30 Oct 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested statistics relating to pupil absences and complaints. All Saints Church of England Academy (‘the School’) refused the request, citing section 12(1) (cost of compliance exceeds appropriate limit). The Commissioner’s decision is that section 12(1) was correctly engaged and the School doesn’t have to comply with the request. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12(1)
View BARWELL CHURCH OF ENGLAND ACADEMY
30 Oct 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested from the Ministry of Housing, Communities & Local Government (MHCLG) information generated between 1 April 1992 and 1 April 1993 regarding the then Prince Charles and matters relating to prince’s consent. The Council confirmed that it does not hold information within scope of the request.
The Commissioner’s decision is that on the balance of probabilities, MHCLG does not hold any information falling within scope of the request, and it has complied with section 1(1) of FOIA. Therefore, the Commissioner does not require MHCLG to take any steps as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government
30 Oct 2025Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested various information in respect of the Mannings Farm Development at Drybrook. The Forest of Dean District Council (the Council) refused items 2 and 3 of the request on the basis of section 21 (information available to the applicant by other means) of the FOIA. It did however provide some information within its internal review response. The Commissioner’s decision is that: the Council has failed to demonstrate that it has conducted a reasonable and proportionate search of its records to identify all information falling within the scope of item 2 the request. Section 21 is not engaged in relation to item 2 of the request. The Council should have considered item 3 of the request under the EIR. The Council breached regulation 11(4) of the EIR as it failed to communicate the outcome of its internal review within the required timeframe. The Commissioner requires the Council to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. Conduct additional sea
Exemptions cited: EIR 11(4); FOI 21
View Forest of Dean District Council
30 Oct 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about foreign national offenders. The Home Office relied on section 22(1) (information intended for future publication) of FOIA to withhold the requested information. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Home Office was entitled to rely on section 22(1) of FOIA to withhold the requested information, and that the balance of the public interest favoured maintaining the exemption. The Commissioner does not require the Home Office to take further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 22
View Home Office
30 Oct 2025Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from Rochdale Borough Council (“the council”) as regards national lottery heritage funding for apprenticeships. The council provided some information, but confirmed that no further information is held by it. It also said that it was refusing the request under section 14(2) of FOIA (repeat request). The Commissioner’s decision is that the council was not correct to refuse the request under section 14(2). He has also decided that the council has not demonstrated, on the balance of probabilities, that it does not hold information falling within the scope of the complainant's request for information. The Commissioner requires the council to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. To carry out further searches for relevant information, including, but not limited to, areas of its records where processes, policies, contracts and guidance are held, and to issue a fresh response to the complainant.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 14(2)
View Rochdale Metropolitan Borough Council
30 Oct 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about a near relative’s role with MI6 during the Second World War. The Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office (“the public authority”) relies on section 23(5) (Information supplied by, or relating to, security bodies) to neither confirm or deny that it held the requested information. The Commissioner’s decision is that the public authority was entitled to rely on section 23(5) to neither confirm or deny that it held the requested information. The Commissioner does not require steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 35
29 Oct 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information in respect of a specific alleged investigation.
West Midlands Police neither confirmed nor denied holding the requested information, citing sections 40(5) (personal information) and 30(3) (investigations and proceedings) of FOIA.
The Commissioner investigated West Midlands Police’s application of section 30(3) to the requested information.
The Commissioner’s decision is that West Midlands Police is entitled to rely on section 30(3) of FOIA to refuse to confirm or deny whether it holds any information falling within the scope of the request.
The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 30(3)
View West Midlands Police
29 Oct 2025Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information relating to a report produced for Hertford Heath Parish Council (“the Parish Council”) by AECOM regarding the Hertford Heath Neighbourhood Plan. The Parish Council’s position is that it has disclosed all of the information held within the scope of the request. The complainant disputes this. At a late stage of the Commissioner’s investigation the Parish Council changed its position to refuse the request under regulation 12(4)(b) (manifestly unreasonable) on the grounds that it is vexatious. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Parish Council has failed to demonstrate that the request is vexatious and is therefore not entitled to refuse the request under regulation 12(4)(b). Furthermore, the Commissioner finds that the Parish Council does hold further information within the scope of the request, specifically an email sent from the Parish Council to AECOM on 12 February 2024 at 9:25 PM and that on the balance of probabilities this was held at t
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(b); EIR 5(1)
29 Oct 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The Commissioner’s decision is that the complainant’s four requests for information associated with settlement agreements are vexatious requests. The requests therefore engage section 14(1) of FOIA. As such, Channel Four Television Corporation was correct to refuse all four of the requests and correctly cited section 17(6) of FOIA when it refused three of them. The Commissioner doesn’t require further steps. Information Tribunal FT/EA/2025/0403 under appeal.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14(1); FOI 17(6)
View Channel 4
29 Oct 2025Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to asylum seekers who have died, from the Home Office. The Home Office ultimately disclosed some information but refused the remainder citing the exemptions at sections 38(1) (Health and safety) and 41(1) (Information provided in confidence) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that neither exemption is engaged. The Commissioner requires the Home Office to disclose the withheld information.
Exemptions cited: FOI 38; FOI 41
View Home Office
29 Oct 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The Commissioner’s decision is that the complainant’s four requests for information associated with settlement agreements are vexatious requests. The requests therefore engage section 14(1) of FOIA. As such, Channel Four Television Corporation was correct to refuse all four of the requests and correctly cited section 17(6) of FOIA when it refused three of them. The Commissioner doesn’t require further steps. Information Tribunal FT/EA/2025/0403 under appeal.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14(1); FOI 17(6)
View Channel 4
29 Oct 2025Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant made a request for all information it holds in regards to tape recordings of 101 calls from members of the public. Humberside Police refused parts one and two of the request under section 21 of FOIA (information accessible to applicant by other means). It stated that no information was held in relation to part three of the request and provided an answer to part four of the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that Humberside Police was entitled to rely on section 21 for part one of the request but was not entitled to rely on section 21 in relation to part two of the request. He also finds that Humberside Police unreasonably restricted the scope of the request and has therefore determined that Humberside Police breached section 1(1)(a) of FOIA. The Commissioner requires Humberside Police to provide the information requested at part two of the request or issue a fresh response without reliance on section 21 and issue a fresh response, having carried out further searche
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 21; FOI 21
View Humberside Police
29 Oct 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, Carr’s Glen 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 DAYS LANE PRIMARY SCHOOL
29 Oct 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, Holy Cross Girls’ 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
29 Oct 2025Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information between various parties in relation to a specific planning application. Tandridge District Council (the Council), provided some information, and advised that other information was not held.
The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the Council does not hold any additional information relevant to the request.
However, as the Council failed to provide the information that it did hold within 20 working days, the Commissioner has found a breach of regulation 5(2) of the EIR.
The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 5
View Tandridge District Council
29 Oct 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant asked Lancashire Constabulary to provide copies of any correspondence it holds regarding the outside broadcast of the BBC’s Strictly Come Dancing from Blackpool Tower Ballroom. Lancashire Constabulary disclosed some information but it withheld the rest, relying on sections 40(2) (Personal information) and 31(1)(a) and (b) (Law enforcement) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that Lancashire Constabulary was entitled to rely on sections 31(1)(a) and (b) of FOIA to withhold the information.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 31
View Lancashire Constabulary
29 Oct 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 Royal Free London NHS Foundation Trust
29 Oct 2025Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to the Cabinet Office seeking information about the authorisation of pass for Lord Alli to enter Number 10 Downing Street. The Cabinet Office initially confirmed that it held information within the scope of this request but considered this to be exempt from disclosure on the basis of sections 24 (national security) and 31 (investigations) of FOIA. The Cabinet Office subsequently revised its position and concluded that this information was out of scope of the request, and nor did it hold any other recorded information falling within the scope of this request. 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. However, the Commissioner has concluded that the Cabinet Office breached section 10(1) of FOIA in failing to inform the complainant of this within 20 working days of his request.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10
View Cabinet Office
29 Oct 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The Commissioner’s decision is that the complainant’s four requests for information associated with settlement agreements are vexatious requests. The requests therefore engage section 14(1) of FOIA. As such, Channel Four Television Corporation was correct to refuse all four of the requests and correctly cited section 17(6) of FOIA when it refused three of them. The Commissioner doesn’t require further steps. Information Tribunal FT/EA/2025/0403 under appeal.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14(1); FOI 17(6)
View Channel 4
29 Oct 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The Commissioner’s decision is that the complainant’s four requests for information associated with settlement agreements are vexatious requests. The requests therefore engage section 14(1) of FOIA. As such, Channel Four Television Corporation was correct to refuse all four of the requests and correctly cited section 17(6) of FOIA when it refused three of them. The Commissioner doesn’t require further steps. Information Tribunal FT/EA/2025/0403 under appeal.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14(1); FOI 17(6)
View Channel 4
28 Oct 2025Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about a visit to Tel Aviv, Israel, from the Attorney General’s Office (“the AGO”). The AGO provided some information but refused to provide the remainder citing sections 24(1) (National security), 27(1)(a)-(c) (International relations), 38(1)(b) (Health and safety) and 40(2) (Personal information) of FOIA.
In failing to respond to the original request within 20 working days the AGO breached section 10(1) (Time for compliance) of FOIA. In failing to advise the complainant which exemptions were under consideration when extending the time for a response, the AGO breached sections 17(1)(b) and 17(1)(c) of FOI.
The Commissioner finds that sections 24(1) and 27(1) of FOIA are properly engaged. However, if it has not already done so, the AGO should disclose the information that it advised the Commissioner was suitable for disclosure.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 17; FOI 24; FOI 27
View Attorney General's Office
28 Oct 2025Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested a copy of the Dedicated Schools Grant Management plan, the most recent safety valve monitoring report and a list of the key performance indicators used to monitor the safety valve agreement. London Borough of Southwark (the Council) provided some information, stated other information was not held and withheld other information under sections 36(2)(b)(ii) and 36(2)(c) (prejudice to the effective conduct of public affairs) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has failed to demonstrate that the exemptions at section 36(2)(b)(ii) and 36(2)(c) are engaged. The Commissioner requires Council to disclose the withheld information, namely the Dedicated Schools Grant management plan and the most recent safety valve monitoring report. Information Tribunal FT/EA/2025/0432 under appeal.
Exemptions cited: FOI 36
View Southwark Council
28 Oct 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested the name of the person who submitted an amendment for an emergency council meeting on behalf of named councillors. Oldham Metropolitan Borough Council (the Council) relied on section 40(2) of FOIA (third party personal information) to withhold the information. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council 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 Oldham Council
28 Oct 2025Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from Telford and Wrekin Council following the‘Independent inquiry-Telford Child Sexual Exploitation’ report and the implementation of IITCSE 2022 recommendations, including specific KPIs, metrics, and any data sharing with West Mercia Police related to the Telford and Wrekin area only.
TWC 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 Telford and Wrekin Council
27 Oct 2025Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG) relating to Angela Rayner’s, the former Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, attendance at an event. Whilst the MHCLG initially refused to provide the requested information under section 35(1)(d) of FOIA, it later disclosed some information to the complainant. However, it maintained its reliance on section 35(1)(d) to withhold a briefing note. The Commissioner’s decision is that the MHCLG is not entitled to rely on section 35(1)(d) (the operation of a ministerial private office) of FOIA to refuse to provide a briefing note. The Commissioner requires the MHCLG to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. Disclose the withheld briefing note making appropriate personal data redactions as described at paragraph 26 of this notice. The MHCLG must take these steps within 30 calendar days of the date of this decision notice. Failure
Exemptions cited: FOI 35
View Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government
27 Oct 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested from South Oxfordshire and Vale of White Horse District Councils (the Council) information relating to a statutory nuisance odour complaint against a specific restaurant. The Council withheld some of the information and cited regulation 12(5)(d) (confidentiality of proceedings) of the EIR and regulation 13 (personal information) of the EIR.
The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council was entitled to rely of the exceptions cited to refuse to provide the information requested at some parts of the request.
The Commissioner does not require the Council to take any further steps as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(d); EIR 13
View South Oxfordshire District Council
27 Oct 2025Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested from Wirral Council (the Council) the most recent individual valuations for its investment properties, assets listed under “industrial sites” and the purchase cost of each asset. The Council refused to provide the requested information, applying section 43(2) FOIA – commercial interests. The Commissioner’s decision is that section 43(2) FOIA is engaged but that the public interest favours disclosure. The Commissioner requires the Council to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. • Disclose the withheld information.
Exemptions cited: FOI 43(2)
View Wirral Council
27 Oct 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested ‘Call for Evidence’ related information about new towns. The Ministry of Housing, Communities & Local Government (‘MHCLG’) refused the request, citing the FOIA exemptions at sections 35(1)(a), the formulation/development of government policy, and 43(2), commercial commercial interests. The Commissioner’s decision is that MHCLG was entitled to withhold the requested information under section 35(1)(a) of FOIA. As he has found section 35(1)(a) to apply to the withheld information in its entirety, the Commissioner has not deemed it necessary to consider MHCLG’s additional reliance on section 43(2) of FOIA. No steps are required as a result of this notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 35
View Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government
27 Oct 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted two requests seeking information from the Department for Education (DfE). The first request sought details of senior staff involved in matters related to duty of care in higher education. The second request concerned information related to a serious incident review and a Prevention of Future Deaths report. DfE had previously relied on section 14(1) of FOIA (vexatious requests) to refuse similar requests and was now relying on section 17(6) as a basis for not responding to the complainant’s current requests. The Commissioner’s decision is that the requests were vexatious and that DfE’s previous refusal notice was valid. Therefore, DfE was entitled to rely upon section 17(6) of FOIA to refuse to provide a response. The Commissioner does not require further steps. Information Tribunal FT/EA/2025/0418 under appeal.
Exemptions cited: FOI 17(6)
View Department for Education
27 Oct 2025Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information in relation to reports and other correspondence regarding a report of disrepair. The London Borough of Waltham Forest (“the Council”), provided a response to the complainant, however, it did not initially provide this response in the format requested. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council breached section 11 of FOIA – means of communicating information, as it did not provide a postal copy when it originally responded to the request. As the Council has since provided a postal copy of the requested information, the Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 11
View Waltham Forest Council
27 Oct 2025Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested a copy of a funding application and contract for a study. The DHSC refused the request under sections 41, 43 and 40 FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that for the parts of the application relating to the methodology of the trial the DHSC has correctly engaged section 41 and the public interest favours withholding the information. The Commissioner also finds the DHSC has correctly withheld personal data under section 40(2). However, the Commissioner considers that, for the financial breakdowns in the application and contract, the DHSC has failed to demonstrate there is a likelihood of prejudice to either its own or any third party’s commercial interests and section 43(2) is not engaged. The Commissioner requires the DHSC to disclose to the complainant the financial information that it has relied on section 43(2) to withhold. Information Tribunal FT/EA/2025/0431 under appeal.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40; FOI 41; FOI 43
View Department of Health and Social Care
24 Oct 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from City of London Police (CoLP) regarding incidents involving named premises. The Commissioner’s decision is that CoLP was entitled to rely on section 30(3) of FOIA to neither confirm nor deny (NCND) that it holds the requested information. The Commissioner does not require further steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 30
24 Oct 2025Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from Birmingham City Council (“the Council”) relating to Baby Aid Birmingham. The Commissioner’s decision is that on the balance of probabilities, the Council holds further information within the scope of the request. The Commissioner requires the Council to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. The Council is required to carry out further searches aimed at identifying all the information it holds falling within the scope of the request, and to issue the complainant with a new response which meets the requirements of FOIA. 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: FOI 1
View Birmingham City Council
24 Oct 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 London Borough of Lambeth
24 Oct 2025Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant submitted a three part request for information held by Liverpool City Council (the council) relating to objections it had received about a particular planning application. The council confirmed to the complainant that it had considered the request under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA) and that it held information relevant to the request. The council went on to provide a short summary of the proposed redevelopment set out within the relevant planning application. The Commissioner’s decision is that the request is for environmental information and therefore the council should have dealt with it under the EIR. Furthermore, the Commissioner considers that the information provided to the complainant is not what they requested, and that given this, the council has not complied with its obligations under regulation 5 of the EIR. The Commissioner requires the council reconsider and issue a fresh response to all three parts of the complainant’s request in accordance w
Exemptions cited: EIR 5
View Liverpool City Council
23 Oct 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a three part request to the Department of Finance (the DoF) for all communications between two named individuals and the Departmental Solicitors Office (the DSO). They also requested all communications given by the DoF to the DSO since 2019 that mention Excip Limited / Excip International and/or any of its officers. The DoF refused the request citing section 42 (Legal Professional Privilege) of the FOIA. During the course of the Commissioner’s investigation, the DoF informed the Commissioner that it does not hold information relevant to item 2 of the complainant’s request and maintained its reliance on section 42 in respect of items 1 and 3 of the request. However, in respect of items 1 and 3 of the request, it also applied section 41 (information provided in confidence) and section 14(1) (vexatious request) of the FOIA, on the basis that compliance would place a grossly oppressive burden on its resources.The Commissioner’s decision is that the DoF was entit
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 14(1)
View Department of Finance
23 Oct 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from the University of Sussex (the University) about incidents reported via its online “Report and Support tool”. The University relied on section 40(2) of FOIA (third party personal information) to withhold the information. The Commissioner’s decision is that the public authority 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 University of Sussex
23 Oct 2025Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information about a collapsed section of wall from Ludlow Town Council (“the council”). The council provided some information, said that other information is not held by it, and applied Regulation 12(4)(e) of the EIR to withhold other information (internal communications). The council has now agreed to disclose expenditure information to the complainant. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council was not correct to apply Regulation 12(4)(e) to withhold information from disclosure in respect of part of the request. However, he has decided that no further information is held by it in respect of the other parts of the request. The Commissioner requires the council to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. To disclose details of the relevant expenditure to the complainant. To disclose the correspondence withheld under Regulation 12(4)(e), subject to the appropriate redaction of personal data under Regulation 13 of the EIR.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(e); EIR 5(1)
23 Oct 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to employee electronic accounts and officer appraisals. Kirklees Council (the “council”) refused the requests under section 14(1) (vexatious requests). The Commissioner’s decision is that the complainant’s requests were vexatious, and the council was entitled to rely upon section 14(1) of FOIA to refuse them. The Commissioner does not require the council to take any further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14(1)
View Kirklees Council
23 Oct 2025Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested a copy of a heritage assessment undertaken of Bow Wharf, London. The Canal and River Trust (the Trust), refused the request on the basis that it did not hold the requested information for the purpose of the EIR.
The Commissioner’s decision is that the Trust does hold the information for the purposes of the EIR.
The Commissioner requires the Trust to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation - The Trust must issue a fresh response to the request on the basis that the requested information is held by the Trust for the purposes of the EIR as described in paragraph 27 of this decision notice. Information Tribunal FT/EA/2025/0429 under appeal.
Exemptions cited: EIR 3(2)(a)
View Canal and River Trust
23 Oct 2025Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information about recruitment for the post of Head of Live Service. South East Coast Ambulance Service NHS Foundation Trust (the Trust) originally applied section 22 of FOIA (information intended for future publication) to withhold the information but reconsidered its position during its internal review. The complainant referred the case to the Commissioner and explained that they believed the application of the exemption was incorrect. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Trust was entitled to rely on section 22(1) of FOIA to withhold the information. The Trust did however breach section 10(1) and 1(1)(a) of FOIA as it failed to respond to the request within the statutory timeframe. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 22(1)
View South East Coast Ambulance Service NHS Foundation Trust
23 Oct 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant made a request for information about a member of staff’s qualifications in relation to their role and remit. Malvern Hills District Council and Wychavon (the Council) explained that the information was being withheld under section 40(2) (third-party personal information) of FOIA.
The Commissioner considers that section 40(2) of FOIA applies to the withheld information in scope of the request and that the Council 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 Malvern Hills District Council
22 Oct 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information regarding breaches of time limits which had occurred during the period 2022 – 2024 in respect of the HPE 459309 - Reporting Breaches of the Law Policy 2021 in relation to the Police Service of Northern Ireland and the Police Service of Northern Ireland Reserve Injury on Duty Awards. The Northern Ireland Policing Board (the Board) stated that it does not hold relevant information. The Commissioner’s decision is that on the balance of probabilities, the Board does not hold relevant information. The Commissioner does not require any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1(1)
View Northern Ireland Policing Board
22 Oct 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant submitted a number of requests to the London Borough of Lambeth (the Council) seeking copies of communications it sent to a particular property owner regarding a planning enforcement matter over a specified time period. The Council refused to confirm or deny whether it held the requested information on the basis of regulation 13(5A)(a) (personal data) of the EIR. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council is entitled to rely on regulation 13(5A)(a) to refuse these requests. Information Tribunal FT/EA/2025/0402 under appeal.
Exemptions cited: EIR 13
View London Borough of Lambeth
22 Oct 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
22 Oct 2025Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to Companies House (CH) for a copy of the CH03 form in relation to a named company.
The Commissioner’s decision is that CH is not entitled to rely upon section 40(2) of FOIA to withhold the requested information.
The Commissioner requires CH to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation.
• Disclose the requested information.
The public authority must take these steps within 30 calendar days of the date of this decision notice. Failure to comply may result in the Commissioner making written certification of this fact to the High Court pursuant to section 54 of the Act and may be dealt with as contempt of court.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40(2)
View Companies House
22 Oct 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested a list of export licences for seven military aero engines and related components or technology to Israel since 2014. The Department for Business and Trade (DBT) relied on section 12(2) of FOIA (cost of compliance) to refuse to comply with the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that DBT was entitled to rely on section 12(2) of FOIA to refuse to comply with the request. The Commissioner also finds that DBT 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(2); FOI 16
View Department for Business and Trade
22 Oct 2025Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information about cleaning undertaken at a particular public toilet. Swansea Council (the Council) provided some information, but the complainant was not happy that the Council had responded fully to their request. During the course of the Commissioner’s investigation the Council identified additional information relevant to the request. However, at the date of this notice the Council has not disclosed this information. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has failed to demonstrate that it has conducted a reasonable and proportionate search of its records to identify all information falling within the scope of the request. This means that it has not complied with section 1(1) (general right of access) of the FOIA. In addition, the Commissioner has recorded a breach of section 10 (time for compliance) of the FOIA as the Council failed to disclose information relevant to the request within the appropriate timescale. The Commissioner requires the Counc
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10
View Swansea Council
22 Oct 2025Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested the underlying technical data to a flood risk assessment (FRA) conducted on behalf of Surrey County Council (the Council). The Council made a discretionary disclosure of the information to the complainant alone, but it refused to disclose it under the EIR, citing regulation 12(5)(e) (Confidentiality of commercial or industrial information) of the EIR. The Commissioner’s decision is that as the Council has failed to demonstrate that regulation 12(5)(e) is engaged, the information should have been disclosed under the EIR. He also found that the Council failed to comply with regulations 14(2) (timeliness) and 14(3) (citing of exceptions) of the EIR when refusing the request. As all the withheld information has already been disclosed to the complainant, the Commissioner does not require further steps in this case.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(e); EIR 14(3); EIR 14(2)
View Surrey County Council
22 Oct 2025Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from MHCLG regarding an audit concerning the Fire Risk Assessment of External Walls (FRAEW) for a residential development. MHCLG withheld the information requested under section 38(1)(b) (endanger the safety of any individual) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that MHCLG is entitled to withhold some, but not all, of the requested information under section 38(1)(b). The Commissioner requires MHCLG to take the following step to ensure compliance with the legislation: disclose the requested information, with exception of the information listed in paragraph 42 of this notice, which may be withheld.
Exemptions cited: FOI 38(1)(b)
View Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government