West Midlands Combined Authority on 21 November 2025, after receiving its response to his earlier request of 24 October 2025 relating to funding for English for Speakers of Other Languages (ESOL) training for the 2024/25 academic year. Under section 10 of FOIA, a public authority must respond to a request for information within 20 working days. Based on the evidence available, West Midlands Combined Authority has not issued a substantive response to this request by the date of this notice. The Commissioner therefore finds that West Midlands Combined Authority has breached section 10 of FOIA. West Midlands Combined Authority must provide a substantive response to the request in accordance with its obligations under FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View West Midlands Combined Authority
16 Mar 2026Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested a copy of the London Borough of Newham’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)(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 Newham Council
16 Mar 2026Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about the application to suspend dissolution and the application to reinstate a limited company. HM Revenue and Customs (“HMRC”) refused to confirm or deny whether the requested information was held, with reliance on section 44(2)(prohibition on disclosure) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that HMRC is entitled to rely on section 44(2) to refuse to confirm or deny whether the requested information is held. The Commissioner does not require any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 44(2)
16 Mar 2026Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information about Poly and Perfluorinated Alkyl Substances (PFAS). Yorkshire Water provided its response and relevant links to where further information could be found. The complainant expressed dissatisfaction with the response and considered that further information was held. The complainant also asked a series of follow-up questions in their request for internal review. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, following the disclosure during his investigation, Yorkshire Water has now provided the information it holds falling within the scope of the original request, and within scope of the follow-up questions. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 5(1)
View Yorkshire Water
16 Mar 2026Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested a copy of a surveyor’s report. Hampshire County Council (the council) provided the complainant with the recorded information it considers itself to hold that falls within the scope of the request, subject to redactions of third party personal data that the complainant does not dispute. Apart from the redacted third party personal data, 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 additional information relevant to the request and therefore regulation 12(4)(a) of the EIR is engaged. However, he has recorded procedural breaches of regulations 5(1) and 5(2) 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 5(1); EIR 5(2)
View Hampshire County Council
16 Mar 2026Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant made a multi-part request for information about the ‘Clare’s Law’ disclosure scheme. Kent Police would neither confirm nor deny (NCND) holding the requested information, citing section 12(2) (Cost of compliance exceeds appropriate limit) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that Kent Police was entitled to rely on section 12(2) of FOIA to NCND holding the requested information. However, it failed to comply with the duty at section 16(1) of FOIA to provide advice and assistance. The Commissioner requires Kent Police to provide the complainant with advice and assistance on refining the request, in accordance with the information referred to in paragraph 31 of this decision notice. When doing so, Kent Police should ask the complainant to clarify any parts of the request that are unclear.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12; FOI 16
View Kent Police
13 Mar 2026Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about a referral to the Teaching Regulation Agency (‘TRA’). The Department for Education (“the public authority”) refused to confirm or deny the requested information was held, citing section 40(5B) (personal information) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that to confirm or deny the information is held would be a breach of the data protection principles and so the public authority was correct to cite section 40(5). The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40(5)(b)
View Department for Education
13 Mar 2026Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested from National Police Chiefs’ Council (NPCC) information regarding cross-force access. NPCC provided information relating to parts 5a and 5b of the request, and confirmed that it does not hold any further information.
The Commissioner’s decision is that on the balance of probabilities, NPCC does not hold any further information falling within scope of the request. Therefore, the Commissioner does not require NPCC to take any steps as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View National Police Chiefs Council
13 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 Barking and Dagenham Council
13 Mar 2026Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to the Cabinet Office seeking all National Security Council records, minutes, readouts and handwritten notes relating to the potential proscription of Palestine Action. The Cabinet Office refused to confirm or deny whether it held the requested information on the basis of section 35(3) of FOIA by virtue of section 35(1)(b) (Ministerial communications). The Commissioner’s decision is that the Cabinet Office is entitled to rely on section 35(3) of FOIA to refuse to confirm or deny whether it holds the requested information.
Exemptions cited: FOI 35(3)
View Cabinet Office
13 Mar 2026Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested from the Cabinet Office (CO) records relating to a communication between Donald Trump and Keir Starmer regarding an incident at Trump Turnberry golf course in Scotland. CO refused to provide this information citing section 27 (international relations) as its basis for doing so. It upheld this following an internal review. The Commissioner’s decision is that CO is entitled to rely on provisions of section 27 as its basis for refusing to provide the requested information. The Commissioner does not require further steps
Exemptions cited: FOI 27
View Cabinet Office
13 Mar 2026Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about the available bathing or showering facility in the bathroom in Apollo House, Cremorne Estate, London. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Royal Borough has failed to respond to the request within 20 working days and has therefore breached Section 10 of the Freedom of Information Act. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: issue a substantive response, under the FOIA, to the request.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea
13 Mar 2026Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested the costs incurred to date in the planning and execution of an alternative student finance (ASF) system, along with the projected costs to the taxpayer, including projected costs arising from defaulted and unpaid student loans. The Department for Education (DfE) disclosed the costs incurred to date but withheld the projected cost information under section 35(1)(a) of FOIA (formulation or development of government policy).The Commissioner’s decision is that DfE was entitled to withhold the information under section 35(1)(a) of FOIA. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 35(1)(a)
View Department for Education
13 Mar 2026Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information from Sheffield City Council regarding information in relation to the closure of Montague Street,
Sheffield. Sheffield City Council has not provided a substantive response to the complainant’s request. It is the Commissioner’s view that Sheffield City Council has beached regulations 5(2) of the Environmental Information Regulations (“the EIR”) in that it failed to provide a valid response to the request within the statutory time frame of 20 working days. The Commissioner requires Sheffield City Council to provide the complainant with a response to their request in accordance with its obligations under the EIR.
Exemptions cited: EIR 5(2)
View Sheffield City Council
13 Mar 2026Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about the total amount collected by Bridlington Park and Ride parking machines during 5-12 April 2025. East Riding of Yorkshire (the council) refused to disclose the requested information citing section 31(1)(a) of FOIA (law enforcement) as its basis for doing so.
The Commissioner’s decision is that the council has correctly applied section 31(1)(a) 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 31(1)(a)
View East Riding of Yorkshire Council
13 Mar 2026Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about role upgrades. The House of Commons (the HoC) relied on section 40(2) of FOIA (third party personal information) to withhold the information. The Commissioner’s decision is that the HoC 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 Corporate Officers of the House of Commons
13 Mar 2026Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested a report relating to a research project on homelessness and LGBTQ+ people in Gwent. Newport City Council (the council) provided a redacted copy of the report, citing section 41 of FOIA (information provided in confidence) to withhold the redacted information. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council was entitled to rely on section 41(1) to withhold the redacted information. The Commissioner does not require the council to take any steps as a result of this decision notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 41
View Newport City Council
12 Mar 2026Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information about Universal Credit claimants. The Department for Communities (DfC) stated that it did not hold the information requested. During the course of the Commissioner’s investigation DfC confirmed that it did hold the information requested at the time the request was received. It stated that it should have issued a refusal notice relying on section 12 (appropriate limit) of the FOIA as compliance with the request would have exceeded the appropriate limit. In addition, DfC provided the information requested during the course of the Commissioner’s investigation. The Commissioner’s decision is that DfC breached sections 1 and 10 of FOIA as it failed to confirm the requested information was held within 20 working days of receipt of the request. The Commissioner also finds that DfC breached section 17 of the FOIA for failing to issue a refusal notice stating it was relying on section 12 of the FOIA within the appropriate time limit. The Commissioner does n
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10; FOI 17
12 Mar 2026Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about the number of individuals housed in a private property by Bedford Borough Council (the 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 council has correctly relied on section 40(2) of FOIA to withhold the information. However, the Commissioner has recorded a breach of section 17(1)(b) of FOIA. The Commissioner does not require further steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40(2); FOI 17(1)(b)
View Bedford Borough Council
12 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 Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council
12 Mar 2026Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust. 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 Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust
12 Mar 2026Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from the London Borough of Southwark (“the Council”) relating to a housing estate and the buildings within that estate. The Commissioner’s decision is that on the balance of probabilities, the Council does not hold information relating to the merging of Rye Hill Park and Rye Hill Estate but he finds that the Council does hold information which evidences that Rye Hill Park is part of Rye Hill Estate. He also finds that the Council has failed to demonstrate that on the balance of probabilities, it does not hold information within the scope of part 2 of the request. The Commissioner requires the Council to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. The Council must issue a fresh response to part 1 of the request following searches aimed at identifying all information held which evidences that Rye Hill Park is part of Rye Hill Estate. The Council must issue a fresh response to part 2 of the request which addresses the specific
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Southwark Council
12 Mar 2026Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about ‘group’ job roles. North Tees and Hartlepool NHS Foundation Trust (‘the Trust’) provided the information it held within scope of the request. The complainant expressed dissatisfaction that the information provided from the Trust was inconsistent with other publicly available information. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the Trust does not hold any further information within scope of the request. However, he also finds that there was a breach of sections 1(1) and 10(1) as the Trust failed to provide its response within 20 working days. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1(1); FOI 10(1)
View North Tees and Hartlepool NHS Foundation Trust
12 Mar 2026Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted seven Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA) requests to the Department for Culture, Media & Sport (DCMS) on the same day. DCMS refused all seven requests under section 14(1) of FOIA on the basis that they were vexatious.The Commissioner’s decision is that DCMS has not demonstrated that complying with the requests would impose a grossly oppressive burden. Assertions of burden were not supported with meaningful evidence or quantification.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14
View Department for Culture, Media and Sport
12 Mar 2026Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested from Westmorland and Furness Council (the Council) information regarding the external consultant report relating to Appleby Horse Fair. The Council considered the requested information exempt from disclosure under section 14(1) of FOIA.
The Commissioner’s decision is that the requests were not vexatious and the Council was not entitled to rely on section 14(1) of FOIA to refuse to comply with the requests.
The Commissioner requires the Council to take the following step to ensure compliance with the legislation:
• Issue the complainant with a fresh response to the requests that does not rely on section 14(1) of FOIA.
The Council must take this step within 30 calendar days of the date of this decision notice. Failure to comply may result in the Commissioner making written certification of this fact to the High Court pursuant to section 54 of the Act and may be dealt with as a contempt of court.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14(1)
View Westmorland and Furness Council
12 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
12 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
12 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 NHS England
12 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 Waltham Forest Council
11 Mar 2026Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information relating to legal advice sought and received by Wychavon District Council (“the council“). The council provided some explanatory information, however it withheld the requested information under Regulation 12(5)(b) of the EIR, (course of justice). The Commissioner’s decision is that the council was correct to apply Regulation 12(5)(b) to withhold the information from disclosure. The Commissioner therefore does not require the council to take any further steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(b)
View Wychavon District Council
11 Mar 2026Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information relating to streetlighting from North Somerset Council (“the council”). The council refused the request under Regulation 12(4)(b) of the EIR on the grounds that it was vexatious. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council was entitled to rely upon Regulation 12(4)(b) to refuse to respond to the request further. However, the Commissioner has decided that the council’s response did not comply with the requirements of Regulation 5(2) of FOIA. The Commissioner does not require the council to take any further steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(b); EIR 14; EIR 5(2)
View North Somerset Council
11 Mar 2026Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information regarding correspondence and internal documents about Guantanamo Bay. The Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (FCDO) refused to confirm or deny whether it held the requested information the basis of sections 23(5), 24(2) and 27(4). The Commissioner’s decision is that the FCDO is entitled to rely on section 27(4) of FOIA to refuse to confirm or deny whether it held the requested information. The Commissioner does not require FCDO to take any steps as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: FOI 27
11 Mar 2026Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested invoice and audit information from Potto Parish Council (“the Council”). The Council refused the request on the grounds that it required proof of identity before complying. The Commissioner requires the Council to provide a fresh response to the complainant’s request that does not ask for proof of identity, and that complies with section 1 of FOIA. This fresh response should confirm or deny whether the requested information is held and, for any relevant information that is held, either disclose it or issue a valid refusal notice. The Council must take these steps within 30 calendar days of the date of this decision notice. Failure to comply may result in the Commissioner making written certification of this fact to the High Court pursuant to section 54 of the Act and may be dealt with as a contempt of court.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10
11 Mar 2026Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
1. Commissioner’s Decision:
A public authority will breach section 10 of FOIA if it fails to respond to a request within 20 working days.
The Trust responded to the complainant’s request on 1 August 2022, refusing to provide information on the grounds that the request was ‘manifestly unfounded and excessive.’ It did not cite any exemptions, and the terminology used does not exist within FOIA.
The complainant requested an internal review on 1 August 2022, which the Trust refused to provide.
Unfortunately, due to a change in the Commissioner’s staff, there was a significant delay in progressing the case, for which the Commissioner has apologised to the complainant and the public authority and has agreed to progress the original request with the public authority in accordance with FOIA as outlined below.
Section 1 of FOIA requires a public authority to inform a requestor in writing as to whether it holds the information they are requesting and, if so, to make it available to them subje
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10; FOI 17
11 Mar 2026Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested all information and documentation information from the London Borough of Redbridge (the ‘Council’) about unapproved development at the Blake Hall Sports Ground since May 2018. The Council initially provided the complainant with some information within the scope of the request, but during the course of the Commissioner’s investigation, withheld the remainder of the information in full on the basis of regulations 12(4)(e) (internal communications), 12(5)(b) (course of justice), and 13 (third party personal data) of the EIR.
The Commissioner’s decision is that:
• some of the communications do not fall within the definition of ‘internal communications’ and therefore are not exempt from disclosure on the basis of regulation 12(4)(e). The Commissioner accepts that the remaining information is exempt from disclosure on the basis of regulation 12(4)(e) but the public interest favours disclosure of this information;
• none of the information withheld on the basis of re
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(e); EIR 12(5)(b); EIR 13; EIR 5
View Redbridge Council
10 Mar 2026Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information in relation to the Government announcement about changes to the Right to Buy discount levels and subsequent communications to tenants from the Royal Borough of Greenwich (the Council). The Council said it did not hold information within scope.
The Commissioner’s decision is that on the balance of probabilities, at the time of the request, the Council did not hold information in scope of parts 1, 3 and 4 of the request, and although information was held at that point within scope of part 2, such information is no longer held.
He also finds that there was no breach of section 10 of FOIA. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10
View Royal Borough of Greenwich
10 Mar 2026Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about a particular incident from the Metropolitan Police Service (the “MPS”). The MPS advised that some information was reasonably accessible to the complainant, citing section 21(1) (Information accessible to complainant by other means) and would neither confirm nor deny (NCND) holding the remainder, citing section 40(5A) (Personal information) of FOIA.
The Commissioner’s decision is that section 21(1) was properly applied. He also finds that the MPS was entitled, by virtue of section 40(5A) of FOIA, to NCND holding the remaining requested information. No steps are required.
Exemptions cited: FOI 16; FOI 21; FOI 40
View Metropolitan Police Service
10 Mar 2026Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information about the misconduct, warnings and disciplinary records of named police officers over the last ten years. Essex Police refused to confirm or deny that it held the requested information, citing section 40(5) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that Essex Police is entitled to rely on section 40(5) of FOIA to refuse to confirm or deny that it holds the information. No steps are required as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View Essex Police
10 Mar 2026Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to social housing. London Borough of Tower Hamlets “the public authority” disclosed information but did so outside of the statutory timeframe and so breached section 10 (time for compliance with request) and section 1 (general right of access to information) of FOIA. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: the public authority must provide a substantive response to the request, dated 17 June 2025, in accordance with its obligations under FOIA, if it hasn’t already done so.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10; FOI 11
View London Borough of Tower Hamlets
10 Mar 2026Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about the potential costs and savings of the proposed UK digital ID scheme. The Home Office refused to disclose the information, citing the exemption at section 35(1)(a) (Formulation of government policy etc) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Home Office was entitled to rely on section 35(1)(a) to refuse to disclose the requested information.
Exemptions cited: FOI 35
View Home Office
10 Mar 2026Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information relating to planning applications. Wychavon District Council (the “council”) disclosed some information and withheld other information under internal communications
(regulation 12(4)(e)) and regulation 13 (personal information). The Commissioner’s decision is that the council was entitled to withhold information from part 1 of the request under regulation 13 and that, on
the balance of probabilities, it disclosed all the relevant held information in part 2 of the request and complied with regulation 5. The Commissioner does not require the council to take further steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 13; EIR 5
View Wychavon District Council
10 Mar 2026Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information from Braintree District Council relating to a site in Sible Hedingham. The Commissioner’s decision is that the public authority breached regulation 11 of the EIR, as it failed to carry out its internal review within 40 working days. The Commissioner does not require further steps to be taken. The public authority must reconsider how it responded to the original request and inform the complainant of the outcome in accordance with its obligations under the EIR.
Exemptions cited: EIR 11
View Braintree District Council
10 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 BBC
10 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 Epping Forest District Council
10 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 South Gloucestershire Council