23 Feb 2026Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested particular information in a four-part request relating to a 2021 consultation over Judicial Review reforms, with reference to the Civil Procedure Rules. The Ministry of Justice (the ‘MOJ’) responded to all parts of the request, withholding some information under section 35(1)(a) of FOIA – the exemption for the formulation or development of government policy, etc. Ultimately, the complainant remained concerned only with the information withheld under section 35(1)(a) of FOIA at part 4 of his request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the MOJ was entitled to rely on section 35(1)(a) of FOIA for the reasons set out in this notice. No steps are required as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: FOI 35
View Ministry of Justice
23 Feb 2026Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to assaults at HMP Belmarsh and HMP Frankland. The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) confirmed that it holds all the requested information. However, it considered that some of the information was publicly available and therefore exempt from disclosure by virtue of section 21 (information accessible to applicant by other means) of FOIA. The MoJ relied on section 40(2) (personal information) of FOIA to withhold the remaining information in scope of the request. The Commissioner has considered the MoJ’s application of section 40(2) to the withheld information relating to the logs of assaults. The Commissioner’s decision is that the MoJ has correctly relied on section 40(2) of FOIA to withhold that information. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View Ministry of Justice
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
23 Feb 2026Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information about the 2025 White Paper’s immigration reforms to existing visa holders in a multi-part request. The Home Office initially refused the request in its entirety, citing the FOIA exemption at section 35(1)(a) – the formulation or development of government policy. At internal review, the Home Office revised its position and said that the requested information was not held. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the requested information is not held by the Home Office. No further steps are required as a result of this notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Home Office
20 Feb 2026Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has made a request to London Borough of Islington (the council) for a copy of the data it submitted to the Department for Education (DfE) in April 2025 for the annual special educational needs survey (SEN2). The council relied on section 40(2) of FOIA to withhold the information, as it considered that disclosing it would contravene data protection law. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council has correctly relied on section 40(2) of FOIA to withhold the requested information. The Commissioner does not require the council to take any further steps as a result of this decision notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40(2)
View Islington Council
20 Feb 2026Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information relating to the times and dates that specific planning documents were amended and finalised from Doncaster Metropolitan Borough Council (“the council”). The council responded to the requests stating dates etc, however the complainant noted several issues relating to the accuracy of these which made them believe that further information would be held by it. The council also said that tother information was not held by it. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council was only partly correct to state that no further information is held by it. He has also decided that the council did not comply with Regulation 5(2) in that the information was not disclosed within 20 working days. The Commissioner requires the council to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. To disclose the information it has located falling within parts 1, 4, 7 and 8 of the request.
Exemptions cited: EIR 5(1); EIR 5(2)
View Doncaster Council
20 Feb 2026Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information on investigations into a named charity. The Charity Commission refused the request under section 31 FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Charity Commission has correctly applied section 31(1)(g) and the public interest favours withholding the information. No steps are required.
Exemptions cited: FOI 31
View The Charity Commission
20 Feb 2026Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested from Buckinghamshire, Oxfordshire and Berkshire West Integrated Care Board (“the ICB”) information relating to Ophthalmology services. The ICB provided some information but stated that it did not hold information regarding other parts of the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the ICB, on the balance of probabilities, holds no further information than has already been provided to the complainant. However, the ICB has breached sections 1(1)(b) and 10(1) FOIA by providing information to which the complainant was entitled after the statutory timeframe of 20 working days. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1(1)(b); FOI 10(1)
View NHS Buckinghamshire, Oxfordshire and Berkshire West ICB
19 Feb 2026Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information relating to a planning application. Nottingham City Council initially responded to the request by disclosing some information, and explaining that the remainder was withheld under the exceptions provided by regulation 12(4)(e) (Internal communications) and regulation 13 (Personal data). During the course of investigation, the Council revised its position, and instead sought to withhold the information under regulation 12(4)(b) (Manifestly unreasonable requests) on the grounds of cost. The Commissioner’s decision is that regulation 12(4)(b) is engaged and that the balance of the public interest favours maintaining the exception. However, the Council’s handling of the request breached regulation 5(2) (Time for compliance), regulation 11(4) (Representations and reconsideration) and regulation 14(2) (Refusal to disclose information). The Commissioner does not require further steps, but refers the Council to the points raised in ‘Other matters’.
Exemptions cited: EIR 11(4); EIR 12(4)(b); EIR 14(2); EIR 5(2)
View Nottingham City Council
19 Feb 2026Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
1. The complainant has requested information on pupil travel data relating to Elthorne Park High School, traffic and air pollution data and child collision data. The London Borough of Ealing (“the Council”) responded and provided the requested information. The Council responded again advising that the information was not held by the Council but by the school. Four months later the Council issued a further response stating that the requested information was held and provided the information again. The Commissioner’s decision is that although the Council provided contradictory responses, the requested information was provided within the time for compliance. The Commissioner does not require the Council to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 5; FOI 1
19 Feb 2026Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from Ministry of Defence about the classification and risk treatment of flight-simulation proposal. 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 Ministry of Defence
19 Feb 2026Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The Commissioner’s decision is that Cheshire Constabulary correctly refused the complainant’s request for information associated with Operation Hummingbird under sections 40(2) and 23(5) of FOIA. These exemptions concern personal data and information supplied by, or relating to, bodies dealing with security matters. However, the timeliness of Cheshire Constabulary’s refusal didn’t comply with section 17(1). The Commissioner doesn’t require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40(2); FOI 17(1); FOI 23(5)
View Cheshire Constabulary
19 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 Education
19 Feb 2026Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about two IT products from the Home Office. The Home Office would neither confirm nor deny (“NCND”) holding any information, citing section 31(3) (Law enforcement) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that it was entitled to do so. No steps are required.
Exemptions cited: FOI 31
View Home Office
19 Feb 2026Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about costs for the rebranding of the ‘Metro’ transport network. The West Yorkshire Combined Authority refused to disclose the information under section 43(2) (Commercial interests). The Commissioner’s decision is that, in respect of that information which is held by the Authority, the Authority is entitled to withhold it under section 43(2). The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 43(2)
View West Yorkshire Combined Authority
18 Feb 2026Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information relating to the removal of cherry trees. Oxford City Council (the “council”) disclosed information and confirmed that further information wasn’t held. The complainant disputes this. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the council has disclosed all the relevant information it holds and that it complied with regulation 5(1) of the EIR. The Commissioner does not require the council to take further steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 5(1)
View Oxford City Council
18 Feb 2026Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to a meeting between the First Minister and the Chair of the Executive Office Assembly Committee. The Executive Office disclosed some information but withheld the remainder in reliance on the exemptions at section 35(1)(b) (Ministerial communications), section 35(1)(d) (operation of Ministerial private offices), 40(2) (third party personal data) and section 42 (legal professional privilege). The Commissioner’s decision is that the Executive Office was entitled to rely on section 42, and entitled to rely on section 35(1)(d) in respect of some information. However the Executive Office was not entitled to rely on section 35(1)(b), or on section 35(1)(d) in respect of some information. The Commissioner requires the Executive Office to disclose the information withheld under section 35(1)(b); and disclose the information withheld under section 35(1)(d) with the exception of the handwritten note. The handwritten note, the legal advice and th
Exemptions cited: FOI 35; FOI 40; FOI 42
View The Executive Office (Northern Ireland)
18 Feb 2026Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The public authority has failed to respond to this request within 20 working days, as specified in the EIR. The Commissioner requires it to provide the complainant with a response to this request within 30 calendar days in accordance with its obligations under the EIR.
Exemptions cited: EIR 5(2)
View London Borough of Croydon
18 Feb 2026Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
1. The complainant has requested data and information on the “Admissions Expressed’ spreadsheet for Reception 2025 including parental preferences for three Carlton Academy Trust schools. The City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council (BMDC) initially relied on section 22 (information intended for future publication) but revised its position to rely on section 40(2) of FOIA (third party personal information) to withhold the information.
2. The Commissioner’s decision is that BMDC has correctly relied on section 40(2) of FOIA to withhold some of the information, namely the direct identifiers which are personal data. The Commissioner finds, however, that not all of the information is personal data.
3. The Commissioner requires BMDC to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation.
• Disclose the redacted spreadsheets, containing no personal data, which it shared with the Commissioner, to the complainant.
4. BMDC must take these steps within 30 calendar days of th
Exemptions cited: FOI 40(2)
View City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council
18 Feb 2026Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information on how potential conflicts of interest were identified and managed in relation to government decision making on the Chagos Islands. The Attorney General’s Office (AGO) disclosed some information and withheld some information under section 35(1)(c) (Formulation of government policy, etc). It would neither confirm nor deny (NCND) whether it held information relating to the management of conflicts between the Attorney General and Philippe Sands KC, citing section 35(3) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the AGO correctly applied sections 35(1)(c) and 35(3) of FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 35
View Attorney General's Office
18 Feb 2026Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested a copy of a report into an internal investigation. South East Coast Ambulance Service NHS Foundation Trust (“the Trust”) refused to disclose the requested information, citing section 41 (information provided in confidence) and section 40(2) (personal information). The Commissioner’s decision is that the requested information is exempt under section 41. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 41
View South East Coast Ambulance Service NHS Foundation Trust
17 Feb 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 Ealing Council
17 Feb 2026Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The Commissioner’s decision is that the complainant’s request for information about a pre-verdict briefing associated with the Lucy Letby case isn’t a vexatious request under section 14(1) of FOIA. Cheshire Constabulary must take the following step to ensure compliance with the legislation: Provide the complainant with a fresh response to their request that doesn’t rely on section 14(1) of FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14(1)
View Cheshire Constabulary
17 Feb 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
17 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 Salford City Council
17 Feb 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, West Midlands Combined Authority has not issued a response to the request. The Commissioner requires it to provide the complainant with a response to this request within 30 calendar days in accordance with its obligations under FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View West Midlands Combined Authority
17 Feb 2026Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about the training given to civil enforcement officers (CEO), and how long a particular CEO had been working for the Council. The London Borough of Havering (“the Council”) said it held no information in relation to CEO training. The Commissioner’s decision is that on the balance of probabilities, the Council does not hold further information in scope of the request. The Commissioner does not require any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View London Borough of Havering
17 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 Somerset Council
17 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 Oxford University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust
17 Feb 2026Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested Animals in Science Regulation Unit audit reports for a named site. The Home Office refused to confirm or deny whether it held the requested information, citing section 38(2) (health and safety) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Home Office was entitled to rely on section 38(2) to neither confirm nor deny (NCND) whether it held the requested information. The Commissioner does not require the Home Office to take any further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 38
View Home Office
16 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
16 Feb 2026Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information about the Department for Work and Pensions’ (DWP) equality data collection. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, DWP does not hold further information to that provided to the complainant. The Commissioner does however find that DWP breached section 10(1) as it did not provide the information within the statutory timeframe. The Commissioner does not require DWP to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10; FOI 16
View Department for Work and Pensions
16 Feb 2026Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested from Police Service Northern Ireland (PSNI) information relating to race hate crimes in Belfast City East. PSNI refused to confirm or deny whether information was held and cited sections 30(3) (Investigations and proceedings) and 31(3) (Law enforcement) of FOIA.
The Commissioner’s decision is that PSNI was entitled to rely on section 30(3) of FOIA to neither confirm nor deny (NCND) that it holds the requested information. The Commissioner does not require PSNI to take any steps as a result to this decision.
Exemptions cited: FOI 30(3)
View Police Service of Northern Ireland
16 Feb 2026Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested statistical information from the Ministry of Defence (MOD) about the number of sexual offences in the Army where the victims were in a particular demographic. The MOD withheld the information on the basis of sections 38(1)(a) (health and safety) and section 40(2) (personal data) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the requested information is exempt from disclosure on the basis of section 40(2) of FOIA. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View Ministry of Defence
16 Feb 2026Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information held relating to or containing the phrase “Copyright and Database Exception” for a specific period. The Intellectual Property Office (IPO) provided some information within the scope of the request but cited section 40(2)- personal information, section 21- accessible by other means and section 35(1)(a)- formulation of government policy, etc to refuse to provide the remaining information.
The complainant contacted the Commissioner to complain about the IPO’s application of section 35 therefore, the Commissioner has not considered the application of the other exemptions in this decision notice.
The Commissioner’s decision is that section 35(1)(a) is engaged and the public interest favours withholding the information.
The Commissioner does not require any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 35(1)(a)
View Intellectual Property Office
16 Feb 2026Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information held in relation to the UK's submission of defence spending data from the Ministry of Defence (MOD). The MOD withheld information falling within scope of the request on the basis of sections 27(1)(a) and (b) (international relations) of FOIA.
The Commissioner’s decision is that the redacted information is exempt from disclosure on the basis of section 27(1) (b) and the public interest favours maintaining this exemption.
The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 27(1)(a); FOI 27(1)(b)
View Ministry of Defence
16 Feb 2026Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The Commissioner’s decision is that the Health and Safety Executive correctly applied the exemption under section 30(1)(b) of FOIA to some information within scope of the request about fairground incidents. This exemption concerns investigations and proceedings. However, there was a breach of sections 1(1) and 10(1), which concern timeliness. The Commissioner doesn’t require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1(1)
View Health and Safety Executive
16 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 HM Treasury
16 Feb 2026Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The Commissioner’s decision is that the Financial Conduct Authority was entitled to withhold information associated with Lloyds Banking Group under section 44(1)(a) of FOIA. This exemption concerns prohibitions on disclosure. The Commissioner doesn’t require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 44(1)(a)
View Financial Conduct Authority
16 Feb 2026Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information about accommodation outside the London Borough of Newham (the Council) area. The Council provided some information, cited the cost limit at section 12 of FOIA in respect of some information, and withheld some information under section 43(2) of FOIA (commercial interests). The complaint was limited to the information withheld under section 43(2). The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council was entitled to rely on section 43(2). No steps are required.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10; FOI 43
View Newham Council
16 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 THE PASTURES PRIMARY SCHOOL
16 Feb 2026Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information on complaints recorded at a named dental practice and against a named dentist. The Care Quality Commission (CQC) refused the request, citing sections 31, 40, 41 and 44 FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the majority of the information constitutes personal data and the CQC has correctly withheld this under section 40(2) FOIA. For a small amount of information that may not be personal data the Commissioner finds the CQC has correctly withheld this under section 41 FOIA. No steps are required.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40; FOI 41
View CQC
16 Feb 2026Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to specified legislation. The Department of Finance (the Department) initially provided a link to some information and stated that it did not hold the remainder. However it transpired that the Department had misinterpreted the request and it did not in fact hold any of the requested information. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Department failed to comply with section 1(1)(a) and section 10(1) of FOIA in respect of part 1 of the request, but that it did subsequently comply with section 1(1)(a) and section 10(1) in respect of part 2. No steps are required.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10
View Department of Finance
16 Feb 2026Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about operational firearms and ammunition from the Metropolitan Police Service (the “MPS”). The MPS initially refused to disclose any information, citing section 31(1)(a) (Law enforcement) of FOIA. During the Commissioner’s investigation, the MPS revised its position. It disclosed some information but withheld the remainder, citing sections 31(1)(a) and 24(1) (National security) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the MPS was entitled to rely on section 24(1) of FOIA to refuse to provide the remaining information. He does not require any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 24
View Metropolitan Police Service
16 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 London Borough of Tower Hamlets
16 Feb 2026Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information on complaints recorded at a named dental practice and against a named dentist. The Care Quality Commission (CQC) refused the request, citing sections 31, 40, 41 and 44 FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the majority of the information constitutes personal data and the CQC has correctly withheld this under section 40(2) FOIA. For a small amount of information that may not be personal data the Commissioner finds the CQC has correctly withheld this under section 41 FOIA. No steps are required.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40; FOI 41
View CQC
16 Feb 2026Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) about its media communications strategy in relation to charges brought against Axel Rudakubana. The CPS disclosed some information but withheld the remainder, citing sections 30(1)(c) (Investigations and proceedings), 36(2)(b)(i) and (ii) (Prejudice to effective conduct of public affairs), 40(2) (Personal information) and 42(1) (Legal professional privilege) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the CPS was entitled to rely on sections 30(1)(c), 36(2)(b)(i) and (ii) and 42(1) (Legal professional privilege) to withhold the remaining information.
Exemptions cited: FOI 30; FOI 36; FOI 42
View Crown Prosecution Service
16 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 East Lancashire Hospitals NHS Trust
16 Feb 2026Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information held by Torridge District Council (the council) regarding the Appledore Clean Maritime Innovation Centre development project. The council responded to the request under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA) and provided what it considered to be a full response. The Commissioner considers that the request was for environmental information and that the EIR is therefore the correct access regime. The Commissioner considers that the council failed to provide information that answered one part of the complainant’s request. However, he is satisfied that, on the balance of probabilities, this information is not held by the council, and it is therefore entitled to rely on regulation 12(4)(a) (information not held) of the EIR to refuse this part of the request. For the remaining parts of the request, the Commissioner is satisfied that the council has provided the complainant with the relevant information it holds. The Commissioner does not require any
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(a); EIR 5
View Torridge District Council