1 Dec 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about its OPTICA workflow system from the Home Office. The Home Office advised that some of the information was not held, which was not disputed. It refused to provide the remainder citing sections 24(1) (National security), 31(1)(a) and (b) (Law enforcement) and 43(2) (Commercial interests) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that sections 31(1)(a) and (b) are properly engaged and that the public interest favours maintaining these exemptions. No steps are required.
Exemptions cited: FOI 31
View Home Office
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
1 Dec 2025Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information relating to Tendring District Council’s (the Council) assessment of large site commitments. They specified that the information should be provided in the form of Excel spreadsheets. The Council refused the request, citing regulation 6 (form and format) of the EIR, on the basis that the requested information is publicly available and easily accessible on its website. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council was entitled to refuse to provide the information under regulation 6(1)(b) of the EIR as the information is already publicly available and easily accessible to the complainant in another form or format. However, he finds the Council breached Regulation 6(2) for failing to explain, within 20 working days of receiving the request, why it was not providing the requested information in the manner specified. The Commissioner does not require any steps to be taken as a result of this decision. Information Tribunal FT/EA/2025/0455 under appeal.
Exemptions cited: EIR 6
View Tendring District Council
1 Dec 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information in relation to deaths of asylum seekers, who died in the Home Office’s accommodation. The Home Office provided some information in relation to part 1 of the request, but refused to provide the remainder under part 2, citing sections 38(1)(a) and (b) of FOIA – health and safety. The Home Office applied section 31(1)(a) – law enforcement and section 40(2) – personal information to withhold the information during the internal review process. During the Commissioner’s investigation, the Home Office revised its position, citing section 31(1)(c) rather than 31(1)(a); it also added reliance on section 41 – information provided in confidence.
The Commissioner’s decision is that the Home Office was entitled to rely on section 38 of FOIA to withhold the requested information specified at part 2 of the request.
The Commissioner does not require the Home Office to take any further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 38
View Home Office
1 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 Birmingham City Council
28 Nov 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested electrical information relating to Nottinghamshire Police’s headquarters. Nottinghamshire Police relied on section 31(1)(a) and (b) (law enforcement) of FOIA to withhold the requested information. The Commissioner’s decision is that Nottinghamshire Police was correct to rely on sections 31(1)(a) and (b) of FOIA to withhold the requested information. The Commissioner does not require Nottinghamshire Police to take any further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 31
View Nottinghamshire Police
28 Nov 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from the British Museum (the Museum) on the acquisition of all the objects in the Pusilha collection. The Museum stated that it did not hold the requested information. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the Museum does not hold the information requested. The Commissioner does not require further steps. Information Tribunal FT/EA/2025/0457 under appeal.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View British Museum
28 Nov 2025Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information supplies of methylphenidate. In respect of two parts of the request, the final position of the Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC) was to disclose some information (with personal data redacted) and to withhold the remainder under sections 43(2) and 44(1) of FOIA. These exemptions concern commercial interests and prohibitions on disclosure, respectively. DHSC also confirmed it doesn’t hold some of the information. Regarding part 2 of the request, the Commissioner’s decision is that the withheld information engages section 43(2) and section 44(1)(a) of FOIA. However, DHSC communicated the non-exempt information within scope of this part, and applied the section 44 exemption, outside of the 20 working day requirement. It therefore breached sections 1(1), 10(1) and 17(1) of FOIA. Regarding part 4, DHSC didn’t offer the complainant adequate advice and assistance at the time of the request and so didn’t comply its obligation under section 16(
Exemptions cited: FOI 1(1); FOI 10(1); FOI 16(1); FOI 43(2); FOI 44(1)(a); FOI 17(1)
View Department of Health and Social Care
27 Nov 2025Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from Brighton City Council regarding Sussex school admissions and academic research.
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 Brighton and Hove City Council
27 Nov 2025Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information regarding Hackney Carriages licenced by the council. Bury Metropolitan Borough Council (“the council”) disclosed some information, however it said that other information is not held by it. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council does not hold the requested information for the purposes of Regulation 5(1) of the EIR. However, the Commissioner has decided that the council did not comply with the requirements of Regulation 9(1) in that it did not provide advice and assistance to the requestor to aid them in making a new request for similar information which is held by the council. The Commissioner requires the council to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. To provide further information on the types of information it does hold, similar to that requested by the complainant in their request, in order to aid in the complainant in formulating a new request for information which is held by the council.
Exemptions cited: EIR 5(1); EIR 9(1)
View Bury Council
27 Nov 2025Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested background papers in development for the Local Neighbourhood Plan. The New Alresford Town Council (“the council”) refused the request on the basis that section 22 of FOI Applied. However, during the course of the Commissioner's investigation the council disclosed the information in full to the complainant. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council did not comply with the requirements of Regulation 5(2) of the EIR in that it did not disclose the information to the complainant within 20 working days of receiving the request. He has also decided that the council did not comply with the requirements of Regulations 11(3) and 11(4) as it did not carry out a review of its decision within the required time limit. The Commissioner does not require the council to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 11(3); EIR 11(4); EIR 5(2)
27 Nov 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested from INNOVATE2EDUCATE Partnership (the Trust) the costs of staff, the number and cost of redundancies and rebranding. The Trust provided some information but withheld part of it, applying section 40(2) FOIA - personal information. The Trust also applied section 22 FOIA – future publication to some of the requested information. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Trust has correctly relied on section 40(2). He has also found that section 22(1) is engaged and that the public interest lies in maintaining the exemption. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40(2); FOI 22(1)
View INNOVATE2EDUCATE PARTNERSHIP LIMITED
26 Nov 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has made two requests for information about the Judicial Conduct Investigations Office (“JCIO”) from the Ministry of Justice (“MOJ”). The MOJ advised that the requests were vexatious, citing section 14(1) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the requests are vexatious. No steps are required.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14
View Ministry of Justice
26 Nov 2025Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from London Borough of Croydon about library work contractors. 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 Borough of Croydon
26 Nov 2025Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The Commissioner’s decision is that NHS Birmingham and Solihull Integrated Care Board (‘the ICB’) doesn’t hold the specific information requested about NHS England “audits” of eligibility decisions and appeals. However, the ICB’s response to the request didn’t comply with sections 1(1)(a) and 10(1) of FOIA. The Commissioner doesn’t require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1(1)(a); FOI 10(1)
View NHS Birmingham and Solihull ICB
26 Nov 2025Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from Dr Rachael Warner and the named GPs about female patient examinations. 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
26 Nov 2025Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from the Parole Board for England and Wales about whether a convicted individual has had any parole hearings since the commencement of their sentence on 17 June 2025.
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. The public authority must provide a substantive response to the request in accordance with its obligations under FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Parole Board
25 Nov 2025Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about equality, diversity and inclusivity posts. Greater Manchester Combined Authority (GMCA) relied on section 40(2) of FOIA (third party personal information) to withhold information. The Commissioner’s decision is that GMCA has correctly relied on section 40(2) of FOIA to withhold the information requested in questions three and four. However, in failing to disclose information held in relation to question one within the statutory timescale, GMCA breached sections 1(1) and 10(1) of FOIA. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1(1); FOI 10(1); FOI 40(2)
View Greater Manchester Combined Authority
25 Nov 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information in relation to the investigation of the removal of trees from a specific address. The London Borough of Barnet (the Council) refused to provide the information citing regulation 12(5)(b)-the course of justice, fair trial or inquiry of a criminal or disciplinary nature and regulation 13- personal data.
The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council was entitled to rely on regulations 12(5)(b) and 13 of the EIR to withhold the requested information.
The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(b); EIR 13(1)
View Barnet Council
25 Nov 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about an incident involving a Night Fighter jammer. The Department for Transport has withheld the information under section 24(1) of FOIA, which concerns national security. The Commissioner’s decision is that section 24(1) of FOIA is engaged and he doesn’t require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 24(1)
View Department for Transport
25 Nov 2025Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about the responses received for a public consultation. The Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government initially stated that the information was withheld under the exemptions provided by section 22 (Information intended for future publication), section 35 (Formulation or development of government policy), and section 40(2) (Personal information) of FOIA. During the course of investigation, the MHCLG informed the Commissioner that it no longer wished to rely upon section 22. However, it considered that section 35 and section 40(2) would still apply, and further, that it also considered the request to fall under section 14(1) (Vexatious requests) on the grounds of burden. The Commissioner’s decision is that the MHCLG is entitled to refuse to comply with the request under section 14(1). However, in failing to issue a refusal notice, the MHCLG breached section 17(5) (Refusal of request). The Commissioner does not require further steps bu
Exemptions cited: FOI 14(1); FOI 17(5)
View Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government
25 Nov 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information relating to the use of LED street lights. Torridge District Council (the Council) advised that it did not hold the requested information.
The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the Council does not hold any information relevant to the request.
The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 5(1)
View Torridge District Council
25 Nov 2025Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information about a parking enforcement contract and its compliance with NHS car parking guidance from United Lincolnshire Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust (“the Trust”) on 16 July 2025. Based on evidence available to the Commissioner, by the date of this notice the Trust has not issued a substantive response to this request. Therefore the Commissioner finds a breach of section 10. The Trust must provide a substantive response to the request in accordance with its obligations under FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View United Lincolnshire Hospitals NHS Trust
25 Nov 2025Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to a report. The Post Office withheld the information, citing section 42(1) (legal professional privilege). The Commissioner’s decision is that the withheld information engages section 42(1) and the public interest lies in disclosure. The Commissioner requires the Post Office to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: disclose the withheld information.
Exemptions cited: FOI 42(1)
View Post Office Ltd
25 Nov 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested their personal information. The Department for Work and Pensions (“the DWP”) refused to disclose the requested information under section 40(1) of FOIA on the basis that it is the complainant’s own personal data.
The Commissioner’s decision is that DWP should have relied on section 40(5)(b) to neither confirm nor deny holding the requested information.
The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40(5)
View Department for Work and Pensions
25 Nov 2025Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to a professional job evaluation scheme. City of Bradford Metropolitan Borough Council (the Council) provided some information, and stated that further information was not held.
The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the Council does not hold further information falling within the scope of the request.
However, in failing to provide the information that it does hold within 20 working days, the Council has breached section 10(1) of FOIA.
The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10(1)
View City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council
25 Nov 2025Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information about the management of parking enforcement from United Lincolnshire Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust (“the Trust”) on 5 August 2025. Based on evidence available to the Commissioner, by the date of this notice the Trust has not issued a substantive response to this request. Therefore the Commissioner finds a breach of section 10. The Trust must provide a substantive response to the request in accordance with its obligations under FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View United Lincolnshire Hospitals NHS Trust
24 Nov 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information regarding whether Essex Police had issued a Fixed Penalty Notice (FPN) in respect of an untaxed vehicle. Essex Police applied section 40(5B)(a)(i) of FOIA to neither confirm nor deny (NCND) holding the requested information. The Commissioner’s decision is that the requested information constitutes criminal offence data and that Essex Police was entitled to rely on section 40(5B)(a)(i) of FOIA to issue an NCND response to the request.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View Essex Police
24 Nov 2025Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant made a request for information relating to spending. The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) provided some information and withheld the remaining under section 43(2) (commercial interests) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the MoJ is entitled to withhold the information in relation to the parts of the request it refused under section 43(2) of FOIA. However the MoJ has breached section 17(1)(b), because its refusal notice failed to specify its reliance on section 43(2). The Commissioner’s decision is that the MoJ breached section 1(1)(a) of FOIA as it did not provide all the information it held in regards to locations of refurbishment as requested by the complainant. The Commissioner has not considered whether this may be exempt from disclosure under section 43(2). The Commissioner requires the MoJ to take either provide the outstanding information held that is relevant to the request for “the locations of the rooms/areas that were redecorated” to the complainant, or is
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 43(2); FOI 17(1)(b)
View Ministry of Justice
24 Nov 2025Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested “all information” relating to the consideration and rejection of alternative sites for the rebuild of The Queen Elizabeth Hospital in Norfolk. The Queen Elizabeth Hospital King’s Lynn NHS Foundation Trust (the Trust) provided a Powerpoint presentation, and ultimately relied on FOIA sections 22 (information intended for future publication), 36 (the effective conduct of public affairs) and 43 (commercial interests) to withhold the remaining information in scope. Given the subject matter, the Commissioner asked the Trust to consider whether the request should instead have been handled under the EIR. The Trust maintained that FOIA was the correct regime, but said it would seek to rely on Regulation 12(5)(e) of the EIR (the confidentiality of commercial or industrial information) if the request was deemed to fall under that regime. However, the Trust did not formally cite this exception and did not notify the complainant. The Commissioner’s decision is that the req
Exemptions cited: EIR 11(4); EIR 2
View The Queen Elizabeth Hospital, King's Lynn, NHS Foundation Trust
24 Nov 2025Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information in respect of Jordanian nationals.
The Home Office relied on section 40(2) of FOIA (third party personal data) and section 38 of FOIA (health and safety) to withhold some of the requested information.
The Commissioner’s decision is that the Home Office is not entitled to rely on section 40(2) or section 38 of FOIA to withhold some of the requested information.
The Commissioner’s decision is that the Home Office breached section 10 of FOIA in failing to disclose information within the statutory deadline.
The Commissioner requires the Home Office to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation:
• Disclose the withheld information.
The Home Office 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 38; FOI 40(2)
View Home Office
24 Nov 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information on occupational pensions from the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP). DWP originally sought clarification of the information requested before relying on section 21, information reasonably accessible to the applicant, to refuse to provide the information. DWP provided the complainant with links to the information. The Commissioner’s decision is that DWP was correct to seek clarification of the information sought and that it was entitled to rely on section 21 to refuse to provide the requested information. The Commissioner is also satisfied that, on the balance of probabilities, DWP does not hold further information to that already identified as being available in the public domain.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 21
View Department for Work and Pensions
24 Nov 2025Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The Commissioner’s decision is that Hillingdon Council (the council) is entitled to withhold the requested information about a planning enforcement investigation under regulation 13(1) of the EIR. The information is other people’s personal data and disclosing it wouldn’t be lawful. However, the timeliness of the council’s refusal and internal review didn’t comply with regulations 14(2) and 11(4). The Commissioner doesn’t require further steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 11(4); EIR 13; EIR 14(2)
View Hillingdon Council
24 Nov 2025Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested North East London NHS Foundation Trust (the Trust) to disclose information relating to any employees in Talking Therapies and across the Trust who have worked abroad within the last three years. For question one (Talking Therapies) it confirmed that it does not hold the information. For question two (across other areas of the Trust), it refused to comply with the request under section 12 of FOIA (cost limit). The Commissioner’s decision is that, for question one, on the balance of probabilities, the trust does not hold the information. For question two, the Trust was entitled to rely on section 12 of FOIA. It however breached section 16 of FOIA by not providing advice and assistance until late into the Commissioner’s investigation. The Commissioner does not require further steps to be taken. Information Tribunal FT/EA/2025/0465 under appeal.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12; FOI 16
View North East London NHS Foundation Trust
24 Nov 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to the Cabinet Office seeking information within certain named files. The Cabinet Office refused to disclose the requested information, citing section 23(1) (security bodies) or, in the alternative, section 24(1) of FOIA. The complainant disputed the application of the two exemptions.
2. The Commissioner has concluded that the disputed information is exempt from disclosure on the basis of section 23(1) or section 24(1) of FOIA. However, the Cabinet Office breached section 10 (1) by failing to issue a response to the request within 20 working days.
3. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 23; FOI 24
View Cabinet Office
24 Nov 2025Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested minutes from the London Borough of Lambeth (LBL)’s “Investment Committee”. There was an exchange between the parties to clarify what this group was then LBL provided some redacted information but refused to provide the remainder. It cited section 36 (prejudice to provision of advice) as its basis for doing so. It failed to provide the complainant with an internal review. The Commissioner’s decision is that LBL is entitled to rely on section 36(2)(b) as its basis for withholding the requested information. LBL should, however, provide the names of senior officers as they appear in the minutes, redacted copies of which it has already provided to the complainant. This information is not otherwise exempt under section 40 (personal information). The Commissioner is also satisfied that other minutes of meetings are not held. The Commissioner requires LBL to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: Disclose the names of senior officers a
Exemptions cited: FOI 36; FOI 40
View London Borough of Lambeth
24 Nov 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant made a number of requests to the London Borough of Southwark (the Council) within a short period of time for information related to the Surrey Docks Estate and considering predominantly the district heating network and the service charges.
The Council refused to deal with the requests citing regulation 12(4)(b), (manifestly unreasonable) of the EIR.
The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council was entitled to rely on the cited exception to refuse the request.
The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(b)
View Southwark Council
21 Nov 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to the Council for the Curriculum, Examinations & Assessment (CCEA). The Department of Education for Northern Ireland (‘the public authority’) disclosed information with redactions under section 35(1)(a) (formulation or development of government policy) and section 43(2) (commercial interests) of FOIA. Some information it withheld in full under section 21 (information available to applicant via other means) and some it claimed it didn’t hold. During this investigation, the public authority identified further information that could be disclosed due to the passage of time. The Commissioner’s decision is that the public authority has correctly withheld information under section 35(1)(a), section 43(2) and section 21 and has correctly identified all information within scope of the request. However, the Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: disclose to the complaina
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 21; FOI 35(1)(a); FOI 43(2)
View Department of Education (Northern Ireland)
21 Nov 2025Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from Liverpool City Council (the Council) regarding communication between Council staff, contracts, and the sale of various properties. The Council provided information to part of the request but withheld some of the information under section 40(2) (personal information) of FOIA.
The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council is not entitled to rely upon section 40(2) of FOIA to withhold the requested information.
The Commissioner requires the Council to take the following step to ensure compliance with the legislation:
• Disclose the information requested, unredacted.
The Council 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 the Act and may be dealt with as a contempt of court.
This Decision Notice has been redacted at paragraph 22 due to reference to the withheld informatio
Exemptions cited: FOI 40(2)
View Liverpool City Council
21 Nov 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about paying council tax via standing order. The London Borough of Hillingdon (“the Council”) provided the complainant with some information within scope of their request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has provided the complainant with the recorded information it holds within scope of their request and it is unlikely to hold anything further.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Hillingdon Council
21 Nov 2025Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from the Home Office relating to PQ UIN 24934 "Immigration: Married People" by Neil O'Brien MP . The Home Office 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 Home Office
21 Nov 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested the Post Office (PO) to disclose the unpublished Guiding Principles of the Horizon Shortfall Scheme (HSS) which it uses, in tandem with its Terms of Reference, to assess applicants' claims. PO refused to disclose the information citing sections 40 (personal data) and 42 (legal professional privilege) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that PO is entitled to refuse to disclose the requested information in accordance with section 42 of FOIA. The Commissioner does not require any further steps to be taken. Information Tribunal FT/EA/2025/0468 under appeal.
Exemptions cited: FOI 42
View Post Office Ltd
21 Nov 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The Commissioner’s decision is that the Chief Constable of Gwent Police (‘Gwent Police’) is entitled to refuse to confirm or deny whether it holds the requested information about an alleged incident under sections 38(2) and 40(5B) of FOIA. Confirming or denying information is held would be likely to endanger an individual’s physical or mental health and would unlawfully disclose third person personal data. The Commissioner doesn’t require further steps. Information Tribunal FT/EA/2025/0442 under appeal.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40(5)(b); FOI 38(2)
View Gwent Police
21 Nov 2025Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant submitted a four part request to the London Borough of Enfield (the Council) seeking information about a subsidence claim made by a neighbouring property as a result of damage caused by a tree. The Council initially refused to confirm or deny whether it held any information on the basis of section 40(5) (personal data) of FOIA. It subsequently provided information falling within the scope of two parts of the request, withheld information falling within the scope of the third part of the request on the basis of regulation 12(5)(f) (interests of the person who provided the information) of the EIR, and continued to refuse to confirm or deny whether it held any information sought by the fourth part of the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council is entitled to rely on regulation 13(5A)(a) of the EIR to refuse to confirm or deny whether it holds the information falling within the scope of part d) of the request and whilst the information sought by part c) of
Exemptions cited: EIR 11(2); EIR 12(5)(f); EIR 13; EIR 5(2)
View Enfield Council
21 Nov 2025Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information held by Warwickshire County Council (the council) about a proposed development on a particular area of land. The council confirmed to the complainant that it does not hold information falling within scope of the request. The complainant has not disputed this in their complaint to the Commissioner, but has asked that he make a decision on various procedural matters. The Commissioner has not upheld that part of the complaint that claimed that the council has failed to comply with regulation 5(2) (duty to provide information within 20 working days), regulation 7(1) (extension of time to respond) and regulation 9(1) (advice and assistance). However, as the council failed to issue a refusal notice within the statutory 20 working days, and did not cite the exception at regulation 12(4)(a) when confirming that it did not hold the requested information, the Commissioner has found a breach of regulations 14(2) and 14(3) of the EIR respectively. The Comm
Exemptions cited: EIR 11(4); EIR 14(3); EIR 14(2); EIR 5(2); EIR 7(1); EIR 9(1)
View Warwickshire County Council
20 Nov 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant sent a request for information regarding a tender process and procurement contract awarded for the provision of services to the University. The University provided information in scope of the request stating at internal review that all information held had been provided.
The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the University does not hold further information in scope of the request.
No steps are required as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1(1)
View Leeds Beckett University
20 Nov 2025Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to a named individual. The University of York (the university) has relied on section 40(5B) of FOIA to refuse to confirm or deny whether it holds this information, as it believes that doing so would disclose personal data about the named individual, and that this disclosure would contravene data protection legislation. The Commissioner’s decision is that the university is not entitled to rely on section 40(5B) to refuse to confirm or deny that it holds any of the information requested. The Commissioner requires the university to confirm or deny if it holds any information within the scope of the request and, if it does, to either provide that information or issue an appropriate refusal notice. The university must take these steps within 30 calendar days of the date of this decision notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40(5)(b)
20 Nov 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested from the London Borough of Southwark (the Council) a name of an officer in relation to the penalty charge notice (PCN) matter. The Council refused to provide the requested information citing section 40(2) (third party data)
The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council was correct to rely on section 40(2) to withhold the requested information.
The Commissioner does not require further steps from the Council in relation to this case.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40(2)
View Southwark Council
20 Nov 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to the Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office (FCDO) seeking information about its engagement with the authorities in Dubai regarding the detention and imprisonment of a British citizen. The FCDO withheld the information falling within the scope of the request on the basis of sections 27(1)(a), (c) and (d) (international relations) and 40(2) (personal data) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the withheld 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.
Exemptions cited: FOI 27
20 Nov 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested a copy of the Harrier GR Mk 9 Aircrew Manual Book 1 – Aircraft and Systems (AP101B-0609-15A). The Ministry of Defence (“the MOD”) refused the request with reliance on section 14(1) (vexatious). The Commissioner’s decision is that the MOD was entitled to rely on section 14(1) to refuse the request. The Commissioner also finds that the MOD breached section 17(5) by failing to provide a refusal notice relying on section 14 within 20 working days. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14
View Ministry of Defence