14 Oct 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from the BBC about political party representation. 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 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 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 complainant requested information regarding the Fox Lane Low Traffic Neighbourhood (LTN). London Borough of Enfield failed to respond to the request despite a number of chasers from the requester and the Commissioners intervention.
A public authority will breach section 10 of FOIA if it fails to respond to a request within 20 working days. Based on the evidence available and the Commissioner intervention, 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 Enfield Council
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
13 Oct 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about the decision to leave the European Union (EU). The Cabinet Office relied on section 14(1) of FOIA (vexatious requests) to refuse the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the request was vexatious, and therefore the Cabinet Office was entitled to rely upon section 14(1) of FOIA to refuse it. The Commissioner does not require any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14
View Cabinet Office
13 Oct 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has made twenty requests for information regarding an organisational change to one of Synergy Multi-Academy Trust’s (the Trust) schools. The Trust applied section 14(1) FOIA – vexatious request – to the requested information. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Trust has correctly applied section 14(1) FOIA. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14(1)
View SYNERGY MULTI ACADEMY TRUST
13 Oct 2025Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested fire safety advice for a specific block of flats. Merseyside Fire and Rescue Authority (“the public authority”) refused to disclose the information, citing section 43(2) (commercial interests) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the withheld information is a mix of environmental and non-environmental information, so the Commissioner has considered both regulation 12(5)(e) (commercial and industrial information) and section 43(2), the public authority has failed to demonstrate that either regulation 12(5)(e) or section 43(2) applies and in failing to issue an appropriate refusal under the EIR, the public authority has breached regulation 14(3) of the EIR. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: disclose the requested information, with all personal data redacted under section 40(2) or regulation 13.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(e); EIR 14(3); FOI 43(2)
View Merseyside Fire and Rescue Service
13 Oct 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to the Cabinet Office about a gift of ‘footwear’ given to the then Prime Minister, Rishi Sunak, by the Governor of Texas, Greg Abbott, specifically the amount this gift was purchased for by Mr Sunak. The Cabinet Office withheld this information on the basis of sections 27(1)(c) and (d) (international relations) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the information is exempt from disclosure on the basis of these exemptions and that the public interest favours withholding the information.
Exemptions cited: FOI 27
View Cabinet Office
13 Oct 2025Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information about Liveable Exeter Place Board and Exeter Place Partnership meetings. The University of Exeter (‘the University’) relied on regulation 12(4)(d) of the EIR (material still in the course of completion) to withhold the requested information. The Commissioner’s decision is that the University was not entitled to rely on regulation 12(4)(d) of the EIR to withhold the requested information as it was not engaged. He also finds that it breached regulation 14(3)(b) of the EIR by failing to include its public interest considerations in its refusal notice. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(d); EIR 14(3); EIR 5
View The University of Exeter
13 Oct 2025Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust. 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 Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust
13 Oct 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant made a request for information relating to the British Standard specifically BS10754 and how it has been mandated for all new Information Management and Technology (IM&T) projects since its introduction in 2018. The Cabinet Office stated that it did not hold the requested information. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the Cabinet Office does not hold information falling within scope of the request. The Commissioner does not require further steps as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Cabinet Office
10 Oct 2025Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested correspondence between the Charity Commission and a charity relating over a specified time period. The Charity Commission disclosed some information but withheld the remaining information under sections 31, 41 and 40 FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Charity Commission has correctly engaged section 31(1)(g) and the balance of the public interest favours withholding the information. However, as it failed to respond within 20 working days it has breached section 10(1) and 17(1) FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 31
View The Charity Commission
10 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.
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. Information Tribunal FT/EA/2025/0419 under appeal.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Redbridge Council
10 Oct 2025Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from the NAO on its compliance with the Public Sector Equality Duty (PSED) in relation to assessments. The Commissioner’s decision is that the NAO has breached sections 1 and 10 of FOIA as it failed to confirm the information requested in one specific part of the request was not held within 20 working days.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10
View NI Audit Office
10 Oct 2025Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from the UK Health Security Agency about a briefing relating to scaling up of its contact tracing capacity. 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.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View UK Health Security Agency
10 Oct 2025Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested from Wirral University Teaching Hospital NHS Foundation Trust information about incidents of sexual harm and physical violence. 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.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Wirral University Teaching Hospital NHS Foundation Trust
9 Oct 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The Commissioner’s decision is that London North Eastern Railway is entitled to refuse the complainant’s request for Driver Company Council meeting minutes under section 36(2)(b)(ii) of FOIA. This exemption concerns prejudice to the effective conduct of public affairs. The Commissioner doesn’t require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 36(2)(b)(ii)
9 Oct 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. The public authority also breached section 1(1)(a) of FOIA by failing to state which information it held in scope of the request.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1(1)(a); FOI 10(1)
View Liverpool City Council
9 Oct 2025Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested the legal advice given to Lisburn & Castlereagh City Council (the Council) about a specific planning application. The Council cited regulation 12(5)(b) (course of justice) of the EIR to refuse the request.
The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council should have applied regulation 12(4)(b) (information not held) of the EIR in response to the request.
The Commissioner does not require any steps as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(a); EIR 12(5)(b)
9 Oct 2025Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested a copy of a health and safety report produced for the Education Authority (EA) in December 2019 on the outdoor pitch at Lisneal College in Derry, Northern Ireland. The EA disclosed emails summarising the inspection findings, with redactions of third party personal data applied under section 40(2) of FOIA, and redactions of information which it determined was out of scope. The Commissioner’s decision is that the EA has correctly relied on section 40(2) of FOIA to withhold the redacted information. The Commissioner finds that EA breached section 17(1) as it did not confirm the specific exemption it was relying on within the statutory timeframe. The Commissioner does not require further steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40(2); FOI 17(1)
9 Oct 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from Pembrokeshire County Council (the Council) regarding drug related deaths and child protection plans due to parental substance abuse. The Council refused the request citing section 12(1) (cost of compliance) of FOIA.
The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council was entitled to rely on section 12(1) of FOIA to refuse the request. The Commissioner also finds that the Council complied with its obligations under section 16 to offer advice and assistance.
The Commissioner does not require any steps as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12(1)
View Pembrokeshire County Council
8 Oct 2025Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from the Chief Constable of Northumbria Police (“Northumbria Police”) relating to Operation Eustace. The Commissioner’s decision is that Northumbria Police is not entitled to rely on section 14(1) (vexatious request) of FOIA to refuse to provide the requested information. He also finds that Northumbria Police breached section 10(1) (time for compliance) of FOIA by failing to respond to the request within the statutory timeframe of 20 working days. The Commissioner requires Northumbria Police to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. Issue a fresh response which does not rely on section 14(1) of FOIA. Northumbria Police 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 the Act and may be dealt with as a contempt of court.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 14(1)
View Northumbria Police
8 Oct 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The Commissioner’s decision is that other than the published information about council tax to which it directed the complainant, on the balance of probabilities City of York Council holds no further information relevant to their request and complied with section 1(1) of FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1(1)
View York City Council
8 Oct 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information from Newry, Mourne and Down District Council (“the Council”) relating to the construction of a gondola. The Commissioner is satisfied that on the balance of probabilities, the Council does not hold information within the scope of the request. Therefore, his decision is that the Council is entitled to rely on regulation 12(4)(a) (information not held) of the EIR to refuse to provide the requested information. The Commissioner does not require the Council to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(a)
8 Oct 2025Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested for a copy of a Deed of Variation (the deed) between North Kesteven District Council (the council) and Greenwich Leisure Limited (GLL). The council refused to provide the information citing section 43(2) of FOIA (commercial interests). The Commissioner’s decision is that he does not consider that all of the information contained in the deed could be withheld under section 43(2) of FOIA. He considers that information contained in the schedules and the annexes engages section 43(2) of FOIA and the balance of the public interest lies in favour of maintaining the exemption. The Commissioner requires the council to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. Disclose page 1 to 7 of the deed. 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 an
Exemptions cited: FOI 43(2)
View North Kesteven District Council
8 Oct 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested Severn Trent Water (STW) to disclose information relating to water contamination in their area and the installation of a water meter. STW disclosed what it holds but cited regulation 12(4)(a) (information not held) of the EIR for the majority of the request. For one question, it stated that it was not a request for environmental information, outside the scope of the EIR and therefore their obligations. The complainant disputed that STW had provided all the recorded information it holds. The Commissioner’s decision is that where 12(4)(a) of the EIR has been cited, this was correct and either STW did not hold any information or has already provided what it holds. This is however with the exception of question five of the request. For question five, the Commissioner has decided that, to the extent any information is held and it is not the applicant’s personal data (as this is outside the scope of the EIR, as defined in regulation 5(3)), it is environmental in
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(a)
View Severn Trent Water
8 Oct 2025Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested NHSE to disclose information relating to the number of cases of Lyme Disease in Lincolnshire. For the majority of the request, it confirmed that it does not hold the requested information. For one element, it advised that it does hold the information but considers it is exempt from disclosure under section 40(2) of FOIA (personal data). The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, NHSE does not hold the requested information, except for question four of the request. For this question, it is the Commissioner’s decision that section 40(2) of FOIA does not apply. He has also found NHSE in breach of section 1(1)(a) and 10 of FOIA. The Commissioner requires NHSE to disclose to the complainant the number of hospital admissions in Lincolnshire hospitals specifically related to Lyme Disease and the duration of these admissions.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1(1)(b); FOI 10; FOI 40(2)
View NHS England
8 Oct 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information in relation to an investigation into a named charity. The Charity Commission refused to provide the requested information, citing section 31(1)(g) (law enforcement) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Charity Commission was correct to withhold the requested information under section 31(1)(g). The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 31(1)(g)
View The Charity Commission
8 Oct 2025Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information held by Wheathampstead Parish Council (the council) with regards to a church wall. The council provided information to the complainant in response to their request, with redactions made to personal data where it was considered disclosure would breach a data protection principle. The complainant does not dispute the redactions made to the information supplied, but they have questioned whether the council has identified all of the relevant information held. The Commissioner has not been convinced that all relevant searches for information falling within scope of the complainant’s request have been carried out by the council. In light of this, the Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, further information may be held by the council. The Commissioner requires the council to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. Conduct fresh searches for the requested information and disclose any further info
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
7 Oct 2025Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to the Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office (FCDO) seeking information about an article published in 2012 by The Herald newspaper concerning the Lockerbie bombing. The FCDO disclosed some information in scope, withheld other information on a range of exemptions, and also refused to confirm or deny whether it held any further information, again citing a number of exemptions to do so. The Commissioner’s decision is that the information which the FCDO has confirmed it holds is exempt from disclosure on the basis of sections 27(1)(a), (c) and (d) of FOIA; the FCDO is also entitled to refuse to confirm or deny whether it holds any further information on the basis of sections 23(5) and 24(2) of FOIA; and, the FCDO breached section 17(1) by failing to respond to the request within 20 working days.
Exemptions cited: FOI 17; FOI 23; FOI 24; FOI 27
7 Oct 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information about reports of pedestrians falling on a specific stretch of pavement and any repairs to the pavement. The Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea (“the Council”) provided some of the requested information but stated the remainder was not held. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council does not hold information within scope of the request further than that which has already been provided. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(a)
View Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea
7 Oct 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about a costs claim from Vale of Glamorgan Council (“the Council”). The Council cited sections 22 (Information intended for future publication), 30 (Investigations and proceedings), 31 (Law enforcement), 32 (Court records), 36 (Prejudice to effective conduct of public affairs), 41 (information provided in confidence), 42 (Legal professional privilege) and 43 (Commercial interests) of FOIA to refuse the request.
The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council was entitled to rely on section 42(1) to refuse the request. No steps are required.
Exemptions cited: FOI 42
View Vale of Glamorgan Council
7 Oct 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to the Intellectual Property Office (IPO) seeking information referred to by its then Chief Executive in a Select Committee hearing in 2021. The IPO initially relied on section 14(2) (repeated requests) to refuse the request before subsequently relying on section 14(1) (vexatious) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the IPO is entitled to rely on section 14(1) of FOIA to refuse the request. He is also satisfied that the IPO was entitled to rely on the provisions of section 17(6) of FOIA not to have to issue a refusal notice in response to this request. Information Tribunal FT/EA/2025/0385 under appeal.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14(1); FOI 17(6)
View Intellectual Property Office
7 Oct 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a seven part request for information held about positions of employment at Manchester City Council (the council) that are focussed on equity, inclusion and community engagement. The council provided the complainant with information in response to six of the seven parts of their request. The council refused to disclose the information held about ethnicity that was relevant to the remaining part of the request, relying on the exemption at section 40(2) (third party personal information) of FOIA as its basis for doing so. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council has correctly applied section 40(2) to the withheld information.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40(2)
View Manchester City Council
7 Oct 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information about the Council Tax (Administration and Enforcement) (Amendment) (no.2) (England) Regulations 2003 and a copy of the catalogue HL/PO/JO/10/16/52/2135 and the number of MPs present at the prayer motion. The Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG) stated that it did not hold the information requested. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, MHCLG does not hold any information falling within the scope of the request. The Commissioner does not require any steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government
7 Oct 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
In relation to car tax, the complainant has requested information about Personal Independence Payment-based applications. The Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency refused the request under section 12(1) of FOIA, which concerns the cost of compliance. The Commissioner’s decision is that section 12(1) is engaged and there has been no breach of section 16(1), which concerns advice and assistance.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12(1); FOI 16(1)
View Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency
7 Oct 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information regarding the mining industry. The Northern Ireland Office (“NIO”) relies on section 12 (cost) of the FOIA and 12(4)(b) of the EIR (manifestly unreasonable) not to comply with the request.The Commissioner’s decision is that the NIO correctly relied on section 12 and regulation 12(4)(b) not to comply with the requests.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12; FOI 12(4)(b)
View Northern Ireland Office
7 Oct 2025Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information about the use of plant protection products in the Wrexham area between 2020 and 2023. The Health and Safety Executive (‘HSE’) relied on regulation 12(4)(b) of the EIR (manifestly unreasonable) to refuse the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that HSE was not entitled to rely on regulation 12(4)(b) of the EIR to refuse the request. The Commissioner requires HSE to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: Provide the complainant with a fresh response to their request that complies with the EIR and that doesn’t rely on regulation 12(4)(b). Information Tribunal FT/EA/2025/0411 under appeal.
Exemptions cited: EIR 11; EIR 12(4)(b)
View Health and Safety Executive
7 Oct 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about a Diwali reception held at 10 Downing Street. The Cabinet Office relied on section 40(2) (personal information) of FOIA to withhold some of the requested information. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Cabinet Office has correctly relied on section 40(2) to withhold the information. The Commissioner does not require further steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40(2)
View Cabinet Office
7 Oct 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about particular expenditure by the public authority.
The public authority (“the public authority”) disclosed most of the information but informed the complainant that some of the information was not held.
The Commissioner’s decision is that some of the information requested was not held.
The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1(1); FOI 3(2)
View Tees Valley Combined Authority
7 Oct 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about an alleged investigation into the former first lady of Syria, from the Metropolitan Police Service (the “MPS”). The MPS would neither confirm nor deny (“NCND”) holding any information, citing sections 23(5) (Information supplied by, or relating to, bodies dealing with security matters), 24(2) (National security), 30(3) (Criminal investigations), 31(3) (Law enforcement) and 40(5B) (Personal information) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the MPS was entitled to rely on section 40(5B)(a)(i) of FOIA to NCND whether any information is held. No steps are required.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View Metropolitan Police Service
6 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 Redbridge Council
6 Oct 2025Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
1. The complainant requested information from Great Ormond Street Hospital for Children NHS Foundation Trust (“GOSH”). The Commissioner’s decision is that GOSH was entitled to refuse to comply with the request in accordance with section 12(1) (cost limit) of the FOIA.
2. He also finds that GOSH provided reasonable advice and assistance and therefore met its obligations under section 16(1) of the FOIA.
3. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12; FOI 16
View Great Ormond Street Hospital NHS Trust
6 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 North London NHS Foundation Trust
6 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
6 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 Northumbria Police
6 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 King's College London
6 Oct 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested a copy of correspondence relating to a highway plan from Dorset Council (“the Council”). The Council’s position is that it has disclosed all of the information it holds within the 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, beyond that which it has already disclosed. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1(1)
View Dorset County Council
6 Oct 2025Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested confirmation from the Department for Business & Trade (DBT) that it opposed striking off two companies because they had outstanding Bounce Back Loans. DBT neither confirmed nor denied whether the requested information is held, citing section 43(3) (prejudice to commercial interests) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that DBT is entitled to rely on the exemption at section 43(3) to neither confirm nor deny whether the requested information is held. However, DBT breached section 17(1) by failing to issue its refusal notice within 20 working days of the request. The Commissioner does not require further steps. Information Tribunal FT/EA/2025/0376 under appeal.
Exemptions cited: FOI 43(3); FOI 17(1)
View Department for Business and Trade