8 Dec 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested an electronic copy of a dissertation and information about any investigation into allegations of plagiarism by the dissertation’s author. King’s College London (‘the university’) refused both parts of the request under sections 40(2) and 40(5B) of FOIA, which concern personal data. The university subsequently confirmed that the information requested in part 1 of the request is exempt from disclosure under section 21(1) of FOIA, as this information is already reasonably accessible to the complainant. It maintained its reliance on section 40(5B) in respect of the second part of the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the second part of the request engages section 40(5B) of FOIA and it’s not necessary for the university to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40(5)(b)
View King's College London
8 Dec 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The Commissioner’s decision is that Maidstone Borough Council is entitled to refuse the complainant’s request for information about the withdrawal of a Design and Sustainability Development Plan under regulation 12(4)(b) of the EIR as the request is manifestly unreasonable. He also finds that there was no breach of regulation 9(1), which concerns advice and assistance. The Commissioner doesn’t require further steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(b); EIR 9(1)
View Maidstone Borough Council
8 Dec 2025Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information on the training provided in relation to assessing benefit claims for specified conditions. The Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) disclosed information with redactions made on the basis of section 31(1)(a), prevention or detection of crime. The Commissioner’s decision is that section 31(1)(a) is engaged with regard to the disputed information but that the public interest favours disclosure of some of this information. The Commissioner considers that the public interest favours maintaining the exemption for the remainder of the information. The Commissioner requires DWP to disclose the information with the exception of the information specified in the confidential annex. 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 c
Exemptions cited: FOI 31
View Department for Work and Pensions
8 Dec 2025Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested EA to disclose some flood survey reports from 2007 for the River Rother. EA disclosed the information but withheld two photographs in accordance with regulation 13 (third party personal data) of the EIR. The Commissioner’s decision is that EA is entitled to refuse to disclose the withheld information in accordance with regulation 13 of the EIR. He has however recorded a breach of regulation 11 of the EIR, as it failed to carry out its internal review within 40 working days. The Commissioner does not require further steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: EIR 11; EIR 13
View Environment Agency
8 Dec 2025Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested DfT to disclose any documents on the preparations and the decision on how to proceed with HS2, which were created as a result of the Secretary of State’s (SofS) direction for a pre-summer recession decision in 2019. DfT confirmed that it does not hold the information and referred to the complainant’s previous requests on this topic and the information provided. The Commissioner’s decision is that on the balance of probabilities DfT does not hold the information and so regulation 12(4)(a) of the EIR applies. He has however 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 hold 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
8 Dec 2025Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from Camden Council (“the Council”) about an alleged restructure/organisational review of the Council’s Housing and Property Services.
The Council refused the request as it did not consider it to be a valid request pursuant to section 8 of FOIA.
The Commissioner’s decision is that the initial request was a valid request for recorded information.
The Commissioner requires the Council to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation.
• Issue a fresh response to the request.
• Provide advice and assistance, if necessary.
The Council 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.
Following the service of the Decision Notice on 8 December 2025, the public authority provided the Commissioner with a copy of an
Exemptions cited: FOI 8
View Camden Council
8 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 Brighton and Hove City Council
8 Dec 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to research projects undertaken on people with haemophilia. The United Lincolnshire Hospitals NHS Trust (the Trust) denied holding the requested information. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the
Trust does not hold the requested information and nor is such information held by another person on behalf of the Trust. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: FOI 3
View United Lincolnshire Hospitals NHS Trust
8 Dec 2025Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant made a five-part request for information relating to parking restrictions on a particular street in Manchester. Manchester City Council (the council) refused part two of the request under section 21 of FOIA (information reasonably accessible to the applicant by other means) and provided the complainant with information it held falling within the scope of the remaining parts of the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council was entitled to rely on section 21 of FOIA to refuse part two of the request. However, he has recorded a procedural breach of section 17(1) of FOIA. The Commissioner does not require the council to take any steps as a result of this decision notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 17; FOI 21
View Manchester City Council
5 Dec 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to ministerial meetings between the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology (DSIT) and Amazon (and/or Amazon Web Services) that related to an £8 billion investment by Amazon Web Services. DSIT disclosed some information but refused to provide the remainder citing section 36 (effective conduct of public affairs), section 40 (personal data) and section 43 (commercial interests). It maintained this at internal review. The complainant did not dispute the use of section 40 in this case. The Commissioner’s decision is that DSIT is entitled to rely on sections 36 and 43 as its bases for refusing to provide the withheld information. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 36; FOI 43
View Department for Science, Innovation and Technology
5 Dec 2025Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about staff management structure and salaries within the public authority. The Police Federation of England (“the Federation”) provided an organisational chart but declined to provide specific job titles below the level of director and specific salaries, citing section 40(2) (personal data) and section 22 (information intended for future publication). The Commissioner’s decision is that the Police Federation is not entitled to rely on section 22 to withhold the information. The Commissioner requires the Federation to disclose the withheld information.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 22
5 Dec 2025Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a four part request for information held by Manchester City Council (the council) about waste collection at the block of flats where they reside. The council provided information in response to part 1 and 2 of the request. It also confirmed it was withholding information under section 40 of FOIA (third party personal information), but did not specify what part of the request this applied to. At the internal review stage, the council provided the complainant with some additional information, and subsequently confirmed that this was all of the information it had previously considered to be exempt from disclosure under section 40. The Commissioner considers that there was one objective reading of the request, and that the council interpreted the request in line with this objective reading. The Commissioner is also satisfied that, on the balance of probabilities, the council has provided all of the information held that falls within scope of the one objective read
Exemptions cited: FOI 1(1)(a); FOI 1(1)(b); FOI 10; FOI 17
View Manchester City Council
5 Dec 2025Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from London Metropolitan University about equality, diversity and inclusion. 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 London Metropolitan University
5 Dec 2025Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a meta request to Sport England; that is, a request about a previous request. Sport England withheld the information under sections 41 and 43(2) of FOIA. It has subsequently advised that it considers that sections 40(2), 36(2)(b) and 36(2)(c) are also engaged. These exemptions concern information provided in confidence, commercial interests, personal data and prejudice to the effective conduct of public affairs, respectively. The Commissioner’s decision is that the withheld information engages sections 36(2)(b)(ii) and 36(2)(c) of FOIA. Sport England’s late application of these exemptions and section 40(2) means that its refusal notice didn’t comply with section 17(1) but the Commissioner doesn’t require it to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 36(2)(b)(ii); FOI 36(2)(c); FOI 17(1)
View Sport England
5 Dec 2025Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information from London Borough of Bromley about a 1 metre strip of hard surfacing. 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: EIR 5(2)
View Bromley Council
5 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 Cabinet Office
4 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 evidence available to the Commissioner, the public authority failed to issue a substantive response to this request within 20 working days. Therefore, the Commissioner finds a breach of section 10. The Commissioner does not require further steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Humberside Police
4 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(1)
View West Midlands Police
4 Dec 2025Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant made a request for police information relating to a deceased individual. Merseyside Police refused to confirm or deny whether the information was held under section 31(3), section 38(2) and section 40(5) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that Merseyside Police was entitled to neither confirm nor deny whether the requested information is held under section 31(3) of FOIA. The Commissioner does not require Merseyside Police to take any steps as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: FOI 31(3)
View Merseyside Police
4 Dec 2025Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information regarding alternative provision for students in the academic years 2023-2024 and 2024-2025. London Borough of Lewisham failed to adequately respond to the request despite chasers from the requester and the Commissioners intervention.
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 Commissioner 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
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Lewisham Council
4 Dec 2025Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested EWR to provide a breakdown of the current cost estimate for the EWR project. EWR disclosed some information but withheld the remainder citing regulation 12(5)(e) of the EIR (commercial interests). The Commissioner’s decision is that EWR is entitled to rely on regulation 12(5)(e) of the EIR. It however breached regulation 5 of the EIR by disclosing some of the requested information to the complainant late. It also breached regulation 5 and 14(2) by failing to respond to the request and issue a refusal notice within 20 working days of the receipt of the request. The Commissioner does not require further steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(e); EIR 14; EIR 5
View East West Railway Company Limited
4 Dec 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information regrading communications between UK Sport (UKS) and the British Volleyball Federation (BVF). UKS refused the request citing sections 40(2) (personal information), section 41 (information provided in confidence) and section 43 (commercial interests) of FOIA.
The Commissioner’s decision is that UKS was entitled to refuse the information on the basis of section 41 of FOIA.
No steps are required as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: FOI 41(1)
View UK Sport
4 Dec 2025Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
A public authority will breach regulation 5(2) of the EIR if it fails to respond to a request within 20 working days. Based on evidence available to the Commissioner, by the date of this notice the public authority has not issued a substantive response to this request. Therefore, the Commissioner finds a breach of regulation 5(2).
As 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 substantive response to this request within 30 calendar days in accordance with its obligations under the EIR.
Exemptions cited: EIR 5(2)
View Ealing Council
4 Dec 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested various information about compliance with legislation. Ledbury Town Council disclosed some of the information and directed the complainant to where the remainder was published on its website. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has provided all held information and is entitled to rely upon section 21 (Information accessible to the applicant by other means) for that which is already published on its website. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 21
View Ilkley Town Council
4 Dec 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to advertisements and a plan for post office branches. The Post Office refused to provide the plan under section 43(2) FOIA and stated information on the adverts was not held. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Post Office was entitled to rely on section 43(2) to withhold the area plan and correctly stated that the advertisements were no longer held. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Post Office Ltd
4 Dec 2025Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to Lancashire County Council (the council) for information in relation to a deceased relative.
The Commissioner’s decision is that the council was entitled to rely upon section 41(1) (information provided in confidence) of FOIA to withhold the requested information. However, in failing to issue an appropriate refusal notice confirming the exemption it ultimately came to rely upon, within the statutory timescale, the council has breached section 17(1) of FOIA.
The Commissioner does not require further steps, as a result of the notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 41(1); FOI 17(1)
View Lancashire County Council
3 Dec 2025Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about any misconduct allegations, complaints or concerns following the appointment of a named individual. Mid and South Essex NHS Foundation Trust (‘the Trust’) relied on section 40(5B)(a)(i) of FOIA (personal information) to neither confirm nor deny holding the requested information. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Trust should confirm or deny whether it holds the requested information in questions one and three of the request. However, he finds that it was entitled to refuse to confirm whether or not it held the requested information for questions four and five on the basis of section 40(5B) of FOIA. He also finds that the Trust breached section 17 of FOIA by failing to provide a refusal within the statutory time limit. The Commissioner requires the Trust to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: Confirm or deny that it holds recorded information within scope of questions one and three of the request. If i
Exemptions cited: FOI 17; FOI 40(5)
View Mid and South Essex NHS Foundation Trust
3 Dec 2025Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The Commissioner’s decision is that the public authority breached section 10 of FOIA by failing to provide a response within 20 working days. 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 Epping Forest District Council
3 Dec 2025Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information from Derby City Council (“the Council”) about a footpath by the River Derwent. The Council provided some information, but stated that some information was not held. It also refused two parts of the request under regulation 12(4)(b) – manifestly unreasonable, on grounds of the burden of cost and time. The Commissioner is satisfied that the Council does not hold any information falling within the scope of part 3) of the request. However, he is not satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that the Council does not hold more information relating to part 1). He has also found that the exception at regulation 12(4)(b) is not engaged, in respect of parts 2) and 4) of the request. Further, the Commissioner has found that the Council breached the requirements of regulations 5(2), 14(2) and 11(4): time for response and refusal notice, and time for reconsideration (internal review). The Commissioner requires the Council to take the following steps to ensur
Exemptions cited: EIR 11(4); EIR 12(4)(a); EIR 12(4)(b); EIR 14(2); EIR 5(2)
View Derby City Council
3 Dec 2025Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested a report into an electric vehicle fire at the Royal Courts of Justice from the Ministry of Justice (MOJ). The MOJ refused the request under section 14(1) FOIA: vexatious requests. The Commissioner’s decision is that the request was not vexatious and so the MOJ was not entitled to rely on section 14(1) of FOIA to refuse it. The Commissioner requires the MOJ to take the following step to ensure compliance with the legislation: Issue a fresh response to the request that does not rely on section 14(1) of FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14(1)
View Ministry of Justice
3 Dec 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The Complainant requested information from the BBC about programmes it had broadcast that were critical of climate change. The BBC explained the information was covered by the derogation and excluded from FOIA.
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 1
View BBC
3 Dec 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information in respect of applications for British citizenship for a specified period by a specific group of people.
The above public authority (“the Home Office”) relied on section 12(1) of FOIA (cost of compliance) to refuse the request.
The Commissioner’s decision is that the Home Office was entitled to rely on section 12(1) of FOIA to refuse the request. The Commissioner also finds that the public authority complied with its section 16 obligation to offer advice and assistance.
The Commissioner does not require further steps to be taken
Exemptions cited: FOI 12(1); FOI 16
View Home Office
3 Dec 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested correspondences between the National Police Chiefs’ Council (NPCC) Central Referral Unit and its Press Office regarding the complainant. The NPCC initially informed the complainant that it did not hold any relevant information. During the Commissioner’s investigation, the NPCC was able to locate some information within the scope of the request. Although this information was disclosed, the complainant expressed concerns that further information might be held. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the NPCC has conducted adequate searches for the requested information and no additional information is held. The Commissioner does not require the NPCC to take any additional steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View National Police Chiefs Council
3 Dec 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about interviewees for a public appointment. The Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government withheld the information under the exemptions provided by section 40(1) (personal data of the applicant), section 40(2) (personal data of third parties), and 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 40(1) and section 40(2) of FOIA. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40(1); FOI 40(2)
View Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government
3 Dec 2025Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about a specific nursing home. The Care Quality Commission (“the public authority”) disclosed some information but withheld the rest citing section 31(2)(c), by virtue of section 31(1)(g) (law enforcement) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the exemption isn’t engaged. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: disclose the withheld information.
Exemptions cited: FOI 31(2)(c)
View CQC
3 Dec 2025Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to the Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office (FCDO) seeking communications (electronic or hard copy) relating to the (then) Duke of York’s visit to Kazakhstan in May 2008. The FCDO refused to confirm or deny whether it held information falling within the scope of this request on the basis of sections 24(2) (national security), 31(3) (law enforcement), 38(2) (health and safety) and 40(5B)(a)(i) (personal data) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that none of the exemptions cited by the FCDO provide a basis upon which it can refuse to confirm or deny whether it holds information falling within the scope of the request.
Exemptions cited: FOI 24; FOI 31; FOI 38; FOI 40
2 Dec 2025Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from the Home Office. By the date of this notice the public authority had not issued a substantive response to this request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the public authority has failed to complete its deliberations on the balance of the public interest within a reasonable time and has therefore breached section 17(3) of FOIA. The Commissioner requires the public authority to 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 17(3)
View Home Office
2 Dec 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested a copy of a fraud investigation report from Northern Ireland Water (NI Water). NI Water has refused to disclose this information, citing regulations 12(4)(d) (unfinished documents), 12(5)(d) (confidentiality of proceedings) and 13 (personal data of third parties) of the EIR as a basis for non-disclosure.
2. The Commissioner’s decision is that regulation 12(5)(d) is engaged in relation to the entirety of the requested information and the public interest balance favours maintaining the exception.
3. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(d)
View Northern Ireland Tourist Board
2 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 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.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View West Sussex County Council
2 Dec 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has made two requests asking for the names of the authors of two draft reports to the Committee on Toxicology. The UK Health Security Agency (UKHSA) relied on section 40(2) of FOIA to withhold the requested names. The Commissioner’s decision is that UKHSA was entitled to rely on section 40(2) of FOIA to withhold the requested information. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40(2)
View UK Health Security Agency
2 Dec 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from Herefordshire Council (“the Council”) relating to a code of conduct complaint and standards panel. The Commissioner’s decision is that on the balance of probabilities, the Council does not hold the information requested in parts 2 and 3 of the request. He also finds that the Council is entitled to rely on section 40(1) (personal data of the requester) to refuse to provide the information requested in part 1 of the request. The Commissioner does not require the Council to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 40(1)
View North Hertfordshire District Council
2 Dec 2025Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The Commissioner’s decision is that Prestatyn Town Council (‘the council’) is entitled to neither confirm nor deny it holds the requested information about a settlement under section 40(5B) of FOIA. Confirming or denying the information is held would unlawfully disclose the personal data of a third person. The council’s refusal of the request didn’t comply with section 17(1) but the Commissioner doesn’t require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40(5)(b); FOI 17(1)
2 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 Bromley Council
1 Dec 2025Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about costings and redundancies. Buckhurst Parish Council (the council) provided some information and confirmed other information was not held. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council has not carried out sufficient searches in order for the Commissioner to determine whether, on the balance of probabilities, the council has provided all the information it holds falling within the scope of the request. The Commissioner requires the council to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. Search all relevant emails, including those held by the chair and councillors, for any information falling within the scope of the request Determine all relevant information held by Croner on the council’s behalf, falling within the scope of the request. Once the above has been completed the council must either provide any information falling within the scope of the last part of the request, to the complainant, or issue a valid refus
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
1 Dec 2025Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about enterprise capital funds. The British Business Bank (‘the Bank’) provided some information but relied on section 43 of FOIA (commercial interests), section 41 of FOIA (provided in confidence) and section 21 of FOIA (information accessible by other means) to withhold the remaining information. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Bank was entitled to rely on section 43 of FOIA to withhold some of the requested information. However, it was not entitled to rely on section 21 of FOIA to withhold the remaining information and it has since provided this to the complainant. The Commissioner does not require further steps. Information Tribunal FT/EA/2025/0446 under appeal.
Exemptions cited: FOI 21; FOI 43(2)
View British Business Bank
1 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 Ealing Council
1 Dec 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about reports of criminal damage at a specified location. Essex Police said it had disclosed all the information it held, but the complainant identified further information they believed should also have been disclosed. The Commissioner’s decision is that the additional information identified by the complainant did not fall within the scope of the request and so Essex Police was not required to consider it for disclosure. He therefore finds no failure to comply with sections 1 (General right of access) or 16 (Advice and assistance) of FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 16
View Essex Police
1 Dec 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about reports of criminal damage at a specified location. Essex Police disclosed some information, stated it did not hold other information and withheld a small amount of personal data under section 40(2) (Personal information) of FOIA. The complainant challenged the decision to withhold information. The Commissioner’s decision is that Essex Police was entitled to rely on section 40(2) to withhold the personal data.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View Essex Police
1 Dec 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from West Yorkshire Police (WYP) relating to policies, standards, or procedures linked to calls to 101 or 999 numbers. WYP refused the request citing section 12(1) (cost limit) of FOIA.
The Commissioner’s decision is that WYP was entitled to refuse the request in accordance with section 12(1) of FOIA. The Commissioner also finds that WYP complied with its obligations under section 16 to offer advice and assistance.
The Commissioner does not require any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12(1)
View West Yorkshire Police
1 Dec 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from Norfolk County Council (“the Council”) relating to correspondence between the Council’s Education Quality Assurance Intervention Regulatory Service (“EQAIRS”) and its Children Services Local Authority Designated Officer. The Council considered the request to be vexatious under section 14(1) (vexatious request) and so relied on section 17(6) of FOIA as a basis for not issuing a refusal notice. The Commissioner’s decision is that the request is vexatious under section 14(1) of FOIA and that the Council is entitled to rely on section 17(6) as a basis for not issuing a refusal notice. The Commissioner does not require the Council to take any steps. Information Tribunal FT/EA/2025/0479 under appeal.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14(1); FOI 17(6)
View Norfolk County Council