29 Jan 2026Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to the Cabinet Office seeking a copy of the Prime Minister’s diary for 30 July 2024. After some delay the Cabinet Office provided him with a substantive response which disclosed some entries, withheld further information on the basis of FOI exemptions, and explained that information on a party political event was not held for the purposes of FOIA. In relation to such entries the Cabinet Office subsequently argued that if such information was considered to be held for the purposes of FOIA, then it would consider such information to be exempt from disclosure on the basis of sections 35(1)(d) (operation of Ministerial private offices) and 40(2) (personal data) of FOIA. The complainant disputed the Cabinet Office’s position in respect of the information about the party political event. The Commissioner’s decision is that the diary entries about the party political event are held by the Cabinet Office for the purposes of FOIA. However, such information is
Exemptions cited: FOI 10(1); FOI 40(2)
View Cabinet Office
29 Jan 2026Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested from Rhondda Cynon Taf County Borough Council (the Council) information relating to attendance on Outside Bodies by certain councillors. The Council deemed the requests vexatious under section 14(1) of FOIA.
The Commissioner’s decision is that the requests were not vexatious and the Council was not entitled to rely on section 14(1) of FOIA to refuse to comply with the requests.
The Commissioner requires the Council to take the following step to ensure compliance with the legislation:
• Issue the complainant with a fresh response to the requests that does not rely on section 14(1) of FOIA.
The Council 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 the Act and may be dealt with as a contempt of court.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14(1)
View Rhondda Cynon Taf County Borough Council
29 Jan 2026Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant made a request for information relating to the evaluation of the first phase of the “Stop! Think Fraud” campaign. The Home Office initially refused the whole request under section 35(1) of FOIA. However, during the Commissioner’s investigation the Home Office changed its position, disclosing some information within scope of the request and refused the remaining under section 43(2) of FOIA, section 23(1) and 40(2) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Home Office has complied with its obligations under section 1(1) of FOIA. The Home Office was also entitled to rely on section 23(1) to withhold some information contained in the Full Report. It was also entitled to withhold some information in the Full Report and Summary Report under section 40(2) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Home Office was entitled to rely on section 43(2) of FOIA for slide 71 and slides 73 to 78 in the Full Report and slide four in the Summary Report. However, his decision
Exemptions cited: FOI 43(2)
29 Jan 2026Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from UK Health Security Agency (UKHSA) about overtime claims. 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
29 Jan 2026Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information relating to land. St John’s College (‘the College’) refused to deal with the request citing section 14(1) (vexatious requests) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the request is manifestly unreasonable under regulation 12(4)(b) of the EIR and the College isn’t obliged to comply with it. However, he’s recorded a regulation 14(3) breach as the request was refused under the wrong legislation. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(b)
29 Jan 2026Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested agreements between Thames Water and either Westminster City Council or City West Homes for water and or sewerage charges collection arrangements during a certain timeframe. The request also asked for any template collection agreements between Thames Water and local authorities or housing associations. Thames Water is classified as a public authority for the purposes of the EIR and is obliged to respond to requests under that legislation. However, it is not obliged to respond to requests under FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the requested information is not environmental information and therefore Thames Water was not required to deal with it under the EIR. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 2
29 Jan 2026Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to prisoners held within ‘separation units’. The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) relied on section 40(2) of FOIA (third party personal information) to withhold some of the requested information, namely information relating to foreign born
prisoners. The Commissioner’s decision is that the MoJ was not entitled to withhold that information under section 40(2) of FOIA, by virtue of section 40(3A)(a). The Commissioner requires the MoJ to take the following step to ensure compliance with the legislation: • disclose the figure relating to foreign born prisoners.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View Ministry of Justice
29 Jan 2026Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to the handling of queries from them (name redacted) and the DE press office. The Department of Education for Northern Ireland (DENI) refused the request, citing section 36(2)(b)(i) - Prejudice to the effective conduct of public affairs of FOIA.
The Commissioner’s decision is that the DENI was entitled to rely on section 36(2)(b)(i) to refuse the request and that the public interest lies in maintaining the exemption.
The Commissioner does not require any steps to be taken as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: FOI 36(2)(b)(i)
View Department of Education (Northern Ireland)
29 Jan 2026Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested a copy of the draft “Small for Gestational Age” guideline (draft guideline). Kingston and Richmond NHS Foundation Trust (the Trust) 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 Trust was not entitled to rely upon section 14(1) of FOIA to refuse it. The Commissioner requires the Trust to issue a fresh response to the request that does not rely on section 14(1) of FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14(1)
View Kingston and Richmond NHS Foundation Trust
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
29 Jan 2026Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information about Trading Standards complaints relating to a specific company. West Yorkshire Joint Services (the “authority”) disclosed some information and withheld details of complaints under the exemptions for personal information (section 40(2)) and information provided in confidence (section 41). The Commissioner’s decision is that the authority was entitled to withhold the requested information under section 40(2). The Commissioner does not require the authority to take further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40(2)
View NHS West Yorkshire ICB
29 Jan 2026Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The Commissioner finds that the public authority failed to comply with its obligations under regulation 11 of the Environmental Information Regulations by not completing an internal review within 40 working days. The public authority is therefore required to carry out an internal review and inform the complainant of the outcome.
Exemptions cited: EIR 11
View Birmingham City Council
29 Jan 2026Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested Chiltern Railways (CR) to disclose information relating to the refurbishment of Leamington Spa railway station. CR refused to comply with the request, stating that it is not a public authority under the EIR. The Commissioner’s decision is that CR is a public authority under regulation 2(2)(d) of the EIR and therefore it should have complied with the request. The Commissioner requires CR to issue a substantive response to the request in accordance with its obligations under the EIR.
Exemptions cited: EIR 2(2)(d)
29 Jan 2026Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested pricing information contained within a contract. Welwyn Hatfield Borough Council withheld the information under the exception provided by 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)(e). The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(e)
View Welwyn Hatfield Borough Council
29 Jan 2026Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from the UK Health Security Agency about a payroll Audit Report. 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.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View UK Health Security Agency
28 Jan 2026Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to strip searching from the Chief Constable of Merseyside Police (Merseyside Police).
The Commissioner’s decision is that Merseyside Police breached section 10 of FOIA by failing to provide the requested information within 20 working days.
The Commissioner requires Merseyside Police to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation.
• Issue a substantive response to the complainant in accordance with its obligations under FOIA
Exemptions cited: FOI 10(1)
View Merseyside Police
28 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
View NHS England
28 Jan 2026Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information with regards to the Fire Safety policy for a specific address. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the council has provided all the information it holds falling within the scope of the request and therefore the council has complied with section 1 of the FOIA. The Commissioner does not require any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Westminster Council
28 Jan 2026Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has failed to demonstrate that it has conducted a reasonable and proportionate search of its records to identify all information falling within the scope of the request. This means that it has not complied with regulation 5(1) of the EIR. The Commissioner requires the Council to carry out further searches aimed at identifying all the information it holds falling within the scope of the request, and to issue the complainant with a fresh response which meets the requirements of the EIR.
Exemptions cited: EIR 5(1)
View Merton Council
28 Jan 2026Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information in respect of an EV 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(5)(e)
View Westminster Council
28 Jan 2026Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested environmental information from Amber Valley Borough Council (“the Council”) relating to a specified planning application. The council initially provided a response stating that the majority of the requested information is not held by it, however during the Commissioner's investigation, it disclosed a large volume of information to the complainant, responding to a number of different requests, and stated that this was the only information it holds. It said that any information not contained within this disclosure was not held by it. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council failed to comply with Regulation 5(1) of the EIR, by failing to make environmental information available on request and by failing to take reasonable steps to identify and retrieve information before concluding that it was not held. He has also decided that it failed to comply with Regulation 11(3) and Regulation 11(4), by failing to conduct an internal review and failing to communicat
Exemptions cited: EIR 11(3); EIR 11(4); EIR 5(1)
View Amber Valley Borough Council
28 Jan 2026Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information from Community Health Partnerships about information related to the premises occupied by Spark Medical Group. The Commissioner’s decision is that the public authority failed to respond to the request within 20 working days and has therefore breached regulation 5(2) of the EIR. The public authority must provide a substantive response to the request in accordance with its obligations under the EIR.
Exemptions cited: EIR 5(2)
28 Jan 2026Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from NHS England. 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 NHS England
28 Jan 2026Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from NHS England. 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 NHS England
28 Jan 2026Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The Commissioner’s decision is that the Equality and Human Rights Commission was entitled to aggregate and refuse to comply with the complainant’s requests for information about its work. Complying with the requests would exceed the appropriate cost limit under section 12(1) of FOIA. There was no breach of section 16(1), which concerns advice and assistance, but the timeliness of the refusal didn’t comply with section 17(5) of FOIA. The Commissioner doesn’t require further steps.
Correction: One finding in this decision isn’t correct. There was no breach of section 17(5) of FOIA as EHRC provided a section 12 refusal on the 20th working day following the date it received the request.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12(1); FOI 16(1); FOI 17(5)
View Equality and Human Rights Commission
28 Jan 2026Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from NHS England. 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 NHS England
28 Jan 2026Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about an investigation by Norfolk County Council. The Council refused to confirm or deny whether the requested information is held, citing section 44(2) (Prohibitions on disclosure) of FOIA. It argued that to confirm or deny whether the information is held would breach the statutory prohibition on disclosure created by regulation 22 of the Construction Products Regulations 2013. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council correctly applied section 44(2) to neither confirm nor deny whether the requested information is held. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: FOI 44
View Norfolk County Council
28 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
View NHS England
28 Jan 2026Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested detailed cost information for the Rosalind Franklin Laboratory NHS Test and Trace facility. The UK Health Security Agency (UKHSA) provided some of the requested information but stated it could not provide a further breakdown of monthly costs within the cost limit. The Commissioner’s decision is that UKHSA was entitled to rely on section 12 of FOIA to refuse the request. The Commissioner finds that UKHSA did not comply with its obligations under section 16 of FOIA to offer advice and assistance. He also finds that UKHSA breached sections 1(1) and 10(1) of FOIA by failing to provide its response within 20 working days. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1(1); FOI 10(1); FOI 12(1); FOI 16(1)
View UK Health Security Agency
27 Jan 2026Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information about brown bin waste guidelines. Antrim and Newtownabbey Borough Council provided some information and referred the complainant to information on its website about what should be placed in brown bins. The Council also stated that it did not hold some of the information requested. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has not demonstrated that it has conducted a reasonable and proportionate search of its records to identify all information falling within the scope of the request. If the Council does hold further recorded information, it has failed to make this available within the statutory time for response set out at regulation 5(2). If the Council does not hold any further recorded information, then it has failed to issue a refusal notice citing regulation 12(4)(a) within the statutory time for response. The Commissioner requires the Council to reconsider the request, conducting appropriate searches, and issue a fresh response to the c
Exemptions cited: EIR 14; EIR 5(1)
27 Jan 2026Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to support available to students for English language speaking. The University refused the request, citing section 12 (cost of compliance exceeds appropriate limit) of FOIA and later cited section 12(4) and 14(1) (vexatious requests). The Commissioner’s decision is that the University wasn’t entitled to refuse the request under section 12(1) or aggregate the request and refuse it under section 12(4). Furthermore, the request doesn’t engage section 14(1). The University also breached section 16(1) (duty to provide advice and assistance) of FOIA. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: in relation to the refined request of 28 June 2025, the University must either disclose the information or issue a refusal notice that doesn’t rely upon section 12 or section 14.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12; FOI 14; FOI 16
View The University of Leicester
27 Jan 2026Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant made a request for information under FOIA to the London Borough of Richmond upon Thames (the Council) for all communication between named officers of the Council relating to the change made by the Monitoring Officer to the Service Committee Terms of Reference, i.e. change to the virement limit for decision-making service committees, and concerning an alleged inconsistency by the Council between the Scheme of Virement and these Terms of Reference.
The Council initially refused the request citing section 14 (vexatious requests). Subsequently, during the Commissioner’s investigation, it changed its position and withheld the information citing sections 36 (prejudice to the effective conduct of public affairs) and section 42 (legal professional privilege).
The Commissioner found that although section 36 relied on by the Council to withhold information was engaged, the public interest favours disclosure. The Commissioner also found that the Council was entitled to rely on se
Exemptions cited: FOI 36; FOI 42
View Richmond upon Thames Council
27 Jan 2026Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information in respect of complaints against various members of staff at Llangollen Health Centre, Plas Madoc and Glyn Ceirog Surgery for each year from 1 January 2015 to 2 April 2025. Llangollen Health Centre (the Health Centre) provided the total number of complaints received by the whole Practice for a three year period. However, it refused to provide the information for the individuals specified in the request citing section 40(3A) of the FOIA. During the course of the Commissioner’s investigation, The Health Centre confirmed that it considered that the mere confirmation or denial of whether it held relevant information falling within the scope of the request would be disclosing personal information and it stated that it was relying on section 40(5) of the FOIA to neither confirm or deny whether it held relevant information. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Health Centre was entitled to rely on section 40(5) of the FOIA to refuse this request. The C
Exemptions cited: FOI 40(5)
27 Jan 2026Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information about a planning complaint concerning their property. Cheshire East Council (the Council) disclosed some information, but withheld other information under regulation 13 (personal data) of the EIR. The complainant was unhappy with the Council’s application of regulation 13 and considered that it had not disclosed all the information held relevant to the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the Council does not hold any additional information relevant to the request. He has also determined that the Council correctly applied regulation 13 to the request. The Commissioner does not require any steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: EIR 13; EIR 5(1)
View Cheshire East Council
27 Jan 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 The Crown Estate
27 Jan 2026Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about Animals in Science Regulation Unit (ASRU) audits. The Home Office refused to confirm or deny whether it held some of the information within the scope of the request, citing section 38(2) (Health and safety) of FOIA. The complainant also felt that it had not properly answered part of the request. 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 information falling within scope of part (5) of the request. He also found no failure to comply with section 1 (General right of access) in respect of part (3) of the request.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 38
View Home Office
27 Jan 2026Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information relating to specific planning applications. East Riding of Yorkshire Council (the “council”) disclosed some information and withheld other information under the exception for internal communications (regulation 12(4)(e)). The complainant is dissatisfied with the time the council took to deal with their request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council failed to respond to the request and the internal review in time and breached regulation 5(2) and regulation 11(4) of the EIR. The Commissioner does not require the council to take further steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 11(4); EIR 5(2)
View East Riding of Yorkshire Council
27 Jan 2026Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust (“the Trust”) about its neurocritical care unit. By the date of this notice the Trust had not issued a substantive response to this request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Trust has breached section 10(1) of FOIA in that it failed to provide a valid response to the request within the statutory time frame of 20 working days.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust
27 Jan 2026Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to emails between Clevedon BID Limited and North Somerset Council (the council). The council refused the request under section 12 of the FOIA – appropriate limit. The Commissioner’s decision is that section 12 of the FOIA is engaged and that the council has complied with section 16 of the FOIA. The Commissioner does not require any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12
View North Somerset Council
27 Jan 2026Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested a list of private companies contracted to provide hotel or temporary accommodation for asylum seekers or irregular migrants from 2021 to 2024, including the total payments made to each company. Ultimately, the Home Office provided a list of the companies as requested, but refused to provide the total expenditure data for each of those contracted companies, citing section 43(2) of FOIA, the exemption for commercial interests. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Home Office was entitled to rely on section 43(2) of FOIA for the reasons set out in this notice. No steps are required as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: FOI 43
View Home Office
27 Jan 2026Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested any immigration and proof of UK citizenship information from the Home Office relating to his deceased parents.
The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the Home Office does not hold information within the scope of the request.
The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Home Office
27 Jan 2026Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information about how victims of historical child abuse could report a crime to their police force. Having clarified the request with the complainant, North Yorkshire Police (‘NYP’) responded to all three parts of the request and provided weblinks. During the course of the Commissioner’s investigation, NYP partly revised its position and relied on section 21 of FOIA (information reasonably accessible to the applicant by other means), for some published information relevant to the request. It also now said that some of the requested information was not held. The complainant remained dissatisfied with NYP’s handling of his request, particularly in relation to whether more information was held. He also raised some procedural matters. However, as the complainant made no reference to NYP’s citing of section 21 of FOIA in his final grounds of complaint, the Commissioner has not considered its application any further. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balan
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10; FOI 16
View North Yorkshire Police
27 Jan 2026Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested a copy of the self evaluation of children’s services submitted by Warrington Borough Council (the Council) to the Office for Standards in Education, Children’s Services and Skills (Ofsted). The Council withheld the information requested under section 36 (prejudice to the effective conduct of public affairs) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the withheld information is exempt from disclosure on the basis of section 36(2)(b)(ii) and that the public interest favours maintaining the exemption. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: FOI 36
View Warrington Council
26 Jan 2026Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information from Cornwall Council (“the Council”) relating to dredging licensing at Hayle Harbour. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council is entitled to rely on regulation 12(5)(b) (the course of justice) to withhold information falling within the scope of part 3 of the request. The Commissioner does not require the Council to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(b)
View Cornwall Council
26 Jan 2026Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The Commissioner’s decision is that the complainant’s request for information about particular payments isn’t a vexatious request under section 14(1) of FOIA. The refusal notice also didn’t comply with the requirements of section 17(5). The Commissioner requires Ticehurst Parish Council to take the following step to ensure compliance with the legislation: Provide the complainant with a fresh response to their request that complies with FOIA and which doesn’t rely on section 14(1).
Exemptions cited: FOI 14(1); FOI 17(5)
26 Jan 2026Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant submitted a variety of requests for information relating to enforcement of a specific bus gate. Southampton City Council (“the Council”) refused to comply with the requests on the basis that they considered them to be vexatious. The Commissioner’s decision is that the requests were vexatious and therefore the Council was correct to rely upon section 14(1) of FOIA to refuse the majority of them. However, the Commissioner notes that some of the requested information constitutes environmental information. He is satisfied that regulation 12(4)(b) is applicable to those parts of the requests, and that the balance of the public interest favours maintaining the exemption so far as the environmental information is concerned. The Commissioner does not require the Council to take any further steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(b); FOI 14(1)
View Southampton City Council
26 Jan 2026Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information from Mid Devon District Council (“the Council”) relating to Cabinet meetings concerning the development and sale of land. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council is entitled to rely on regulation 12(5)(e) (commercial and industrial information) of the EIR to withhold some information falling within the scope of the request. However, he finds that with the exception of a guide price, the Council is not entitled to rely on regulation 12(5)(e) of the EIR to withhold a lesson learned document relating to the Park Nursery land. The Commissioner finds that the Council is entitled to rely on regulation 13(1) (personal data) of the EIR to withhold some information falling within the scope of the request. He also finds that the Council complied with regulation 5(2) (time for compliance) by responding to the request within 20 working days. The Commissioner requires the Council to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. The
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(e); EIR 13; EIR 5(2)
View Mid Devon District Council
26 Jan 2026Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The Commissioner’s decision is that the public authority breached section 10(1) of FOIA by failing to provide a response within 20 working days.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Tameside Metropolitan Borough Council
26 Jan 2026Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
1. The complainant requested information about the accounts of Buxton Parish Council (“the Parish Council”). The Parish Council relied on section 14(1) of FOIA (vexatious) to refuse the request.
2. The Commissioner’s decision is that the request was vexatious and therefore the Parish Council was entitled to rely upon section 14(1) of FOIA to refuse it.
3. The Commissioner does not require any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14
26 Jan 2026Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to the number of charges for particular offence-codes. The Crown Prosecution Service (the CPS) relied on section 14(1) (vexatious request) of FOIA to refuse to comply with the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the request was not vexatious and therefore the CPS was not entitled to rely on section 14(1) to refuse it. The Commissioner requires the CPS 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
View Crown Prosecution Service