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 Liverpool City Council
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
21 Oct 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information about the payment of specified court costs, together with the number of times any action had been taken in connection with those proceedings. Ultimately, Lancashire Constabulary refused to confirm or deny whether it held the requested information, by virtue of section 40(5B)(a)(i) of FOIA – the ‘neither confirm nor deny’ provision for third party personal information. The Commissioner’s decision is that Lancashire Constabulary was entitled to issue a ‘neither confirm nor deny’ response in accordance with section 40(5B)(a)(i) of FOIA for the reasons set out in this notice. The Commissioner also finds that Lancashire Constabulary complied with its section 16 of FOIA advice and assistance obligations. However, Lancashire Constabulary breached section 17 of FOIA by failing to specify which subsection of section 40(5B) it was relying on in its refusal notice. No steps are required as a result of this notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View Lancashire Constabulary
21 Oct 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about a complaint he made from the BBC. The BBC disclosed some information but refused to provide the remainder citing section 40(2) (Personal information) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the BBC should have neither confirmed nor denied holding any information about the complaint under section 40(5A) of FOIA. No steps are required.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View BBC
21 Oct 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The Commissioner considers that the Competition and Markets Authority’s interpretation of the complainant’s request for information about its obligations is reasonable and that it doesn’t hold the requested information. His decision is that the Competition and Markets Authority complied 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 Competition and Markets Authority
21 Oct 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The Commissioner’s decision is that the complainant’s two requests for information are vexatious requests under section 14(1) of FOIA. National Lottery Community Fund isn’t obliged to comply with the requests and the Commissioner doesn’t require further steps. Information Tribunal FT/EA/2025/0426 under appeal.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14(1)
View The National Lottery Community Fund
21 Oct 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested “any information held” in relation to a specified county court case. Ultimately, Lancashire Constabulary refused to confirm or deny whether it held the requested information, by virtue of section 40(5B)(a)(i) of FOIA – the ‘neither confirm nor deny’ provision for third party personal information. The Commissioner’s decision is that Lancashire Constabulary was entitled to issue a ‘neither confirm nor deny’ response in accordance with section 40(5B)(a)(i) of FOIA for the reasons set out in this notice. No steps are required as a result of this notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View Lancashire Constabulary
21 Oct 2025Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The Commissioner’s decision is that the information requested in parts 1 and 2 of the complainant’s request about a specific property is their own personal data and therefore excepted from disclosure under regulation 5(3) of the EIR. He’s also decided that Brent Council (‘the Council’) doesn’t hold the information requested in part 3 of the request and so regulation 12(4)(a) of the EIR is engaged in respect of that part. Finally, the Council’s response to the request didn’t comply with regulation 14, which concerns refusing a request. The Commissioner doesn’t require further steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(a); EIR 14; EIR 5(3)
View London Borough of Brent
20 Oct 2025Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from London Borough of Redbridge. The Commissioner’s decision is that the public authority failed to respond to the request within 20 working days and has therefore breached section 10 of FOIA. The public authority must provide a substantive response to the request in accordance with its obligations under FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Redbridge Council
20 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(1)
View Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea
20 Oct 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant made three requests to the Department for Education (DfE). The first two requests concerned DfE’s response to an e-petition and the third concerned its response to a parliamentary question. The Department for Education (DfE) relied on section 14(1) of FOIA (vexatious request) to refuse the requests. The Commissioner’s decision is that DfE was entitled to rely on section 14(1) of FOIA to refuse the requests. The Commissioner does not require further steps. Information Tribunal FT/EA/2025/0407 under appeal.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14(1)
View Department for Education
20 Oct 2025Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to a steering group. The Business Services Organisation (“the public authority”) disclosed information. The Commissioner’s decision is that:
in failing to disclose non-exempt information within the statutory timeframe, the public authority breached section 10 (timescale for compliance). The Commissioner isn’t satisfied that the public authority has performed adequate searches to identify all of the information it
holds relevant to the request. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: perform further searches to ensure all information relevant to the request has been identified and either confirm no further information is held, disclose the further information identified, or issue a fresh refusal notice which complies with the legislation.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10
20 Oct 2025Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from Future Academies (the Trust) regarding a policy of “no physical contact”. The Trust applied section 14(1) FOIA (vexatious request) to the requested information. 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 requests (refused on 1 April 2025) that does not rely on section 14(1) FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14(1)
View FUTURE ACADEMIES
20 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 Haringey Council
20 Oct 2025Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The Commissioner’s decision is that the public authority breached regulation 5(2) of the EIR by failing to provide a response within 20 working days and breached regulation 11 of the EIR by failing to provide a reconsideration (internal review) of a response within 40 working days. As the Trust has since provided its internal review response, the Commissioner does not expect it to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 11; EIR 5(2)
View GIFFARDS PRIMARY SCHOOL
20 Oct 2025Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from London Borough of Lambeth about personal injury payment authorisations. The Commissioner’s decision is that the public authority failed to respond to the request within 20 working days and has therefore breached section 10 of FOIA. The public authority must provide a substantive response to the request in accordance with its obligations under FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View London Borough of Lambeth
20 Oct 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has made three requests to the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (FCDO) for files held by the Middle East department (MED) in relation to the Duke of York’s visits to, Egypt, Kuwait and UAE during 2008. The FCDO aggregated the requests and relied on section 12(1) of FOIA (cost of compliance) to refuse all of the requests.
The Commissioner’s decision is that the public authority was entitled to rely on section 12(1) of FOIA to refuse the request. The Commissioner also finds that the FCDO complied with its section 16 obligation to offer advice and assistance.
The Commissioner does not require further steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12(1)
20 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(1)
20 Oct 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about compensation paid by the Crown Prosecution Service (“CPS”) for wrongful prosecution.
The public authority relied on section 12(1) (cost limit) and section 31(1) (law enforcement) of FOIA to refuse the request.
The Commissioner’s decision is that the public authority was entitled to refuse to comply with the request in accordance with section 12(1).
The Commissioner finds that the public authority complied with its obligations under section 16 of FOIA to offer advice and assistance.
No steps are required.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12; FOI 16
View Crown Prosecution Service
20 Oct 2025Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information, from the London Borough of Lambeth (“the public authority”) about energy price rates. The public authority has provided the majority of the requested information but withheld the remainder (property addresses) by reference to section 40(2) (third party personal data). The complainant also complains that the public authority , contrary to section 11, had not provided the requested information in his preferred format.The Commissioner finds that that the public authority did not comply with its obligations under section 11 FOIA - means of communicating information.The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation.Provide the complainant with a copy of the requested information (excluding domestic addresses) in the .xlsx format as stated in his request.
Exemptions cited: FOI 11
View London Borough of Lambeth
20 Oct 2025Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from the Post Office Limitied about payments it made to lawyers and others. The Commissioner’s decision is that the public authority failed to respond to the request within 20 working days and has therefore breached section 10 of FOIA. The public authority must provide a substantive response to the request in accordance with its obligations under FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Post Office Ltd
19 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 Haringey Council
17 Oct 2025Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested a copy of a bank mandate from Hampton Lucy Parish Council (“the Council”). The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council is not entitled to rely on section 14(1) (vexatious request) or section 14(2) (repeated request) of FOIA to refuse to provide the requested information. The Commissioner requires the Council to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. The Council must issue a fresh response to the request which does not rely on section 14(1) or section 14(2) 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 14(1); FOI 14(2)
17 Oct 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested copies of site accreditation certificates and audits. The council disclosed information and confirmed that other information was not held. The complainant considers that further information is held. The Commissioner’s decision is that on the balance of probabilities, the council has provided all the information it holds within the scope of the request and that it complied with regulation 5(1) and regulation 12(4)(a). The Commissioner does not require the council to take any further steps. Information Tribunal FT/EA/2025/0422 under appeal.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(a); EIR 5(1)
View Plymouth City Council
16 Oct 2025Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested copies of queries received by the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham (the Council) about its low traffic neighbourhood (LTN) scheme trial. The Council refused the request on the grounds that it was manifestly unreasonable (regulation 12(4)(b) of the EIR) due to the burden that compliance would impose on it. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council was entitled to rely on regulation 12(4)(b) to refuse the request. However, in handling the complainant’s request, the Commissioner has found that the Council breached regulations 5(2) (time limit for responding to a request) and 11(4) (time limits for an internal review).
Exemptions cited: EIR 11(4); EIR 12(4)(b); EIR 5(2)
View Hammersmith and Fulham Council
16 Oct 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about policies and the handling of complaints they have made. Essex County Council refused the request under section 14(1) (vexatious requests) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council was entitled to refuse to comply with the request under section 14(1). The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14(1)
View Essex County Council
16 Oct 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested a KPMG report (the report) about a cyberattack suffered by an organisation that provides pathology services to King’s College Hospital NHS Foundation Trust. (Trust) The Trust disclosed a heavily redacted copy of the report, but withheld the remaining information citing section 41 of FOIA (Information provided in confidence). The Commissioner’s decision is that based on the circumstances of the case and the nature or information that has been withheld, the Trust should have relied on section 31 of FOIA to withhold the information. The Commissioner does not require further steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 31(1)(a)
View King's College Hospital NHS Foundation Trust
16 Oct 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information about a particular judgement. The Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG) withheld the information requested under sections 32(1)(b) (court records), 35(1)(a) (formulation or development of government policy), 40(2) (personal data) and 42 (legal professional privilege) of the FOIA. During the course of the Commissioner’s investigation MHCLG confirmed it was also relying on section 21 (information accessible to the applicant by other means) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that MHCLG was entitled to rely upon sections 21, 32(1)(b) and 35(1)(a) of the FOIA to withhold the requested information. The Commissioner does not require any steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 21; FOI 32; FOI 35
View Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government
16 Oct 2025Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about the decision-making process for notifying the public and relevant authorities about a data breach. The Electoral Commission relied on relying on section 31(1)(g) of FOIA (law enforcement), section 36 of FOIA (prejudice to effective conduct) and section 42 of FOIA (legal professional privilege) to withhold the requested information. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Electoral Commission was entitled to rely on sections 36(2(b)(i), 36(2)(b)(ii) and 42 of FOIA to withhold some of the requested information. However, it was not entitled to rely on section 31(1)(g) of FOIA. The Commissioner also finds that the Electoral Commission breached section 17(3) of FOIA by failing to complete its deliberations on the balance of the public interest within a reasonable time. The Commissioner requires the Electoral Commission to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: Disclose the information it has relied on section 31(1)
Exemptions cited: FOI 31(1)(g); FOI 36; FOI 42
View The Electoral Commission
16 Oct 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
1. The complainant has requested information from Northern Ireland Blood Transfusion Service (NIBTS) relating to NIBTS’ participation in the Northern Ireland Electronic Care Record (NIECR).
2. The Commissioner’s decision is as follows:
• On the balance of probabilities, NIBTS holds no further recorded information relevant to the complainant’s request and has complied with section 1(1) of FOIA.
3. The Commissioner therefore does not require NIBTS to take any corrective steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
16 Oct 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
1. The complainant has requested information from the Business Services Organisation (BSO) about its involvement in the Northern Ireland Electronic Care Record (NIECR)
2. The Commissioner’s decision is as follows:
• On the balance of probabilities, BSO holds no further recorded information relevant to the complainant’s request and has complied with section 1(1) of FOIA.
3. The Commissioner therefore does not require BSO to take any corrective steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
16 Oct 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested a copy of a particular email, to be provided to him as a MIME (Multipurpose Internet Mail Extensions) attachment. Instead, Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council (SMBC) disclosed the email by copying and pasting it into a document. The Commissioner’s decision is that SMBC was entitled to rely on regulation 6(1)(a) of the EIR to refuse to disclose the information in the format specified by the applicant.
Exemptions cited: EIR 6(1)(a)
View Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council
16 Oct 2025Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to the Northern Ireland Office (NIO) seeking confirmation as to whether legal advice had been sought on a Private Members’ Bill whose purposes was to modify the effect on domestic law of arrangements relating to the withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the EU, and if so a copy of the date of the advice and any summary of it. The NIO refused to confirm or deny whether it held any information falling within the scope of the request on the basis of the exemption contained at section 35(3) by virtue of sections 35(1)(a) (formulation or development of government policy) FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that section 35(3) is engaged but that the balance of the public interest favours confirming or denying whether the NIO holds information falling within the scope of the request.
Exemptions cited: FOI 35(3)
View Northern Ireland Office
16 Oct 2025Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested a copy of a report into home to school Transport Service undertaken in 2021, together with associated emails and background information relating to this. Durham County Council (“the council”) applied sections 36(2)(b)(i) and (ii), and 36(2)(c) of FOIA to refuse the request (prejudice to the effective conduct of public affairs). The Commissioner’s decision is that the council was correct to apply the exemptions cited to withhold the report. However, it has not responded to the request for emails and background information under the complainant's rights under FOIA. The Commissioner requires the council to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. To respond to the request for emails and background information as required by section 1 of FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 36
View Durham County Council
16 Oct 2025Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole Council (“the Council”) regarding the sale of some land, specifically accounting information. The Council’s position is that it has disclosed all of the information held within scope of the request. The complainant disputes this. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the Council does not hold any further information within the scope of the request. However, the Council breached section 10(1) of FOIA by failing to respond to the request within 20 working days and by not providing all of the requested information it held within this timeframe. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1(1); FOI 10
View BCP Council
16 Oct 2025Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The Commissioner’s decision is that Shropshire Fire and Rescue Service (SFRS) is entitled to withhold the requested risk assessment information under section 12(5)(a) of the EIR. This exception concerns public safety. However, SFRS initially handled the request under FOIA. It therefore breached regulation 14 of the EIR, which concerns refusing to disclose information. The Commissioner doesn’t require further steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(a); EIR 14
View Shropshire Fire and Rescue Service
16 Oct 2025Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information about the number of complaints made to Puxton Parish Council (the “council”). The council stated that the requester was the only person who had submitted complaints. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council failed to provide the information specified in the request and breached section 1(1) of the FOIA. The Commissioner requires the council to carry out adequate searches to determine whether it holds any information falling within the scope of the request and then issue a fresh response to the complainant that conforms with section 1(1) of FOIA in respect of such information.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1(1)
16 Oct 2025Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from NHS Commissioning Board (“NHS England”) about the Independent Review of Gender Identity Service for children and young people including the terms of appointment for the Chair of the review. NHS England refused to comply with the request citing section 21 (information already reasonably accessible) and section 40(2) (Personal Information) of FOIA.
The Commissioner’s decision is that NHS England correctly relied on sections 21 and 40(2) to withhold the information.
The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 21; FOI 40(2)
View NHS England
16 Oct 2025Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
A public authority will breach regulation 5(2) of the EIR 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 regulation 5(2)
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Cheshire West and Chester Council
15 Oct 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about whether Police Service of Northern Ireland (PSNI) alerted An Garda Siochana that an individual was sought for interview for alleged crimes committed in Northern Ireland in 2015. The above public authority relied on section 12(2) of FOIA (cost of compliance) to refuse the request.
The Commissioner’s decision is that PSNI was entitled to rely on section 12(2) of FOIA to refuse the request. The Commissioner also finds that the public authority complied with its section 16 obligation to offer advice and assistance.
The Commissioner does not require further steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12(2); FOI 16(1)
View Police Service of Northern Ireland
15 Oct 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about a schools’ admissions consultation. Brighton and Hove City Council disclosed information, but withheld some under the exemption provided by section 42(1) (Legal professional privilege) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council is entitled to rely on section 42(1) to withhold the information. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 42(1)
View Brighton and Hove City Council
15 Oct 2025Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested MHRA to disclose information relating to it’s investigation into the usage of two anti-choking devices. MHRA disclosed some information but withheld the remainder citing section 30(1)(b) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that MHRA is entitled to rely on section 30(1)(b) of FOIA. He has however found MHRA in breach of section 1(1)(b) and 10 of FOIA. The Commissioner does not require further steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10; FOI 30(1)(b)
View Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency
15 Oct 2025Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested from the National Archives (TNA) the file J 311/124 relating to John Cannan. TNA subsequently identified a small amount of information in the file that may be disclosed as it isn’t personal data. However, it considers the remainder is exempt under sections 38(1)(a) and 40(2) of FOIA. These exemptions concern health and safety and personal data, respectively. The Commissioner’s decision is that the information that TNA is continuing to withhold engages sections 38(1)(a) and 40(2) of FOIA. TNA didn’t comply with section 1(1) and 10(1) of FOIA as it didn’t communicate all the non-exempt information to the complainant within 20 working days. The Commissioner requires TNA to take the following step to ensure compliance with the legislation:Disclose to the complainant the small of amount of information relating to John Cannan that TNA has advised in its submission may be disclosed and which is discussed at paragraph 41 of this notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1(1); FOI 10(1); FOI 38(1)(a); FOI 40(2)
View The National Archives
15 Oct 2025Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested the small numbers in published National Cost Collection information that NHS England (NHSE) has suppressed. NHSE confirmed that it’s withholding numbers that are less than ‘8’ under section 40(2) of FOIA, which concerns personal data.
The Commissioner’s decision is that numbers below ‘5’ can be categorised as personal data and this information is exempt under section 40(2). However, numbers of ‘5’ and greater can’t be categorised as personal data. The Commissioner requires NHSE to take the following step to ensure compliance with the legislation: Disclose to the complainant instances where the requested information is numbers that are ‘5’ and greater.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40(2)
View NHS England
14 Oct 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about complaints and investigations relating to greenwashing. The Financial Conduct Authority (“FCA”) relied on section 12(1) (cost of compliance) of FOIA to refuse the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the FCA was entitled to rely on section 12(1) of FOIA to refuse the request. The Commissioner also finds that the FCA complied with its section 16 obligation to offer advice and assistance. The Commissioner does not require further steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12(1); FOI 16
View Financial Conduct Authority
14 Oct 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from the BBC about representation of political parties. The Commissioner’s decision is that this information, if held at all, is held by the BBC for the purposes of journalism, art or literature and so is not covered by FOIA. He therefore upholds the BBC’s position and requires no steps to be taken in this case.
Exemptions cited: FOI 3
View BBC
14 Oct 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information concerning a particular development. Monmouthshire County Council (the Council) provided some information and withheld other information under regulations 12(5)(e) (confidentiality of commercial information, 12(5)(f) (interests of the provider), 12(5)(g) (protection of the environment) and 13 (personal information) of the EIR. The complainant was not happy with the Council’s refusal to provide a copy of the viability assessment. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council correctly applied regulation 12(5)(e) to this information. The Commissioner does not require any steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(e)
View Monmouthshire County Council
14 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(1)
View Devon and Cornwall Police
14 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(1)
View Oxford University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust
14 Oct 2025Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested a consolidated version of the ICO’s privacy notice. The Information Commissioner's Office (‘the ICO’) stated that it did not hold its privacy notice in the requested format, and it provided a link to where the layered version of its privacy notice could be accessed. The Commissioner’s decision is that the ICO’s privacy notice is already reasonably accessible to the complainant and that, therefore, section 21 of FOIA is engaged. The Commissioner also finds that the ICO breached section 17 of FOIA by failing to provide a section 21 refusal notice within 20 working days. The Commissioner does not require further steps. Information Tribunal FT/EA/2025/0420 under appeal.
Exemptions cited: FOI 17; FOI 21
View Information Commissioner