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 upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information on foreign national offenders and their deportation status. The Home Office refused the request, citing section 12(1) (cost of compliance) of FOIA.
The Commissioner’s decision is that the Home Office was not entitled to rely on section 12(1) of FOIA to refuse the request. The Commissioner requires the Home Office to take the following step to ensure compliance with the legislation: • issue a fresh response to the request that does not rely on section 12(1) of FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12
View Home Office
6 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 under 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 EIR.
Exemptions cited: EIR 5(2)
View Hertsmere Borough Council
6 Jan 2026Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested late payment information from London Borough of Waltham Forest (“the council”). 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 council has not issued a substantive response to this request. Therefore the Commissioner finds a breach of section 10. The council must provide a substantive response to the request in accordance with its obligations under FOIA. The council must take this step within 30 calendar days of the date of this decision notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Waltham Forest Council
6 Jan 2026Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested late payment information from the Atomic Weapons Establishment (“AWE”). 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 AWE has not issued a substantive response to this request. Therefore the Commissioner finds a breach of section 10. AWE must provide a substantive response to the request in accordance with its obligations under FOIA. AWE must take this step within 30 calendar days of the date of this decision notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Atomic Weapons Establishment
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
5 Jan 2026Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to Palantir Technologies UK Ltd. Leicestershire Police refused to disclose the requested information, citing sections 24(1) (National security), 31(1) (Law enforcement) and 43(2) (Commercial interests) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that Leicestershire Police was entitled to apply sections 31(1) and 43(2) to withhold the majority of the information falling within scope of the request. However, he found that none of the cited exemptions are engaged in respect of most of a contract document. The Commissioner requires Leicestershire Police to disclose the contract document, except for the information that the Commissioner has determined is exempt under sections 31(1) and 43(2) of FOIA (listed in a confidential annex to this notice, which is being made available to Leicestershire Police only). Personal data and contact information must also be redacted.
Exemptions cited: FOI 31; FOI 43
View Leicestershire Police
5 Jan 2026Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested a stock condition survey report produced by Savills regarding the Waltham Estate. Following an earlier decision notice issued by the Commissioner, the London Borough of Lambeth (“LBL”) provided a response which it thought satisfied the request. The complainant disagreed and specified that their request was for the information that Savills had given to LBL and not the information it had extrapolated from that information. LBL did not respond. In correspondence with the Commissioner, it argued that, strictly speaking, it did not hold the requested information. The Commissioner’s decision is that LBL does hold information that would fall within the scope of the request which is not the information it has already provided. The Commissioner requires LBL to provide the complainant with the information specifically provided to it by Savills regarding the Waltham Estate or, to the extent to which any of it is exempt, provide a valid refusal notice to the complaina
Exemptions cited: EIR 3
View London Borough of Lambeth
5 Jan 2026Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested correspondence between the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority (IPSA) and Alexander Stafford. IPSA disclosed information with redactions. The Commissioner’s decision is that IPSA has identified all information it holds that falls within the scope of the request, in line with section 1 (general right of access to information) of FOIA. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority
5 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 Hertsmere Borough Council
5 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 under 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 EIR.
Exemptions cited: EIR 5(2)
View Enfield Council
5 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 FOI. The Commissioner requires it to provide the complainant with a response to this request within 30 calendar days in accordance with its obligations under FOI.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10(1)
View Enfield Council
5 Jan 2026Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from Adur District Council regarding the redevelopment of an estate. 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 Adur District Council
5 Jan 2026Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant submitted a request to the London Borough of Richmond upon Thames (the Council) seeking information about the decision to terminate the lease of Pensford Field. The Council withheld information falling within the scope of the request on the basis of regulation 12(4)(e) (internal communications) of the EIR. The Commissioner’s decision is that whilst most of the withheld information falls within the scope of regulation 12(4)(e), the public interest favours disclosure of this information. There is one piece of withheld information which the Commissioner has concluded does not fall within the scope of regulation 12(4)(e), and even if it did, then the public interest would also favour disclosure of that information.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(e)
View Richmond upon Thames Council
5 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 Enfield Council
5 Jan 2026Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to the Information Commissioner (ICO) for information relating to specific policies and procedures.
The Commissioner’s decision is that the request was vexatious and therefore the ICO was entitled to rely upon section 14(1) of FOIA to refuse it.
The Commissioner does not require further steps, as a result of this decision notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14(1)
View Information Commissioner
24 Dec 2025Complaint 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 the evidence available and the Commissioners intervention, 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.
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 Rhondda Cynon Taf County Borough Council
23 Dec 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested details of expenditure and purchase orders for 2024 from Trafford Council (“the Council”). The Council provided a link to information that it has published on its website, but this failed to address all parts of the request. Following an internal review, the Council advised the complainant that the request was vexatious under section 14(1) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the request was vexatious and he finds no breach of section 16(1) (Advice and assistance). No steps are required.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14; FOI 16
View Trafford Council
23 Dec 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested all Data Protection Impact Assessment (DPIA) relating to the Home Office’s Strategic Facial Matching (SFM) project. The Home Office confirmed that it held the information but refused to provide it citing section 35(1)(a) (formulation of government policy) of FOIA.
The Commissioner’s decision is that the Home Office was entitled to rely on section 35(1)(a) of FOIA to withhold the information and the public interest favours withholding the information
The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 35(1)(a)
View Home Office
23 Dec 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested a copy of an investigation report into a gable wall collapse at a train station. The Office of Rail and Road (ORR) provided the factual parts of the report but withheld all other information, initially under sections 30, 31 and 40 Freedom of Information Act 2000. The ORR accepted the information was environmental information and then sought to rely on regulations 12(4)(e) and 12(5)(b) EIR. The Commissioner’s decision is that the ORR has correctly engaged regulation 12(5)(b) and the public interest favours maintaining the exception and withholding the remaining information in the report. No steps are required.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(b)
View Office of Rail and Road
23 Dec 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about a named police Operation from the Metropolitan Police Service (the “MPS”). The MPS would neither confirm nor deny (NCND) whether it held any information, citing the exemptions at sections 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 30(3). No steps are required.
Exemptions cited: FOI 30
View Metropolitan Police Service
22 Dec 2025Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information on the 11+ exam, specifically the multiple choice answers from Future Stories Commercial Enterprise Ltd (FSCE), a wholly owned trading company of Reading School. FSCE refused to provide this information under section 43(2) FOIA – commercial interests. The Commissioner’s decision is that FSCE has failed to demonstrate that section 43 of FOIA is engaged and is therefore not entitled to rely on this exemption.The Commissioner requires FSCE to disclose, to the complainant, the multiple choice answer “dots” it has relied on section 43 of FOIA to withhold.
Exemptions cited: FOI 43
22 Dec 2025Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to an Ofsted inspection of Great Dunmow Primary School (the School). Ofsted relied on section 40(2) of FOIA (third party personal information) to apply redactions to the information. The Commissioner’s decision is that the public authority has correctly relied on section 40(2) of FOIA to withhold the redacted information. However, he considers that Ofsted’s handling of the request breached section 17(3) of FOIA. The Commissioner does not require further steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 17(3); FOI 40(2)
View Office for Standards in Education, Children's Services and Skills (Ofsted)
22 Dec 2025Complaint 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
22 Dec 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about use of ChatGPT from the Home Office. The Home Office advised that it held no information. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the civil standard of the balance of probabilities, no information is held. No steps are required.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Home Office
19 Dec 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant asked the Chief Constable Cheshire Constabulary (the Constabulary) 10 questions relating to child safeguarding and policing ethics at Cheshire’s Pride events. The Constabulary stated that it did not hold any information falling within the scope of questions 1, 3, 8 and 9 of the request. The Constabulary refused to comply with question 2 of the request, relying on section 12 of FOIA (cost of compliance). Finally, the Constabulary refused to confirm or deny whether it held any of the information requested in questions 4-7, initially relying on section 40(5B) of FOIA (third party personal information). During the course of the Commissioner’s investigation, the Constabulary revised its response, instead relying on section 40(5A) of FOIA (personal information of the requester) to refuse to confirm or deny whether it held this information. The Commissioner’s decision is that on the balance of probabilities, the Constabulary does not hold the information requested in questions
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 16; FOI 40(5)(a)
View Cheshire Constabulary
19 Dec 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant made a four-part request for information relating to external examiners, the University and College Union marking boycott, and the use of irregular markers. The Open University (the OU) has refused the whole request under section 14(1) of FOIA on the basis that it is vexatious. It has also refused parts one and two of the request under section 14(2) of FOIA, on the basis that they are repeated requests. The Commissioner’s decision is that the request was vexatious and that the OU was therefore entitled to rely on section 14(1) of FOIA to refuse it in its entirety. As the Commissioner is satisfied that the entire request is exempt under section 14(1), he has not gone on to consider whether parts one and two of the request were repeated for the purposes of section 14(2). The Commissioner does not require the OU to take any steps as a result of this decision notice. Information Tribunal FT/EA/2026/0024 under appeal.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14(1)
View The Open University
19 Dec 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) relating to the number of warnings, formal warnings, suspensions, and dismissals issued to staff at HMP Winchester. The MoJ relied on section 40(5B) of FOIA (third party personal information) to refuse to confirm or deny that the information was held. The Commissioner’s decision is that the MoJ has correctly relied on section 40(5B) of FOIA to refuse to confirm or deny whether the information is held. The Commissioner does not require the MoJ to take any further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40(5)(b)
View Ministry of Justice
19 Dec 2025Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to the London Borough of Waltham Forest (the council) for the number of staff handling complaints made about the council. In this request, they confirmed that they wished to receive this information in hard copy to a specified postal address. The council provided its response outside of the statutory timeframe. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council has breached section 10(1) by not providing its response within the statutory timeframe. As the complainant has received a response in both electronic and hard copy format by the time of this notice, the Commissioner does not require the council to take any further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 11
View Waltham Forest Council
19 Dec 2025Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to the London Borough of Waltham Forest (the council) for information relating to enforcement action regarding non-payment of council tax. In this request, they confirmed that they wished to receive this information in tabular form and in hard copy to a specified postal address. From the evidence provided to him, the Commissioner finds that the council has not complied with the provisions of section 11 as it did not provide the disclosed information in the complainant’s preferred format. The Commissioner requires the council to provide the complainant with a tabulated hard copy version of the requested information to the specified postal address. The public authority must take these steps within 30 calendar days of the date of this decision notice. Failure to comply may result in the Commissioner making written certification of this fact to the High Court pursuant to section 54 of the Act and may be dealt with as a contempt of court.
Exemptions cited: FOI 11
View Waltham Forest Council
19 Dec 2025Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to the London Borough of Waltham Forest (the council) for information on its IT hardware and software. In this request, they confirmed that they wished to receive this information in tabular form and in hard copy to a specified postal address. From the evidence provided to him, the Commissioner finds that the council has not complied with the provisions of section 11 as it did not provide the disclosed information in the complainant’s preferred format. The Commissioner also finds that the council’s refusal notice in relation to the withheld information did not comply with the obligations set out in section 17(1). The Commissioner requires the council to provide the complainant with a tabulated, hard copy version of the disclosed information to the specified address and a valid refusal notice which complies with section 17(1). The public authority must take these steps within 30 calendar days of the date of this decision notice. Failure to comply may
Exemptions cited: FOI 11; FOI 17
View Waltham Forest Council
19 Dec 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to HMRC seeking information about particular companies which had imported goods into the UK between 2019 and 2024. HMRC explained that it could not confirm whether it held any information falling within the scope of the request within the appropriate cost limit. It therefore refused to comply with the request on the basis of section 12(2) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that HMRC is entitled to rely on section 12(2) of FOIA to refuse to comply with the request.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12
19 Dec 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from the University of East London (the university) relating to their own complaint and alterations to digital policy documents on the university website. The university provided some information but exempted most of the request, applying section 40(1) FOIA as it stated that it was the complainant’s own personal data. The Commissioner’s decision is that the requested information withheld under section 40(1) FOIA is the complainant’s own personal data and cannot be disclosed under FOIA. He has also decided that the university does not, on the balance of probabilities, hold any further information. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 40(1)
View The University of East London
19 Dec 2025Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested, from the Chief Constable of Cleveland Police (Cleveland Police), information about Operation Magnolia. During the Commissioner’s investigation, Cleveland Police revised its position; Cleveland Police is now relying on section 12(1) of FOIA (exemption where cost of compliance exceeds appropriate limit) to refuse to comply with the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that Cleveland Police is entitled to rely on section 12(1) of FOIA, and has complied with section 16 of FOIA (duty to provide advice and assistance). However he also finds that Cleveland Police breached section 17(1) of FOIA (refusal of request) because its refusal notice was late and didn’t cite the exemption – section 12(1) of FOIA – that Cleveland Police eventually came to rely on. Information Tribunal FT/EA/2025/0473 under appeal.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12(1); FOI 16; FOI 17(1)
View Cleveland Police
19 Dec 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested inspection reports held by the City of Wolverhampton Council (the council) relating to a particular road. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council is entitled to rely on the exception at regulation 12(5)(b) (course of justice) of the EIR as its basis for withholding the requested information.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(b)
View Wolverhampton City Council
19 Dec 2025Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The National Archives has failed to respond to this request within 20 working days, as specified under 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)
18 Dec 2025Complaint 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 the evidence available and the Commissioners intervention, 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.
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 London Borough of Hackney
18 Dec 2025Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information regarding complaints made against individual councillors under the standards process. The council provided a list of complaints, their outcomes, and the parties of the councillors concerned, but it withheld the identities of the individual councillors concerned under section 40(2) of FOIA (personal data). The Commissioner’s decision is that the council was partly correct to withhold the requested information under section 40(2). The Commissioner requires the council to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. To disclose the names of councillors from the disclosed list where the individual complaints against them were upheld.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40(2)
View Preston City Council
18 Dec 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested from Companies House (CH) information relating to Sumando Ltd and their financial statements. CH refused the request and cited section 40(2) (personal information) and section 41(1) (information provided in confidence), of FOIA. CH subsequently applied sections 31(1)(g) and (2)(c) (law enforcement) and section 30(1)(b) (investigations and proceedings) of FOIA to the request.
The Commissioner’s decision is that CH was entitled to rely on all of the exemptions cited to refuse to provide the information requested. The Commissioner does not require CH to take any further steps as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: FOI 31(1)(g); FOI 40(2); FOI 41(1); FOI 30(1)(b); FOI 31(2)(c)
View Companies House
18 Dec 2025Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information regarding the legal basis and justification for the Architects Registration Board’s (ARB) Continuing Professional Development (CPD) review process. The ARB disclosed information in scope of the request, but citied section 42(1) - legal professional privilege of FOIA to withhold information around legal advice sought.
The Commissioner’s decision is that the ARB was entitled to rely on section 42(1) to withhold the specific information, and in the circumstances of this case the public interest favours maintaining the exemption. He also finds that on the balance of probability; the ARB has provided all the information it holds in scope of the request. However, he finds that the ARB breached section 17(1) when it failed to provide its public interest arguments in the initial refusal notice to the complainant.
The Commissioner does not require any steps as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 42(1); FOI 17(1)
View Architects Registration Board
18 Dec 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has made a series of requests seeking information about the names of certain staff, email address structures and internal review policies and procedures. Hwyel Dda University Health Board (‘HDUHB’) provided some information, advised that some information was not held, and that some of the requests were not valid under FOIA. It relied on section 21 of FOIA for information it had already provided in previous responses, and on section 14(1) of FOIA to refuse the parts of the requests concerning email address structure. The Commissioner’s decision is that HDUHB was entitled to rely on section 14(1) of FOIA to refuse the requests. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14(1)
View Hywel Dda University Health Board
18 Dec 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about asylum seeker accommodation. The Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government stated that the information was withheld under the exemption provided by section 35(1)(a) (formulation or development of government policy) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the MHCLG was entitled to withhold the information under section 35(1)(a). The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 35(1)(a)
View Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government
18 Dec 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information in respect of Carmarthenshire residents who access Bryn Siriol Respite Service based in Aberystwyth. Carmarthenshire County Council (the Council) refused the request citing section 40(2) (personal data) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council was entitled to refuse the request on the basis of section 40(2) FOIA. The Commissioner has however recorded a breach a section 17 of the FOIA due to the Council’s failure to issue a refusal notice within the statutory time for compliance. The Commissioner does not require any steps to be taken as a result of this notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40(2)
View Ceredigion County Council
18 Dec 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested contractual information about the current and previous Data Protection Officers (DPOs) employed by London Fire Brigade (LFB). LFB relied on section 40(2) of FOIA (third party personal information) to withhold the information. The Commissioner’s decision is that LFB has correctly relied on section 40(2) of FOIA to withhold the information. The Commissioner does not require further steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40(2)
18 Dec 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about how figures were calculated in a particular survey report. The Financial Conduct Authority (‘the FCA’) provided a link to where the information requested in part one of the request was already reasonable available (section 21 of FOIA). It originally stated that it did not hold the information requested in part two but has since found that it is able to provide the information it holds in scope of this part of the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the FCA was entitled to rely on section 21 of FOIA to withhold the information requested in part one of the request. However, the Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: Disclose to the complainant the information requested in part two of the request, if it hasn’t already done so.
Exemptions cited: FOI 21
View Financial Conduct Authority
18 Dec 2025Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
1. The complainant requested from the Ministry of Justice (MOJ) disclosure of an Independent Assessor’s report in relation to a well known case of miscarriage of justice. The MOJ first refused to disclose the requested information relying on section 40(2) of FOIA (personal data). After internal review it withdrew its reliance on section 40 and cited section 41 of FOIA (information provided in confidence) as a basis for non-disclosure.
2. The Commissioner’s decision is that section 41 of FOIA is not engaged in relation to the requested information. The Commissioner’s decision is also that section 40(2) of FOIA is engaged in relation to some of the requested information.
3. The Commissioner requires the MOJ to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation:-
• Disclose paragraphs 1-13 of the Independent Assessor’s report.
4. The MOJ must take these steps within 30 calendar days of the date of this decision notice. Failure to comply may result in the Commissioner makin
Exemptions cited: FOI 40; FOI 41
View Ministry of Justice
17 Dec 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The Complainant requested information about a breakdown of costs relating to the BBC’s “Make a Difference Awards” initiative. The Commissioner’s decision is that this information was held by the BBC for the purposes of ‘journalism, art or literature’ and did not fall inside FOIA. He therefore upholds the BBC’s position and requires no remedial steps to be taken in this case.
Exemptions cited: FOI 3
View BBC
17 Dec 2025Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
Section 10(1) of FOIA states that a public authority must respond to a request within 20 working days. Section 17(3) of FOIA states that where a public authority is relying on a qualified exemption, it can have a “reasonable” extension of time to consider the public interest in maintaining the exemption or disclosing the information. The section 45 Code of Practice states that usually this should be no more than a further 20 working days. This means that the total time spent responding to a request should not exceed 40 working days unless there are exceptional circumstances. The Commissioner does not consider there to be any exceptional circumstances and finds that, by failing to respond to the request within a reasonable time frame, the public authority has breached section 17(3) of 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
Exemptions cited: FOI 17(3)
View Home Office
17 Dec 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information in respect of communications between officials and/or Ministers of the Department for Environment Food & Rural Affairs (“Defra”) and CK Holdings Limited.
Defra refused the request on the grounds that it was manifestly unreasonable (regulation 12(4)(b) of the EIR) due to the burden that compliance would impose on it.
The Commissioner’s decision is that Defra was entitled to rely on regulation 12(4)(b) to refuse the request.
The Commissioner does not require any steps as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(b)
17 Dec 2025Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant submitted a request to the London Borough of Lambeth (the Council) seeking information about the potential new development of Bellevue Garden located at Clapham Road. The Council confirmed that it held some information but withheld this in full on the basis of regulations 12(4)(e) (internal communications), 12(5)(d) (confidentiality of proceedings), 12(5)(e) (confidentiality of commercial or industrial information) and 12(5)(f) (interests of the person who provided the information) of the EIR. The Council subsequently disclosed some information to the complainant, withholding the remainder on the basis of the previously cited exceptions. The Commissioner’s decision is that withheld information is not exempt from disclosure on the basis of any of the exceptions cited and furthermore that is likely that the Council holds further information falling within the scope of the request.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(e); EIR 12(5)(d); EIR 12(5)(e); EIR 12(5)(f); EIR 5(1)
View London Borough of Lambeth