6 Feb 2026Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from the BBC about how it handles audience complaints. The BBC responded that the requested information was covered by the derogation and hence excluded from FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that this information is held by the BBC for the purposes of journalism, art or literature and so is not covered by FOIA. He therefore upholds the BBC’s position and requires no steps to be taken in this case.
Exemptions cited: FOI 3
View BBC
6 Feb 2026Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information on notes, records, statements and correspondence between Ealing Council (“the Council”) and particular residents relating to noise nuisance complaints. The Council relied on regulation 13 of the EIR (third party personal information) to withhold the information. The complainant also requested information on allegations made against themself which the public authority refused under regulation 5(3) of the EIR (personal data of the applicant) but responded to as a subject access request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has correctly relied on regulation 13 of the EIR to withhold the information in the scope of the complaint to the Commissioner. The Commissioner does not require further steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: EIR 13
View Ealing Council
6 Feb 2026Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information on notes, records, statements and correspondence between Ealing Council (“the Council”) and particular residents relating to noise nuisance complaints. The Council relied on regulation 13 of the EIR (third party personal information) to withhold the information. The complainant also requested information on allegations made against themself which the public authority refused under regulation 5(3) of the EIR (personal data of the applicant) but responded to as a subject access request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has correctly relied on regulation 13 of the EIR to withhold the information in the scope of the complaint to the Commissioner. The Commissioner does not require further steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: EIR 13
View Ealing Council
6 Feb 2026Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to the Northern Ireland Office (NIO) seeking legal advice on a Private Members’ Bill whose purposes was to modify the effect on domestic law of arrangements relating to the withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the EU. The NIO withheld such advice on the basis of sections 35(1)(a) (formulation or development of government policy) and 42(1) (legal professional privilege) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the withheld information is exempt from disclosure on the basis of section 42(1) and the public interest favours maintaining the exemption.
Exemptions cited: FOI 42(1)
View Northern Ireland Office
6 Feb 2026Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information on curtilage in the context of Important Open Areas. Forest of Dean District Council (the “council”) disclosed some information and confirmed that other information was not held. The complainant disputes the council’s position and considers that further information should be held. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council has not demonstrated, on the balance of probabilities, that it does not hold further information falling within the scope of the complainant's request for information. He also finds that it failed to respond in time and failed to carry out an internal review, breaching regulation 5(2) and regulation 11. The Commissioner requires the council to carry out further searches for information identified in paragraphs 19 and 20 of this notice and issue a fresh response to the complainant.
Exemptions cited: EIR 14; EIR 5(2)
View Forest of Dean District Council
5 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 Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office has not issued a substantive response to this request. Therefore the Commissioner finds a breach of section 10.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
5 Feb 2026Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information from Dacorum Borough Council (“the Council”) relating to a planning enforcement case. The Commissioner is satisfied that on the balance of probabilities, the Council does not hold information within the scope of part 2 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 that information. The Commissioner does not require the Council to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(a)
View Dacorum Borough Council
5 Feb 2026Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information about tree works carried out on a specific road. Cornwall Council (the “council”) refused the request but revised its position during the Commissioner’s investigation and disclosed information to the complainant. The complainant asked the Commissioner to determine whether the council disclosed all the information it holds. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council disclosed all the requested information it holds but that it failed to do this in time, breaching regulation 5(2). He also finds that the council’s internal review was late and that it breached regulation 11(4). The Commissioner does not require the council to take further steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 11(4); EIR 5(2)
View Cornwall Council
5 Feb 2026Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about a Technical Capability Notice (TCN) which the Home Office reportedly issued to Apple Inc. The Home Office would neither confirm nor deny (NCND) whether it held the requested information, citing sections 23(5) (Security bodies), 24(2) (National security), 31(3) (Law enforcement) and 43(3) (Commercial interests) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Home Office was entitled to rely on section 23(5) of FOIA to issue an NCND response to the request.
Exemptions cited: FOI 23; FOI 24
View Home Office
5 Feb 2026Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant made a request for information relating to disclosure of information to the Chief Constable of Essex Police (“Essex Police”). Essex Police provided a link to some general information, however it stated that it did not hold recorded information within the scope of the complainant’s request under section 1(1)(a) of FOIA.
2. The Commissioner considers that Essex Police were correct to confirm that they do not hold the requested information and that on the balance of probabilities this is not held.
3. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Essex Police
5 Feb 2026Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested from The Hillingdon Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust (the Trust) correspondence and minutes about the future of Mount Vernon’s Urgent Care Nurse Practitioner Services. Based on evidence available to the Commissioner, by the date of this notice the Trust has not issued a substantive response to this request. Therefore the Commissioner finds a breach of section 10. The Trust must provide a substantive response to the request in accordance with its obligations under FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View The Hillingdon Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust
5 Feb 2026Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from the BBC about the number of times the President of Government of Spain was referred to as Prime Minister or PM and the legal basis for this. The BBC responded that the requested information, if held, was covered by the derogation and hence excluded from FOIA.
The Commissioner’s decision is that this information, if held at all, is held by the BBC for the purposes of journalism, art or literature and so is not covered by FOIA. He therefore upholds the BBC’s position.
The Commissioner does not require any steps as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: FOI 3
View BBC
5 Feb 2026Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant made a request to Wandsworth Borough Council (the council) for information relating to four-bedroom properties provided to homeless people. The council withheld the full postcodes of the properties under section 40(2) of FOIA, as it considered that disclosing this information 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 full postcodes of the four-bedroom properties. The Commissioner also finds that, on the balance of probabilities, the council provided the complainant with the partial postcodes that it held at the time of the request. However, the Commissioner has recorded a procedural breach of section 10 of FOIA. The Commissioner does not require the council to take any further steps as a result of this decision notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 40(2)
View London Borough of Wandsworth
4 Feb 2026Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to road safety on a particular stretch of road. Lancashire Constabulary relied on sections 21(1) (information accessible to applicant by other means) and 31(1)(a) and (b) (law enforcement) of FOIA to refuse to disclose some of the information. It also confirmed that it did not hold the remaining information. The Commissioner’s decision is that Lancashire Constabulary was entitled to rely on section 21(1) to withhold the information at part 1 of the request. It was also entitled to rely on sections 31(1)(a) and (b) to withhold the information at parts 2, 4 and the final question within part 3 of the request. Finally, the Commissioner is satisfied that, on the balance of probabilities, Lancashire Constabulary does not hold any information within the descriptions set out at the remaining parts of the request. The Commissioner does not require Lancashire Constabulary to take any further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 21; FOI 31
View Lancashire Constabulary
4 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 Bury Council
4 Feb 2026Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from the University of Manchester. 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 The University of Manchester
3 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
3 Feb 2026Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant made 15 information requests to the University of Cambridge (the university) broadly relating to safeguarding practices and governance of the university. The university refused to comply with the requests, citing section 14 of FOIA (vexatious requests). The Commissioner’s decision is that the university is entitled to refuse to comply with the requests in accordance with section 14 of FOIA. The Commissioner does not require further steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14
View The University of Cambridge
3 Feb 2026Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant made two requests for information about a proposed transfer of functions from the West Midlands Office of the Police and Crime Commissioner to the Mayor of the West Midlands Combined Authority. The West Midlands Combined Authority (‘WMCA’) aggregated the requests and relied on section 12(1) of FOIA (cost limit) to refuse them. The Commissioner’s decision is that WMCA was entitled to rely on section 12(1) of FOIA to refuse the requests. He also finds that WMCA did not comply with its obligations under section 16 of FOIA (advice and assistance. Furthermore, by failing to confirm it held the requested information within 20 working days, WMCA breached section 1(1)(a) of FOIA. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1(1); FOI 12; FOI 16
View West Midlands Combined Authority
3 Feb 2026Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to the systems used by the Home Office to store information about the Gatwick drone incident (Operation Trebor). The Home Office relied on section 24(1) (national security) of FOIA to refuse to disclose the information at part one of the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Home Office was entitled to rely on section 24(1) of FOIA to withhold the information at part one of the request, and that the balance of the public interest favours maintaining the exemption. The Commissioner does not require the Home Office to take any further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 24
View Home Office
3 Feb 2026Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The Commissioner’s decision is that requested interview questions are exempt from disclosure under section 36(2)(c) of FOIA (prejudice to effective conduct of public affairs). No steps are necessary.
Exemptions cited: FOI 36(2)(c)
View Invest Northern Ireland
3 Feb 2026Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about asylum accommodation. Cheltenham Borough Council (‘the Council’) does not hold information in scope of some of the request and has applied section 24(1) and section 41(1) to information it does hold. These exemptions concern national security and information provided in confidence, respectively. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the Council does not hold further information in scope of part four of the request. The Commissioner finds that the Council was correct to withhold information in scope of question five under section 24(1) and to withhold information in scope of question one, part (a) under section 41(1).The Commissioner has recorded procedural breaches of sections 1, 10(1) and 17. The Commissioner does not require any steps as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10(1); FOI 17; FOI 41(1); FOI 24(1)
View Cheltenham Borough Council
3 Feb 2026Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to London Borough of Tower Hamlets (the council) for information relating to incidents of harm to children at a named primary school.
The Commissioner’s decision is that the council was correct to withhold the requested information under sections 40(1) and 40(2) of FOIA.
The Commissioner does not require further steps, as a result of this decision notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40(1); FOI 40(2)
View London Borough of Tower Hamlets
3 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 Oxford University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust
3 Feb 2026Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested from The Insolvency Service (the Agency) information regarding an HR1 form in relation to redundancies and Labcorp . The Agency relied on section 43(3) (commercial interests) of FOIA to neither confirm nor deny (NCND) whether it held the information requested.
The Commissioner’s decision is that the Agency was entitled to rely on section 43(3) of FOIA to neither confirm nor deny whether the requested information is held. Therefore, the Commissioner does not require the Agency to take any steps as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: FOI 43(3)
3 Feb 2026Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The Commissioner’s decision is that the Competition and Markets Authority is entitled to rely on section 31(1)(g) of FOIA to withhold the requested information about informant reward payments. This exemption concerns law enforcement. The Commissioner doesn’t require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 31(1)(g)
View Competition and Markets Authority
3 Feb 2026Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information about a junction. Transport for London (‘TfL’) refused to comply with the request, citing regulation 12(4)(b) (manifestly unreasonable) of the EIR. The Commissioner’s decision is that the request is manifestly unreasonable and TfL isn’t obliged to deal with it.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(b)
View Transport for London
3 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 Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea
3 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
3 Feb 2026Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information connected to property taken from the premises of a deceased person, from Greater Manchester Police (GMP). GMP initially refused to confirm or deny whether any information was held, citing section 38(2) (Health and safety) of FOIA. During the Commissioner’s investigation GMP revised its position, citing section 40(2) (Personal information) and saying some information was not held; it also recognised that some of the request was for the complainant’s own personal data (it provided advice on how to properly request this).
The Commissioner’s decision is that GMP breached sections 1(1) (General right of access) and 10(1) (Time for compliance) in failing to respond to the request until after 20 working days had elapsed. Furthermore, he finds that GMP failed to comply with section 1 of FOIA in that it did not advise what information was held and did not undertake adequate searches.
GMP is required to disclose the Electronic Property Management Syste
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10
View Greater Manchester Police
3 Feb 2026Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about Council Tax banding changes for several properties on specific streets. The Valuation Office Agency (‘the VOA’) relied on section 44(1)(a) of FOIA (prohibition on disclosure) to withhold the requested information. The Commissioner’s decision is that the VOA was entitled to rely on section 44(1)(a) of FOIA to withhold the requested information. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 44
View Valuation Office Agency
3 Feb 2026Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to the Disclosure and Barring Service (“DBS”) for information on the reasons and legal basis for the barring of a named individual from working with children.
The DBS relied on section 40(5B) of FOIA (personal information) to withhold the information.
The Commissioner’s decision is that, due to information which was already in the public domain when the request was made, the DBS should have relied on section 40(2) of FOIA (personal information) to withhold the information and the Commissioner has therefore proactively applied this exemption.
The Commissioner does not require further steps as a result of this decision notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40(2)
2 Feb 2026Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested Department for Transport (DfT) to disclosed its lessons learned documents relating to the Gatwick Drone incident in 2018. DfT refused to disclose the information citing sections 23(1) (bodies dealing with security matters), 24(1) (national security) and 40 (personal data) of FOIA., No complaint was made about section 40 of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that DfT is entitled to rely on section 23(1) of FOIA for the information to which it has been applied. However, with regards to section 24(1), the Commissioner’s decision is that DfT is not entitled to rely on this exemption for any of the withheld information it has applied it to. The Commissioner requires DfT to disclose the information withheld under section 24(1) of FOIA to the complainant.
Exemptions cited: FOI 24(1); FOI 23(1)
View Department for Transport
2 Feb 2026Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information relating to the New Settlement (Maltkiln) Development Plan. North Yorkshire Council (the “council”) withheld information relating to pre-application discussions under regulation 12(5)(d) (confidentiality of proceedings) and confirmed that other information wasn’t held. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council was entitled to apply regulation 12(5)(d) to withhold the requested information. The Commissioner does not require the council to take further steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(d)
View North Yorkshire County Council
2 Feb 2026Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant initially requested information held by Derbyshire County Council (the council) about its contract with THJH Ltd. At internal review, the complainant asked for information held about a statement made by the council in its original response to their request. The Commissioner considers the complainant’s request for information about the council’s statement to be a new request for information, and it is only the council’s response to this request where it said that no further information is held, that is in dispute. Whilst the council provided certain information which it believed addressed part of the complainant’s request about the statement, the Commissioner has determined that the council holds additional information relevant to this specific part of the complainant’s request. However, the Commissioner is satisfied that, on the balance of probabilities, the council does not hold any further information falling within the scope of the other parts of the complainant’s re
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Derbyshire County Council
2 Feb 2026Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about revised pension awards. The Department of Finance (Northern Ireland) (DoF) refused the request, citing section 12(1) (exemption where cost of compliance exceeds appropriate limit) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that DoF is entitled to rely on section 12(1) to refuse the request. He also finds that DoF complied with section 16 of FOIA (duty to provide advice and assistance).
Exemptions cited: FOI 12; FOI 16
View Department of Finance
2 Feb 2026Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
1. The complainant has requested that the House of Commons disclose all written evidence submitted to the Scrutiny Committee in relation to the Children's Well-Being and Schools Bill. The House of Commons refused the request citing section 34(1) of FOIA which protects information whose disclosure would infringe the privileges of Parliament.The Commissioner’s decision is that that written evidence submitted to a Public Bill Committee forms part of the proceedings of Parliament and therefore falls within the scope of parliamentary privilege. Therefore the House of Commons was entitled to withhold the information by virtue of section 34(1).
Exemptions cited: FOI 34
View Corporate Officers of the House of Commons
2 Feb 2026Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to staff retention. The University of Manchester (the university) disclosed some information but the complainant disputed whether this was the information they had requested. The Commissioner’s decision is that the university has not complied with section 1 of the FOIA in relation to the second part of the complainant’s request. The Commissioner requires the university to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. Issue a fresh response to the second part of the complainant’s request based on an accurate objective reading of that request. The university 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
View The University of Manchester
2 Feb 2026Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested attendance lists, minutes of and ministerial briefings relating to two meetings about football regulation in 2024 between the Culture Secretary, the Minister for Sport and the Premier League. The Department for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) initially made a partial disclosure of attendance lists but refused to provide the remainder of the information citing section 36 (effective conduct of public affairs) FOIA and section 40(2) (third party personal data). During the course of the Commissioner’s investigation DCMS changed its position to rely on section 35(1)(a) (formulation or development of government policy) FOIA. It also disclosed to the complainant a redacted copy of the minutes and ministerial briefings relating to one of the two meetings. The Commissioner’s decision is that DCMS is entitled to rely on section 35(1)(a) as its basis for withholding the remainder of the information (the minutes and ministerial briefings relating to the second of the
Exemptions cited: FOI 35(1)(a); FOI 17(1)
View Department for Culture, Media and Sport
2 Feb 2026Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from Herefordshire Council (the Council). The Council stated that it did not hold information in scope of part one of the request and has applied section 40(1) of FOIA to refuse to disclose information which it holds in scope of parts two, three and four of the request on the basis that it is the complainant’s own personal data. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the Council does not hold information in scope of part one. The Commissioner also finds that the Council was entitled to rely on section 40(1) of FOIA to refuse parts two, three and four of the request as it is the complainant’s own personal data. The Commissioner has, however, recorded procedural breaches of sections 1, 10(1) and 17 of FOIA. The Commissioner does not require any steps as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10(1); FOI 17; FOI 40(1)
View North Hertfordshire District Council
2 Feb 2026Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to school attendance orders. The Department for Education (“the public authority”) refused the request, citing section 40(2) (personal data) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that section 40(2) applies and to disclose the withheld information would be unlawful. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40(2)
View Department for Education
31 Jan 2026Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The Commissioner has decided that Birmingham City Council failed to comply with regulation 5 of the EIR because it didn’t provide the recorded information it holds about a planning application within the statutory 20‑working‑day timeframe. The Commissioner doesn’t require further steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 5
View Birmingham City Council
30 Jan 2026Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information about expenditure on specific construction work and on student accommodation from the University of the West of England (UWE). UWE initially applied section 43 (commercial information) of FOIA to refuse the request. During the course of the Commissioner’s investigation, UWE reconsidered its response and applied regulation 12(5)(e) of the EIR (commercial or industrial information) to withhold figures in scope of the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that regulation 12(5)(e) is not engaged and therefore the information withheld under this exception must be disclosed. Furthermore, the Commissioner has found that UWE’s handling of the request breached regulation 14 of the EIR. The Commissioner requires UWE to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: Disclose to the complainant the withheld information, described in paragraph 24. UWE must take these steps within 30 calendar days of the date of this decision notice. F
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(e); EIR 14
View University of the West of England, Bristol
30 Jan 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 Frimley Health NHS Foundation Trust
30 Jan 2026Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant submitted a request to the London Borough of Lambeth (the Council) seeking information about the remediation of Brockwell Park following events that had taken place. The Council refused the request on the basis of regulation 12(4)(b) (manifestly unreasonable). The Commissioner’s decision is that Council is entitled to rely on 12(4)(b) to refuse to comply with the request. However, the Commissioner has concluded that the Council breached regulation 5(2) by failing to respond to the request within 20 working days and breached regulation 11(2) by failing to complete an internal review.
Exemptions cited: EIR 11(2); EIR 12(4)(b); EIR 5(2)
View London Borough of Lambeth
30 Jan 2026Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information held by West Lindsey District Council (the council) about an alleged squatter in the local area. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council is entitled to rely on section 40(5B) of FOIA (third party personal information) to neither confirm nor deny whether it holds information falling within scope of the request. The Commissioner does not require the council to take any further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40(5)(b)
View West Lindsey District Council
30 Jan 2026Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to the Cabinet Office seeking information the Prime Minister held “about the 'dangerous right wing politics' of Nigel Farage and/or Reform UK”. The Cabinet Office initially refused to answer this on the basis that it was an invalid request for the purposes of FOIA. It subsequently accepted that it was a valid request but explained that any information held would not be held by it for the purposes of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that any information held by the Cabinet Office falling within the scope of the request would, by virtue of section 3(2)(a), not be held by it for the purposes of FOIA. However, the Commissioner has concluded that the Cabinet Office breached section 10(1) of FOIA by not responding to the request within 20 working days.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 3
View Cabinet Office
30 Jan 2026Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to motor vehicle theft. West Mercia Police (“WMP”) disclosed some of the information relevant to the request and withheld other elements under section 21(1) of the FOIA (information reasonably accessible to the applicant by other means). WMP also refused to comply with question three of the request on the grounds that it did not constitute a valid request for information under section 8 of the FOIA (request for information). WMP also confirmed that it did not hold any information falling within the scope of question two. The Commissioner’s decision is that WMP has complied with the provisions of the FOIA. He does not require further steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1(1); FOI 8; FOI 21(1)
View West Mercia Police
30 Jan 2026Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information about computerised court records from the Ministry of Justice (MOJ). The MOJ refused the request under section 14(1) of FOIA: vexatious requests. The Commissioner’s decision is that the request was vexatious and therefore the MOJ was entitled to rely on section 14(1) of FOIA to refuse it. He is also satisfied that the MOJ complied with the requirements of section 16 FOIA (advice and assistance). The Commissioner does not require any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14(1); FOI 16
View Ministry of Justice
29 Jan 2026Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from Westminster City Council (the council) regarding agreements with water companies, billing, charges and compliance with the Water Resale Order 2006. The council provided some information, exempted other information under section 43(2) FOIA and stated that it did not hold some of the requested information. The Commissioner has determined that the requested information falls under FOIA legislation. He has also decided that, on the balance of probabilities, the council does not hold the information requested in parts one, two and three of the request. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Westminster Council