23 Jan 2026Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information about a development. Havering Council (‘the council’) disclosed some information and withheld the remainder under regulations 12(5)(d), 12(5)(e), 12(5)(f) of the EIR. These exceptions concern the confidentiality of proceedings, commercial information and the interests of the person who provided the information, respectively. The council also withheld personal data under regulation 12(3). The council subsequently identified further information that it considered could be disclosed, with personal data redacted. The Commissioner’s decision is that: Regulation 12(5)(e) and regulation 13 of the EIR (also personal data) are engaged in respect of the information that the council is withholding.The timeliness of the council’s response complied with regulation 7(3) but didn’t comply with regulations 5(2) and 14(1). The Commissioner requires that the council takes the following step to ensure compliance with the legislation: Disclose to the complainant t
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(e); EIR 14(1); EIR 5(2); EIR 7(3)
View London Borough of Havering
23 Jan 2026Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request for information about a specific prosecution reported in the media in 2016. The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) refused the request citing section 12 of FOIA to do so.
The Commissioner’s decision is that CPS was entitled to rely on section 12(1) of FOIA to refuse the request and that CPS complied with its obligations under section 16 to offer advice and assistance.
The Commissioner does not require any steps as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12(1)
View Crown Prosecution Service
23 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
23 Jan 2026Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant sent a five-part request for information regarding the Residents Initiative Fund. South Kesteven District Council (the Council) initially provided a partial response but later stated that this response was incorrect and that no information was held as the scheme was never introduced.
The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has not carried out sufficient searches in order for the Commissioner to determine whether, on the balance of probabilities, the Council has provided all the information held by it which falls within the scope of the request.
The Commissioner requires the Council to take the following step to ensure compliance with the legislation.
• Conduct appropriately focused searches and confirm to the complainant whether information is held in scope of the request. If it is held, either disclose it or issue a valid refusal notice in accordance with FOIA.
The Council must take this step within 30 calendar days of the date of this decision notice. Failu
Exemptions cited: FOI 1(1)
View South Kesteven District Council
23 Jan 2026Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant submitted a request to the Environment Agency (EA) for a report submitted to the EA relating to a septic tank at a specific property. The EA refused to confirm or deny whether it held the requested information on the basis of regulation 13(5A)(a) (personal data) of the EIR. The Commissioner’s decision is that the EA is entitled to rely on regulation 13(5A)(a) to refuse these requests. No steps are required.
Exemptions cited: EIR 13
View Environment Agency
23 Jan 2026Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The Commissioner’s decision is that the complainant’s request for information about particular visits is a vexatious request under section 14(1) of FOIA. It’s not necessary for Woodeaton Manor School to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14(1)
23 Jan 2026Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from the Black Country Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust relating to restrictive practise audits. 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 Black Country Healthcare NHS Foundation
23 Jan 2026Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information concerning a presentation by Cheshire Constabulary’s Lead of Communications given to delegates on 18 March 2024 titled ‘The Lucy Letby Case (Operation Hummingbird)’. Cheshire Constabulary refused the request, citing section 14(1) (vexatious request) of FOIA.
The Commissioner’s decision is that the request is vexatious, and Cheshire Constabulary is not obliged to respond to it.
The Commissioner does not require any steps as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14(1)
View Cheshire Constabulary
23 Jan 2026Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) concerning the Isle of Wight ferry market. The CMA refused to confirm or deny it held any information for parts of the request, citing sections 44(2) (prohibitions on disclosure) and 31(3) FOIA (law enforcement). Some information was withheld under section 35(1)(a) – the formulation of government policy. The CMA also later applied section 40(2) FOIA (personal information) to some of the same information it had withheld under section 35(1)(a). Part of the request was exempted under section 21 FOIA – information accessible to the applicant by other means. The Commissioner’s decision is that the CMA was correct in neither confirming nor denying whether it holds information by applying section 44(2) FOIA. He has also concluded that section 35(1)(a) is engaged and that the public interest favours non-disclosure. Additionally, the Commissioner accepts that section 21 has been correctly applied. The Com
Exemptions cited: FOI 21; FOI 35(1)(a); FOI 44(2)
View Competition and Markets Authority
22 Jan 2026Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to Operation Magnolia from Cleveland Police. Cleveland Police disclosed the parameters of Operation Magnolia and the name of the current SIO officer, but withheld the remaining names requested under section 40(2) of FOIA (third party personal information) to withhold the remaining requested names. For the remaining parts of the request, Cleveland Police advised that the remaining information was not held. The Commissioner’s decision is that: Cleveland Police was partially correct to rely on section 40(2) to withhold some names, but it should have disclosed the name of the Chief Constable. Cleveland Police was not entitled to rely on section 40(2) when refusing to provide the name of the Assistant Chief Constable, as it states this information could not be located. Based on the balance of probabilities, Cleveland Police has not conducted adequate searches for the remaining parts of the requested information. Cleveland Police breached se
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10; FOI 40(2)
View Cleveland Police
22 Jan 2026Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
A public authority will breach Regulation 5(2) of EIR 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 Regulation 5(2).
Exemptions cited: EIR 5(2)
View Department for Energy Security and Net Zero
22 Jan 2026Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about payments for court fees and proof of these payments. The Ministry of Justice (“MoJ”) refused to comply with the request, citing section 14(1) (vexatious requests) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the request was vexatious and therefore the MoJ was entitled to refuse it in accordance with section 14(1). No steps are required.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14
View Ministry of Justice
22 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 Bromley Council
22 Jan 2026Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
1. The complainant requested from Swansea Council (“the Council”) inspection reports and maintenance records in respect of a specified road. The Council refused to disclose the requested information, citing regulation 12(5)(b) of the EIR as a basis for non-disclosure.
2. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council is entitled to rely on regulation 12(5)(b) of the EIR – the course of justice, to withhold the requested information.
3. The Commissioner does not require the Council to take any steps as a result of this decision notice.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(b)
View Swansea Council
22 Jan 2026Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested specific information in respect of reports pursuant to section 7 of the Children Act 1989.
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 Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service
21 Jan 2026Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested MCA to disclose the most recent version of Coastguard standard operating procedures (SOP) which relate in any way to the ‘migrant’ or ‘small boats’ operations. MCA disclosed some information but withheld the remainder citing sections 38(1)(a) and (b) (health and safety) and section 27 (international relations) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that MCA is entitled to rely on section 38(1)(a) and (b) of FOIA for the withheld information. He has however found MCA in breach of sections 1(1)(b),10(1) and 17(1) of FOIA. He does not require any further steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10; FOI 17; FOI 38(1)(a); FOI 38(1)(b)
View Maritime and Coastguard Agency
21 Jan 2026Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested a prison’s local policies from the Ministry of Justice (MOJ). The MOJ relied on section 14(1) of FOIA (vexatious requests) to refuse the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the request was not vexatious and the MOJ was incorrect to rely upon section 14(1) of FOIA to refuse it. The Commissioner requires the MOJ 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 Ministry of Justice
21 Jan 2026Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information from Powys County Council about an inspection and repair report. The Commissioner’s decision is that the public authority breached regulation 11 of the EIR, as it failed to carry out its internal review within 40 working days. The Commissioner does not require further steps to be taken. The public authority must reconsider how it responded to the original request and inform the complainant of the outcome in accordance with its obligations under the EIR.
Exemptions cited: EIR 11
View Powys County Council
21 Jan 2026Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information relating to the water supply at two named properties. South East Water (SEW) explained that there would be a fee for information regarding parts one and five of the request for which it supplied “limited information”. Although SEW disputed that the requested information fell within the scope of the EIR, it withheld the remainder of the information under section 13 of the EIR. The Commissioner’s decision is that SEW is entitled to withhold information on the basis of regulation 13 of the EIR – personal data. He has also decided that the complainant requested their own personal data within this request and that SEW was entitled to refuse this information (regulation 5(3) of the EIR). The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 13; EIR 5(3)
View South East Water
21 Jan 2026Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to the Equality and Human Rights Commission’s (EHRC) interim guidance following the Supreme Court judgement For Women Scotland Ltd v The Scottish Minister. The EHRC withheld the requested information, citing section 36 (prejudice to effective conduct of public affairs) of FOIA as its basis for doing so. The Commissioner’s decision is that the EHRC was correct to rely on sections 36(2)(b)(i), (b)(ii) and (c) of FOIA to withhold the requested information. The Commissioner does not require the EHRC to take any further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 36
View Equality and Human Rights Commission
20 Jan 2026Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information relating to allotments. Leeds City Council (“the public authority”) 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 so the public authority wasn’t obliged to deal with it. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(b)
View Leeds City Council
20 Jan 2026Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information about a stock transfer agreement between the London Borough of Lambeth (“the Council”) and a housing association. The the Council stated that it did not hold information within scope of the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council holds information within scope of part [1] of the request, as information captured by this part of the request has already been provided to the complainant outside of the EIR. He also finds that the searches conducted by the Council when responding to the request were inadequate for the purposes of claiming that it did not hold any information within scope of the remainder of the request. Further, the Commissioner finds that the Council breached regulation 11 of the EIR by failing to provide an internal review outcome within 40 working days.
The Commissioner requires the Council to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation:
• conduct searches aimed at identifying all of the
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(a); EIR 5(2)
View London Borough of Lambeth
20 Jan 2026Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about Devon County Council’s children’s services. Ofsted disclosed information within scope of part 4 of the request and explained that some information was already accessible (section 21(1) of FOIA). It applied sections 33(2) and 36(2)(c) of FOIA to parts 1-3 of the request. These exemptions concern audit functions and prejudice to effective conduct of public affairs, respectively. The Commissioner’s decision is as follows:
Ofsted doesn’t hold information within scope of part (1b) of the request, or any further information within scope of part (3). Section 33(2) of FOIA is engaged in respect of part (1a) and part (2) of the request. It’s not necessary for Ofsted to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1(1); FOI 33(2)
View Office for Standards in Education, Children's Services and Skills (Ofsted)
20 Jan 2026Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information in relation to a specific planning application and listed building consent application. The London Borough of Hounslow (the Council) provided some information and refused to provide the remaining information citing regulation 5(3) - personal data of which the applicant is the data subject, regulation 13(1) - third-party personal data, regulation 12(5)(f) - interests of the person who provided the information and regulation 12(5)(a) - public safety, of the EIR.
The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council was entitled to rely on regulation 5(3), regulation 13(1) and regulation 12(5)(f) to refuse to provide the information.
In respect of information withheld under regulation 12(5)(a), it is the Commissioner’s decision the information is excepted from disclosure under regulation 13(1) of the EIR therefore, he has not gone on to consider the 12(5)(a) exception.
Furthermore, the Commissioner has found that the Council has breached regulation 14
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(a); EIR 12(5)(f); EIR 13(1); EIR 5(3)
View London Borough of Hounslow
19 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 Oxford University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust
19 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 London Borough of Hounslow
19 Jan 2026Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about the theft of personal property.
Devon and Cornwall Police (“D&CP”) neither confirmed nor denied that it held the information requested by virtue of section 40(5) of FOIA (personal information).
The Commissioner’s decision is that D&CP should have stated specifically that it was relying on section 40(5A) of FOIA to refuse to confirm nor deny whether any information was held.
The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40(5)(a)
View Devon and Cornwall Police
19 Jan 2026Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested from HM Treasury (HMT) information related to the proposed policy about changes to VAT on paid for education for a certain group of people and its compliance with the Equality Act 2010.
HMT initially withheld the information citing section 35(1)(a) (formulation or development of government policy). It later revised its position and refused to provide the requested information citing section 42(1) (legal professional privilege).
The Commissioner’s decision is that HMT was correct in relying on section 42(1) to withhold the requested information. However, HMT breached section 10(1) and 17(1) of FOIA by exceeding the time for response.
The Commissioner does not require further steps from HMT in relation to this case.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 17; FOI 42(1)
View HM Treasury
19 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.
The public authority must provide a substantive response to the request in accordance with its obligations under FOIA.
The public authority must take this step within 30 calendar days of the date of this decision notice. Failure to comply may result in the Commissioner making written certification of this fact to the High Court pursuant to section 54 of FOIA and may be dealt with as a contempt of court.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
19 Jan 2026Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant made a five part request for information about immigration fraud. The Home Office refused parts one to four of the request under section 12(1) of FOIA (cost of compliance) and section 21(1) of FOIA (information accessible to applicant by other means).
The Commissioner’s decision is that the Home Office was correct to rely on section 12(1) of FOIA to refuse part one to four of the request. The Commissioner also finds that the Home Office complied with its section 16 obligation to offer advice and assistance.
The Commissioner does not require further steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12(1); FOI 16
View Home Office
19 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
19 Jan 2026Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested costs of a case from Surrey Police. Surrey Police initially refused to provide the requested information citing section 32(1)(b) (Court records) of FOIA. However, during the Commissioner’s investigation, Surrey Police revised its position and instead relied on section 40(5B)(a)(i) (Personal information) to neither confirm nor deny (“NCND”) whether any information was held. The Commissioner’s decision is that it was entitled to do so. No steps are required.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View Surrey Police
16 Jan 2026Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, Shropshire Council (‘the council’) doesn’t hold the requested information associated with a planning application. Regulation 12(4)(a) of the EIR is therefore engaged but the timeliness of the council’s internal review didn’t comply with regulation 11(4). The Commissioner doesn’t require further steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 11(4); EIR 12(4)(a)
View Shropshire Council
16 Jan 2026Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information regarding the council’s intentions with a former hostel. Birmingham City Council (“the council”) refused the request on the basis that section 22 of FOIA applied (information intended for future publication). The council subsequently published the requested information. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council did not comply with the requirements of section 10(1) of FOIA as it did not provide the information within 20 working days of receiving the request. The Commissioner does not require the council to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10(1)
View Birmingham City Council
16 Jan 2026Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information concerning whether Rochdale Development Agency (RDA) has authority to withdraw or request the withdrawal of National Lottery Heritage Fund (NLHF) funding from an apprenticeship employed by Rochdale Borough Council. The council said that it did not hold any information. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council does not hold any relevant information for the purposes of section 1 of FOIA. The Commissioner does not require the council to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Rochdale Metropolitan Borough Council
16 Jan 2026Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to potential regulatory action. Ofcom refused to either confirm or deny that the information was held, citing section 44(2) (prohibitions on disclosure). The Commissioner’s decision is that Ofcom was correct to neither confirm or deny the requested information is held under section 44(2). The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 44(2)
View Ofcom
16 Jan 2026Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted an information request to the University of Oxford (the university) for information concerning pay and conditions, and the occupation of Wellington Square in relation to the Conferences of Colleges of the University (COCOXF).
The Commissioner’s decision is that the university has not complied with its duty under section 1(1) of FOIA, in relation to parts three and four of the request.
The Commissioner requires the university to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation.
• Perform fresh searches for any information that would be held, for the purpose of FOIA, that would fall within parts three and four; and then
• Either disclose the information or issue a valid refusal notice in accordance with section 17 of FOIA.
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 secti
Exemptions cited: FOI 1(1)
View The University of Oxford
15 Jan 2026Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant sent a three-part request for information regarding persistent and worsening fly-tipping at a specific junction of two roads. London Borough Of Barking and Dagenham (the Council) provided a partial response to part one but stated that under section 1(1)(a) of FOIA information was not held for parts two and three of the request, however, it did provide a brief explanation to these parts.
The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has not carried out sufficient searches in order for the Commissioner to determine whether, on the balance of probabilities, the Council has provided all the information held by it which falls within the scope of the request.
The Commissioner requires the Council to take the following step to ensure compliance with the legislation.
• In relation to parts two and three, conduct appropriately focused fresh searches and confirm to the complainant whether the information is held. If it is held, either disclose it or issue a valid refusal not
Exemptions cited: FOI 1(1)
View Barking and Dagenham Council
15 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 Dudley Council
15 Jan 2026Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested copies of the leases between London Borough of Croydon (the Council) and third parties relating to a specific commercial site. The Council relied on section 43(2) of FOIA (commercial interests) to withhold information. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has not complied with sections 1(1) and 10(1) of FOIA in that it has not, by the date of this notice and to the Commissioner’s knowledge, stated to the complainant whether it holds information in scope of part iv of the request, despite having confirmed to the Commissioner that it does not hold information in scope. Furthermore, the Council has not provided sufficient evidence to enable the Commissioner to establish whether, on the balance of probabilities, the Council holds information in scope of part iv. of the request. The Commissioner further finds that the Council has not correctly relied on section 43(2) to withhold information in scope of the request. The Commissioner requires the Counc
Exemptions cited: FOI 1(1); FOI 10(1); FOI 43(2)
View London Borough of Croydon
15 Jan 2026Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information regarding the fleet of marked vehicles currently in service with Devon and Cornwall Police (DCP). DCP provided some information in scope of the request and relied on section 31(1)(a) – Law Enforcement of FOIA to withhold the remainder of the requested information.
The Commissioner’s decision is that section 31(1)(a) of FOIA is engaged in this circumstance and that the balance of the public interest favours maintaining the exemption. However, he has recorded a procedural breach of section 10(1) of FOIA due to DCP’s failure to provide a valid response to the request within the statutory time frame of 20 working days.
The Commissioner does not require any steps as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10(1); FOI 31(1)(a)
View Devon and Cornwall Police
15 Jan 2026Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to care accommodation. Lancashire County Council (the council) initially refused parts 1 and 2 of the request under section 40(2) of the FOIA – third party personal data and stated no information was held within the scope of part 3. During the Commissioner’s investigation, the council updated its response to parts 1 and 2 of the request, citing section 14(1) (vexatious requests) of the FOIA as grounds for refusal. The Commissioner’s decision is that section 14(1) of the FOIA is engaged to parts 1 and 2 of the request and that, on the balance of probabilities, no information is held falling within the scope of part 3 of the request. The Commissioner does not require any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 14
View Lancashire County Council
15 Jan 2026Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested copies of inspection reports for dog breeding establishments. Fermanagh and Omagh District Council (‘the Council’) initially relied on section 43 of FOIA to withhold the requested information. The Council later explained that information in scope of the request had been destroyed in error. The Council was able to recover the majority of this information and at that point disclosed the information it held within scope of the request, no longer relying on section 43. However, the Council was not able to recover all of the information. The Commissioner therefore finds a breach of section 1(1)(b) of FOIA as it failed to disclose all the information in scope held at the time the request was made. He also finds that the Council breached section 10(1) of FOIA as it failed to provide a proper response within 20 working days. As the Commissioner is satisfied that the Council has now provided the information it holds within scope of the request, the Commissioner doe
Exemptions cited: FOI 1(1)(b); FOI 10
15 Jan 2026Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant sent a request for information about the Council's Job Evaluation Scheme. The Council provided information in scope of the request stating at internal review that all information held had been provided.
The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the Council does not hold further information in scope of the request. However, he finds that in failing to provide its response within 20 working days, the Council breached section 10 of FOIA.
No steps are required as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1(1); FOI 10
View City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council
14 Jan 2026Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to an incident at a hotel where a young child was injured in 2015. Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole Council (“the council”) refused part of the request under section 42(1) of FOIA (legal professional privilege). It also said that other information was not held by it. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council was correct to apply section 42 to withhold the information subject to legal professional privilege (“LPP”). However, he has decided that the council did hold further information at the time of the request, but that it deleted this. The Commissioner requires the council to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: To determine whether the information which has been deleted can be recovered from the council’s back-up systems, and, if so, to recover it, and to consider it for disclosure to the complainant under their rights under section 1 of FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 42
View BCP Council
14 Jan 2026Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about the policing of a protest campaign. Initially, Sussex Police considered this information exempt under section 31 (Law enforcement) of FOIA. However, during the Commissioner’s investigation, Sussex Police revised its position and disclosed the information which fell within the scope of the request. One document, previously withheld under section 31, remained undisclosed, as Sussex Police believed it was outside the scope of the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the undisclosed document fell outside the scope of the request and so Sussex Police was not required to consider it for disclosure. He therefore finds no failure to comply with section 1 (General right of access) in that regard. However, by failing to respond to the request and disclose information within the timescales set out under FOIA, Sussex Police breached sections 1(1) and 10(1) of FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10
View Sussex Police
14 Jan 2026Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about the Mayor’s expenses. Greater Manchester Combined Authority (GMCA) relied on section 38(1)(b) of FOIA (Health and Safety) to withhold some of the requested information. The Commissioner’s decision is that section 38(1)(b) of FOIA is engaged and that the balance of the public interest favours maintaining the exemption. However, he has recorded a procedural breach of section 10(1) of FOIA. The Commissioner does not require any steps to be taken as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10(1); FOI 38(1)(b)
View Greater Manchester Combined Authority
14 Jan 2026Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information about the cost floor in relation to his Right to Buy scheme application from the London Borough of Redbridge (the Council). The Council provided the complainant with some information within the scope of the request, however, stated that further recorded information was not held. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council failed to adequately ascertain whether or not it holds further information falling within the scope of the request. The Commissioner requires the Council to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation.
• Undertake the steps set out at paragraphs 64 and 65 of this notice in relation to conducing further searches for information falling within the scope of the request. The Council must carry out adequate searches to determine whether it holds any further information falling within the scope of the request and then issue a fresh response to the complainant that conforms with the relevant legislation. The
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(a)
View Redbridge Council
14 Jan 2026Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental 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); EIR 14(3)
14 Jan 2026Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information about how equality data is gathered at the Ministry of Justice (“the MOJ”). The MOJ refused the request as a “repeated request”, relying on section 14(2) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the MOJ was not entitled to refuse the request as a repeated request. The Commissioner requires the MOJ to take the following step to ensure compliance with the legislation: Provide a fresh response to the complainant that does not rely on section 14(2) of FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14(2)
View Ministry of Justice