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
13 Feb 2026Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to a school trip. The Core Education Trust (‘the Trust’) refused the request as vexatious. The Commissioner’s decision is that the request is vexatious and the Trust isn’t obliged to comply with it. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14(1); FOI 17
View CORE EDUCATION TRUST
13 Feb 2026Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested local authority and housing association letting data. In their request, the complainant specified a preference to receive the requested information in excel format. The London Borough of Lambeth (“the Council”) provided some information in an image of an excel table, and stated that the remaining information was not held. During the course of the Commissioner’s investigation, the Council amended its position and stated that it held information within scope of the majority of the request and would disclose it to the complainant. It stated that the remainder of the information wasn’t held at the time of the request. The Council provided some information in the requested format however the complainant maintained that the data is incomplete. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has not met its obligations at sections 1(1) (information held), 10 (time limits for compliance) and 11 (means by which communication to be made). The Commissioner requires t
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10; FOI 11
View London Borough of Lambeth
13 Feb 2026Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has made three separate requests to Barts Health NHS Trust (the Trust) seeking information about the care provided to a relative. The requests concern staff involvement and training in suctioning procedures, the roles and decision making processes of staff involved in the relative’s wider care, and detailed information about a specific medication regimen administered to the relative including clinical justification, monitoring, and audit evidence. The Trust provided the complainant with details of staff training and policies relating to suctioning procedures. However, it refused to confirm or deny whether it held the remainder of the requested information. The Trust consider any such information would be subject to a duty of confidence if held and that it would therefore be exempt from the duty to confirm or deny under section 41(2) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Trust is entitled to rely on the exemption from the duty to confirm or deny whether the re
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 16; FOI 17; FOI 41(2)
View Barts Health NHS Trust
13 Feb 2026Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to the Voices of Resilience event, which was held in Manchester. Greater Manchester Combined Authority (“the authority”) responded that it did not hold the requested information. Following a second request for the information the authority subsequently disclosed information falling within the scope of the first request. It confirmed its error, and admitted that its initial searches had proved to be inadequate. The complainant therefore considered that further information may be held by the authority. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the authority does not hold any further information falling within the scope of the request. However, he has also decided that the authority failed to comply with section 10(1) of FOIA. As all of the information which is held has now been disclosed, the Commissioner does not require the authority to take any further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10(1)
View Greater Manchester Combined Authority
13 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, Isley of Anglesey County Council 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 Isle of Anglesey County Council
13 Feb 2026Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The Commissioner’s decision is that Cheshire Constabulary isn’t entitled to rely on section 12(1) of FOIA to refuse the complainant’s request for information associated with the Lucy Letby case. The Commissioner requires Cheshire Constabulary to take the following step to ensure compliance with the legislation: Issue the complainant with a fresh response to their request that doesn’t rely on section 12(1).
Exemptions cited: FOI 12(1)
View Cheshire Constabulary
13 Feb 2026Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information relating to the examination of the SP16 Birchington strategic housing site. The Planning Inspectorate (“PINS”) responded stating that it did not hold the requested information. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, PINS does not hold information falling within the scope of the request. The Commissioner has therefore decided that PINS was correct to apply Regulation 12(4)(a) to refuse the request. The Commissioner does not require the council to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(a)
View Planning Inspectorate
12 Feb 2026Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information on asylum seekers. The Home Office disclosed some information and withheld other information under the exemptions for law enforcement (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, places of death of the deceased and, where they are already in the public domain, their names. He also finds that the Home Office complied with section 1 but disclosed some information outside the time for compliance, breaching section 10. The Commissioner requires the Home Office to disclose the nationalities and places of death of the deceased falling within the scope of the request and, the names of the deceased identified in the confidential annex to this notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10; FOI 31; FOI 38; FOI 41
View Home Office
12 Feb 2026Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about NHS Trust governors. East Kent Hospitals University NHS Foundation Trust (‘the Trust’) stated that it didn’t hold some of the requested information and relied on section 40(2) of FOIA (third party personal information) for information about the professional backgrounds and experience of current and former staff governors. It relied on section 21 of FOIA (information accessible by other means) to withhold the requested copies of meeting minutes. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the Trust does not hold the information requested in parts two and three of the request, but it likely does hold some information about the professional background and experience of some of its public governors. He finds that the Trust was entitled to rely on section 40(2) of FOIA to withhold the information about the professional backgrounds and experience of its current and former governors. He has proactively applied section 4
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 21; FOI 40(2)
View East Kent Hospitals University NHS Foundation Trust
12 Feb 2026Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information in respect of a feeder pillar for two electric charging units at a specified location. Westminster City Council (the Council) refused the request on the basis of regulation 12(4)(b) (manifestly unreasonable) of the EIR. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council was entitled to refuse the request on the basis of regulation 12(4)(b) of the EIR. The Commissioner does not require any steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(b)
View Westminster Council
12 Feb 2026Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested various information from Hastings and Rother Healthcare (the Practice) in respect of its Triage process. The Practice provided some information, but withheld other information on the basis of section 43 (commercial interests) of the FOIA. The complainant also expressed concern that the Practice’s explanation of the triage procedures and supporting documents “are vague and otherwise unclear”. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Practice was entitled to rely on section 43 to refuse those parts of the request it withheld on that basis. The Commissioner has also concluded, that based on the balance of probabilities, it has provided all information it holds relevant to the request. The Commissioner does not require any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 43
12 Feb 2026Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to individuals who had died whilst awaiting the outcome of an asylum application. The Home Office disclosed some information and withheld other information under the exemptions for health and safety (section 38) and information provided in confidence (section 41). The Commissioner’s decision is that the Home Office has not demonstrated section 38 and section 41 are engaged in respect of the nationalities of the deceased in the scope of the request, He also finds that the Home Office disclosed other information in accordance with section 1 but failed to do so in time and breached section 10(1). The Commissioner requires the Home Office to disclose the nationalities information in part 2(b) of the request.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10; FOI 38; FOI 41
View Home Office
12 Feb 2026Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information regarding the Home Office’s cooperation with Turkey on upstream capacity building programmes for irregular migration. The Home Office relied on sections 27(4) (international relations) and 31(3) (law enforcement) of FOIA to neither confirm nor deny whether it holds the requested information. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Home Office correctly relied on section 27(4) of FOIA to neither confirm nor deny holding the requested information. The Commissioner does not require the Home Office to take any further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 27
View Home Office
12 Feb 2026Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted an information request to Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust (the trust) for the number of nurse and midwife referrals made to the Nursing and Midwifery Council over a five-year period.
The Commissioner’s decision is that the trust was not entitled to rely upon section 40(2) (third-party personal data) of FOIA to withhold the requested information.
The Commissioner requires the trust to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation:
• Disclose the requested information.
The trust 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 40(2)
View Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust
12 Feb 2026Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from London Borough of Enfield about payment prices paid to independent and voluntary sector Homecare Providers. 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 Enfield Council
12 Feb 2026Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant sought correspondence and meeting minutes from NICIE relating to the governance and financial management at Shimna Integrated College that had been exchanged with the College's Board of Governors since September 2021. NICIE provided information in full for part two of the request (meeting minutes) but relied on section 12 of FOIA (cost of compliance) to refuse the remainder of the request.
The Commissioner’s decision is that NICIE was entitled to rely on section 12(1) of FOIA to refuse the request. The Commissioner also finds that the public authority complied with its section 16 obligation to offer advice and assistance.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12
12 Feb 2026Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested various information about a gardening contract. Chapel St Leonards Parish Council (the Council) refused to comply with the request, citing section 14 of the FOIA (vexatious requests). The Commissioner’s decision is that the request is not vexatious and the Council is not therefore entitled to rely on section 14(1). The Commissioner requires the Council to issue a fresh response to the request which does not rely on section 14(1).
Exemptions cited: FOI 14
11 Feb 2026Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information regarding when and how the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) decided on benefit claimant savings limits and the amount of deductions from benefits when these thresholds are met. The Commissioner's decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, DWP does not hold the requested information. The Commissioner does not require DWP to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Department for Work and Pensions
11 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 Home Office
11 Feb 2026Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to the Cabinet Office seeking advice documents and briefing papers, presented to ministers and/or senior civil servants concerning whether it was the intention to renew the Disability Action Plan commitment to provide BSL interpretation ‘in situ’ for government press conferences. The Cabinet Office withheld the information falling within the scope of the request on the basis of sections 35(1)(a) (formulation or development of government policy) and 35(1)(b) (Ministerial communications). The Commissioner’s decision is that the withheld information is exempt from disclosure on the basis of sections 35(1)(a) and 35(1)(b). However in relation to both exemptions the public interest in favour of disclosure of the information outweighs the public interest in maintaining the exemption.
Exemptions cited: FOI 35(1)(a); FOI 35(1)(b)
View Cabinet Office
11 Feb 2026Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from UK Health Security Agency about a formal evidenced 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 UK Health Security Agency
11 Feb 2026Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information about spending on highways maintenance broken down by electoral ward and parliamentary constituency. Cheshire East Council (the “council”) stated that it didn’t hold the information. The complainant disputes the council’s position. The Commissioner is satisfied that on the balance of probabilities, the council does not hold information falling within the scope of the request. Therefore, his decision is that the council is entitled to rely on regulation 12(4)(a) (information not held) of the EIR to refuse to provide the requested information. The Commissioner does not require the council to take further steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(e)
View Cheshire East Council
11 Feb 2026Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested a report relating to potential land contamination. Cheshire West and Chester Council withheld the information under the exceptions provided by regulation 12(5)(b) (course of justice, etc.) and regulation 12(5)(e) (confidentiality of commercial or industrial information) of the EIR. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council is entitled to withhold the information under regulation 12(5)(b). The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(b)
View Cheshire West and Chester Council
11 Feb 2026Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information about a planning application. The Borough Council of King’s Lynn and West Norfolk (‘the Council’) relied on section 14(1) of FOIA (vexatious request) to refuse the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the request is manifestly unreasonable under regulation 12(4)(b) of the EIR and the Council isn’t obliged to comply with it. He has 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)
11 Feb 2026Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information in respect of an historic murder case.
The above public authority (the “public authority”) relied on section 12(1) (cost limit) of FOIA to refuse the request.
The Commissioner’s decision is that the public authority was entitled to refuse to comply with the request in accordance with section 12(1).
The Commissioner finds that the public authority did not comply with its obligations under section 16 of FOIA to offer advice and assistance.
No steps are required.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12(1); FOI 16
View Surrey Police
11 Feb 2026Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to the Ministry of Defence (MOD) seeking information on the usage of Defence Science and Technology Laboratory Porton Down range. The MOD withheld the requested information on the basis of sections 24(1) (national security), 26(1)(b) (defence), 31(1)(a) (law enforcement) and 38(1) (health and safety) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the requested information is exempt from disclosure on the basis of section 26(1)(b) of FOIA and that the public interest favours maintaining the exemption.
Exemptions cited: FOI 26
View Ministry of Defence
11 Feb 2026Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested the information used in the decision-making process for a proposed change to the personal independence payment (PIP) scoring system. The Commissioner's decision is that the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) has failed to fully consider all of the information specified in the complainant's request and has not therefore complied with section 1(1)(a). The Commissioner requires DWP to issue a fresh response to the complainant that considers all of the information falling within the scope of the request and either disclose the information or, in respect of any information it wishes to withhold, issue a refusal notice within the meaning of section 17 of FOIA providing a basis for withholding the 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 ma
Exemptions cited: FOI 17
View Department for Work and Pensions
10 Feb 2026Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
1. The complainant has requested information from Northern Ireland Housing Executive (NIHE) in relation to its housing scheme. NIHE refused the request, citing sections 36(2)(b)(i) and (ii), and 36(2)(c) (prejudice to effective conduct of public affairs) of FOIA. NIHE later applied section 42 of FOIA (legal professional privilege) to some of the requested information.
2. The Commissioner’s decision is that NIHE has correctly applied sections 36(2)(b)(i) and (ii) to the requested information. As the Commissioner is satisfied that sections 36(2)(b)(i) and (ii) apply to the entirety of the requested information, he has not gone on to consider the application of sections 36(2)(c) and 42 of FOIA.
3. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 36
View Northern Ireland Housing Executive
10 Feb 2026Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information demonstrating Humberside Police are not subject to various national policing guidelines. Humberside Police stated no relevant information was held. The Commissioner’s decision is that Humberside Police does not hold information falling with the scope of the request. No steps are required.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Humberside Police
10 Feb 2026Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested the FCA to disclose information relating to its investigation into Collingwood Wealth LLP and the regulated firm WealthTek, and the cashflows between the two businesses. The FCA refused to disclose the information citing section 31(1)(g) by virtue of section 32(1)(a) and (c) (law enforcement) and 44 (prohibitions on disclosure) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the FCA is entitled to withhold the information in accordance with section 31(1)(g) by virtue of section 32(2)(a) and (c) of FOIA. The Commissioner does not require further steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 31(1)(g)
View Financial Conduct Authority
10 Feb 2026Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information on road safety/traffic in relation to a specific development. Oxfordshire County Council (the “council”) confirmed that it didn’t hold the information. The complainant disputes the council’s position. The Commissioner is satisfied that on the balance of probabilities, the council does not hold information within the scope of the request. Therefore, his decision is that the council is entitled to rely on regulation 12(4)(a) (information not held) of the EIR to refuse to provide the requested information. However, in issuing a late response to the complainant, the Commissioner also finds that the council breached regulation 14(2). The Commissioner does not require the council to take further steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(a); EIR 14(2)
View Oxfordshire County Council
10 Feb 2026Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to Department for Culture, Media & Sport (DCMS) for specific information concerning the governance and performance of Sport England and England Boxing. DCMS initially provided the complainant with one of the three documents held within scope of his request, with redactions for information exempt under section 40(2)(third party personal data). DCMS withheld the other two documents under section 36(2)(b)(ii) (prejudice to the free and frank exchange of views for the purposes of deliberation). DCMS maintained their position at internal review.
During the course of the Commissioner’s investigation DCMS disclosed to the complainant a heavily redacted copy of one of the other two documents, the redacted information being withheld under section 36(2)(b)(ii), and a further page of the document previously disclosed with redactions for section 40(2).
The Commissioner’s decision is that the withheld information is exempt from disclosure on the basis of se
Exemptions cited: FOI 10(1); FOI 36(2)(b)(ii); FOI 17(1)
View Department for Culture, Media and Sport
10 Feb 2026Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information about a review into the awarding of an honour to Rebecca Hilsenrath. The Ministry of Justice (“MOJ”) withheld some information under section 37(1)(b) of FOIA (the conferring by the Crown of any honour or dignity). It neither confirmed nor denied holding other information under section 37(2) of FOIA. The Commissioner is satisfied that the MOJ correctly refused to confirm or deny holding some information under section 37(2) of FOIA. The Commissioner has determined that some of the information withheld under section 37(1)(b) of FOIA is the personal data of the complainant. This is exempt from disclosure under section 40(1) of FOIA. The Commissioner has proactively applied that exemption to the relevant information and would refer the MOJ to the Other Matters section of this notice. The Commissioner is satisfied that the remainder of the information withheld under section 37(1)(b) has been correctly withheld. The Commissioner does not require the MOJ t
Exemptions cited: FOI 37(2); FOI 40(1); FOI 37(1)(b)
View Ministry of Justice
10 Feb 2026Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to the Ministry of Defence (MOD) seeking a list of all editions (with page numbers) of "AD 080-070 Joint Targeting in ACO" (the Directive) and a copy of the current version. The MOD said it did not hold a list of all editions and relied on sections 27(1)(a), 27(1)(b) and 27(2) (international relations) to withhold the current version of the Directive. The Commissioner’s decision is that the MOD does not hold a list of all editions of the Directive. The current version of the Directive is also exempt from disclosure on the basis of section 27(1)(b) and the public interest favours withholding the information. The MOD also breached sections 1(1)(a), 10(1) and 17(1) FOIA by responding outside the statutory time limits for compliance to request for information. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 1(1)(a); FOI 10(1); FOI 17(1); FOI 27(1)(b)
View Ministry of Defence
10 Feb 2026Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about governing board meetings from Emerson Valley School (EVS). EVS is part of the 5 Dimensions Trust. Under FOIA, 5 Dimensions Trust is the public authority, however, for the purposes of this decision notice EVS will be referenced throughout. EVS disclosed some information but withheld the remainder, citing section 40 of FOIA. During the Commissioner’s investigation a substantial amount of additional information was disclosed, leaving only a small amount which remained exempt under section 40 of FOIA. There was also some dispute over whether EVS held a headteacher’s report. The Commissioner’s decision is that EVS is entitled to rely on section 40 of FOIA for the remaining withheld information. And, on the balance of probabilities it does not hold the headteacher’s report referenced by the complainant. The Commissioner has however recorded breaches of section 1(1)(b) and 10 of FOIA for failing to provide information to the complainant which th
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10; FOI 40
9 Feb 2026Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a multipart request to Barnet Homes Limited for various information about housing relocation, medical safeguarding, property allocations and refurbishments. Barnet Homes disclosed the majority of the information but refused to comply with the remainder of request on the basis of section 12 (costs exceed the appropriate limit) FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that Barnet Homes was entitled to rely on section 12(1) FOIA to refuse to comply with the remainder of the request. However, it failed to comply with its section 16(1) FOIA obligation to offer advice and assistance in relation to the request.
The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12(1); FOI 16(1)
9 Feb 2026Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant submitted an information request to the Climate Change Committee (CCC) for spreadsheets that set out the gross and baseline costs for the ‘7th Carbon Budget’.
The Commissioner’s decision is that on the balance of probabilities, the CCC does not hold the information being requested, and so regulation 12(4)(a) (information not held) of the EIR applies. However, in initially handling the request under FOIA, and not the EIR, the CCC breached regulations 14(2) and 14(3) of the EIR.
The Commissioner does not require further steps, as a result of this decision notice.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(a); EIR 14(3); EIR 14(2)
View Committee on Climate Change
9 Feb 2026Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to Barnet Homes Limited (Barnet Homes) for various information about its publication of FOI responses, a list of FOI responses for an 11 month period and raised concerns that FOI responses were not being routinely published on the Barnet Homes’ website. Barnet Homes provided a range of information to the complainant but refused to provide the list of FOI responses citing section 22 FOIA (information intended for future publication). The Commissioner’s decision is that that Barnet Homes was entitled to rely on section 22 to refuse the request. However, Barnet Homes breached section 17(1) by failing to issue its refusal notice within 20 working days of the request. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 22; FOI 17(1)
9 Feb 2026Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant submitted a nine part request to Kent County Council (the council) for ecological and environmental data relating to the Hermitage Quarry site and Oaken Wood. The complainant was not satisfied with the council’s response to two parts of their request, believing additional information was held in relation to part 1, and might be held in relation to part 6. During the Commissioner’s investigation, the council provided the complainant with additional information relevant to part 1 of the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the council has now provided the complainant with all of the information it holds falling within scope of part 1, and that it does not hold further information relevant to part 6, of their request. As the council failed to provide the complainant with any of the information it held falling within scope of the request within 20 working days, the Commissioner has found a breach of regulation 5(2) of the EIR. Addit
Exemptions cited: EIR 11(4); EIR 5(1); EIR 5(2)
View Kent County Council
9 Feb 2026Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
This decision notice refers to a subject matter – the Lucy Letby case - that some readers may find distressing. In a four part request, the complainant asked the Countess of Chester Hospital NHS Foundation Trust (‘the Trust’) for information about staffing levels and for an email sent by Dr Ravi Jayaram. The Trust refused to provide the information, relying on sections 31(1)(a), (b), (c) and 31(1)(g) of FOIA, which relate to law enforcement.In its final position, the Trust said it could release some aggregate information, and other information, relevant to requests 1, 2 and 3. It said that section 40(2) (personal data) applied to parts of requests 1 and 3, and that section 12 (cost of compliance) also applied to request 2. However, the Trust continued to maintain its reliance on the four section 31 exemptions for the information it continues to withhold. The Commissioner has decided that sections 31(1)(a), 31(1)(b) and 31(1)(c) of FOIA were correctly applied to the withheld information
Exemptions cited: FOI 31(1)
View Chester Hospital NHS Trust
9 Feb 2026Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information relating to the installation of new bus gates. Bristol City Council (the Council) disclosed some information at the time of the request, and additional information was disclosed during the course of the Commissioner’s investigation.
The Commissioner finds that the Council’s original searches for the requested information were inadequate because it did not locate all the information falling within the scope of the request. The Commissioner also concludes on the balance of probabilities that, following the disclosure during his investigation, no further information falling within the scope of the request is held.
However, in failing to provide its original response within 20 working days, the Council breached regulation 5(2) of the EIR.
The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 5(1); EIR 5(2)
View Bristol City Council
9 Feb 2026Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about service charges for estates and blocks in the borough. In their request, the complainant specified a preference for the information to be provided in .CSV format. The London Borough of Lambeth (“the Council”) provided the complainant with some information within scope of the request in PDF format. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has not complied with the provisions of sections 1 (information held/not held), 10 (time limits for responding) or 11 (means by which communication to be made) of FOIA. The Commissioner requires the Council to disclose the requested information to the complainant in the format specified in their 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: FOI 1; FOI 10; FOI 11
View London Borough of Lambeth
9 Feb 2026Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant submitted an information request to the London Borough of Brent (the council) in relation to Development Project 21/4690 for Windmill Court.
The Commissioner’s decision is that the council was entitled to rely upon regulation 12(4)(e)(internal communications) of the EIR but that the balance of the public interest favours disclosure. However, in relation to regulation 13(1) (personal data) of the EIR, the Commissioner finds that the exception was engaged.
The Commissioner requires the council to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation:
• Disclose the information withheld under regulation 12(4)(e) of the EIR, with any personal data redacted in accordance with his guidance.
The council must take these steps within 30 calendar days of the date of this decision notice. Failure to comply may result in the Commissioner making written certification of this fact to the High Court pursuant to section 54 of the Act and may be dealt with as a contempt of
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(e); EIR 13(1)
View London Borough of Brent
9 Feb 2026Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
This decision notice refers to a subject matter – the Lucy Letby case - that some readers may find distressing. Through five requests, the complainant asked the Countess of Chester Hospital NHS Foundation Trust (‘the Trust’) for information about blood sampling. The Trust refused the requests, relying on sections 31(1)(a), (b), (c) and 31(1)(g) of FOIA, which relate to law enforcement. The Commissioner has decided that requests 2 – 5 aren’t valid requests for recorded information under section 8(1) of FOIA and that sections 31(1)(a), 31(1)(b) and 31(1)(c) were correctly applied to request 1. No further action is required from the Trust.
Exemptions cited: FOI 31(1); FOI 8(1)
View Chester Hospital NHS Trust
9 Feb 2026Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested email correspondence between the dutyholder of the Vision Point development and the Building Safety Regulator (BSR). The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) relied on regulation 12(5)(d) (confidentiality of proceedings) and regulation 13 of the EIR (third party personal information) to withhold the information. The Commissioner’s decision is that HSE has correctly applied regulation 12(5)(d) to all the withheld information and that the balance of the public interest favours maintaining the exception. The Commissioner does not require further steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(d)
View Health and Safety Executive
9 Feb 2026Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to COBR (Cabinet Office Briefing Rooms ) meetings on Drone incursions at RAF bases.
The Cabinet Office would neither confirm nor deny holding the requested information citing section 24(2) (national security) of FOIA.
The Commissioner’s decision is that the Cabinet Office was entitled to rely on section 24(2) of FOIA to refuse to confirm or deny that any information was held.
The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 24(2)
View Cabinet Office
9 Feb 2026Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to quality assurance reports. The London Borough of Islington (the Council) relied on section 14(1) of FOIA (vexatious) to refuse the request.
The Commissioner’s decision is that the request was not vexatious and therefore the Council was not entitled to rely upon section 14(1) of FOIA to refuse it.
The Commissioner requires the Council to take the following step to ensure compliance with the legislation - Issue a fresh response to the request that does not rely on section 14(1) of FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14(1)
View Islington Council
9 Feb 2026Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about liabilities related to a particular charity. The Charity Commission relied on section 31(3) of FOIA (law enforcement) to neither confirm nor deny whether it held the requested information. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Charity Commission was entitled to rely on section 31(3) of FOIA to neither confirm nor deny whether it held the requested information. He also finds that the Charity Commission breached sections 10(1) and 17(1) of FOIA by failing to provide its refusal within 20 working days. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 17; FOI 31(3)
View The Charity Commission
9 Feb 2026Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a multipart request to the London Borough of Barnet (the Council) for various information about Care Act Assessments, safeguarding, Multi-Agency Safeguarding Hub Referrals, subject access requests, FOIA compliance, data handling, Ombudsman cases, complaints handling, and internal decision-making. The Council refused to comply with the request on the basis of section 12 (costs exceed the appropriate limit) FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council failed to provide reasonable advice and assistance to the complainant and so did not comply with section 16 FOIA. However, the Council did not fail to respond to the complainant’s refined request for information within 20 working days and so did not breach section 10 FOIA. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 16
View Barnet Council