17 Dec 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested copies of all staff training and guidance material. The Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS) refused the request under section 12(1) (appropriate limit) of the FOIA.The Commissioner’s decision is that the FOS was entitled to refuse to comply with the request in accordance with section 12(1). The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken as a result of this decision. Information Tribunal FT/EA/2025/0476 under appeal.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12; FOI 16
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 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 not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information about a specific Traffic Regulation Order (TRO). Wiltshire Council (the Council) initially applied regulation 6(1)(b) (form and format) of the EIR to the request. In its internal review the Council provided some information, subject to some personal data being redacted under regulation 13 (personal data) of the EIR. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council does not hold any additional information relevant to the request. The Commissioner does not require any steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: EIR 5(1)
View Wiltshire Council
17 Dec 2025Complaint 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)
View Home Office
17 Dec 2025Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to pensions. HM Revenue and Customs (‘HMRC’) refused the request citing section 44(1)(a) (prohibitions on disclosure). The Commissioner’s decision is that the requested information is exempt under section 44(1)(a). The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10; FOI 44(1)(a)
16 Dec 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested various information in respect of variable speed limit signage and enforcement camera operation on the A1 southbound at a specified location, date and time. National Highways (NH) refused the request citing various subsections of section 31(1) (law enforcement) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that NH was entitled to rely on sections 31(1)(a) (b) and (c) of the FOIA to refuse the information and he does not require any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 31(1)(a); FOI 31(1)(b); FOI 31(1)(c)
View National Highways
16 Dec 2025Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information regarding the costs and work carried out by an investigator. The North Yorkshire Council (“the council”) refused the request. It said that some information was not held by it, and applied sections 40(2)(personal data), 43(2) (prejudice to commercial interests), and 41 (information held in confidence) to refuse the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council was correct to withhold some of the information under sections 40(2) and 43(2), however he has found that the council was not correct to withhold some of the information relating to the appointment and details of service. He has also decided that, on the balance of probabilities, the council does not hold any 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. To disclose the emails detailing the appointment and details of service, subject to the redactions indic
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 40(2); FOI 43(2)
View North Yorkshire County Council
16 Dec 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested a copy of London Borough of Islington’s (“the Council”) Families First Partnership Programme plan. The Council 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 Council 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 Council to take any further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 36
View Islington Council
16 Dec 2025Complaint 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
16 Dec 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested a copy of the criteria or internal decision-making process used by the Department for Education (DfE) and the Education and Skills Funding Agency to determine whether to publish a report or not. DfE withheld the information under section 31(1)(a) of FOIA (law enforcement). The Commissioner’s decision is that DfE was entitled to rely on section 31(1)(a) to withhold the information and that the public interest favours maintaining the exemption. The Commissioner does not require DfE to take any steps as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: FOI 31(1)(a)
View Department for Education
16 Dec 2025Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested Drax Power Ltd (Drax) to disclose all KPMG audits and reports it’s commissioned detailing the company's practices and environmental impact, including initial findings and final reports, which were received by Drax after September 2022. Drax responded, advising the complainant that it is not a public authority for the purposes of the EIR and therefore it was not obliged to respond. The Commissioner’s decision is that Drax is a public authority under regulation 2(2)(c) of the EIR and is therefore required to respond to the request. The Commissioner requires Drax to issue a substantive response to the complainant, in accordance with the requirements of the EIR.
Exemptions cited: EIR 2(2)
16 Dec 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from Flintshire County Council (“the Council”) relating to children attending The Haven school. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council is entitled to rely on section 40(2) (personal information) of FOIA to refuse to provide the requested information. The Commissioner does not require the Council to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View Flintshire County Council
16 Dec 2025Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about the “McCloud Remedy” from Durham Constabulary. Durham Constabulary initially relied on section 12(1) (Cost of compliance exceeds appropriate limit) of FOIA to refuse the request, but subsequently disclosed some information in response to a refined request. The complainant was dissatisfied with the handling of his request and also believed that further information was likely to be held.
During the Commissioner’s investigation, Durham Constabulary undertook further searches and found more information, which it disclosed, albeit with redactions made under section 40(2) (Personal information) – these were not disputed.
The complainant remained dissatisfied with the way the Durham Constabulary handled his request and required a Decision Notice to record procedural breaches. The Commissioner finds that Durham Constabulary breached sections 1(1)(b) (General right of access) and 10(1) (Time for compliance) in failing to identify and disclose so
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10; FOI 16
16 Dec 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information associated with the rejection of a named location as a potential site for Gypsies, Travellers and Travellers Showpeople. Surrey Heath Borough Council (the ‘Council’) provided some information, but refused to provide the remainder, citing Regulation 12(4)(e) – the EIR exception for internal communications. The complainant considered further information must be held in scope of her request and objected to the emails being excepted under Regulation 12(4)(e) of the EIR. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council correctly handled the request under the EIR for the reasons set out in this notice. He finds, on the balance of probabilities, that the Council holds no further information in scope of the request. He has also concluded that the Council properly relied on Regulation 12(4)(e) of the EIR in respect of the two withheld emails. No steps are required as a result of this notice.
Keywords: Planning, planning application
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(e); EIR 5(1)
View Surrey Heath Borough Council
16 Dec 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about a review of a murder investigation carried out by Hampshire & Isle of Wight Constabulary (“HIOWC”).
HIOWC relied on section 12(1) (cost limit) of FOIA to refuse the request.
The Commissioner’s decision is that HIOWC should have relied on section 12(2) to refuse the request and has proactively applied section 12(2) of FOIA.
No steps are required.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12(2)
View Hampshire and Isle of Wight Constabulary
15 Dec 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to specific court judgements. The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) denied holding the requested information for the purposes of FOIA (section 3(2)(a) (public authorities)). The Commissioner’s decision is that the requested information is not held by the MoJ for the purposes of FOIA. Nor does he find any procedural breaches in its handling of the request. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: FOI 3
View Ministry of Justice
15 Dec 2025Complaint 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 substantive response to the request within 30 calendar days in accordance with its obligations under FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Enfield Council
15 Dec 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The Commissioner’s decision is that the Financial Conduct Authority is entitled to neither confirm nor deny it holds the requested information about a named firm’s professional liability insurances certificates under section 44(2) of FOIA. This exemption concerns prohibitions on disclosure.
Exemptions cited: FOI 44(2)
View Financial Conduct Authority
15 Dec 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about exam results. Lancaster Girls’ Grammar School (‘the school’) disclosed some information but withheld the remainder under section 40(2) of FOIA, which concerns personal data. The Commissioner’s decision is that the school is entitled to withhold some of the requested information under section 40(2) of FOIA. He doesn’t require any further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40(2)
View LANCASTER GIRLS' GRAMMAR SCHOOL
15 Dec 2025Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information from National Highways Ltd (NHL) that was supplied to decision makers by NHL about the A38 Derby Junctions for the purposes of making a decision on the scheme. NHL provided a spreadsheet to the complainant, part of which had been redacted, having applied regulation 12(5)(e) of the EIR – commercial or industrial information. The Commissioner’s decision is that regulation 12(5)(e) is not engaged and therefore the information withheld under this exception must be disclosed. He has also found, on the balance of probabilities, that NHL does not hold any further information. The Commissioner has decided that NHL has breached regulation 5(2) of the EIR by not responding to the request within 20 working days. The Commissioner requires NHL to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. • Disclose the withheld information making appropriate redactions for any personal data.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(e); EIR 5(1); EIR 5(2)
View National Highways
12 Dec 2025Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information on Employment Support Allowance (ESA) decision making systems. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) is entitled to rely on section 14(1), vexatious requests, to refuse to comply with the request.
The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14; FOI 17
View Department for Work and Pensions
12 Dec 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information regarding legal agreements and associated documents concerning a particular programme of studies. The College initially cited section 12(1) (cost of compliance) of FOIA due to the size of the request and after a refined request was received, it provided redacted information in scope advising that it had not managed to locate some information, therefore information was not held for that part of the request (section 1(1)(a)). It cited an unreasonable burden (section 14 (vexatious) of FOIA) was being placed on the College by the continued requests.
The College has dealt with the part of the request for the complainant’s own personal information as a Subject Access Request (SAR) separately. This has been raised as a separate complaint with the ICO.
The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the College does not hold further information in scope of the request, and correctly cited section 12 due to the time required to deal w
Exemptions cited: FOI 1(1); FOI 12(1)
12 Dec 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
1. The complainant requested information about minutes of ministerial meetings that took place with 55 individuals and organisations between 1 July 2024 to the end of September 2024. The Department for Communities (DOC) relied on section 14(1) of FOIA (vexatious) to refuse the request.
2. The Commissioner’s decision is that the request was vexatious and therefore DOC was entitled to rely upon section 14(1) of FOIA to refuse it.
3. The Commissioner does not require any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14(1)
12 Dec 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information on the possibility of making Personal Independence Payment (PIP) a means-tested benefit. The Commissioner's decision is that the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) is entitled to rely on section 35(1)(a), formulation or development of government policy, to withhold the information.
Exemptions cited: FOI 35(1)(a)
View Department for Work and Pensions
11 Dec 2025Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information relating to a Traffic Regulation Order (TRO). Kent County Council (the “council”) provided some information and subsequently disclosed further information during the Commissioner’s investigation. The Commissioner’s decision is that, in failing to provide all the
requested information until the time of its internal review, the council breached regulation 5(2) and regulation 11(4) of the EIR. The Commissioner does not require the council to take further steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 11(4); EIR 5(2)
View Kent County Council
11 Dec 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant submitted a request to Malvern Hills Trust (the trust) for information relating to its change of name.
The Commissioner’s decision is that the requested information is not environmental information, under regulation 2(1) of the EIR, and therefore the trust was not obliged by the EIR to provide it.
As the information is not environmental and the trust is not covered by FOIA, the Commissioner does not require further steps, as a result of this decision notice.
Exemptions cited: EIR 2(1)
11 Dec 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information about a planning enforcement case. Bracknell Forest Council (the Council) withheld the information requested under regulation 12(5)(d) (confidentiality of proceedings) of the EIR. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has correctly applied regulation 12(5)(d) of the EIR to the request and the public interest favours maintaining the exception. The Commissioner does not require any steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(d)
View Bracknell Forest Council
11 Dec 2025Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to National Institute for Health and Care Excellence for information relating to the percentage cost difference between two named medicines.
The Commissioner’s decision is that NICE was entitled to rely upon section 43(2) (commercial information) of FOIA to withhold the requested information. However, as NICE did not confirm that it holds the ‘building blocks’ of the requested information, within 20 working days, the Commissioner finds that it breached sections 1(1)(a), 10(1) and 17(1) of FOIA.
The Commissioner does not require further steps, as a result of the notice. Information Tribunal FT/EA/2025/0480 under appeal.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1(1)(a); FOI 10(1); FOI 43(2); FOI 17(1)
View National Institute for Health and Care Excellence
11 Dec 2025Complaint 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)
10 Dec 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about the handling of a fraud case. The City of London Police (‘CoLP’) relied on section 40(5) of FOIA (personal information) and section 30(3) of FOIA (investigations and proceedings) to neither confirm nor deny whether it held the requested information. The Commissioner’s decision is that CoLP was entitled to rely on sections 40(5) and 30(3) to neither confirm nor deny holding the requested information. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40(5); FOI 30(3)
10 Dec 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information on policies and procedures about following up referrals. NHS Lincolnshire Integrated Care Board (‘the ICB’) provided some information and stated it did not hold further information within scope of the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the ICB does not hold further information within scope of the request. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View NHS Lincolnshire ICB
10 Dec 2025Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information about a planning enforcement case. Bracknell Forest Council (the Council) initially withheld the information requested under section 31(2)(c) (law enforcement) and 36(2)(c) (prejudice to the effective conduct of public affairs) of the FOIA. In its internal review, the Council reconsidered the request under the EIR and stated that it was now relying on regulations 12(4)(e) (internal communications) and 12(5)(d) (confidentiality of proceedings) of the EIR to withhold the information requested. During the course of the Commissioner’s investigation the Council disclosed a copy of the land survey report (part one of the request) but maintained that the remaining information held was exempt under regulations 12(4)(e) and 12(5)(d) of the EIR. Following this disclosure the complainant raised concerns that the Council had not disclosed a full copy of the survey report. The Commissioner’s decision is that on the balance of probabilities, the Council does not
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(e); EIR 12(5)(d); EIR 5(1)
View Bracknell Forest Council
10 Dec 2025Complaint 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)
10 Dec 2025Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information on the use of the “General Matching Service” (GMS). The Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) originally withheld the information on the basis of section 31(1)(a), prevention or detection of crime. However, during the Commissioner’s investigation it amended its position to rely on section 12(1), cost of compliance exceeds the appropriate limit, to refuse to comply with the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that DWP is entitled to rely on section 12(1) to refuse to comply with the request. The Commissioner finds, however, that DWP has not provided adequate advice and assistance in accordance with section 16. The Commissioner also finds that DWP has breached section 17(5) as it did not confirm it was relying on section 12(1) within the statutory timeframe. The Commissioner requires DWP to provide the complainant with adequate advice and assistance. The public authority must take these steps within 30 calendar days of the date of this decis
Exemptions cited: FOI 12; FOI 16
View Department for Work and Pensions
10 Dec 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested various information from HM Treasury (HMT) in relation to its guidance regarding the Oil Price Cap and fabricated or falsified certificates of origin. HMT refused the request citing various subsections of section 31 (law enforcement). During the course of the Commissioner’s investigation, HMT confirmed that it does not hold information relevant to item 2 of the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that on the balance of probabilities, HMT does not hold information relevant to item 2 of the request, and that it was entitled to rely on section 31(1)(g) by virtue of section 31(2)(b) in respect of items 1 and 3 of the request. The Commissioner does not require any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1(1); FOI 31(1)(g); FOI 31(2)(b)
View HM Treasury
10 Dec 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested the full educational records of their deceased child, being an adult at the time of their death, from The Bishop Wheeler Catholic Academy Trust (the Trust). The Commissioner’s decision is that the Trust is entitled to rely on section 41(1) of FOIA. The Commissioner does not require further steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 41(1)
View THE BISHOP WHEELER CATHOLIC ACADEMY TRUST
10 Dec 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The Commissioner’s decision is that the complainant’s request for information about a particular role is a vexatious request under section 14(1) and Kirklees Council isn’t obliged to comply with it. The Commissioner doesn’t require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14(1)
View Kirklees Council
10 Dec 2025Complaint 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 Home Office
9 Dec 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested the number of Ukrainian Armed Forces members who have gone missing or absconded from military training provided in the UK under Operation Interflex. The Ministry of Defence (MoD) refused to provide it citing sections 27(1)(a) and (d) (international relations) as its basis for doing so. It upheld this at internal review. The Commissioner’s decision is that MoD is entitled to rely on section 27(1)(a) and (d) as its basis for refusing to provide the requested information. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 27
View Ministry of Defence
9 Dec 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to the Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office (FCDO) seeking communications sent by the UK government to the Jersey government during a four week period in 2022 concerning sanctions related to “so-called Russian oligarchs”. The FCDO disclosed information falling within the scope of the request but redacted this on the basis of sections 27(1)(a), (c) and (d) (international relations) and section 40(2) (personal data). The Commissioner’s decision is that the redacted information is exempt from disclosure on the basis of sections 27(1)(a), (c) and (d) and the public interest favours maintaining each of these exemptions or is exempt from disclosure on the basis of section 40(2).
Exemptions cited: FOI 27; FOI 40
9 Dec 2025Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information about reports of the offence of aggravated trespass. Although Essex Police responded to the request, the complainant has identified further information he believes should have been disclosed but which was not included in the response. The Commissioner found that different parts of the request were subject to FOIA and the EIR. His decision is that the additional information identified by the complainant was outside the scope of the request and so Essex Police was not required to consider it for disclosure. Accordingly, he finds no failure to comply with section 1 (General right of access) of FOIA or regulation 5(1) (Duty to make environmental information available) of the EIR in this regard. However, by failing to respond to the request within the timescales set out under FOIA and the EIR, Essex Police breached sections 1(1) and 10(1) of FOIA and regulation 5(2) of the EIR.
Exemptions cited: EIR 5(2); FOI 1; FOI 10
View Essex Police
9 Dec 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested from Gateshead Council (the “council”) a list of its vehicle fleet, including the Vehicle Registration Mark (VRM) for each vehicle. The council disclosed general vehicle information but withheld the VRMs, citing section 31(1)(a) (prevention or detection of crime) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council was correct to withhold the requested information under section 31(1)(a). The Commissioner does not require the council to take any further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 31(1)(a)
View Gateshead Council
9 Dec 2025Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to the Cabinet Office seeking information about a meeting between a former special adviser to the then the Prime Minister, Rishi Sunak, namely Lord Petitgas, and representatives of Reliance Industries. The Cabinet Office initially withheld a meeting note in full on the basis of section 43(2) (commercial interests) of FOIA before disclosing a redacted version with that exemption, and section 40(2) (personal data), being relied upon to withhold information. The Commissioner’s decision is that the remaining withheld information is exempt from disclosure on the basis of section 43(2) and 40(2) of FOIA. However, the Cabinet Office breached section 17(1) (refusal notices) of FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 17; FOI 40; FOI 43
View Cabinet Office
9 Dec 2025Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested the document which instructed that the term “safeguarding” should no longer be used within the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP). DWP relied on section 14(1) to refuse to comply with the request as it considered the request was vexatious. The Commissioner’s decision is that the request is not vexatious and DWP is not therefore entitled to rely on section 14(1). The Commissioner requires DWP to issue a fresh response to the request which does not rely on section 14(1). 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 14
View Department for Work and Pensions
9 Dec 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested a copy of a specified Business Plan associated with Cambridgeshire County Council (the ‘Council’) and a named housing development company, This Land. Ultimately, the Council refused to provide the requested information, citing the FOIA exemptions in sections 41(1) (information provided in confidence) and 43(2) (commercial interests). The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council as entitled to rely on sections 41 and 43 of FOIA to withhold the requested Business Plan in its entirety. No steps are required as a result of this notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 41; FOI 43
View Cambridgeshire County Council
9 Dec 2025Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information about filming applications. Hertsmere Borough Council (the “council”) disclosed some information. The complainant considers that the council has failed to disclose all the relevant information that it holds. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council has not demonstrated, on the balance of probabilities, that it does not hold further information falling within the scope of the complainant's request for information. The Commissioner requires the council to carry out further searches for relevant information and to issue a fresh response to the complainant.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1(1)
View Hertsmere Borough Council
9 Dec 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested DfT to disclose any documents created up to 15 July 2019, that discussed the HS2 Ltd’s Chairman’s draft Stocktake report. DfT confirmed that it does not hold the information and referred the complainant to their previous requests and the information provided on this topic. The Commissioner’s decision is that on the balance of probabilities DfT does not hold the information. Regulation 12(4)(a) of the EIR therefore applies to the request. However, the Commissioner has recorded a breach of regulation 14(2) and 14(3) of the EIR, as DfT failed to issue its refusal notice within 20 working days of the receipt of the request and failed to cite the exception (confirming that it does not the information) on which it relied. The Commissioner does not require further steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(a); EIR 14(3); EIR 14(2)
View Department for Transport
9 Dec 2025Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The Commissioner’s decision is that the public authority breached section 10(1) of FOIA by failing to provide a response within 20 working days.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View University of South Wales
9 Dec 2025Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The Greater London Authority has failed to respond to this request within 20 working days, as specified under FOIA. The Commissioner requires it to provide the complainant with a response to this request within 30 calendar days in accordance with its obligations under FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10(1)
View Greater London Authority