4 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
View Home Office
4 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 Cherwell District Council
4 Mar 2026Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant made a request for information relating to the cancellation and subsequent rescheduling by Home MCR of the Voices of Resilience event in April 2024 to Manchester City Council (“The Council”). The Council disclosed two emails titled ‘Email 1’ and ‘Email 2’ with redactions applied under section 40(2) of FOIA. The Council disclosed 13 emails and one attachment with some redactions also made under section 40(2) of FOIA. The Council provided a copy of a further attachment but stated that it had received this document already redacted and that it did not hold an unredacted version. The Council disclosed one email attachment in full, titled ‘Email 1 attachment 1’. The Council initially withheld five documents in full under section 24 and 38 of FOIA. During the course of the Commissioner’s investigation, the Council revised its position and disclosed one document titled ‘RESTRI_1’ with some redaction applied under section 38(1)(b) and section 40(2) of FOIA. The Council stated t
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 3; FOI 38; FOI 40
View Manchester City Council
4 Mar 2026Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has made a two part request for information about its policies and procedures, to the Metropolitan Police Service (the “MPS”). The MPS initially found the request to be vexatious, citing section 14(1) (Vexatious requests) of FOIA. However, it subsequently revised its position. It said some information was not held and referred to some information, which it failed to disclose.
The Commissioner’s decision is that the MPS failed to properly respond to the request, breaching sections 1(1)(a) and (b) (General right of access) of FOIA. He requires it to undertake further searches and issue a fresh response. This should include disclosure of the information identified when conducting an internal review. If an exclusion or exemption applies, a refusal notice compliant with section 17 of FOIA should be provided.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Metropolitan Police Service
4 Mar 2026Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to administration and IT access control. London Borough of Redbridge (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. However, the Council breached sections 1(1)(a), 10(1) and 17(1) of FOIA by responding outside the statutory time limits for compliance to a request for information. The Commissioner does not require further steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1(1); FOI 10(1); FOI 40(2); FOI 17(1)
View Redbridge Council
4 Mar 2026Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
1. The complainant has requested information from Durham Constabulary in relation to staff training and historic allegations. The Commissioner’s decision is that Durham Constabulary is entitled to rely on section 14(1) (vexatious request) of FOIA to refuse the request.
2. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14
4 Mar 2026Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information concerning the outcome of a non-FOIA complaint he made from the Metropolitan Police Service (the “MPS”). The MPS initially found the request to be vexatious, citing section 14(1) (Vexatious requests) of FOIA. It subsequently refused to confirm or deny holding the information citing section 40(5A) (Personal information) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that section 40(5A) is properly engaged. No steps are required.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View Metropolitan Police Service
4 Mar 2026Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The Commissioner’s decision is that the General Optical Council (GOC) wasn’t entitled to rely on section 42(2) of FOIA to neither confirm nor deny it holds requested legal advice associated with back dated holiday pay. The Commissioner requires the GOC to take the following step to ensure compliance with the legislation: Confirm or deny whether it holds any information within scope of the request; to the extent that it holds any information either disclose the information to the complainant or issue them with a refusal notice that complies with section 17 of FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 42(2)
View General Optical Council
3 Mar 2026Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to West London NHS Trust (the trust) for information relating to The Orchard and Three Bridges Units. The trust provided some of the requested information but relied on section 40(2) of FOIA (third party personal information) to withhold some information relating to patient and staff incidents.
The Commissioner’s decision is that the trust was correct to withhold parts of the requested information under section 40(2) of FOIA. However, the Commissioner finds that the trust breached sections 10(1) and 17(1) of FOIA regarding the timeliness of its response.
The Commissioner does not require further steps, as a result of this decision notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1(1)(a); FOI 10(1); FOI 40(2); FOI 17(1)
View West London NHS Trust
3 Mar 2026Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information relating to a specific planning application. Norfolk County Council (the “council”) disclosed some information and withheld other information under regulation 12(4)(d) (material in the course of completion) and regulation 13 (personal information). The complainant disputes the council’s position that all non-excepted information has been disclosed. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the council disclosed all the information it held at the time of the request and complied with regulation 5(1) but that it breached regulation 5(2) by doing so outside the time limits. The Commissioner does not require the council to take further steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 5(1); EIR 5(2)
View Norfolk County Council
3 Mar 2026Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested a copy of the Royal Borough of Greenwich’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), (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 Royal Borough of Greenwich
3 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 Hertsmere Borough Council
3 Mar 2026Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested the disclosure of all forms of communication between Surrey Police and named organisations and individuals on specified dates. Surrey Police refused to confirm or deny that it held the requested information, citing the ‘neither confirm nor deny’ provisions within FOIA, specifically sections 23(5) - information supplied by, or relating to, bodies dealing with security matters and 40(5) – personal information.The Commissioner’s decision is that Surrey Police was entitled to rely on both sections 40(5A) (personal information of the requester) and 40(5B)(a)(i) (third party personal information) of FOIA in relation to the requested information. As he has found section 40(5) to have been properly engaged, the Commissioner has not found it necessary to consider section 23(5) of FOIA. No steps are required as a result of this notice.
Keywords: Investigation
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View Surrey Police
3 Mar 2026Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information about the 174 waivers issued for free borough wide Controlled Parking Zones (CPZs). The London Borough of Barking & Dagenham (the Council) applied section 12 (appropriate limit) of the FOIA as compliance with the request would exceed the appropriate limit. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council is not entitled to rely on section 12 to refuse the request. The Commissioner also finds that the Council failed to provide reasonable advice and assistance and therefore did not meet its obligations under section 16(1) of the FOIA. The Commissioner requires the Council to issue a fresh response to the request that does not rely on section 12(1) of FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12; FOI 16
View Barking and Dagenham Council
2 Mar 2026Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The Commissioner’s decision is that Greater Manchester Mental Health NHS Foundation Trust is entitled to refuse parts of the complainant’s request about a named therapist under section 40 of FOIA, which concerns personal data. No steps are necessary.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View Greater Manchester Mental Health NHS Foundation Trust
2 Mar 2026Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information relating to the adoption of a specific road. City of Wolverhampton Council (the “council”) disclosed some information, confirmed other information wasn’t held and withheld other information under the exceptions in regulation 12(4)(e) (internal communications) and regulation 12(5)(b) (course of justice). The Commissioner’s decision is that the council correctly withheld legal advice under regulation 12(5)(b) but that it wasn’t entitled to rely on regulation 12(4)(e) to withhold internal communications and that regulation 5(3) applies to this information. The Commissioner also finds that the council has not demonstrated, on the balance of probabilities, that it does not hold further information falling within the scope of the complainant's request, breaching regulation 5(1). The Commissioner requires the council to disclose the information withheld under regulation 12(4)(e), excepting information that is the complainant’s own personal information sub
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(e); EIR 12(5)(b); EIR 5(1); EIR 5(3)
2 Mar 2026Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about a specific case suspended by the public authority under Regulation 40 of the Police (Complaints and Misconduct) Regulations 2020.
The public authority informed the complainant that the information was not held.
The Commissioner’s decision is that the information requested was not held.
The Commissioner’s decision is that the public authority failed to provide a response to the request within the statutory time limit. Consequently the Commissioner finds that the public authority breached section 10(1) of the FOIA in respect of the request.
The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10(1)
View Devon and Cornwall Police
2 Mar 2026Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested all the material related to a named individual’s nomination, application and appointment to the Civil Justice Council. The Ministry of Justice (the ‘MOJ’) refused to provide any information, citing section 40(2) of FOIA – the exemption for personal information. The Commissioner’s decision is that the MOJ has properly relied on section 40(2) of FOIA to refuse this request. No steps are required as a result of this notice.
Keywords: Public appointments
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View Ministry of Justice
2 Mar 2026Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from Kent Police relating to the sex offenders register. Kent Police refused the request, citing section 12(1) (cost limit) of FOIA.
The Commissioner’s decision is that Kent Police was entitled to refuse to comply with the request in accordance with section 12(1) of FOIA. The Commissioner also finds that Kent Police complied with its obligations under section 16 of FOIA to offer advice and assistance.
The Commissioner does not require any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12(1)
View Kent Police
2 Mar 2026Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested that The Insolvency Service (the agency) disclose its formal decision (if held) not to investigate Strettons Ltd, West One Loans Ltd, or High Cross Investments Ltd. The agency refused to confirm or deny holding the information citing sections 30(3), 31(3) and 40(5) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the agency is entitled to refuse to confirm or deny holding the requested information in accordance with sections 30(3) and 31(3) of FOIA. The Commissioner does not require further steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 31(3); FOI 30(3)
2 Mar 2026Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The Commissioner’s decision is that a review into forensic strategy that the National Crime Agency supplied to the Forensic Science Regulator (FSR) is exempt information under section 23(1) of FOIA. This exemption concerns information supplied by, or related to, bodies dealing with security matters. There was no breach of section 16(1) of FOIA, which concerns advice and assistance, and the FSR’s refusal notice complied with section 17(1).The Commissioner doesn’t require any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 16(1); FOI 17(1); FOI 23(1)
View Forensic Science Regulator
2 Mar 2026Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information from Hertford Heath Parish Council (“the Parish Council”) relating to a neighbourhood plan. The Parish Council’s position is that it has disclosed all of the information held within the scope of the request. The complainant disputes this. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the Parish Council does not hold any further information within the scope of the request. However, the Commissioner finds that the Parish Council breached regulation 11(4) (time for review) of the EIR, by failing to provide an internal review within the statutory timeframe. The Commissioner does not require the Parish Council to take further steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 11(4); EIR 5(1)
2 Mar 2026Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested specific information about cases suspended by the public authority under Regulation 40 of the Police (Complaints and Misconduct) Regulations 2020.
The public authority informed the complainant that the information was not held.
The Commissioner’s decision is that the information requested was not held.
The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Devon and Cornwall Police
2 Mar 2026Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about the recording of complaints under the Police Reform Act 2002.
The public authority provided some of the information in scope of the request but relied on section 12(1) (cost limit) of FOIA to refuse part of the request.
The Commissioner’s decision is that the public authority was entitled to refuse to comply with part of 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.
The Commissioner’s decision is that the public authority failed to provide a full response to the request within the statutory time limit. Consequently the Commissioner finds that the public authority breached section 10(1) of the FOIA in respect of the request.
The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10(1); FOI 12(1)
View Devon and Cornwall Police
27 Feb 2026Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information, specifically correspondence and notes relating to a particular Councillor, from Wealden District Council (“the Council”). Having viewed the information which the Council has refused to disclose to the complainant on the basis that it is not held by the Council for the purposes of FOIA, the Commissioner’s decision is that some information, relating to the premature collection of council tax direct debit payments, is held by the Council for the purposes of FOIA. However, he accepts that the remainder of the information is not held by the Council for the purposes of FOIA.
The Commissioner’s decision that the Council is entitled to rely on section 40(2) (personal information) of FOIA to withhold the names of Council officers and Councillors, and some information relating to the personal circumstances of Councillors. However, he finds that the Council is not entitled to rely on section 40(2) of FOIA to withhold some generic information relating to Co
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 36; FOI 40(2); FOI 3(2)
View Wealden District Council
27 Feb 2026Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about the historical disclosure of business rates data. The London Borough of Hackney (“the Council) initially refused the request with reliance on sections 31 (prevention of crime), 40(2)(personal data) and 41 (information provided in confidence) but amended its position at internal review, stating that the requested information was not held. During the course of the Commissioner’s investigation the complainant presented the Council with business rate data previously disclosed to them by the Council. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council did not interpret the request correctly and failed to seek clarification of the request under section 1(3)(information held/not held) of FOIA. He finds that the Council has also breached section 16(1)(advice and assistance) of FOIA. The Commissioner requires the Council to provide the complainant with a fresh response, based on the interpretation of the request given at paragraph 26 below.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 16(1)
View London Borough of Hackney
27 Feb 2026Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The public authority has failed to respond to this request within 20 working days, as specified under FOIA. The Commissioner requires it to provide the complainant with a response to this request within 30 calendar days in accordance with its obligations under FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Department for Science, Innovation and Technology
27 Feb 2026Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested from the British Film Institute (BFI) information concerning BFI and the African Odyssey screening strand. BFI deemed the requests vexatious under section 14(1) (vexatious request) of FOIA.
The Commissioner’s decision is that the requests are vexatious and BFI was entitled to rely on section 14(1) of FOIA to refuse to comply with the requests. He is satisfied that BFI complied with the requirements of section 16(1) (advice and assistance) of FOIA. The Commissioner does not require BFI to take any steps as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14(1); FOI 16(1)
View British Film Institute
26 Feb 2026Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested, from the London Borough of Hillingdon (the council), information about an agreement between the council and developers concerning the provision of a library. The council confirmed holding two documents – a “Principal Agreement” (PA) and a “Library Agreement” (LA) – but has refused to disclose them, on the basis of regulations 12(4)(e), 12(5)(e) and 12(5)(f) of the EIR (respectively, the exceptions for internal communications, the confidentiality of commercial or industrial information and the interests of the person who provided the information). The Commissioner’s decision is that those exceptions aren’t engaged. He also finds that the council breached regulations 14(2) and 14(3) (refusal to disclose information), and regulation 11(4) (representations and reconsideration), because (respectively) it provided its refusal later than 20 working days after receiving the request; it failed to specify an exception on which it later came to rely; and it provided
Exemptions cited: EIR 11(4); EIR 12(4)(e); EIR 12(5)(e); EIR 12(5)(f); EIR 14(3); EIR 14(2)
View Hillingdon Council
26 Feb 2026Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested form the Department of Business and Trade (DBT) under EIR all information related to a complaint made against Drax Group Plc and considered by UK National Contact Point (UK NCP). DBT disclosed some information but withheld the remainder under section 12 of FOIA and regulations 12(4)(d), 12(4)(e), 12(5)(b), 12(5)(e) and 12(5)(f) of the EIR.
The Commissioner’s decision is that DBT was correct to withhold the remainder of the information under section 12 of FOIA and exceptions 12(4)(d), 12(4)(e), 12(5)(b) and 12(5)(f) of the EIR. However, he found that DBT was not entitled to rely on regulation 12(5)(e) and also breached regulation 5(2) by exceeding the time for a response, regulation 14 by exceeding the time to provide a refusal notice and section 17 for the same reason.
The Commissioner does not require DBT to take further steps in relation to this complaint.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(d); EIR 12(4)(e); EIR 12(5)(b); EIR 12(5)(e); EIR 12(5)(f); EIR 14; FOI 12; FOI 17; EIR 12(9)
View Department for Business and Trade
26 Feb 2026Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant made a multi-part request for information relating to Kemi Badenoch. The Home Office would neither confirm nor deny (NCND) whether it held any information, citing section 40(5B) (Personal information) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Home Office was correct to rely on section 40(5B)(a)(i) of FOIA to issue an NCND response to all parts of the request. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40(5)
View Home Office
26 Feb 2026Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information relating to land. St John’s College (‘the College’) refused to deal with the request citing section 14(1) (vexatious requests) of FOIA.
The Commissioner’s decision is that the request is manifestly unreasonable under regulation 12(4)(b) of the EIR and the College isn’t obliged to comply with it. However, he’s recorded a regulation 14(3) breach as the request was refused under the wrong legislation. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(b); EIR 14(3)
26 Feb 2026Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information about the redevelopment of a school site. The London Borough of Lambeth (“the Council”) withheld the requested information with reliance on regulation 12(5)(d). The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has misapplied regulation 12(5)(d) to the information within scope of the request. He also finds a breach of regulation 11. The Commissioner requires the Council to disclose the information contained in the email threads of February 2024 and October 2024, with redactions made for personal data and information that falls outside of the scope of the request. The public authority 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: EIR 11; EIR 12(5)(d)
View London Borough of Lambeth
26 Feb 2026Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to fitness to practice statistics and the Thirlwall inquiry. The Nursing and Midwifery Council (‘the NMC’) refused the request under section 12(1) of FOIA (cost of compliance exceeds appropriate limit). The Commissioner’s decision is that section 12(1) is engaged and so the NMC isn’t obliged to comply with the request. However, it breached section 16 (advice and assistance) and section 10 (timescale for compliance) of FOIA. The Commissioner requires the NMC to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: provide reasonable advice and assistance to the complainant, in line with section 16.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 12(1); FOI 16
View NMC
26 Feb 2026Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about costs relating to a court case. Lincolnshire County Council disclosed information in response. The Council subsequently informed the Commissioner that it considered that its original searches for information were incomplete, and that further information may therefore be held. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the Council holds additional information which falls within the scope of the request. The Commissioner requires the Council to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: Conduct new searches for any additional information falling within scope of the request and issue a fresh response to the request in which any additional information is either disclosed, or a valid refusal notice issued for any exemption it intends to rely on.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Lincolnshire County Council
26 Feb 2026Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about patient safety and clinical risk issues. The Aneurin Bevan University Health Board (“the Health Board”) relied on section 12 of FOIA (cost of compliance) to refuse the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Health Board was entitled to rely on section 12(1) of FOIA to refuse the request. The Commissioner also finds that, at the time of the internal review, the Health Board met its section 16 obligation to offer advice and assistance. The Commissioner does not require further steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12(1); FOI 16
View Aneurin Bevan University Health Board
26 Feb 2026Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about a particular set of speed cameras. West Yorkshire Police (“WYP”) refused to disclose the requested information, citing sections 31(1)(a) and (b) (law enforcement) of FOIA as its basis for doing so. The Commissioner’s decision is that WYP correctly applied sections 31(1)(a) and (b) to withhold the requested information, and that the public interest favours maintaining the exemption. The Commissioner does not require WYP to take any further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 31
View West Yorkshire Police
26 Feb 2026Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information about noise complaints relating to a specific venue. Thurrock Council (the “council”) disclosed some information and withheld other information under regulation 12(4)(d) (unfinished documents), regulation 12(5)(b) (the course of justice) and regulation 13 (personal information). The Commissioner’s decision is that the council was entitled to withhold the requested information under regulation 12(5)(b) and regulation 13 but that, in initially handling the request under the FOIA, it breached regulation 5(1) and regulation 14(1). The Commissioner does not require the council to take further steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(b); EIR 13; EIR 14(1); EIR 5(1)
View East Hampshire District Council
26 Feb 2026Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant submitted a request to the Ministry of Defence (MOD) seeking information about ‘nuclear site events’ which took place at Faslane naval base. The MOD withheld the requested information on the basis of regulation 12(5)(a) (defence and national security) of the EIR. The Commissioner’s decision is that the information is exempt from disclosure on the basis of regulation 12(5)(a) and the public interest favours withholding this information. However, the Commissioner has concluded that the MOD breached regulation 5(2) by failing to respond to the request within 20 working days and breached regulation 11(2) by failing to complete an internal review within 40 working days.
Exemptions cited: EIR 11; EIR 12(5)(a); EIR 5
View Ministry of Defence
25 Feb 2026Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested recorded information concerning the size (acreage/hectares) of specified areas at St Mary’s Lands (SML) from Warwick District Council (“the council”). The council said that no information is held by it, and directed the complainant to publicly available sources such as the Land Registry and Google Maps. The council subsequently located and disclosed some information to the complainant at internal review, however, it maintained its position that other information is not held by it, and applied Regulation 12(4)(a). The Commissioner’s decision is that the council was not correct to apply Regulation 12(4)(a) as it has not demonstrated, on a balance of probabilities, that it does not hold any further relevant information. He has also decided that the council did not comply with the requirements of Regulation 5(2) of the EIR in that it did not disclose the information it did hold within 20 working days of receiving the request. The Commissioner requires the council
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(a); EIR 5(2)
View Warwick District Council
25 Feb 2026Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information concerning complaints raised about a named charity. The Charity Commission answered the request, withholding some information under section 40(2) – personal information and section 31(1)(g) – law enforcement. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Charity Commissioner has provided the information requested at part 1 of the request and complied with its obligations under section 1(1)(a) and (b) FOIA. For the information at part 2 of the request the Charity Commission has correctly engaged section 40(2) to withhold this. No steps are required.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 40
View The Charity Commission
25 Feb 2026Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested correspondence relating to a planning application. The London Borough of Sutton (“the Council”) refused the request under Regulation 12(4)(b) of the EIR. The Commissioner has found that Regulation 12(4)(b) is not engaged. He requires the Council to provide a fresh response to the request. The Council also breached regulation 14(2) in failing to issue a refusal notice to the requester within twenty working days.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(b); EIR 14(2)
View London Borough of Sutton
25 Feb 2026Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information relating to major maintenance expenditure at Pickie Fun Park (the park). Ards and North Down Borough Council (the council) provided some of the information but withheld the remaining information under regulation 12(5)(e) of the EIR (confidentiality of commercial or industrial information) and regulation 13(1) of the EIR (personal information). The Commissioner’s decision is that the council was correct to withhold the information by virtue of section 12(5)(e) of the EIR. He does not require the council to take any further steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(e)
25 Feb 2026Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has submitted a series of requests relating to various information held by Rhondda Cynon Taf County Borough Council (the council). The council refused to comply with the complainant’s requests citing section 14(1) of FOIA (vexatious requests).
The Commissioner’s decision is that the council has not dealt with the requests for information in accordance with the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and the Environmental Information Regulations 2004. He has determined that the council has incorrectly withheld information under the vexatious exclusion, and, in the case of environmental information, the manifestly unreasonable exception.
The Commissioner requires the council to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation.
Reconsider the requests and provide the requested information or issue a valid response which does not rely on section 14(1) of FOIA and regulation 12(4)(b) of the EIR.
The public authority must take these steps within 30 calendar days of
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(b); FOI 14(1); FOI 40(1)
View Rhondda Cynon Taf County Borough Council
25 Feb 2026Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information held by Leicester City Council (“the council”) about why it removed a specified commercial property from being available to lease. The council refused some elements of the request on the basis that Regulation 13(1) (personal data of third parties) and Regulation 12(5)(e) (commercial confidentiality) of the EIR applied. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council was correct to withhold the information under Regulations 12(5)(e) and 13(1). The Commissioner does not require the council to take any further steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(e); EIR 13(1)
View Leicester City Council
24 Feb 2026Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information about affordable housing. Folkstone & Hythe District Council (‘the council’) originally considered the request under FOIA, disclosing some information and withholding the remainder under various exemptions. However, the council subsequently reconsidered the request under the EIR. It disclosed further information and its final position is that a small amount of information it’s continuing to withhold is excepted from disclosure under regulation 12(5)(e) of the EIR. This exception concerns the confidentiality of commercial information.The Commissioner’s decision is that the financial information within scope of Q7 of the request that the council is withholding engages regulation 12(5)(e) of the EIR. However, the timeliness of the council’s response didn’t comply with regulations 5(2) or 14. The Commissioner doesn’t require further steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(e); EIR 14; EIR 5(2)
View Folkestone and Hythe District Council
24 Feb 2026Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information about individuals who died whilst awaiting the outcome of an asylum application. The Home Office disclosed some information, confirmed other information wasn’t held and confirmed that it was withholding other information under the exemptions for investigations (section 31) health and safety (section 38) and information provided in confidence (section 41). The Commissioner’s decision is that the Home Office was entitled to rely on sections 31, 38 and 41 to withhold the requested information, excepting the nationalities, general information on places of death and non-rare causes of death of the deceased. He also finds that the Home Office was partly correct to state that it held no further information except in relation to parts 1(a), 1(b) and 2(d), where it failed to disclose all the information held and breached section 1 and section 10. The Commissioner requires the Home Office to disclose the nationalities, non-rare causes of death and limited in
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10; FOI 31; FOI 38; FOI 41
View Home Office
24 Feb 2026Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested specified types of information produced by the Border Force in relation to a drone incident at Gatwick airport in December 2018. Ultimately, the Home Office relied on sections 31(1)(a), (b) and (e) (law enforcement) and section 40(2) (personal information) of FOIA to withhold the requested information. During the course of the Commissioner’s investigation, the Home Office partly revised its position and disclosed a small amount of the in-scope information. It also said it did not hold the requested briefing materials, nor any photo or video footage. The complainant advised he was not concerned with the information withheld under section 40(2) of FOIA, so the Commissioner has not considered this aspect any further. The Commissioner’s decision is that sections 31(1)(a), (b) and (e) of FOIA have been properly relied upon by the Home Office. He also finds that, on the balance of probabilities, no recorded information is held by the Home Office in the form of brief
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 31(1)(a); FOI 31(1)(b)
View Home Office
23 Feb 2026Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information about a specific claim submitted to the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority (IPSA). IPSA disclosed some information and withheld the remainder under sections 31 and 40 of FOIA. These exemptions concern law enforcement and personal data, respectively. The Commissioner’s decision is that IPSA holds no further relevant information and that the information it’s withholding is exempt from disclosure under sections 31(1)(a) and 40(2) of FOIA. The timeliness of IPSA’s response didn’t comply with sections 1(1), 10(1) and 17(1), however. No steps are necessary.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1(1); FOI 10(1); FOI 31(1)(a); FOI 40(2); FOI 17(1)
View Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority
23 Feb 2026Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted an information request to London North West University Healthcare NHS Trust (the trust) for information relating to its Inflammatory Bowel Disease (IBD) service.
The Commissioner’s decision is that the trust was entitled to apply section 12 (cost of compliance) of FOIA to questions 11-13 and 15-19 of the request. However, in not providing advice and assistance, it breached section 16 of FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12(1); FOI 16
View London North West University Healthcare NHS Trust