20 Nov 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
1. The complainant has requested information from the BBC in relation to an ongoing review arising out of a Security Risk Assessment. The BBC relied on sections 38 (health and safety) and 40(2) of FOIA (third party personal information) to withhold the information.
2. The Commissioner’s decision is that the BBC has correctly relied on sections 38(1)(b) and 40(2) of FOIA to withhold the information.
3. The Commissioner does not require further steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 38; FOI 40
View BBC
20 Nov 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about the cost of providing private parking companies with driver information. The DVLA advised the complainant that it did not hold the information. The DVLA has since explained to the Commissioner that whilst it holds the ‘building blocks’ to create the requested information, it did not hold it in an easily retrievable format and would require specialists to be able to create a database of information that could be deemed in scope of the request.
The Commissioner’s decision is that on the balance of probabilities, The DVLA does not hold the requested information, and is not required to produce information from the ‘building blocks’ in order to create it. However, by failing to provide an internal review it did not act in accordance with the section 45 Code of Practice.
The Commissioner does not require any steps as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1(1)
View Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency
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
19 Nov 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information associated with an investigation into data loss by South Yorkshire Police. The ICO’s final position was to disclose some information due to the passage of time, and to withhold the remainder under sections 31(1)(g) and 44(1) of FOIA. These exemptions concern law enforcement and prohibitions on disclosure, respectively. The Commissioner’s decision is that sections 31(1)(g) and 44(1)(a) are engaged and he doesn’t require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 31(1)(g); FOI 44(1)(a)
View Information Commissioner
19 Nov 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to a recruitment exercise to which they were an applicant. NHS England provided some of the information but withheld the remaining information citing section 40(1) and 40(2) of FOIA (personal information). NHS England went on to consider the parts of the information withheld under section 40(1) as a subject access request under the Data Protection Act. This part of the complainant’s request is not being contested. The Commissioner has considered NHS England’s application of section 40(2) and has decided that NHS England has correctly applied the exemption to withhold the information requested. The Commissioner has also decided that NHS England has breached section 10(1) of FOIA because it failed to provide a response to the complainant’s request within 20 working days. The Commissioner does not require further steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40(2)
View NHS England
19 Nov 2025Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information regarding a development and the conditions for working on it. Wokingham Borough Council (“the council”) said that no information is held by it. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council holds no further information falling within the scope of the complainant's request. He has however, decided that the council failed to comply with Regulation 5(2) as it did not provide some of the information it did hold within 20 working days of receiving the request. It also failed to comply with Regulation 11(4) in that it did not respond to a request for reconsideration made under Regulation 11(1) within 40 working days. The Commissioner does not require the council to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 11(4); EIR 5(1); EIR 5(2)
View Wokingham Council
19 Nov 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to a settlement agreement between HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) and Amazon. HMRC. HMRC refused to confirm or deny whether it held the requested information and cited section 44(2) (prohibitions on disclosure) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that HMRC has correctly relied upon section 44(2) of FOIA to neither confirm nor deny holding the information. The Commissioner does not require any steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 44
19 Nov 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about the amount spent on advertising in general, and in newspapers and on billboards. Ulster University (the University) has relied on section 43(2) (commercial interests) to withhold the requested information. The Commissioner’s decision is that the University correctly relied on section 43(2) to withhold the requested information. The Commissioner does not require steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 43(2)
View Ulster University
18 Nov 2025Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information on reminder letters sent to city councillors for failing to pay council tax. The City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council (“the council”) disclosed statistical data but withheld the remaining information on the basis that section 40(2) of FOIA applied (personal data of third parties). The Commissioner’s decision is that the council was correct to withhold the majority of the identities of the individual councillors under section 40(2), however it was incorrect to do so in respect of one councillor. The Commissioner requires the council to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. To disclose the identity of a councillor as per the requirements of the confidential annex.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40(2)
View City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council
18 Nov 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information on debt recovery agents. Cumberland Council (the “council”) refused the request citing the exemption for the prevention or detection of crime (section 31). The Commissioner’s decision is that the council correctly withheld the requested information under section 31(1)(a). The Commissioner does not require the council to take further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 31(1)(a)
View Cumberland Council
18 Nov 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested documentation that would be provided in response to suppliers’ expressions of interest in a specified Asylum Support and Accommodation Programme. The Home Office refused to provide the requested information, citing the exemption at section 43(2) of FOIA for commercial interests. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Home Office has properly relied on section 43(2) of FOIA for the reasons set out in this notice. No steps are required as a result of this decision.
Keywords: Procurement
Exemptions cited: FOI 43
View Home Office
18 Nov 2025Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested the college to disclose the minutes of the Building Projects Committee for the last five years and any reports, slide decks or documents referred to in these minutes or provided to the committee members. The college disclosed the minutes but failed to address the second element of the request. The information falling within the scope of the second element of the request was not disclosed until several months later. The Commissioner’s decision is that the college breached section 1(1)(a), 1(1)(b) and 10 of FOIA. The Commissioner does not require any further steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10
View BRIDGWATER & TAUNTON COLLEGE TRUST
18 Nov 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from the Cabinet Office about any meetings held between the Prime Minister and his Parliamentary Private Secretaries Liz Twist MP and Christopher Ward MP and representatives of Global Counsel between the 5 July 2024 and 20 December 2024.The Commissioner’s decision is that on the balance of probabilities, the Cabinet Office does not hold any information falling within the scope of the request. The Commissioner therefore finds that the Cabinet Office has complied with its obligations under section 1 of FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Cabinet Office
17 Nov 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
1. The complainant requested information from the Department for Business and Trade (DBT) in relation to export licence applications. DBT disclosed some of the requested information but refused to disclose the remainder, citing sections 41 (information provided in confidence) and 43 (commercial interests) of FOIA as a basis for non-disclosure.
2. The Commissioner’s decision is that DBT has correctly applied section 41 of FOIA to the withheld information. As section 41 is engaged in respect of the entirety of the withheld information, the Commissioner has not gone on to consider the application of section 43.
3. The Commissioner does not require any further action to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 41
View Department for Business and Trade
17 Nov 2025Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The Commissioner’s decision is that NHS England doesn’t hold the requested information about “audits” of eligibility decisions and appeals in relation to Birmingham and Solihull Integrated Care Board. However, NHS England’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 England
17 Nov 2025Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The Commissioner’s decision is that Herefordshire Council (‘the Council’) doesn’t hold recorded information with scope of the complainant’s correspondence to it, which is broadly focussed on information relating to subject access requests. The Commissioner finds that the Council didn’t comply with sections 1(1)(a), 10(1) and 16(1) of FOIA, however, but it’s not necessary for it to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1(1)(a); FOI 10(1); FOI 16(1)
View North Hertfordshire District Council
17 Nov 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to the Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office (FCDO) about a ‘certificate of honour’ awarded to his father in 1955 in Somalia, including a replacement certificate and any related documentation. The FCDO explained that it did not hold any information falling within the scope of the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that on the balance of probabilities the FCDO does not hold information falling within the scope of the request. Information Tribunal FT/EA/2025/0435 under appeal.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
17 Nov 2025Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested from Carlton Academy Trust (the Trust) copies of communications between named individuals relating to a strike. The Trust applied section 14(1) FOIA (vexatious request) to refuse the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Trust is not entitled to rely on section 14(1) FOIA. The Commissioner requires the Trust to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation.
• Issue a fresh response to the request that does not rely on section 14(1) FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14(1)
View CARLTON ACADEMY TRUST
17 Nov 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 council has not issued a substantive response to this request. Therefore the Commissioner finds a breach of section 10. The council must provide a substantive response to the request in accordance with its obligations under FOIA.
The council must take this step within 30 calendar days of the date of this decision notice. 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 Gloucestershire County Council
17 Nov 2025Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The National Archives has failed to respond to this request within 20 working days, as specified under FOIA. The Commissioner requires it to provide the complainant with a response to this request within 30 calendar days in accordance with its obligations under FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10(1)
View The National Archives
14 Nov 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested copies of correspondence between the GMC and United Medical Associate Professionals (UMAPs) during specified dates. The GMC disclosed a bundle of documents with some information redacted under section 40(2) and one email and its attachments withheld in their entirety under section 41 FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the GMC has correctly redacted information from the disclosed documents under section 40(2) and withheld one email correctly under section 41 FOIA. No steps are required.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40; FOI 41
View GMC
14 Nov 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant made a request for correspondence between Valencia, Viridor, and Sutton Council (the Council) regarding the expansion of the Sutton Decentralised Energy Network (SDEN). The Council withheld the information under regulation 12(5)(e) of the EIR, citing commercial confidentiality.
The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council was entitled to rely on regulation 12(5)(e) to withhold the requested information and that the public interest favours maintaining the exception.
The Commissioner does not require any steps as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(e)
View London Borough of Sutton
14 Nov 2025Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to The National Lottery Heritage Fund (the heritage fund) for information relating to Southport Pier.
The Commissioner’s decision is that the heritage fund does not hold any information in relation to questions one and two of the request. However, in relation to the application of section 43(2) (commercial interests) of FOIA, in relation to question four, the Commissioner finds that the exemption is partially engaged.
The Commissioner requires the heritage fund to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation:
• Disclose the EOI form with any person data redacted in accordance with his guidance.
The heritage fund 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 1(1); FOI 43(2)
View National Lottery Heritage Fund
14 Nov 2025Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant made a multi-point request for information shared by the Health and Safety Executive with government bodies regarding the application of regulations to Lithium-ion (Li-ion) battery cells within Battery Energy Storage Systems (BESS). The Health and Safety Executive (the HSE) provided information in scope of the request but withheld some under regulation 12(5)(b) - course of justice of the EIR.
The Commissioner’s decision is that the HSE was entitled to rely on regulation 12(5)(b) in this case, and the balance of the public interest lies in maintaining the exception. The HSE breached regulation 11 of the EIR because it failed to complete its internal review within 40 working days.
The Commissioner does not require any steps as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: EIR 11; EIR 12(5)(b)
View Health and Safety Executive
13 Nov 2025Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information about an advertised role for an independent reviewing officer from Birmingham Children’s Trust on 30 July 2025
Birmingham Children’s Trust has failed to respond to this request within 20 working days, as specified under FOIA. Therefore, the Commissioner finds a breach of section 10.
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
13 Nov 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about fire safety assessments. London Borough of Islington (“the Council”) disclosed information in response. However, the complainant believed that further information was held by the Council. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the Council does not hold any further recorded information within the scope of the request. The Commissioner does not require further steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Islington Council
13 Nov 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant made a request concerning a previous response from September 2022 where the Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC) had refused the request for naming of ‘senior officers’ involved in an investigation and subsequent report. The IOPC explained that the information was being withheld under section 40(2) (third-party personal information) of FOIA, and that their stance had not changed with the passage of time.
The Commissioner considers that section 40(2) of FOIA applies to the withheld information and that the IOPC is entitled to rely on the exemption in this case.
The Commissioner does not require any steps as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40(2)
View Independent Office for Police Conduct
13 Nov 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested copies of correspondence in relation to an email which was sent by a journalist. Buckinghamshire Council (the Council) refused the request under regulations 5(3) And 13(1) (personal data) of the EIR. The Commissioner’s decision is that the complainant requested their own personal data and that the Council was entitled to apply regulation 5(3) of the EIR to refuse the request. The Commissioner does not require any steps to be taken. Information Tribunal FT/EA/2025/0434 under appeal.
Exemptions cited: EIR 5(3)
View Buckinghamshire Council
13 Nov 2025Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from Bridgend County Borough Council (“the Council”) relating to housing benefit recipients. The Commissioner’s decision is that on the balance of probabilities, the Council does not hold information within the scope of the request. However, he finds the Council breached section 10(1) (time for compliance) of FOIA by failing to seek clarification within 20 working days. The Commissioner does not require the Council to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10
View Bridgend County Borough Council
13 Nov 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested various information in respect of MPs Andew Gwynne and Oliver Ryan mobile telephone usage. The Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority (IPSA) informed the complainant that it does not hold information relevant to items 2 and 3 of their request. The Commissioner’s decision is that on the balance of probabilities, IPSA does not hold the requested information. The Commissioner does not require any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority
13 Nov 2025Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information regarding the permissions required to reinstate a weir and bridge from Guilford Borough Council (”the council”). The council disclosed a copy of an email to the complainant; however, some paragraphs were redacted under section 43(2) of FOIA. The council did not respond to a request for review. During the course of the Commissioner's investigation, the complainant made a further request for information. In response to this, the council provided a full copy of the email it had partially redacted previously, together with another email.
The Commissioner’s decision is that the council has now disclosed the withheld information, however it failed to comply with the requirements of Regulation 5(2) in that it did not disclose all of the information within 20 working days of receiving the request. He has also decided that the council did not comply with Regulation 11(4), however given that the complainant has now been provided with the information it is
Exemptions cited: EIR 11(4); EIR 5(2)
View Guildford Borough Council
13 Nov 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to NHS England (NHSE) for information regarding access to named Outlook inboxes.
The Commissioner’s decision is that NHSE was correct to withhold the requested information under section 40(2) of FOIA.
The Commissioner does not require further steps, as a result of the notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40(2)
View NHS England
13 Nov 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested details of complaints, grievances or conduct-related concerns received about a named employee. Torfaen County Borough Council (the Council) refused to confirm or deny whether it held information within the scope of the request and relied on section 40(5B) (third party personal data) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council is entitled to rely on section 40(5B) of the FOIA to refuse to confirm or deny whether it holds the information. The Commissioner does not require any steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: EIR 40(5B)
View Torfaen County Borough Council
13 Nov 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about a specific member of staff. Pensby High School (‘the school’) refused the request, citing section 14(1) (vexatious requests) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the request is vexatious and the school isn’t obliged to respond to it. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14(1)
View AYLESBURY HIGH SCHOOL
13 Nov 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to Merseyside Police’s use of services provided by Palantir Technologies UK Ltd. Merseyside Police said it did not hold most of the information specified in the request. However, it refused to disclose a draft Data Protection Impact Assessment (DPIA) relating to a proposal that was never taken forward, citing section 31(1)(a) and (b) (Law enforcement) of FOIA. The complainant disagreed with the decision to withhold the document. The Commissioner’s decision is that the document in question did not fall within the scope of the information specified in the request and Merseyside Police was not required to consider it for disclosure. He finds no failure to comply with section 1 of FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Merseyside Police
13 Nov 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested a copy of a final written warning letter issued to a serving member of North Wales Police (NWP) force. NWP relied on section 40(2) of FOIA (third party personal information) to withhold the information. The Commissioner’s decision is that NWP has correctly relied on section 40(2) of FOIA to withhold the information. The Commissioner does not require further steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40(2)
View North Wales Police
13 Nov 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested details of complaints, and disciplinary information about a named Police Officer. North Wales Police (NWP) refused to confirm or deny whether it held information within the scope of the request and relied on section 40(5)(b)(i) (third party personal data) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that NWP is entitled to rely on section 40(5) of the FOIA to refuse to confirm or deny whether it holds the information. The Commissioner does not require any steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40(5)(b)
View North Wales Police
12 Nov 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to the Cabinet Office asking whether any current ministers declared a criminal conviction to officials during their appointment process and if so, how many. The Cabinet Office refused to confirm or deny whether it held information in falling within the scope of the request on the basis of sections 40(5B)(a)(i) (personal data), 41(2) (information provided in confidence) and section 36(3) (effective conduct of public affairs). The Commissioner’s decision is that the Cabinet Office is entitled to refuse to confirm or deny whether it holds any information on the basis of section 40(5B)(a)(i) of FOIA. Information Tribunal FT/EA/2025/0456 under appeal.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View Cabinet Office
12 Nov 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested from the Cabinet Office a copy of the former Prime Minister, Rishi Sunak’s, Ministerial Declaration of Interests documents, including all interests, as submitted to the Independent Adviser on Ministerial Standards. The Cabinet Office relied on section 21 (information accessible by other means), section 36 (effective conduct of public affairs), section 41 (information provided in confidence) and section 40(2) (third party personal information) of FOIA to withhold the information. The complainant contested the use of these exemptions, with the exception of section 21.The Commissioner’s decision is that the Cabinet Office can rely on section 36(2)(c) of FOIA to withhold all the information falling in scope of the request. His full position is set out in a confidential annex which will be provided to the Cabinet Office only. The Commissioner does not require further steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 36(2)(c)
View Cabinet Office
12 Nov 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about a confidential email hotline the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) set up for reporting McDonald’s harassment incidents. EHRC withheld the information under sections 31(1)(g) and 36(2)(c) of FOIA, which concern law enforcement and prejudice to the effective conduct of public affairs, respectively. The Commissioner’s decision is that the requested information engages section 31(1)(g) of FOIA, by way of subsections 31(2)(a) and 31(2)(c), and EHRC is entitled to withhold it. The Commissioner doesn’t require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 31(1)(g)
View Equality and Human Rights Commission
12 Nov 2025Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant submitted a request to Swansea Council for information regarding soundproofing in relation to a specific property development.
The Commissioner’s decision is that the council was not entitled to rely upon regulations 12(5)(c) (intellectual property rights), 12(5)(e) (commercial or industrial information) and 12(5)(f) (interests of the information provider) of the EIR to withhold the requested information. However, he finds that in relation to the application of regulation 13(1) (personal data) the exception is partially engaged, and that in regards to question four of the request, the council does not hold any further information, beyond that which has been identified. Furthermore, the Commissioner has found that the council’s handling of the request breached regulations 5(2) and 14 of the EIR.
The Commissioner requires the council to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation:
• Disclose the withheld information. The council may make the red
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(a); EIR 12(5)(c); EIR 12(5)(e); EIR 12(5)(f); EIR 13(1); EIR 14; EIR 5(2)
View Swansea Council
12 Nov 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to the Cabinet Office seeking the name of the US‐based investment fund, and company managing it, referred to in the (then) Prime Minister Rishi Sunak’s schedule of taxable sources of income and gains published in March 2023. The Cabinet Office refused to disclose the requested information on the basis of sections 40(2) (personal data), 41(1) (information provided in confidence) and 43(2) (commercial interests) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the requested information is exempt from disclosure on the basis of section 40(2) of FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View Cabinet Office
12 Nov 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(1)
View Waltham Forest Council
12 Nov 2025Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested, from North Yorkshire Council (the council), a copy of a particular letter that the council sent to another public authority, Potto Parish Council (PPC). The council originally withheld the requested information, citing sections 36(2)(b)(ii), 36(2)(c) and 41(1) of FOIA at internal review stage (the exemptions for prejudice to effective conduct of public affairs and information provided in confidence respectively). However, following correspondence from the Commissioner during his investigation, the council withdrew its reliance on those exemptions and disclosed a copy of the requested information. The complainant however remains concerned that the council didn’t respond to the request within the statutory time for compliance. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council breached section 10 of FOIA (time for compliance with request) because it didn’t provide a valid response within the statutory time frame. The Commissioner doesn’t require any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View North Yorkshire County Council
12 Nov 2025Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information held in relation to the UK's submission of defence spending data and any supporting internal analysis that breaks down the UK defence spending data into the sub-categories encompassed by the NATO definition from the Ministry of Defence (MOD).
The Commissioner’s decision is that the MOD was correct to rely upon section 12(1) and complied with its section 16 obligations. The MOD breached section 10 (timescale for compliance) and section 1 (general right of access to information) in failing to confirm it held information within the statutory timescale.
The Commissioner also finds that the MOD breached section 17(5) FOIA by relying on section 12(1) but failing to provide the complainant with a notice stating that fact within the 20 working day timescale.
The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 12(1); FOI 17(5)
View Ministry of Defence
12 Nov 2025Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about any investigations into Liverpool City Council following the “Caller Report” from Merseyside Police. Merseyside Police initially advised the complainant that the requested information was exempt from disclosure citing sections 40(2) (Personal information), 30(1)(a) and (b) (Investigations and proceedings) and 44(1)(Prohibitions on disclosure) of FOIA. During the Commissioner’s investigation, Merseyside Police revised its position, finding that the request was vexatious by virtue of section 14(1) of FOIA.
The Commissioner’s decision is that the majority of the request was vexatious by virtue of it being burdensome. However, there is one element that he does not consider would be burdensome to respond to as it would not require the same level of work as the rest of the request. Merseyside Police is therefore required to issue a fresh response to the part of the request which asks about resourcing.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14
View Merseyside Police
11 Nov 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about an alleged task force set up by Lancashire Police to deal with complaints about an individual.
The Office of the Police and Crime Commissioner for Lancashire (“OPCC”) informed the complainant that the information was not held.
The Commissioner’s decision is that the information requested was not held.
The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Lancashire Constabulary
11 Nov 2025Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information about the awarding of a contract to the Hornsea Project 3. National Energy System Operator (NESO) disclosed some information and advised that it didn’t hold any other relevant information. The Commissioner’s decision is that NESO’s interpretation of the request was reasonable and that, on the balance of probabilities, it holds no further relevant information. NESO didn’t comply with regulations 5(1) and 5(2) of the EIR, however, as it didn’t make the relevant information it holds available to the complainant within the required timescale. The Commissioner doesn’t require further steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 5(1); EIR 5(2)
View National Energy System Operator
11 Nov 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested a breakdown of costs and revenue for a bike scheme that was introduced by Brighton and Hove City Council (the council). The council has refused to provide the requested information on the basis of section 43(2) (commercial interests) of FOIA.
The Commissioner’s decision is that the council was correct to withhold the information under section 43(2) of FOIA. He does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 43(2)
View Brighton and Hove City Council
11 Nov 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant made a three-part request for specific information associated with the 2024 General Election. The Department for Science, Innovation & Technology (‘DSIT’) said it did not hold the requested information for part 1 of the request. For parts 2 and 3, DSIT refused to provide the information, citing section 24(1) of FOIA – the exemption for national security. The complainant was only concerned with DSIT’s application of section 24(1) of FOIA. During the course of the Commissioner’s investigation, DSIT revised its position and provided the information at part 3 of the request. For part 2 of the request, DSIT disclosed the previously withheld report with redactions under section 24(1) of FOIA. The complainant remained dissatisfied with the redacted material within the disclosed report. The Commissioner’s decision is that DSIT has properly relied on section 24(1) of FOIA to withhold the redacted information within the disclosed report. No steps are required as a result of this
Exemptions cited: FOI 24
View Department for Science, Innovation and Technology