24 Jul 2026Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from the London Borough of Bexley (the council) about Early Help referrals, assessments, waiting lists, workforce capacity, case progression, and related policies and guidance for the last three financial years. The council 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
24 Jul 2026Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested copies of Board minutes held by Warrenpoint Harbour Authority (“WHA”) covering a specified period. WHA withheld the requested information under section 36(2) (prejudice to the effective conduct of public affairs) and section 43(2) (commercial interests) FOIA, and Regulation 12(4)(e) (internal communications) EIR. The Commissioner has concluded that section 36(2) FOIA is not engaged. Section 43(2) FOIA is engaged in respect of commercially sensitive information and the public interest favours maintaining the exemption for that information. Regulation 12(4)(e) EIR is engaged in relation to the remaining environmental information concerning RDF operations and associated environmental matters. However, the public interest favours disclosure of that information. The Commissioner is not satisfied that WHA was entitled to withhold the requested information in its entirety. The Commissioner finds that the withheld information contains a mixture of commercially sensiti
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(e); FOI 36; FOI 43
24 Jul 2026Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information from Shropshire Council in relation Severn Trent and drainage. The Commissioner’s decision is that the public authority failed to respond to the request within 20 working days and has therefore breached regulation 5(2) of the EIR. The public authority must provide a substantive response to the request in accordance with its obligations under the EIR.
Exemptions cited: EIR 5(2)
View Shropshire Council
24 Jul 2026Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from Cathedral Schools Trust (the Trust) for emails sent or received by three named members of staff concerning the proposed amalgamation of Cathedral Primary School (part of the Trust) with Hotwells School. The Trust refused the request citing section 12(1) (cost limit) of FOIA.
The Commissioner’s decision is that the Trust was entitled to refuse the request in accordance with section 12(1) of FOIA. The Commissioner also finds that the Trust complied with its obligations under section 16 of FOIA to offer advice and assistance.
The Commissioner does not require any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12(1)
23 Jul 2026Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The public authority has failed to respond to this request within 20 working days, as specified under FOIA. The public authority must now provide a substantive response.
The public authority must take this step within 30 calendar days of the date of this decision notice. Failure to comply may result in the Commissioner making written certification of this fact to the High Court pursuant to section 54 of FOIA and may be dealt with as a contempt of court.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Home Office
23 Jul 2026Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information from HM Treasury (HMT) regarding the provision of consultancy services for future options for the UK refineries sector. HMT provided some information but withheld a report in reliance on the exception at regulation 12(5)(e) (confidentiality of commercial information) of the EIR. The Commissioner’s decision is that the exception at regulation 12(5)(e) is engaged. The Commissioner finds that the public interest in maintaining the exception outweighs the public interest in disclosure in respect of some, but not all, of the withheld information. The Commissioner requires HMT to disclose the information set out in the confidential schedule.
Exemptions cited: EIR 11; EIR 12(5)(e); EIR 5
View HM Treasury
23 Jul 2026Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested copies of Council minutes produced since 1 May 2015. 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
23 Jul 2026Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (FCDO) relating to the UK Government’s funding for the UK–Ghana Gold Programme (also referred to as the UK Ghana Gold Mining Programme), publicly described as a £3.9 million commitment announced in or around July 2023.
The FCDO 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 Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office
23 Jul 2026Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested various information about Greater Lincolnshire Mayoral election. The Greater Lincolnshire Combined County Authority (GLCCA) stated it did not hold the requested information. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, GLCCA does not hold any information falling within the scope of the request. However, the Commissioner finds that GLCCA did not provide adequate advice and assistance in its responses to the complainant and as such he finds it breached section 16 of the FOIA. The Commissioner does not require any steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 16
View Greater Lincolnshire Combined County Authority
23 Jul 2026Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested address information relating to all London Borough of Redbridge councillors. The council refused to disclose the requested information, citing sections 40(2) (personal information), 38 (health and safety) and 31 (law enforcement) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council has correctly relied on section 40(2) of FOIA to withhold the requested information. However, the Commissioner has recorded a procedural breach of section 10 of FOIA. The Commissioner does not require the council to take any further steps as a result of this decision notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 40(2)
View Redbridge Council
23 Jul 2026Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The request sought a copy of an ICO audit report concerning the Department for Education (DfE), together with information about DfE's actions in response to a finding relating to compliance with UK GDPR transparency obligations. DfE provided some information falling within the scope of the request and withheld the full audit report under section 36(2)(c) of FOIA (prejudice to effective conduct of public affairs). DfE considers the public interest favours maintaining the exemption. The Commissioner’s decision is as follows: DfE is entitled to rely on section 36(2)(c) and the public interest favours maintaining the exemption. However, in failing to issue a valid refusal notice in respect of part one of the request within 20 working days, DfE did not comply with its duties under section 17(1) of FOIA. The Commissioner does not require any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 36(2)(c); FOI 17(1)
View Department for Education
23 Jul 2026Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested the number of National Referral Mechanism referrals with a positive reasonable grounds decision who were returned to Albania or Vietnam between 2023 and the date of the request. 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
23 Jul 2026Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested policies, procedures or guidance concerning the appointment of investigating officers for interviews conducted under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE), including how conflicts of interest are managed in that context. Ofsted provided information of some relevance - at the time of the request and during this investigation - but its position is that it does not hold the requested information. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, Ofsted does not hold information falling within scope of the request. Ofsted complied with its duty under sections 1(1)(a) and 10(1) of FOIA. No steps are necessary.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1(1)(a); FOI 10(1)
View Office for Standards in Education, Children's Services and Skills (Ofsted)
22 Jul 2026Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested a breakdown of monthly payments to a particular contractor over a 12-month period, relating to transport costs for asylum seekers. The Home Office refused the request, citing section 43(2) (Commercial interests) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Home Office was entitled to rely on section 43(2) of FOIA to refuse the request. However, he found breaches of sections 17(1) and (3) in respect of its late response to the request.
Exemptions cited: FOI 17; FOI 43
View Home Office
22 Jul 2026Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested all comments submitted regarding a planning application. Manchester City Council withheld the information under the exception provided by regulation 12(4)(b) (Manifestly unreasonable requests). The Commissioner’s decision is that regulation 12(4)(b) is engaged and that the balance of the public interest favours maintaining the exception. However, the Council’s handling of the request breached regulation 14 (Refusal to disclose information). The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(b); EIR 14; EIR 9
View Manchester City Council
22 Jul 2026Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested various information about an abatement notice issued in relation to a specific property. Carmarthenshire County Council (the Council) withheld the information requested under regulation 13 (personal data) of the EIR. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council correctly relied on regulation 13 of the EIR to withhold the requested information. The Commissioner does not require any steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: EIR 13
View Carmarthenshire County Council
22 Jul 2026Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested specific information about a government strategy to end violence against women and girls.
The Home Office (the “public authority”) 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
22 Jul 2026Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested a breakdown of monthly payments to a particular contractor over a 12-month period, relating to transport costs for asylum seekers. The Home Office refused the request, citing section 43(2) (Commercial interests) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Home Office was entitled to rely on section 43(2) of FOIA to refuse the request. However, he found breaches of sections 17(1) and (3) in respect of its late response to the request.
Exemptions cited: FOI 17; FOI 43
View Home Office
22 Jul 2026Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to the Police Service of Northern Ireland’s (PSNI) assessment and management of security risks, protective measures, investigations, and associated records concerning a historical matter. PSNI refused to confirm or deny whether the information was held citing section 23(5) of FOIA (information provided by or relating to the security services).
The Commissioner’s decision is that PSNI was correct to neither confirm nor deny (NCND) it held information at requests 7 and 9 by virtue of section 23(5) of FOIA. However, the Commissioner finds that PSNI breached section 10(1) of FOIA by failing to provide its response within 20 working days to the complainant within the statutory time frame. The Commissioner also finds that PSNI breached section 17(1) by failing to issue a refusal notice within the statutory timeframe. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10(1); FOI 17(1); FOI 23(5)
View Police Service of Northern Ireland
22 Jul 2026Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information about the calculation of council tax summons costs and a complaint submitted to the Magistrates’ Court. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, Birmingham City Council (the council) has provided all relevant information it holds falling within the scope of the request and has therefore complied with section 1(1) of FOIA. The Commissioner does not require the council to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12
View Birmingham City Council
22 Jul 2026Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information relating to properties owned by Interface Properties Ltd and Zas Ventures Ltd, including meetings, correspondence, notes, licensing and enforcement matters, from 2015 to February 2025. London Borough of Waltham Forest (‘the council’) refused the request under regulations 12(4)(b), 12(4)(e) and 12(5)(b) of the EIR. These exceptions concern manifestly unreasonable requests, internal communications and the course of justice etc, respectively. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council was entitled to refuse the request under regulation 12(5)(b) of the EIR. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(b)
View Waltham Forest Council
22 Jul 2026Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about murder tariffs. The Ministry of Justice (“MoJ”) disclosed some information but advised that the remaining information was not held for the purposes of FOIA because it did not currently exist in recorded form and could not be retrieved without creating new information. The Commissioner’s decision is that the MoJ was entitled to refuse the request on the basis that the information is not held by it for the purposes of FOIA. The Commissioner does not require any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Ministry of Justice
22 Jul 2026Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested a breakdown of monthly payments to a particular contractor over a 12-month period, relating to transport costs for asylum seekers. The Home Office refused the request, citing section 43(2) (Commercial interests) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Home Office was entitled to rely on section 43(2) of FOIA to refuse the request. However, he found a breach of section 17(1) in respect of its late response to the request.
Exemptions cited: FOI 17; FOI 43
View Home Office
21 Jul 2026Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from Highgate Wood School (the School) regarding leave of absence granted at the School during the last three academic years (2021–22, 2022–23, 2023–24).
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
21 Jul 2026Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from the Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC) about the UK-US pharmaceutical trade arrangement. DHSC’s final position is that the information is exempt from disclosure under sections 21(1), 27(1), 29(1), 35(1) and 43(2) of FOIA. These exemptions concern information accessible to the applicant by other means, international relations, the economy, the formulation of government policy and commercial interests, respectively. The Commissioner’s decision is that the identified information that falls within scope of the request engages section 35(1)(a) of FOIA and the public interest favours maintaining this exemption. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 35(1)(a)
21 Jul 2026Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information relating to a planning application that was submitted to London Borough of Hounslow (council). The council disclosed the information to the complainant but withheld third party personal information under regulation 13(1) of the EIR.
The Commissioner’s decision is that the council has complied with regulation 5(1) of the EIR because no further information is held. He is satisfied that on the balance of probabilities the council does not hold further information pertaining to the scope of the request.
The Commissioner has also determined that the council was correct to withhold personal information under regulation 13 of the EIR. However, the Commissioner finds that the council breached regulation 5(2) of the EIR (Duty to make available environmental information on request) as it failed to provide all the information it held within the required 20 working days.
The Commissioner does not require further steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: EIR 13(1); EIR 5(1); EIR 5(2)
View London Borough of Hounslow
21 Jul 2026Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The Commissioner’s decision is that the public authority has breached regulation 11 of the EIR by failing to provide a reconsideration (internal review) of a response within 40 working days. The Commissioner requires it to provide the complainant with the internal review within 30 calendar days in accordance with its obligations under the EIR.
Exemptions cited: EIR 11
View Westminster Council
21 Jul 2026Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested the full building control file relating to works at a specific property. Bath & North East Somerset Council (the “council”) refused the request under regulation 12(3) of the EIR, on the basis that the requested information constituted personal data and was excepted from disclosure under regulation 13(1). The Commissioner’s decision is that the council was entitled to rely on regulation 13(1) of the EIR to withhold the requested information.The Commissioner does not require the council to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 13(1)
View Bath and North East Somerset Council
21 Jul 2026Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested from the Cabinet Office information related to the Inquiry into the Post Office Horizon scandal. The Cabinet Office provided some information related to a senior officer but withheld the remainder under the exemptions at sections 36 (prejudice to the effective conduct of public affairs) and 40 (personal information) of FOIA.
The Commissioner’s decision is that the Cabinet Office was entitled to withhold the information under the cited sections.
The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 36; FOI 40
View Cabinet Office
21 Jul 2026Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information, in a multi-part request, in which a specific officer was named. Ultimately, Surrey Police denied holding some of the requested information and disclosed some information in scope of the request. However it would neither confirm nor deny (NCND) holding some of the requested information, citing section 40(5) (personal information), and withheld the remainder, citing section 40(2) (personal information) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that Surrey Police is entitled to NCND whether some of the requested information is held, by virtue of section 40(5A) of FOIA. He is also satisfied that it correctly applied section 40(2) to the remaining withheld information. The Commissioner does not require Surrey Police to take any steps as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View Surrey Police
21 Jul 2026Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
In a three part request, the complainant requested information about a member of ICO staff. The ICO disclosed information falling within scope of part 2 of the request and advised that parts 1 and 3 were conditional and therefore not valid requests under section 8(1) of FOIA.
The Commissioner's decision is that part 1 of the request was a valid request for information under section 8(1) of FOIA and that the ICO failed to deal with it in accordance with section 1.
The Commissioner requires the ICO to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: The ICO must issue the complainant with a fresh response to part 1 of the request which complies with its obligations under section 1 of FOIA. If it wishes to refuse part 1, it must issue a refusal notice compliant with section 17 of FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 8(1)
View Information Commissioner
21 Jul 2026Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information about the commissioning, cost and content of a legal opinion obtained by the former Ryedale District Council, whose functions have since transferred to North Yorkshire Council (the council). The council stated that it did not hold further information falling within the scope of part one of the request, that it did not hold information falling within the scope of part two of the request and that the information requested in part three was excepted from disclosure under regulation 12(5)(b) of the EIR (the course of justice). The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the council does not hold further information falling within the scope of part one of the request and was therefore entitled to rely on regulation 12(4)(a) in relation to that part of the request. The Commissioner also finds that the council was entitled to rely on regulation 12(5)(b) to withhold the information requested in part three and that the public inter
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(a); EIR 12(5)(b)
View North Yorkshire County Council
20 Jul 2026Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information about decisions relating to traffic signage, speed limit changes and a speed camera on St John's Lane, Bristol. The Commissioner has investigated whether Bristol City Council (the “council”) holds further information within the scope of the request.During the Commissioner’s investigation, the council described the searches it had undertaken and subsequently carried out an eDiscovery search which identified a substantial volume of potentially relevant emails. The council then argued that reviewing those emails would be manifestly unreasonable under regulation 12(4)(b) of the EIR. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council has failed to demonstrate, on the balance of probabilities, that it identified and considered all information falling within the scope of the request. The Council therefore failed to comply with regulation 5(1) of the EIR. The Commissioner has made no finding on the council’s reliance upon regulation 12(4)(b).The council must
Exemptions cited: EIR 5(1)
View Bristol City Council
20 Jul 2026Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (FCDO) relating to contracts and procurement associated with the UK–Ghana Gold Programme (also referred to as the UK–Ghana Gold Mining Programme), announced in or around July 2023.
The FCDO 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 Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office
20 Jul 2026Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information on the procedures governing the servicing and calibration of particular speed enforcement devices. Greater Manchester Police (GMP) said it did not hold the requested information. The Commissioner’s decision is that GMP does not hold the requested information, nor is such information held on GMP’s behalf by a third-party, as defined under section 3(2)(b) of FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 45
View Greater Manchester Police
20 Jul 2026Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information about a planning enforcement decision. London Borough of Croydon (‘the council’) has made some relevant information available (with personal data withheld) and has applied regulation 12(5)(b) to the remaining information (which also contains personal data). Regulation 12(5)(b) concerns the course of justice. Finally, the council relied on regulation 6 of the EIR in respect of some relevant information as it considers this information is already publicly available and easily accessible to the complainant. The Commissioner’s decision is as follows: Some of the information to which the council applied regulation 12(5)(b) is the complainant’s own personal data. By virtue of regulation 5(3), the duty to make environmental information available under regulation 5(1) does not apply to this information. The remaining information to which the council applied regulation 12(5)(b) engages that exception and the public interest favours maintaining the exception
Exemptions cited: EIR 11; EIR 12(5)(b); EIR 14; EIR 5; EIR 6(1)
View London Borough of Croydon
20 Jul 2026Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from Wandsworth Council (“the Council”) relating to reported maintenance issues and repairs at a specific property. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council is entitled to rely on section 12(1) (cost limit) of FOIA to refuse to provide the information requested in part 2 of the request. However, he finds that the Council failed to provide reasonable advice and assistance and, therefore, did not meet its obligations under section 16(1) of FOIA. The Commissioner also finds that the Council breached section 10 (time for compliance) of FOIA by failing to respond to the request within the statutory timeframe of 20 working days. The Commissioner requires the Council to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. The Council must provide the complainant with advice and assistance to help them submit a request falling within the appropriate limit. The Council must take these steps within 30 calendar days of the date of this d
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 12; FOI 16
View London Borough of Wandsworth
20 Jul 2026Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a multi-part request for specified information about British citizen naturalisation. Initially, the Home Office said it did not hold some of the information and it applied section 31(1)(Law enforcement) to part 2 of the request. During the course of the Commissioner’s investigation, the Home Office additionally relied on section 23 (Information supplied by, or relating to, bodies dealing with security matters) and section 24 (National security) in the alternative, and further sub-sections of sections 31(1) of FOIA, in relation to part 2 of the request.
Exemptions cited: FOI 23; FOI 24
View Home Office
17 Jul 2026Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to amma cameras and SPECT/CT systems owned or managed by Oxford University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust (the Trust). The Trust 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
17 Jul 2026Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The public authority has failed to respond to this request within 20 working days, as specified under FOIA. The Commissioner requires it to provide the complainant with a response to this request within 30 calendar days in accordance with its obligations under FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View University of South Wales
17 Jul 2026Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information about the treatment of drinking water supply at a specific site. Southern Water Services Ltd (‘Southern Water’) refused part of the request under regulation 12(5)(a) of the EIR, which concerns national security or public safety. It disclosed some relevant information and advised it held no further information falling within scope of the request. The Commissioner has concluded that part 1 of the request should be interpreted more narrowly than Southern Water interpreted it. His decision is that Southern Water was not entitled to rely on regulation 12(5)(a) to withhold information falling within scope of part 1 of the request as he has interpreted it. The Commissioner’s decision is also that, on the balance of probabilities, Southern Water holds no further information falling within scope of part 2 of the request and complied with regulation 5 of the EIR. The Commissioner requires Southern Water to take the following step to ensure compliance wit
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(a); EIR 5
17 Jul 2026Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The public authority has failed to respond to this request within 20 working days, as specified 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 Liverpool City Council
17 Jul 2026Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from Oxford University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust (the Trust) about completed Resolution Procedures, completion times and cases reopened after the final appeal stage. The Trust 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
17 Jul 2026Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from the Cabinet Office about clause 18 of the Employment Rights Bill, concerning harassment by third parties. The Cabinet Office confirmed that it held information and relied on sections 35(1)(a)(formulation or development of government policy), 42(1)(legal professional privilege) and 21(1)(information accessible to the applicant by other means) of FOIA to withhold the requested information..The Commissioner’s decision is that the Cabinet Office was entitled to withhold the internal ministerial submission under section 35(1)(a). The Commissioner also finds that section 21(1) was engaged in respect of the public-domain information that was reasonably accessible to the complainant and that fell within parts of the request. However, the Cabinet Office’s signposting was insufficiently precise in places, including because it did not clearly map the public material to each part of the request and, in at least one respect, provided an incorrect or insuff
Exemptions cited: FOI 21; FOI 35
View Cabinet Office
16 Jul 2026Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from the LIPA Multi academy trust about the proposed closure of the school. 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 THE LIPA MULTI ACADEMY TRUST
16 Jul 2026Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to “DOGE-like” activities at Kent County Council. Kent County Council (the “council”) informed the complainant that some information was not held and initially relied on section 36 of FOIA to withhold other information. During the Commissioner’s investigation, the council withdrew its reliance on section 36, conducted further searches and issued a fresh response to the complainant. The Commissioner is not satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that the council has identified and considered all information falling within the scope of the request. In particular, the Commissioner is not satisfied that the council has adequately considered whether communications relating to its Department of Local Government Efficiency (“DOLGE”) initiative fall within the final limb of the request. The Commissioner finds that the council has not complied with section 1(1)(a) of FOIA. The Commissioner requires the council to issue a fresh response to the r
Exemptions cited: FOI 1(1)(a)
View Kent County Council
16 Jul 2026Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The Commissioner’s decision is that MFA Building Control Ltd is not a public authority as defined under regulation 2(2) of the EIR. It was therefore not obliged to respond under the EIR to the complainant’s request for information about a specific site. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 2(2)
16 Jul 2026Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information about a particular meeting which took place on 28 July 2025 regarding anti-social behaviour. Northumberland County Council (the Council) disclosed some information and stated other information was not held. The complainant considered that additional information was held. During the course of the Commissioner’s investigation the Council identified additional information falling within the scope of the request, which it provided to the complainant, subject to some personal data being redacted under section 40(2) (personal data) and section 38 (health and safety) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the Council does not hold any further recorded information relevant to the request. The Commissioner also finds that the Council correctly applied section 40(2) to withhold personal data from the documents disclosed. However, the Commissioner finds that the Council breached section 10 of the FOIA in failing to
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10; FOI 40
View Northumberland County Council
16 Jul 2026Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to the General Dental Council’s (GDC) membership of the Diversity in Dentistry Action Group (DDAG). The GDC stated that it did not hold the requested information.
The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the GDC does not hold information falling within the scope of the request and has therefore complied with section 1(1) of FOIA.
The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1(1)
View General Dental Council
16 Jul 2026Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information relating to planning applications and planning enforcement matters concerning Leeds East Airport. North Yorkshire Council (the “council”) initially withheld the requested information under regulation 12(5)(d) of the EIR. During the Commissioner's investigation it withdrew its reliance on that exception, disclosed additional information and withheld the remaining information under regulations 12(5)(b), 12(5)(g) and 13. The Commissioner finds that the remaining withheld information was correctly withheld under regulations 12(5)(b), 12(5)(g) and 13 of the EIR. The Commissioner does not require the council to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(b); EIR 12(5)(g); EIR 13
View North Yorkshire County Council