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
14 Jan 2026Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested communications between the Crown Estate and the Crown Estate Paving Commission CEPC) and information relating to CEPC board meetings attended by the board member. The Crown Estate stated that it does not hold the information requested for the purposes of FOIA, under the provisions of section 3(2)(a) (public authorities). The Commissioner’s decision is that the requested information is not held by the Crown Estate for the purposes of FOIA.
No steps are required as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: FOI 3(2)(a)
14 Jan 2026Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information relating to the granting of outline planning permission for a data centre in South Mimms. Hertsmere Borough Council (the “council”) refused the request on cost grounds under section 12 of the FOIA. During the Commissioner’s investigation the council reconsidered the request under the EIR and confirmed that it was relying on the exception in regulation 12(4)(b) (manifestly unreasonable) to refuse the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council was not entitled to rely on regulation 12(4)(b) of the EIR to refuse the request and that it breached regulation 14(2) by failing to issue a refusal notice in time. The Commissioner requires the council to provide the complainant with a fresh response to the refined version of the request that complies with the EIR and that doesn’t rely on regulation 12(4)(b).
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(b); EIR 14(2)
View Hertsmere Borough Council
14 Jan 2026Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The Commissioner’s decision is that Fosdyke Parish Council doesn’t hold the legal advice the complainant has requested and complied with sections 1(1) and 10(1) of FOIA. The Commissioner doesn’t require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1(1); FOI 10(1)
14 Jan 2026Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has made a five-part request to Tees Valley Combined Authority (TVCA) for statistical information on the handling of FOI requests by the combined authority during 2024, including numbers of FOI request received, timeliness of responses, internal reviews, ICO investigations and upheld complaints, as well as staff numbers for handling such requests. TVCA stated that the majority of the requested information was publicly available and provided a link to access the information. It stated that the number of staff employed to handle FOI requests was less than five. It refused to provide the precise number under section 40(2) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that TVCA is not entitled to rely on section 40(2) of FOIA to withhold the precise number of staff employed by the combined authority to handle FOI requests. The Commissioner requires TVCA disclose the precise number of staff employed by the combined authority to handle FOI requests within 30 calendar days.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40(2)
View Tees Valley Combined Authority
14 Jan 2026Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested correspondence between the then Secretary of State, Lord Cameron, and the Permanent Secretary to the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (FCDO) regarding potential conflicts of interest. The FCDO refused to disclose the requested information on the basis of sections 40(2) (third party personal data) and 41 (information provided in confidence) of FOIA. It later sought to rely on sections 36(2)(b) and (c) (prejudice to the effective conduct of public affairs). The Commissioner’s decision is that the FCDO was entitled to rely on section 40(2) to refuse the request. No steps are required.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
14 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
14 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 Cherwell District Council
13 Jan 2026Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested fire and safety related information from London Fire Brigade (LFB) in relation to a named residential location. LFB refused to disclose the information citing section 31(1)(g) of FOIA (the exemption for the exercise by any public authority of its functions for any of the purposes specified in subsection (2)). LFB said that the relevant purposes were section 31(2)(a) (the exemption for the purposes of ascertaining whether any person has failed to comply with the law) and section 31(2)(c) (the exemption for purpose of ascertaining whether circumstances which would justify regulatory action in pursuance of any enactment exist or may arise). The Commissioner’s decision is that LFB has correctly applied section 31(1)(g) of FOIA to the remaining withheld information as disclosure would be likely to prejudice the exercise of its functions under sections 31(2)(a) and (c). The public interest favours maintaining this exemption. The Commissioner does not require fu
Exemptions cited: FOI 31(1)(g); FOI 31(2)(c); FOI 31(2)(a)
13 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 ST MARY'S CATHOLIC PRIMARY SCHOOL
13 Jan 2026Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to specific High Court proceedings. Government Legal Department (GLD) provided some of the requested information. However it denied holding some of the information, citing section 1 (general right of access to information) of FOIA and refused to disclose the remainder, citing section 42(1) (Legal professional privilege) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that GLD is entitled to rely on section 42(1) of FOIA to withhold the requested information in scope of part 1(c) of the request. He also found that, on the balance of probabilities, GLD does not hold information within the scope of parts 2, 4 and 5 of the request. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 42
View Government Legal Department
13 Jan 2026Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested WhatsApp messages referenced in an email disclosure. The Department for Business and Trade (“DBT”) stated that it does not hold the requested information. The Commissioner’s decision is that DBT does not hold the requested information, however, it has failed to discharge its duties at section 16(1)(advice and assistance) of FOIA. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 16
View Department for Business and Trade
13 Jan 2026Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about a specific care home and about two individuals from the London Borough of Harrow (the Council). The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the Council has not conducted adequate searches for the requested information. The Commissioner requires the Council to conduct a fresh search for the requested information, as outlined in paragraph 14.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Harrow Council
13 Jan 2026Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information relating to a housing development. Mid Devon District Council (“the council”) disclosed some information, however it redacted sections from this, applying Regulation 12(5)(e)(commercial confidentiality) and Regulation 13 (personal data). The Commissioner’s decision is that the council was correct to withhold the redacted sections under Regulation 12(5)(e) and Regulation 13. The Commissioner does not require the council to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(e); EIR 13(1)
View Mid Devon District Council
13 Jan 2026Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information related to child abuse from Bradford Children and Families Trust (the Trust). The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the Trust does not hold the requested information. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View BCADS Children & Families
13 Jan 2026Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
1. The complainant has requested all information held by Kent Police relating to an investigation into a missing persons case.
2. Kent Police withheld the requested information, citing section 30(1)(a) (investigations and proceedings) of FOIA.
3. The Commissioner’s decision is that the exemption is engaged and the public interest lies in maintaining the exemption.
4. The Commissioner does not require any further steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 30
View Kent Police
13 Jan 2026Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information regarding how victims of historical child abuse can report the crime. Durham Constabulary provided links to information within the public domain in line with section 21 of FOIA. It also advised that no additional information was held. The Commissioner’s decision is that: Durham Constabulary was entitled to rely on section 21 of FOIA. On the balance of probabilities, Durham Constabulary does not hold any additional information within the scope of the request. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 21
13 Jan 2026Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information from St Albans City and District Council (‘the Council’) about an alleged breach of planning control at their property. The Council said it did not hold the requested information and it directed the complainant to request it from a neighbouring council, which managed the Council’s planning enforcement services on its behalf. The Commissioner’s decision is that the requested information is ‘held’ by the Council within the meaning of regulation 3(2)(b) of the EIR and that it was responsible for responding to the request. He finds that by failing to do so within 20 working days, the Council breached regulation 5(2) of the EIR.
Exemptions cited: EIR 5(2)
View St Albans City and District Council
13 Jan 2026Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted an information request to the Princess Alexandra Hospital NHS Trust (the trust) for a copy of a specific report.
The Commissioner’s decision is that the trust was entitled to rely upon section 40(1) (personal data of the requester) and 40(2) (third-party personal data) of FOIA to withhold parts of the requested information. However, he finds that in relation to section 31(g) via section 31(2)(j) (law enforcement), the exemption is not engaged. Furthermore, in failing to issue an appropriate refusal notice confirming the exemptions it ultimately came to rely upon, within the statutory timescale, the trust has breached section 17(1) of FOIA.
The Commissioner requires the trust to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation.
• Disclose the information highlighted green in the Confidential Annex Report.
The trust must take these steps within 30 calendar days of the date of this decision notice. Failure to comply may result in the Commissione
Exemptions cited: FOI 31(1)(g); FOI 32(2); FOI 40(1); FOI 40(2); FOI 17(1)
View The Princess Alexandra Hospital NHS Trust
13 Jan 2026Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested specific information in relation to proceedings in a named Employment Tribunal case from HM Courts and Tribunal Service (“HMCTS”).
The Ministry of Justice (“MoJ”) denied holding the requested information.
The Commissioner’s decision is that the information sought by the complainant is not held by the MoJ and that the MoJ is entitled to rely on section 3(2)(a) (public authorities) of FOIA.
The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: FOI 32(2)
View Ministry of Justice
13 Jan 2026Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information about a footpath. Lincolnshire County Council (‘the council’) directed the complainant to information it had already disclosed, disclosed further information, and advised it doesn’t hold some of the information (regulation 12(4)(a) of the EIR). The council also subsequently advised that complying with an element of the complainant’s request would be unreasonable. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council doesn’t hold any further information within scope of the request. The council complied with regulation 5 of the EIR and is entitled to rely on regulation 12(4)(a) and regulation 12(4)(b) which concerns manifestly unreasonable requests. However, its refusal under the regulation 12 exceptions didn’t comply with regulation 14. It’s not necessary for the council to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(a); EIR 12(4)(b); EIR 14; EIR 5
View Lincolnshire County Council
13 Jan 2026Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested a specified Business Case and associated documentation relating to the ‘Cerberus’ project (see ‘Background’ section below). The Home Office initially refused to provide any of the requested information, relying on section 31(1)(a) of FOIA – the exemption for prejudice to the prevention and detection of crime. At internal review, the Home Office additionally cited section 40(2) of FOIA to withhold the personal information within the requested material. During the course of the Commissioner’s investigation, the Home Office revised its position and disclosed redacted versions of the requested material, relying on the same FOIA exemptions. The complainant asked the Commissioner to focus his investigation on fifteen of the disclosed redacted documents. He also advised that he was not concerned with the Home Office’s reliance on section 40(2) of FOIA, so the Commissioner has not considered this aspect any further. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Home Office
Exemptions cited: FOI 31
View Home Office
12 Jan 2026Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested copies of all communications between specified individuals on particular dates, relating to the application and procedures to be followed for a deputation from Wandsworth Friends of Palestine and Richmond Palestine Solidarity Campaign to a Pensions Committee meeting on 15 October 2024. The London Borough of Wandsworth (the ‘Council’) refused to provide any information, citing the FOIA exemptions in section 36 (prejudice to the effective conduct of public affairs) and section 38 (health and safety etc). During the course of the Commissioner’s investigation, the Council partly revised its position and disclosed some emails with personal information redacted under section 40(2) of FOIA. The complainant confirmed that any consideration of section 40(2) could be scoped out of the Commissioner’s investigation, so the Commissioner has not considered this aspect any further. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council was entitled to rely on sections 36(2)(b)(i) a
Exemptions cited: FOI 36
View London Borough of Wandsworth
12 Jan 2026Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to UK Research and Innovation (UKRI) seeking the monetary value of specific research grants awarded for 2021 and 2022. The UKRI withheld the information the basis of section 38(1)(b) (health and safety) and section 40(2) (personal information) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that this information is exempt from disclosure on the basis of section 38(1)(b) and that, in all the circumstances of the case, the public interest favours maintaining the exemption. No steps are required.
Exemptions cited: FOI 38(1)(b)
View UK Research and Innovation
12 Jan 2026Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested from the Foreign, Commonwealth and the Development Office (the FCDO) copies of all communication made by or on behalf of Prince Andrew to the FCDO, UK Trade and Investment or the British Embassy in Bahrain in relation to his visit to Bahrain between October 2001 and October 2003.
The FCDO provided some information within the scope of the request but withheld the remainder citing section 40 (personal information) and section 41 (information provided in confidence). During the course of the Commissioner’s investigation, the FCDO revised its position. It disclosed the information previously withheld, albeit with redactions on the basis of section 31 (law enforcement) and section 38 (health and safety).
The Commissioner’s decision is that the redacted information is not exempt from disclosure on the basis of section 31 or section 38 of FOIA. The Commissioner also found that the FCDO does not hold any further information falling within the scope of this request
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10; FOI 17; FOI 31; FOI 38
12 Jan 2026Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information related to meetings between HM Treasury (HMT) and Amazon and/or Amazon Web Services that relate to the £8 billion of investment by Amazon Web Services. HMT disclosed some information but refused to provide the remainder, citing section 35(1)(a) (formulation/development of government policy), section 40 (personal data) and section 43 (commercial interests) as its basis for doing so. The complainant did not challenge section 40. HMT disclosed further information at internal review and during the Commissioner’s investigation. The Commissioner’s decision is that HMT is entitled to rely on section 35(1)(a) and section 43(2) as its basis for withholding the remainder of the information it holds within the scope of the request. HMT also exceeded the time for compliance when responding to the request. In doing so, it contravened sections 1, 10 and 17. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 35; FOI 42
View HM Treasury
12 Jan 2026Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information about a named individual. The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) relied on section 40(5B) of FOIA (third party personal information) to refuse to confirm or deny whether the information was held. The Commissioner’s decision is that the MoJ correctly relied on section 40(5B) of FOIA to refuse to confirm or deny whether the information was held. The Commissioner does not require any steps to be taken as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View Ministry of Justice
12 Jan 2026Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested governance records and an internal investigation report from Thorpe St Andrew Town Council (the Council). The Commissioner’s decision is that, beyond information about meetings published on its website, the Council holds no further information and has therefore complied with its obligations under section 1(1) in regards to part one of the request. Based on evidence available to the Commissioner, by the date of this notice the Council has not issued a substantive response to part two of the request. Therefore, the Commissioner finds a breach of section 10. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has failed to carry out adequate searches for the information requested in part three of the request, and therefore, on the balance of probabilities, has not determined if all information in scope of the request is held. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council was entitled to rely on section 40(2) of FOIA to withhold the information in scope of part four
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10; FOI 40(2)
12 Jan 2026Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information about NHS dental services. NHS Norfolk and Waveney Integrated Care Board (‘the ICB’) disclosed some information, directed the complainant to relevant published information and advised that it doesn’t hold the remaining information the complainant requested. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the ICB doesn’t hold any further relevant information and complied with sections 1(1) and 10(1) of FOIA. It’s not necessary for the ICB to take any further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1(1); FOI 10(1)
View NHS Norfolk and Waveney ICB
12 Jan 2026Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about the (then) Duke of York’s work as UK’s Special Representative for International Trade and Investment in 2009. The Department for Business and Trade (DBT) originally provided some of the requested information with redactions and relied on section 21 (information accessible by other means), section 27 (international relations), section 40(2) (third party personal information), section 41 (provided in confidence) and section 43 of FOIA (commercial information to withhold the redacted information. During the Commissioner’s investigation, DBT identified that it held more information within scope of the request and changed its position to rely on section 12(1) of FOIA (cost limit) to refuse the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that DBT was entitled to rely on section 12(1) of FOIA to refuse the request. The Commissioner also finds that – in relation to this - DBT complied with its section 16 obligation to offer advice and assistance. How
Exemptions cited: FOI 1(1)(a); FOI 10; FOI 12; FOI 16; FOI 17
View Department for Business and Trade
12 Jan 2026Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about the partnership between the National Wealth Fund (NWF) and Amber Fund Management Ltd. NWF withheld all the information under section 43(2) of FOIA, which concerns commercial interests. The Commissioner’s decision is that the requested information is exempt from disclosure under section 43(2) and it’s not necessary for NWF to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 43(2)
View National Wealth Fund
12 Jan 2026Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about the reporting of suspected ‘damaging activities’ in relation to foreign powers, from the Metropolitan Police Service (the “MPS”). The MPS would neither confirm nor deny (“NCND”) holding the requested information, citing sections 23(5) (Information relating to, or supplied by, security bodies), 24(2) (National security), 27(4) (International relations), 30(3) (Investigations and proceedings) and 31(3) (Law enforcement) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the MPS was entitled to rely on
section 23(5) of FOIA with section 24(2) in the alternative. No steps are required.
Exemptions cited: FOI 23; FOI 24
View Metropolitan Police Service
9 Jan 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)
9 Jan 2026Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information about the Working Parent Entitlement. The Department for Education (DfE) withheld the information it had identified under sections 35, 40 and 42 of FOIA. These exemptions concern policy formulation, personal data and legal professional privilege, respectively. DfE also applied section 12 of FOIA to a related request the complainant also submitted. That exemption concerns the cost of compliance. The Commissioner’s decision is that sections 35(1)(a) and 12(1) are engaged. There was no breach of section 16(1) (advice and assistance) or section 17(5) (refusal of request) but there was a breach of section 17(1) in respect of timeliness. It’s not necessary for DfE to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12(1); FOI 16(1); FOI 17(5); FOI 35(1)(a); FOI 17(1)
View Department for Education
9 Jan 2026Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information from the London Borough of Richmond upon Thames (the Council) about the use of Pensford Field. The Council provided some information, but withheld other information under regulation 12(4)(e) of the EIR (internal communications). The Commissioner’s decision is that regulation 12(4)(e) is engaged, but the public interest favours disclosure with regard to some of the internal communications. The Commissioner requires the Council to take the following step to ensure compliance with the legislation: Disclose the information listed in the confidential annex to this notice, ensuring personal data is redacted where necessary. The confidential annex has been made available to the Council only.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(e); EIR 5(2)
View Richmond upon Thames Council
9 Jan 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)
9 Jan 2026Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a two-part request for information about the sharing of information with housing providers. Kent Police refused the request citing section 12 of FOIA to do so.
The Commissioner’s decision is that Kent Police was entitled to rely on section 12(1) of FOIA to refuse the request. The Commissioner also finds that Kent Police 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 Kent Police
8 Jan 2026Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested communications held by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) which related to the potential awarding of funding to the Belfast rap group Kneecap under the Music Export Growth Scheme. DCMS refused the request under section 36(2)(b)(i) and section 36(2)(b)(ii) (prejudice to the effective conduct of public affairs), though it later confirmed that it did not hold all of the requested information. The Commissioner’s decision is that the exemptions are engaged in respect of all of the withheld information. However he finds that the public interest in maintaining the exemptions does not outweigh the public interest in disclosure of most of the requested information. The Commissioner requires DCMS to disclose the withheld information, with the exception of personal identifiers of individuals.
Exemptions cited: FOI 36
View Department for Culture, Media and Sport
8 Jan 2026Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about activities in Serbia/Kosovo in in 2022 and 2023. The MOD relies on sections 26 and/or 27 to neither confirm or deny it holds some requested information and also that other requested information is not held by the MOD.The Commissioner’s decision is that the MOD correctly relied on section 26 to neither confirm or deny it holds some of the requested information and also that other requested information is not held by the MOD.The Commissioner does not require steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 26
View Ministry of Defence
8 Jan 2026Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested various information about translation and interpretation services. Rugby Borough Council provided some of the requested information, but confirmed that the remainder was not held. The Commissioner’s decision is that no further information is held. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Rugby Borough Council
8 Jan 2026Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from the Home Office relating to individuals that died whilst awaiting the outcome of an asylum claim.
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 Home Office
8 Jan 2026Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about CCTV cameras at a particular hospital. Guy’s and St Thomas’ NHS Foundation Trust (the Trust’) provided some of the requested information but relied on section 31 of FOIA (law enforcement) to withhold information about the location of CCTV cameras. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Trust was entitled to rely on section 31 to withhold the CCTV camera location information. He also finds the Trust breached sections 1(1)(a), 10(1) and 17(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)(a); FOI 10; FOI 31; FOI 17(1)
View Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust
7 Jan 2026Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
A public authority will breach section 10 of FOIA if it fails to respond to a request within 20 working days. Based on evidence available to the Commissioner, by the date of this notice the public authority has not issued a substantive response to this request. Therefore the Commissioner finds a breach of section 10. Steps:
The public authority must provide a substantive response to the request in accordance with its obligations under FOIA. The public authority must take this step within 30 calendar days of the date of this decision notice. Failure to comply may result in the Commissioner making written certification of this fact to the High Court pursuant to section 54 of FOIA and may be dealt with as a contempt of court.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Kent County Council
7 Jan 2026Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information about temporary accommodation. Cherwell District Council (the “council”) disclosed some information and withheld the names of smaller accommodation
providers under the exemptions for Health and Safety (section 38(1)) and commercial interests (section 43). The Commissioner’s decision is that the council correctly relied on section 38(1) to withhold the information.The Commissioner does not require the council to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 38(1)
View Cherwell District Council
7 Jan 2026Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The Commissioner’s decision is that the Atomic Weapons Establishment (AWE) is entitled to withhold the requested information about the value of its contract with Hewlett Packard Enterprise under section 24(1) of FOIA, which concerns national security. AWE’s refusal of the request didn’t comply with section 17(1). The Commissioner doesn’t require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 17(1); FOI 24(1)
View Atomic Weapons Establishment
7 Jan 2026Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about Dataminr. The National Police Chiefs’ Council (NPCC) would neither confirm nor deny whether it held the information described in the request, citing sections 31(3) (Law enforcement) and 24(2) (National security) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the NPCC was entitled to rely on section 24(2) to issue a neither confirm nor deny response to the request.
Exemptions cited: FOI 24
View National Police Chiefs Council
6 Jan 2026Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from Harrogate and District NHS Foundation Trust (the Trust) about staff training concerning “illicit powers of detention” amongst other matters. Over a period of time the Trust provided some information but refused to provide other information applying different exemptions, finally applying section 42(1) FOIA – legal professional privilege - to withhold some staff training information. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Trust did not appropriately apply section 42(1) FOIA and the exemption is not engaged. The Commissioner requires the Trust to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. • Disclose the information withheld by the Trust under section 42(1) FOIA with any necessary redactions to comply with its data protection obligations.
Exemptions cited: FOI 42(1)
View Harrogate and District NHS Foundation Trust
6 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 specific information associated with a planning application that the complainant has requested. Regulation 12(4)(a) of the EIR is therefore engaged but 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
6 Jan 2026Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested late payment information from West Midlands Combined Authority. A public authority will breach section 10 of FOIA if it fails to respond to a request within 20 working days. Based on evidence available to the Commissioner, by the date of this notice West Midlands Combined Authority has not issued a substantive response to this request. Therefore the Commissioner finds a breach of section 10. West Midlands Combined Authority must provide a substantive response to the request in accordance with its obligations under FOIA. West Midlands Combined Authority must take this step within 30 calendar days of the date of this decision notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View West Midlands Combined Authority
6 Jan 2026Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The Commissioner’s decision is that the requested information about drafts of the ‘GMC Order’, including submissions to the Department of Health and Social Care, is exempt from disclosure under section 36(2)(b)(ii) of FOIA. This exemption concerns inhibition to the exchange of views. The Commissioner doesn’t require the General Medical Council to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 36(2)(b)(ii)
View GMC