5 Aug 2026Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to Maritime and Coastguard Agency (MCA) for all image information in relation to a drone in the English Channel on 16-17 June 2025.
MCA withheld the requested information under sections 31(1)(a) (law enforcement) and 40(2) (third-party personal data) of FOIA.
The Commissioner’s decision is that MCA was entitled to withhold the requested information under section 31(1)(a) of FOIA.
The Commissioner does not require further steps, as a result of this decision notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 31(1)(a)
View Maritime and Coastguard Agency
5 Aug 2026Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about offences mentioning “Grok” from the Metropolitan Police Service (the “MPS”). The MPS initially advised that the request was vexatious on the grounds of burden, citing section 14(1) (Vexatious requests) of FOIA. During the Commissioner’s investigation, the MPS revised its position, instead relying on section 12(2)(Cost of compliance) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the MPS was entitled to do so. No steps are required.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12; FOI 16
View Metropolitan Police Service
5 Aug 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(1)
View Brighton and Hove City Council
5 Aug 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 Warrington Council
4 Aug 2026Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information about the performance of the Home Office’s Common Operating Picture and Command Interface (COPCI) system, which detects and monitors vessels crossing the Channel. The Home Office refused to disclose the requested information, citing sections 31(1)(a), (b) and (e) (Law enforcement), 40(2) (Personal information) and 43(2) (Commercial interests) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Home Office was entitled to rely on sections 31(1)(a), (b) and (e) to refuse the request.
Exemptions cited: FOI 31
View Home Office
4 Aug 2026Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information in respect of penalty notices. The Commissioner’s decision is that the public authority failed to respond to the request within 20 working days and has therefore failed to comply with section 10 of FOIA. The Commissioner requires the public authority to provide a substantive response to the complainant within 30 calendar days in accordance with its obligations pursuant to FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View BCP Council
4 Aug 2026Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested autopsy-related information about a murder case from Leicestershire Police. Leicestershire Police initially refused to provide the requested information citing sections 40(1) (Personal information), 38(1) (Health and safety) and 30(1) (Investigations and proceedings) of FOIA. During the Commissioner’s investigation, it revised its position, instead relying on section 12(2) (Cost of compliance) of FOIA.
The Commissioner’s decision is that Leicestershire Police was entitled to rely on section 12(2) of FOIA. As further information has been included in this notice, the Commissioner also finds that Leicestershire Police complied with its duties under section 16(1) (Advice and assistance) of FOIA. No steps are required.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12; FOI 16
View Leicestershire Police
4 Aug 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 Business and Trade
4 Aug 2026Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested Sefton Council (the council) to disclose information relating to the financial and scientific impact of its net zero policies and strategies. The council initially complied with the request but following the complainant providing clarification over what information they required, the council revised its position and applied regulation 12(4)(b) of the EIR (manifestly unreasonable). The Commissioner’s decision is that the council is entitled to rely on regulation 12(4)(b) of the EIR. However, the council breached regulation 14(2) of the EIR. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(b); EIR 14(2); EIR 9
4 Aug 2026Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information from Rhondda Cynon Taf County Borough Council (“the council”) about its contractual arrangements with Biogen Bryn Pica Limited (Biogen) for the operation of the Bryn Pica waste facility. The council provided some of the information falling within the scope of the complainant’s request but refused to disclose specific details contained in the contract with Biogen citing regulation 12(5)(e) (Commercial or industrial information) of the EIR. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council was entitled to rely on regulation 12(5)(e) of the EIR to withhold the remaining information, and that the public interest favours maintaining the exception. The Commissioner has also determined that the council has breached regulation 5(2) as it failed to respond to the complainant’s request within 20 working days and regulation 11(4) as it did not provide an internal review within the 40 working day requirement. The Commissioner does not require the council to take
Exemptions cited: EIR 11(4); EIR 12(5)(e); EIR 5(2)
View Rhondda Cynon Taf County Borough Council
3 Aug 2026Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information about the interim and final certification status of films under the film tax relief scheme, and action taken by British Film Institute (the BFI) in relation to certification.The BFI relied on section 31 of FOIA (law enforcement) to withhold information falling within the scope of part (d) of the request. Specifically, it relied on sections 31(1)(a), 31(1)(d) and 31(1)(g) by virtue of section 31(2)(a), of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the BFI was not entitled to rely on section 31(1)(a), section 31(1)(d) or section 31(1)(g) by virtue of section 31(2)(a), of FOIA. The Commissioner is not satisfied that the BFI has clearly explained how disclosure of the requested information would be likely to lead to the prejudice it has claimed.The Commissioner requires the BFI to take the following step to ensure compliance with the legislation:Disclose the information withheld in response to part (d) of the request. The BFI must take this step within
Exemptions cited: FOI 31(1)(a); FOI 31(1)(g); FOI 31(1)(d)
View British Film Institute
3 Aug 2026Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested a copy of the Statement of Affairs in respect of Raffles Cockapoos (DF) Ltd. The Insolvency Service stated that, insofar as the information was held by the Official Receiver in their statutory role as an officer of the court, it was not held by the public authority for the purposes of FOIA. At internal review, the Insolvency Service also relied on sections 31(3) (law enforcement) and 40(5B)(a)(i) (personal information) of FOIA to neither confirm nor deny whether any relevant information was held by the agency for investigation or enforcement purposes. The Commissioner’s decision is that, to the extent the requested Statement of Affairs is held by the Official Receiver in their statutory capacity, it is not held by the Insolvency Service, or on behalf of the Insolvency Service, for the purposes of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is also that the Insolvency Service was entitled to rely on section 31(3) of FOIA to neither confirm nor deny whether it held inform
Exemptions cited: FOI 31
3 Aug 2026Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The public authority has failed to respond to this request within 20 working days, as specified under FOIA. The Commissioner requires it to provide the complainant with a response to this request within 30 calendar days in accordance with its obligations under FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View London Borough of Hackney
31 Jul 2026Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information from Bolton Metropolitan Borough Council (“the council”) relating to applications made under the Energy Company Obligation and Great British Insulation Scheme flexible eligibility arrangements in Greater Manchester. The council said that it does not hold the information as the relevant function is carried out by Greater Manchester Combined Authority (“the GMCA”). The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the council does not hold the underlying operational records associated with the administration of the ECO4 Flex and GBIS schemes, and that those records are held by GMCA in its own right rather than on behalf of the council. However, the Commissioner has decided that the council has not demonstrated, on the balance of probabilities, that it does not hold further KPI, governance, oversight or meeting-related information falling within parts C, G, H and I of the request. The Commissioner therefore requires the council to
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(a)
View Bolton Council
31 Jul 2026Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant made two requests for information relating to a police investigation concerning a fatal fire at a specified address. Kent Police refused the request under section 30(1) (investigations) and section 40(2) (personal information) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that Kent Police was entitled to rely on section 30(1)(a) of FOIA to withhold the requested information. As the Commissioner has found section 30(1)(a) to be engaged, he has not found it necessary to consider Kent Police’s application of section 40(2). The Commissioner does not require Kent Police to take any further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 30(1)(a)
View Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency
31 Jul 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 Wigan Council
31 Jul 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 the public authority has not issued a substantive response to this request. Therefore the Commissioner finds a breach of section 10. The public authority must provide a substantive response to the request in accordance with its obligations under FOIA. The public authority 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 FOIA and may be dealt with as a contempt of court.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office
31 Jul 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 the public authority has not issued a substantive response to this request. Therefore, the Commissioner finds a breach of section 10. The public authority must provide a substantive response to the request in accordance with its obligations under FOIA. The public authority 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 FOIA and may be dealt with as a contempt of court.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View West London NHS Trust
30 Jul 2026Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information about a Community Governance Review. Potto Parish Council (the “council”) disclosed some information and stated that it held no further information within the scope of the request. The complainant disputed this. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the council does not hold any further information within the scope of the request. The Commissioner therefore finds that the council complied with section 1(1) of FOIA. The Commissioner does not require the council to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1(1)
30 Jul 2026Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information about complaints, enforcement and environmental protection issues regarding a local business. Rochdale Borough Council (the Council) cited section 40(5B)(a)(i) (third party personal information) of FOIA to refuse to confirm or deny whether it held information within the scope of the request.
The Commissioner’s decision is that the information falls within the definition of environmental information for the purposes of the EIR. The Commissioner has also decided that the Council was not entitled to rely on regulation 13(5A) of the EIR, which is the equivalent provision to section 40(5B) of FOIA, to refuse to confirm or deny whether it held relevant information.
The Commissioner requires the Council to take the following step to ensure compliance with the legislation:
• Issue a fresh response to the complainant under the EIR, without relying on regulation 13(5A).
The public authority must take this step within 30 calendar days of the date of this deci
Exemptions cited: EIR 13(5a)
View Rochdale Metropolitan Borough Council
30 Jul 2026Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information in four pages of a letter that had been referred to in a fax cover sheet. Atomic Weapons Establishment (AWE) refused the request under section 12(1) of FOIA (cost of compliance).
The Commissioner’s decision is that AWE was entitled to rely on section 12(1) of FOIA to refuse the request and that AWE complied with its duty to provide advice and assistance under section 16 of FOIA.
However, the Commissioner finds that AWE breached section 17(5) of FOIA as it failed to issue a section 12 refusal within 20 working days of receiving the request.
The Commissioner does not require any steps as a result of this decision
Exemptions cited: FOI 12(1); FOI 16(1); FOI 17(5)
View Atomic Weapons Establishment
30 Jul 2026Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested internal ministerial advice, briefings, assessments and related documents from January to July 2025 that informed or supported the decision not to establish a statutory public inquiry into patient safety and governance failings at North East Ambulance Service. The Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC) identified one document which it withheld in full under sections 40(1) and 40(2) of FOIA (personal data). It has subsequently advised that the section of this document that falls within scope of the request can be disclosed, with third party personal data redacted. The Commissioner’s decision is as follows: On the balance of probabilities, DHSC holds no further information falling within scope of the request. Under section 40(2) of FOIA DHSC is entitled to withhold the personal data in the final three paragraphs of the document it holds but it should disclose the remainder of these paragraphs. DHSC’s late disclosure of some of the information falling wi
Exemptions cited: FOI 1(1); FOI 10(1); FOI 16(1); FOI 40(2)
30 Jul 2026Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to Oswestry Town Council’s (the Council) CCTV operations. The Council provided information in scope of the request and advised information had already been provided in previous responses to earlier requests.
The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the Council has provided all the information it held falling within the scope of the request at the time of the request and has therefore complied with section 1(1) of FOIA.
The Commissioner does not require any steps as a result of this decision
Exemptions cited: FOI 1(1)
30 Jul 2026Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested the University of Greenwich (the university) to disclose information relating to its 2024 clearing cycle for home UK students. The university disclosed some information but refused to disclose the number of calls to its clearing helpline, average wait time for calls to be answered, total number of offers made and the total number of students recruited, stating that this information is exempt from disclosure under section 43(2) of FOIA (commercial interests). The Commissioner’s decision is that the university is not entitled to rely on section 43(2) of FOIA. The Commissioner requires the university to disclose the remaining withheld information to the complainant.
Exemptions cited: FOI 43
View The University of Greenwich
30 Jul 2026Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested the University of Leicester (the university) to disclose information relating to its 2024 clearing cycle for home UK students. The university disclosed the requested information, except the average call wait time to its clearing helpline on the morning of 15 August 2024, stating that this information is exempt from disclosure under section 43(2) of FOIA (commercial interests). The Commissioner’s decision is that the university is not entitled to rely on section 43(2) of FOIA. The Commissioner requires the university to disclose the remaining withheld information to the complainant.
Exemptions cited: FOI 43
View The University of Leicester
30 Jul 2026Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested the University of Roehampton (the university) to disclose information relating to its 2024 clearing cycle for home UK students. The university disclosed some information but refused to disclose the number of offers, the number of students recruited and if any students accepted an offer of a deferred place for 2025, stating that this information is exempt from disclosure under section 43(2) of FOIA (commercial interests). The Commissioner’s decision is that the university is not entitled to rely on section 43(2) of FOIA. The Commissioner requires the university to disclose the remaining withheld information to the complainant.
Exemptions cited: FOI 43
View Roehampton University
30 Jul 2026Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from the Home Office regarding how to submit corruption complaints about the IOPC and specific police forces and who is responsible for any investigation into such complaints. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Home Office was entitled to rely on section 21 when providing links to the applicable information it holds. The Commissioner is also satisfied that, on the balance of probabilities, the Home Office does not hold any further information. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 21
View Home Office
30 Jul 2026Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information about complaints received by Lincolnshire County Council’s Trading Standards service concerning supermarkets selling food past its use-by date. Lincolnshire County Council (“the council”) disclosed some information but withheld the names of the supermarkets under section 31(1)(g) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council was entitled to rely on section 31(1)(g) of FOIA to withhold the names of the supermarkets, and that the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosure. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 31(1)(g)
View Lincolnshire County Council
30 Jul 2026Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information about the council’s handling of a noise nuisance complaint. City of Doncaster Council (“the council”) provided some information, directed the complainant to some publicly available information, and refused to provide other information under the EIR. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council was entitled to rely on Regulation 5(3) in respect of the complainant’s own personal data, and Regulation 13(1) in respect of third-party personal data. The Commissioner has not identified any further non-personal recorded information which the council was required to disclose under the EIR. The Commissioner has, however, decided that the council breached Regulation 5(2) and Regulation 14 by failing to respond within the statutory time for compliance. The Commissioner does not require the council to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 13; EIR 14; EIR 5(2)
View Doncaster Council
30 Jul 2026Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information about a piece of land included in the Local Plan. St Helens Metropolitan Borough Council (the Council) provided some information and said that it did not hold some information. It cited regulation 12(4)(d) (material still in the course of completion) of the EIR to refuse part of the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council was entitled to apply regulation 12(4)(d) to withhold the information in question.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(d)
View St Helens Council
29 Jul 2026Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about a propised government pilot scheme. 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 the public authority has not issued a substantive response to this request. Therefore the Commissioner finds a breach of section 10.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Home Office
29 Jul 2026Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from Wiltshire Council (“the Council”) relating to parking and street lighting in a particular area. The Commissioner’s decision is that on the balance of probabilities, the Council does not hold information within the scope of the request. The Commissioner does not require the Council to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Wiltshire Council
29 Jul 2026Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested various information in respect of a meeting of the Design Review Panel (the DRP) in relation to a specified pre-planning application, which took place on 16 January 2024. The London Borough of Hackney Council (the Council) initially refused the request on the basis of regulation 12(4)(e) (internal communications) of the EIR. Following the Commissioner’s intervention, the Council provided its internal review, providing some information, but stating that it does not hold a transcript and/or recording of the meeting. The Commissioner's decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the Council did not hold a transcript or recording of the meeting when it received the request. The Council was therefore entitled to rely on regulation 12(4)(a) of the EIR. However, the Commissioner has recorded a breach of regulation 11(4) (representations and reconsideration) of the EIR due to the Council’s failure to provide details of its internal review within the required t
Exemptions cited: EIR 11(4); EIR 12(4)(a)
View London Borough of Hackney
29 Jul 2026Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted an information request to Channel Four Television Corporation (Channel 4) relating to job roles in Commissioning.
Channel 4 refused the request under section 14(1) (vexatious requests) of FOIA.
The Commissioner’s decision is that the request was vexatious and therefore Channel 4 was entitled to rely upon section 14(1) of FOIA to refuse it.
The Commissioner does not require further steps, as a result of this notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14(1)
View Channel 4
29 Jul 2026Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from North Bristol NHS Trust relating to its urology department. 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, the public authority did not provide a valid response within the statutory time frame. Therefore the Commissioner finds a breach of section 10(1) of FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10(1)
View North Bristol NHS Trust
29 Jul 2026Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information about how many health and care workers had received a notice of visa curtailment, after receiving an email about the revocation of their sponsor’s licence. The Home Office refused the request under section 12 of FOIA, stating that compliance would exceed the appropriate cost limit. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Home Office correctly refused the request under section 12(1) of FOIA, and has complied with the duty to provide advice and assistance at section 16 of FOIA. He does not require the Home Office to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12; FOI 16
View Home Office
29 Jul 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 Bromley Council
29 Jul 2026Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The Commissioner’s decision is that the complainant’s request for information about website administration, records management and governance relating to the publication and amendment of a policy document is a vexatious request under section 14(1) of FOIA. The timeliness of Harvington CE First and Primary’s School’s section 14(1) refusal notice did not comply with section 17(5) of FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14(1); FOI 17(5)
28 Jul 2026Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about the decision to end Courtsdesk’s access to magistrates’ courts information. The Ministry of Justice (the MoJ) withheld the majority of the information specified in the request under section 35(1)(a) (the formulation or development of government policy) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the MoJ was entitled to rely on section 35(1)(a) of FOIA to refuse to disclose the information.
Exemptions cited: FOI 35
View Ministry of Justice
28 Jul 2026Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about the number of Dental Complaints Service and Fitness to Practice enquiries, complaints and cases relating to dental practices named Bute or Bute Dental or with postcodes beginning PA20. The General Dental Council (GDC) refused to confirm or deny it held the information under section 40(5B) of FOIA, which concerns personal data. The Commissioner’s decision is that: the GDC was not entitled to refuse the request under section 40(5B) of FOIA; and there was no breach of section 16(1), which concerns advice and assistance. The Commissioner requires the GDC to take the following step to ensure compliance with the legislation: Issue a fresh response to the request that complies with section 1(1)(a) of FOIA by confirming or denying whether the requested information is held. If the GDC confirms that information is held, it must either disclose the information or issue a fresh refusal notice in accordance with section 17 of FOIA specifying the exemp
Exemptions cited: FOI 16(1); FOI 40(5)(b)
View General Dental Council
28 Jul 2026Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested a breakdown of council tax allocations. North Lincolnshire Council (‘the council’) directed the complainant to published information within scope of their request and applied section 21 of FOIA to this information (information accessible to applicant by other means). The council advised that it does not hold the specific information the complainant has requested. The Commissioner’s decision is that: Other than the published information to which the council applied section 21, on the balance of probabilities, the council holds no further information falling within scope of the complainant’s request. There was no breach of section 16(1) of FOIA, which concerns advice and assistance. No steps are necessary.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1(1)(a); FOI 16(1)
View North Lincolnshire Council
28 Jul 2026Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested details of complaints regarding the use of social media against a named Professor. The General Medical Council (GMC) refused to confirm or deny whether it held information within the scope of the request and relied on section 40(5B) (third party personal data) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that GMC is entitled to rely on section 40(5B) of the FOIA to refuse to confirm or deny whether it holds the information. The Commissioner does not require any steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View GMC
28 Jul 2026Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested emails to and from named officers of London Borough of Richmond upon Thames (the Council) concerning the Council’s decision to replace the existing health suite with a group exercise studio.
The Council initially aggregated all four requests and refused them with reliance on section 12(4). During the course of a previous investigation by the Commissioner the Council amended their position and relied on section 14(1) of FOIA to refuse the requests. In a decision notice dated 31 March 2025, the Commissioner found that the requests were not vexatious.
The Council belatedly provided the complainant with a fresh response to his requests. They informed the complainant that they were aggregating the requests and refusing them in reliance on section 12(4).
During the course of the Commissioner’s investigation in this case the Council withdrew their reliance on section 12(4) and provided the complainant with a revised response to the requests. The Council made
Exemptions cited: FOI 36(2)(b); FOI 42(1); FOI 43(2)
View Richmond upon Thames Council
28 Jul 2026Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to the modification of the published record of a specific case on the Employment Tribunal Register. The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) provided some information in scope of the request. It refused to provide some of the requested information citing section 21 (information accessible to applicant by other means) and section 31 (law enforcement) of FOIA. It also denied holding some of the information within the scope of the request on the basis that section 3(2)(a) (public authorities) of FOIA applies. The Commissioner has investigated its application of section 3(2) to the information in scope of parts 1, 2, 3, 4, 6 and 12 of the request. He has also considered whether the information requested at part 10 of the request comprised a valid request for information under section 8 (request for information) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the MoJ does not hold information in scope of parts 1, 2, 3, 4, 6
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 3; FOI 8
View Ministry of Justice
28 Jul 2026Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested specified briefings from the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP). The Commissioner’s decision is that whilst section 36(2)(b)(i) is engaged, the public interest favours disclosure. The Commissioner also finds that DWP failed to respond within the statutory timeframe and has therefore breached section 10(1). The Commissioner requires DWP to disclose the requested information. 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: FOI 10; FOI 36
View Department for Work and Pensions
28 Jul 2026Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about the number of primary school students accepted to Bristol Cathedral Choir School. Cathedral Schools Trust (“the Trust”) provided a spreadsheet of data but relied on section 40(2) as a basis for withholding some figures. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Trust was not correct to rely on section 40(2) as a basis for withholding the information. The Commissioner requires the Trust to disclose the withheld information.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40(2)
28 Jul 2026Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to a service agreement between Cheshire East Council (the Council) and Middlewich Town Council relating to provision of services at Middlewich Cemetery. The Council provided some information, withheld other information under section 43 (commercial interests) of the FOIA and stated other information was not held. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council was not entitled to rely on section 43(2) of the FOIA to withhold information falling within part c of the request. The Commissioner also finds that, on the balance of probabilities, the Council does not hold information falling within the scope of part d of the request and has therefore complied with section 1(1)(a) of the FOIA. The Commissioner requires the Council to disclose the information withheld under section 43(2) in response to part c of the request.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 43
View Cheshire East Council
27 Jul 2026Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted an information request to NHS North Central London Integrated Care Board (now West and North London Integrated Care Board (the ICB)) regarding the decision-making process used in awarding contracts under the Provider Selection Regime.
The ICB withheld information under sections 40(2) (third-party personal data), 43(2) (commercial interests) and 41(1)(a) and (b) (information provided in confidence) of FOIA. It also stated that it didn’t hold any further information falling within the scope of the request.
The Commissioner’s decision is that the ICB was entitled to withhold information under section 43(2) of FOIA. He also finds that section 40(2) of FOIA is partially engaged. However, the Commissioner is not satisfied that the ICB has identified all the information falling within scope of the request. He therefore finds that it has not demonstrated compliance with section 1(1) of FOIA. Furthermore, as the ICB responded to the request after more than 20 working d
Exemptions cited: FOI 1(1); FOI 10(1); FOI 40(2); FOI 43(2); FOI 17(1)
View NHS West and North London ICB
27 Jul 2026Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information about a request for an Environmental Impact Assessment screening opinion. The Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government stated that the information was withheld under the exception provided by regulation 12(4)(e) (internal communications) of the EIR. The Commissioner’s decision is that the MHCLG is entitled to withhold the information under regulation 12(4)(e). The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(e)
View Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government
24 Jul 2026Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from the London Borough of Bexley (the council) about Early Help referrals, assessments, waiting lists, workforce capacity, case progression, and related policies and guidance for the last three financial years. The council 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