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)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from One Medicare Ltd about complaints or concerns it had received and related matters. Having initially stated that it was not subject to FOIA, One Medicare Ltd later provided some information but exempted other information under section 43(2) FOIA – commercial interests. Some months after that it provided the information it had previously exempted. The Commissioner’s decision is that One Medicare Ltd didn’t comply with section 1(1) and 10(1) of FOIA as it didn’t communicate the non-exempt information to the complainant within 20 working days. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1(1); FOI 10(1)
10 Nov 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about migrants attempting to cross the English Channel in small boats. The Home Office relied on section 27(1)(a) (international relations) of FOIA to withhold the requested information. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Home Office was correct to rely on section 27(1)(a) of FOIA to withhold the requested information. The Commissioner does not require the Home Office to take any further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 27
View Home Office
10 Nov 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information in relation to an unresolved review from the Metropolitan Police Service (“the MPS”). The MPS refused to provide the requested information citing section 12(1) of FOIA – cost of compliance. The Commissioner’s decision is that the MPS was entitled to rely on section 12(1) of FOIA to refuse the request. The Commissioner also finds that the MPS complied with its obligations under section 16 of FOIA to offer advice and assistance. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12(1); FOI 16
View Metropolitan Police Service
10 Nov 2025Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to damage to a portrait in Belfast City Hall. Belfast City Council (the Council) provided some information falling within the scope of the request, but refused to disclose the remainder under sections 31(1)(a) (prevention or detection of crime), 31(1)(b) (the apprehension or prosecution of offenders) and 31(1)(c) (the administration of justice) of FOIA.
The Commissioner’s decision is that some information was correctly withheld under section 31(1)(a) and that the public interest favours non-disclosure.
The remainder of the withheld information did not engage sections 31(1)(a), (b), or (c) so the Council were not correct to withhold this information.
The Commissioner requires the Council to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation - Disclose the information described at paragraph 32 of this decision notice with the appropriate redactions carried out.
Exemptions cited: FOI 31(1)(a); FOI 31(1)(b); FOI 31(1)(c)
10 Nov 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested the CAA to disclose a list of all drone airproxes logged between specific dates and in relation to four named locations. The CAA confirmed that it does not hold any recorded information. The complainant disputed this. The Commissioner’s decision is that on the balance of probabilities the CAA does not hold any recorded information falling within the scope of the complainant’s request. The Commissioner does not require further steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Civil Aviation Authority
10 Nov 2025Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to tennis coaching and access to tennis courts. At the date of this decision notice, and despite the Commissioner’s intervention, St Peter’s Primary School has not responded to the two requests submitted by the complainant. The Commissioner requires the School to respond to the requests.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View WEBSTER PRIMARY SCHOOL
10 Nov 2025Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
In two requests the complainant has requested information about fish farms. The Animal and Plant Health Agency (APHA) handled the requests under FOIA and refused them as vexatious requests under section 14(1).The Commissioner’s decision is as follows: The requests are for environmental information within the definition at regulation 2 of the EIR. APHA should therefore have handled the requests under the EIR rather than FOIA. APHA’s refusal of the requests didn’t comply with regulation 14 of the EIR as it incorrectly refused the requests under FOIA. The Commissioner requires APHA to take the following step to ensure compliance with the legislation: Reconsider the two requests under the provisions of the EIR and issue responses to the complainant.
Correction: contrary to paragraph 7 of this decision notice, APHA did offer an internal review.
Exemptions cited: EIR 14; EIR 2
View Animal and Plant Health Agency
10 Nov 2025Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from the Home Office. The Commissioner’s decision is that the public authority failed to respond within the extension of time for PIT after initial request. This is deemed unreasonable amount of time as per ICO guidance.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Home Office
10 Nov 2025Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to six Courts Martial which took place between 2005 and 2007. The Ministry of Defence (MOD) provided some information but stated that it did not hold the remainder, namely, information about the costs of the Courts Martial, copies of three Courts Martial judgments, and one Court Martial charge sheet. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the MOD has provided the complainant with all information it holds and it does not hold the remainder of the requested information. However, it breached section 16 of FOIA by providing advice and assistance late. The MOD also breached section 10(1) of FOIA by responding outside the statutory time limits for compliance to both the original and clarified request for information. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10(1); FOI 16
View Ministry of Defence
10 Nov 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to the Police National Database (PND) Search User Guide (the User Guide). The College of Policing (the College) refused to disclose the requested information, citing sections 31(1)(a) and (b) (Law enforcement) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the College was entitled to rely on sections 31(1)(a) and (b) of FOIA to withhold the information.The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: FOI 31
View College of Policing
10 Nov 2025Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information from Newry, Mourne and Down District Council (“the Council”) relating to a Civic Hub project. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council is not entitled to rely on regulation 12(5)(e) (commercial or industrial information) to refuse to provide the withheld information. The Commissioner requires the Council to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. Disclose the withheld information making appropriate personal data redactions as described at paragraph 25 of this notice. The Council must take these steps within 30 calendar days of the date of this decision notice. Failure to comply may result in the Commissioner making written certification of this fact to the High Court pursuant to section 54 of the Act and may be dealt with as a contempt of court.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(e)
10 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 public authority has not issued a substantive response to this request. Therefore, the Commissioner finds a breach of section 10. The public authority must provide a substantive response to the request in accordance with its obligations under FOIA. The public authority must take this step within 30 calendar days of the date of this decision notice. Failure to comply may result in the Commissioner making written certification of this fact to the High Court pursuant to section 54 of FOIA and may be dealt with as a contempt of court.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
10 Nov 2025Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested fish farm inspection reports from 2023 and 2024. The Animal and Plant Health Agency (APHA) withheld the relevant information it holds under sections 40(2) and 41(1) of FOIA, which concern personal data and information provided in confidence, respectively. APHA has subsequently confirmed to the Commissioner that it’s relying on regulation 12(5)(f) of the EIR to withhold the information. This exception concerns the interests of the information provider. The Commissioner understands APHA is also withholding personal data under regulation 13. The Commissioner’s decision is that regulation 12(5)(f) of the EIR isn’t engaged but regulation 13 is engaged. APHA’s refusal didn’t comply with regulation 14 of the EIR as it incorrectly refused the request under FOIA. The Commissioner requires APHA to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: Disclose to the complainant the information APHA is withholding, with all personal data redacted under
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(f); EIR 13; EIR 14
View Animal and Plant Health Agency
10 Nov 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested CQC to disclose the report(s) Modality Mid Sussex (MMS) shared with it outlining the actions to be taken as a result of CQC’s inspection in September 2024. CQC refused to disclose this information citing sections, 31(1)(g) by virtue of section 31(2)(c) (law enforcement), 40 (personal data), 41 (information provided in confidence) and 44 (prohibitions on disclosure) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that CQC is entitled to refuse to disclose the requested information in accordance with section 31(1)(g), by virtue of section 31(2)(c) of FOIA. The Commissioner does not require any further steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 31(1)(g)
View CQC
10 Nov 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested all correspondence between Wokingham Borough Council (the Council) and Carter Jonas regarding the valuation of the Council’s assets for a specified period. The Council refused the request, citing section 14(1) (vexatious request) of the FOIA on the basis that complying would create a disproportionate burden on its resources. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council was entitled to rely on section 14(1) of the FOIA to refuse the request. The Commissioner does not require any steps. Information Tribunal FT/EA/2025/0447 under appeal.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14(1)
View Wokingham Council
7 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 public authority has not issued a substantive response to this request. Therefore the Commissioner finds a breach of section 10.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Leicestershire Police
7 Nov 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
7 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 public authority has not issued a substantive response to this request. Therefore, the Commissioner finds a breach of section 10. The public authority must provide a substantive response to the request in accordance with its obligations under FOIA. The public authority must take this step within 30 calendar days of the date of this decision notice. Failure to comply may result in the Commissioner making written certification of this fact to the High Court pursuant to section 54 of FOIA and may be dealt with as a contempt of court.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View King's College London
7 Nov 2025Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information about sexual safety incidents from Royal Free London NHS Foundation Trust (“the Trust”) on 10 April 2025. The Trust confirmed it received the request on 13 August 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 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 Royal Free London NHS Foundation Trust
7 Nov 2025Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested from the North Sea Transition Authority (NSTA) a copy of the gap analysis paper mentioned in the Board meeting minutes for May 2023. The NSTA refused to provide the requested information applying section 36 FOIA – prejudice to the effective conduct of public affairs, section 42(1) FOIA – legal professional privilege, regulation 12(4)(d) of the EIR – material in the course of completion, regulation 12(4)(e) of the EIR - internal communications and regulation 12(5)(b) of the EIR – course of justice etc. The Commissioner’s decision is that regulations 12(5)(b) and 12(4)(e) of the EIR are engaged and that the public interest favours maintaining both exceptions. However, the NSTA breached regulation 11 of the EIR as it failed to complete an internal review within 40 working days. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 11; EIR 12(4)(e); EIR 12(5)(b)
6 Nov 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested complaints information relating to a named dentist and their practice. The PHSO relied on section 40(5B) of FOIA (third party personal information) to refuse to confirm or deny whether it held any information falling within the scope of the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the PHSO has correctly relied on section 40(5B) of FOIA. The Commissioner does not require any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40(5)(b)
View The Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman
6 Nov 2025Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted five requests to the London Borough of Redbridge (the Council) seeking information about rental properties owned by the former leader of the Council, the Council’s regulation of such properties and some information about the regulation of rental properties more generally. The Council initially responded to the requests disclosing a limited amount of information for some requests, and relying on sections 40 (personal data) and 30 (investigations) of FOIA to refuse the remainder. During the course of the Commissioner’s investigation the Council sought to refuse all of these requests on the basis of section 14(1) (vexatious) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the requests are not vexatious and therefore the Council cannot rely on section 14(1) of FOIA to refuse these requests.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14
View Redbridge Council
6 Nov 2025Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant sent a multi-point request for information regarding The Chairman of Stamford Bridge Parish Council (the Council) email account and emails sent to them about noise levels for a local fair. The Council stated that under section 1(1)(a) of FOIA information was not held for parts 1 to 22 of the request and cited section 21 (information accessible by other means) of FOIA for parts 23 and 24.
The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the Council does not hold information in scope of parts 1 to 22 of the request. Under section 16 of FOIA the Council provided adequate advice and assistance in relation to the request. However, the Council breached section 17(1) by failing to issue its refusal notice within 20 working days of the request
The Commissioner also considers that section 21 of FOIA does not apply to parts 23 and 24 of the complainant’s request as the links provided do not enable the complainant to access the relevant information. The Comm
Exemptions cited: FOI 1(1)(a); FOI 21; FOI 17(1)
6 Nov 2025Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information in respect of an alleged unauthorised development of land.
South Ribble Borough Council (“the Council”) withheld the information under section 30 of FOIA (investigations and proceedings).
The Commissioner’s decision is that the requested information is environmental information within the definition at regulation 2(1)(c) of the EIR. The request should, therefore, have been handled by the Council under the EIR rather than the FOIA.
The Commissioner requires the Council to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation:
• Reconsider the request under the provisions of the EIR and issue a fresh response to the complainant.
The Council must take these steps within 30 calendar days of the date of this decision notice. Failure to comply may result in the Commissioner making written certification of this fact to the High Court pursuant to section 54 of the Act and may be dealt with as a contempt of court.
Exemptions cited: EIR 2
View South Ribble Borough Council
6 Nov 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested complaints information relating to a named dentist and their practice. The PHSO relied on section 40(5B) of FOIA (third party personal information) to refuse to confirm or deny whether it held any information falling within the scope of the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the PHSO has correctly relied on section 40(5B) of FOIA. The Commissioner does not require any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40(5)(b)
View The Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman
6 Nov 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested correspondence between the Certification Office and a named trade union about a complaint. The Certification Office stated it did not hold any information. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Certification Office did not hold any information falling within the scope of the request. No steps are required. Information Tribunal FT/EA/2025/0444 under appeal.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Certification Officer
6 Nov 2025Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The public authority has failed to respond to this request within 20 working days, as specified under FOIA. The Commissioner requires it to provide the complainant with a response to this request within 30 calendar days in accordance with its obligations under FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Enfield Council
6 Nov 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relevant to a grievance. The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) refused to comply with the request, citing section 14(1). The Commissioner’s decision is that the request is vexatious under section 14(1) so HSE doesn’t have to comply with it. Section 12(1) (cost of compliance exceeds appropriate limit) also applies to the request. The Commissioner does not require further steps. Information Tribunal FT/EA/2025/0416 under appeal.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14(1)
View Health and Safety Executive
5 Nov 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information about lost or stolen vehicles. The NPCC relied on section 14(1) of FOIA (vexatious requests) to refuse the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the NPCC correctly refused the request as being vexatious. The Commissioner does not require any steps. Information Tribunal FT/EA/2025/0440 under appeal.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14(1)
View National Police Chiefs Council
5 Nov 2025Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The public authority has failed to respond to this request within 20 working days, as specified under FOIA. The Commissioner requires it to provide the complainant with a response to this request within 30 calendar days in accordance with its obligations under FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Home Office
5 Nov 2025Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about a meeting between The Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust (“the Trust”) and Swansea Bay University Health Board. The Trust provided the complainant with some information and confirmed that it holds further information that it has not provided to the complainant. It also said that it has been unable to identify it if holds any more information within scope of the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Trust has not conducted adequate searches to determine the extent of the information it may hold within the scope of the request. He also finds that the Trust has failed to comply with section 1(1) of the FOIA by failing to inform the complainant of the further information it has identified. It has failed to provide them with a copy of the information or issue a refusal notice applying an exemption to withhold the information. The Commissioner requires the Trust conduct a fresh search for all information held within the scope of the
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10
View Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust
5 Nov 2025Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested a document written by the University following a public interest disclosure. Newcastle University (“the University”) relied on section 36(2)(c) (prejudice to the effective conduct of public affairs) of FOIA to withhold the requested information. The Commissioner’s decision is that the University was correct to withhold the requested information under section 36(2)(c). However, the Council breached section 10(1) of FOIA by failing to respond to the request within 20 working days. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10(1); FOI 36(2)(c)
5 Nov 2025Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The public authority has failed to respond to this request within 20 working days, as specified under FOIA. The Commissioner requires it to provide the complainant with a response to this request within 30 calendar days in accordance with its obligations under FOIA. The public authority must provide a substantive response to the request in accordance with its obligations under FOIA. The public authority must take this step within 30 calendar days of the date of this decision notice. Failure to comply may result in the Commissioner making written certification of this fact to the High Court pursuant to section 54 of FOIA and may be dealt with as a contempt of court.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Enfield Council
5 Nov 2025Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The public authority has failed to respond to this request within 20 working days, as specified under FOIA. The Commissioner requires it to provide the complainant with a response to this request within 30 calendar days in accordance with its obligations under FOIA. The public authority must provide a substantive response to the request in accordance with its obligations under FOIA. The public authority must take this step within 30 calendar days of the date of this decision notice. Failure to comply may result in the Commissioner making written certification of this fact to the High Court pursuant to section 54 of FOIA and may be dealt with as a contempt of court.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Police Service of Northern Ireland
5 Nov 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information about agreements between the Finance and Leasing Association (FLA) and the National Vehicle Crime Intelligence Service (NaVCIS) or the NPCC. The NPCC relied on section 14(1) of FOIA (vexatious requests) to refuse the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the NPCC correctly applied section 14(1) to refuse the request as vexatious. The Commissioner does not require any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14(1)
View National Police Chiefs Council
5 Nov 2025Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to the London Borough of Barking and Dagenham (the Council) seeking information about the “Homes for Ukraine” initiative including a copy of any audit reports of the program. The Council disclosed some information in relation to the request but withheld a copy of the audit report on the basis of sections 36(2)(b)(i) and 36(2)(c) (effective conduct of public affairs) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the audit report is exempt on the basis of the exemptions cited. However the public interest only favours maintaining these exemptions for some parts of the report; for the remaining parts of the report the public interest favours disclosure of the information. The Council also breached section 17 of FOIA by failing to issue a valid refusal notice within 20 working days of the request.
Exemptions cited: FOI 17; FOI 36
View Barking and Dagenham Council
5 Nov 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested the relevant professional registration numbers of individuals involved in their mother’s care. United Lincolnshire Hospitals Trust (‘the Trust’) refused the request under sections 21 and 40(2) of FOIA. These exemptions concern information already accessible to the applicant and personal data, respectively. The Trust subsequently carried out further searches for relevant information. Its final position is that it holds no other relevant information and that sections 21 and 40(2) are engaged in respect of the information it does hold. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the Trust doesn’t hold any other relevant information and that the information it does hold is exempt under sections 21(1) and 40(2) of FOIA. The Commissioner doesn’t require further steps. Information Tribunal FT/EA/2025/0413 under appeal.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1(1); FOI 40(2); FOI 21(1)
View United Lincolnshire Hospitals NHS Trust
5 Nov 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information in relation to the citizenship of former first lady of Syria, Asma Al-Assad. The Home Office has refused to confirm or deny that the information is held, citing section 40(5B) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Home Office was entitled to rely on section 40(5B) of FOIA to neither confirm nor deny whether it holds the requested information. The Commissioner does not require further steps. Information Tribunal FT/EA/2025/0437 under appeal.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40(5)(b)
View Home Office
5 Nov 2025Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The public authority has failed to respond to this request within 20 working days, as specified under FOIA. The Commissioner requires it to provide the complainant with a response to this request within 30 calendar days in accordance with its obligations under FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Home Office
4 Nov 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested a costs breakdown associated with issuing passports to British adults and children. Ultimately, the Home Office provided some explanatory detail and a link to a published table, but said it did not hold the requested information. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the requested information is not held by the Home Office. He also finds that the Home Office complied with its advice and assistance obligations in accordance with section 16 of FOIA. No further steps are required as a result of this notice. Information Tribunal FT/EA/2025/0410 under appeal.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 16
View Home Office
4 Nov 2025Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The public authority has failed to respond to this request within 20 working days, as specified under FOIA. The Commissioner requires it to provide the complainant with a response to this request within 30 calendar days in accordance with its obligations under FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
4 Nov 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to Nottinghamshire Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust (the trust) for information relating to staff suspensions at Highbury Hospital.
The Commissioner’s decision is that on the balance of probabilities, the trust does not hold any further recorded information falling within the scope of the request.
The Commissioner does not require further steps, as a result of the notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Nottinghamshire Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust
4 Nov 2025Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The public authority has failed to respond to this request within 20 working days, as specified under FOIA. The Commissioner requires it to provide the complainant with a response to this request within 30 calendar days in accordance with its obligations under FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View London Borough of Lambeth
4 Nov 2025Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information on the unique identifiers the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) assigns to claimants. The Commissioner’s decision is that DWP is entitled to withhold the unique identifier metadata on the basis of section 31(1)(a), prevention or detection of crime. With regards to the information disclosed during the course of the investigation, the Commissioner finds that DWP breached section 10(1) as it did not disclose this within the statutory timeframe. The Commissioner does not require DWP to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 31
View Department for Work and Pensions
4 Nov 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information on the unique case identifiers that the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) assigns to claimants. The complainant considered that DWP held further information to that it had confirmed was held and disputed that the information identified could be withheld under section 31(1)(a), prevention or detection of crime. The Commissioner’s decision is that DWP has located all the information falling within the scope of the request. He also considers that section 31(1)(a) is engaged and that the public interest favours maintaining the exemption. The Commissioner does not require DWP to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 31(1)(a)
View Department for Work and Pensions
4 Nov 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about the procedure for complaining about unsatisfactory delivery of services. Humberside Police disclosed some information within the scope of the request, and withheld the remaining information in accordance with section 21 (information available by other means) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that Humberside Police correctly relied on section 21 of FOIA and, on the balance of probabilities, does not hold any further recorded information within the scope of the request. The Commissioner does not require Humberside Police to take any further steps. Information Tribunal FT/EA/2025/0409 under appeal.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 21
View Humberside Police
3 Nov 2025Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The public authority has failed to respond to this request within 20 working days, as specified under FOIA. The Commissioner requires it to provide the complainant with a response to this request within 30 calendar days in accordance with its obligations under FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Epping Forest District Council
31 Oct 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about discussions relating to contraception with patients of the orthodox Jewish community, and correspondence with the Interlink Foundation about Jewish participation in BRCA testing. NHS England denied holding any recorded information. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, NHS England does not hold the requested information. The Commissioner does not require any steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View NHS England
31 Oct 2025Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information from Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council (“the Council”) about work carried out on two properties. The Council withheld the requested information under regulation 13 (personal information) and regulation 12(5)(e) (confidentiality of commercial or industrial information) of the EIR. At a late stage of the Commissioner’s investigation the Council changed its position to state that much of the requested information was not held. The Commissioner’s decision is that: On the balance of probabilities, he is satisfied that the Council has identified all of the information held within the scope of the first request as per its revised position stated in paragraph 13 of this notice; He is not satisfied that, on the balance of probabilities, the Council does not hold further information within scope of the second request; The Council is entitled to withhold only the cost of the scaffolding (as requested in part one of the first request) under regulation 12(
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(e); EIR 13; EIR 5(1)
View Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council