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 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 King's College London
3 Oct 2025Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information on from the Post Office on money spent on defending the Post Office and prosecuting its workers during a specific time period. The Post Office provided the information at parts 1 and 3 of the request and for part 2 provided links to some previous responses but did not cite an exemption for refusing the request. It later revised its position and stated the information was not held. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Post Office does not hold the information falling with the scope of part 2 of the request. However, as it failed to confirm the information wasn’t held it has breached section 1(1)(a) and section 10 FOIA. No steps are required.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10
View Post Office Ltd
3 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
3 Oct 2025Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from the BBC regarding correspondence between some of its departments and the Creative Industries Independent Standards Authority (CIISA) within a certain timeframe. The BBC provided some information but withheld part of it, applying section 40(2) FOIA – personal information. The Commissioner’s decision is that the BBC correctly applied section 40(2) FOIA. However, the BBC breached sections 1 and 10(1) FOIA by responding outside the statutory timeframe and failing to provide the complainant with the non-exempt information within 20 working days of their request. The Commissioner does not require further steps. Information Tribunal FT/EA/2025/0367 under appeal.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1(1); FOI 10(1); FOI 40(2)
View BBC
2 Oct 2025Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to TransPennine Trains Limited (TPT) for information relating to the availability and sale of advance tickets.
The Commissioner’s decision is that TPT was entitled to rely upon section 43(2) of FOIA to withhold parts of the requested information. However, he considers that TPT’s handling of the request breached section 17(3) of FOIA.
The Commissioner does not require further steps, as a result of this decision notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 17(3); FOI 43(2)
2 Oct 2025Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information held in relation to car parking provisions on the Rom Valley Ice Rink site. The London Borough of Havering (the Council) released some information relating to the request subject to redactions made under section 40(2) (third party personal data) of FOIA. It denied holding any further information in relation to the request.
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. Accordingly the Commissioner finds that the Council has failed to comply with section 1(1)(a) in terms of the duty to confirm or deny that it holds further information falling with the scope of the request.
The Commissioner requires the Council to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation:
• Reconsider the request, conducting appropriate searches, and issue a fresh response to the com
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View London Borough of Havering
2 Oct 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information about new towns. The Ministry of Housing, Communities & Local Government (MHCLG) refused the request under the exemptions for formulation / development of government policy (section 35), personal information (section 40(2)) and commercial interests (section 43(2)). The Commissioner’s decision is that MHCLG was entitled to withhold the requested information under section 35(1)(a) of the FOIA. The Commissioner does not require MHCLG to take any further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 35
View Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government
2 Oct 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information about audits of a specific primary school. Birmingham City Council (the “council”) disclosed the some information, redacting information under the exemptions for personal information (section 40) and information provided in confidence (section 41). The Commissioner’s decision is that the council correctly applied sections 40 and 41 to the withheld information. The Commissioner does not require the council to take any further steps. Information Tribunal FT/EA/2025/0391 under appeal.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40; FOI 41
View Birmingham City Council
2 Oct 2025Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested complaints data relating to a specific dental practice. The General Dental Council (‘the public authority’) relied on section 12(2) (cost of compliance exceeds appropriate limit) to refuse the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the public authority was correct to rely upon section 12(1) and complied with its section 16 obligations. The public authority breached section 1 (general right of access to information) and 10 (timescale for compliance) in failing to confirm it held information, within the statutory timescale. The Commissioner does not require further steps. Information Tribunal FT/EA/2025/0400 under appeal.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10; FOI 12(1); FOI 12(2); FOI 16
View General Dental Council
2 Oct 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested The Insolvency Service disclose a copy of its response to the complainant’s letter of 11 July 2023. The Insolvency Service initially refused the request with reliance on section 40(5B(a)(i) to neither confirm nor deny whether the information was held. During the course of the Commissioner’s investigation The Insolvency Service amended its position to rely on section 40(5A) to neither confirm nor deny whether the requested information is held. The Commissioner’s decision is that The Insolvency Service is entitled to rely on the provision at section 40(5A) to neither confirm nor deny whether the requested information is held. The Commissioner does not require further steps. Information Tribunal FT/EA/2025/0394 under appeal.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40(5)(a)
View The Insolvency Service
2 Oct 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested from the London Borough of Camden (the Council) information related to the Head of Terms regarding proposed land sale and the redevelopment of the Council’s owned land.
The Commissioner’s decision is that in the circumstances of this case the Council was entitled to rely on the regulation 12(5)(e) to withhold the requested information.
Consequently, the Commissioner does not require the Council to take any steps in relation to this complaint.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(e)
View Camden Council
1 Oct 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested the trust to provide the Specialist Pharmacy Service (SPS) document referenced in earlier correspondence. The trust provided a link to the document. However, the complainant believed further recorded information was held. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the trust does not hold any further recorded information. He therefore does not require any further steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Gateshead Health NHS Trust
1 Oct 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested copies of correspondence between several named parties. Tees Valley Combined Authority (TVCA) said that it did not hold any information falling within the request’s scope. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, TVCA does not hold the information described in the request.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Tees Valley Combined Authority
30 Sep 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information on the address and physical location of the Universal Credit complaints team. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) does not hold further information to that provided to the complainant. The Commissioner does not require DWP to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Department for Work and Pensions
30 Sep 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested a copy of two A-Z map books which were used for evidence during the Robert Napper murder trial from the Metropolitan Police Service (the “MPS”). The MPS initially refused to provide the requested information citing sections 30(1)(a)(i) (Investigations and proceedings) and 40(2) (Personal information) of FOIA. Following an internal review, the MPS revised its position, instead relying on the cost limit at section 12(1) of FOIA. It changed its position twice afterwards, ultimately relying on the cost limit at section 12(1) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that it was entitled to do so. No steps are required.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12; FOI 16
View Metropolitan Police Service
30 Sep 2025Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about requests handled by the Personal Independence Payment (PIP) policy team. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) has failed to fully consider all of the information specified in the complainant’s request. The Commissioner requires the public authority to issue a fresh response to the complainant that considers all of the information falling within the scope of the request and either disclose the information or, in respect of any information it wishes to withhold, issue a refusal notice within the meaning of section 17 of FOIA providing a basis for withholding the information. Specifically, this revised response should include the information set out at paragraph 37 of this notice. 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 t
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Department for Work and Pensions
30 Sep 2025Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information about specified software systems. Sunderland City Council (the ‘Council’) initially cited section 31(1)(a) of FOIA – the exemption for the prevention or detection of crime to refuse the request in its entirety. During the course of the Commissioner’s investigation, the Council clarified that it had intended to rely on the ‘neither confirm nor deny’ provision in section 31(3) – law enforcement, by virtue of section 31(1)(a) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council was not entitled to rely on section 31(3) of FOIA for the reasons set out in this notice. The Commissioner requires the Council to issue a fresh response, confirming or denying whether it holds information falling within scope of the request. If it does hold information, that information must either be disclosed or a refusal notice must be issued which is compliant with section 17 of FOIA. The Council must take these steps within 30 calendar days of this notice.
Keywords:
Exemptions cited: FOI 31(3)
View Sunderland City Council
30 Sep 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 WESTBROOK PRIMARY SCHOOL
30 Sep 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested from the Welsh Government a list of public bodies or quangos that have been dissolved or modified, and the number where a review had taken place. The Welsh Government refused the request citing section 12(1) (cost of compliance) of FOIA.
The Commissioner’s decision is that the Welsh Government was entitled to rely on section 12(1) of FOIA to refuse the request. The Commissioner also finds that the Welsh Government 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. Information Tribunal FT/EA/2025/0388 under appeal.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12(1)
View Welsh Government
30 Sep 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
1. The complainant has requested information from the Chief Constable of Cleveland Constabulary (“Cleveland Police”) regarding particular policies and procedures.
2. The Commissioner’s decision is that Cleveland Police appropriately applied the exemption contained in sections 31(1)(a) and (b) of FOIA (law enforcement and the prevention or detection of crime) to withhold the information.
3. The Commissioner does not require Cleveland Police to take any steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. Information Tribunal FT/EA/2025/0357 under appeal.
Exemptions cited: FOI 31
View Cleveland Police
30 Sep 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to the Cabinet Office seeking correspondence sent and received by Catherine Little (Permanent Secretary to the Cabinet Office) concerning the appointment of Jess Sargeant. The Cabinet Office confirmed that it held information but considered this to be exempt from disclosure on the basis of sections 40(2) (personal data) and 36(2)(c) (effective conduct of public affairs). The Commissioner’s decision is that the withheld information is exempt from disclosure on the basis of section 40(2) of FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View Cabinet Office
30 Sep 2025Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The public authority has failed to respond to this request within 20 working days, as specified in the EIR. The Commissioner requires it to provide the complainant with a response to this request within 30 calendar days in accordance with its obligations under the EIR.
Exemptions cited: EIR 5
View Hertsmere Borough Council
30 Sep 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to the London Borough of Hackney (the Council) seeking a copy of a letter it sent to faith leaders. The Council provided a copy of the letter and the names of the organisations to which it was sent, but withheld the names of the individual recipients at the organisations on the basis of sections 40(2) (personal data), 38(1) (health and safety) and 41(1) (information provided in confidence). The Commissioner’s decision is that the withheld information is exempt from disclosure on the basis of section 40(2) of FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View London Borough of Hackney
30 Sep 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information on Child Maintenance calculations. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) is entitled to aggregate the requests under section 12(4) and to rely on section 12(2) to refuse to comply with the requests. The Commissioner is satisfied that DWP has complied with its obligations to provide advice and assistance under section 16(1).
Exemptions cited: FOI 12; FOI 16
View Department for Work and Pensions
30 Sep 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 Somerset Council
30 Sep 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 West Midlands Combined Authority
30 Sep 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
29 Sep 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant asked to know the number of police officers who have medically retired due to long COVID. Nottinghamshire Police relied on section 40(2) of FOIA (third party personal information) to withhold the requested information. The Commissioner’s decision is that Nottinghamshire Police correctly relied on section 40(2) of FOIA to withhold the information.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View Nottinghamshire Police
29 Sep 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information about the BBC’s decision on whether or not to cover performances by the band ‘Kneecap’ at the Glastonbury Festival. The BBC responded that the requested information was covered by the derogation and hence excluded from FOIA.
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
29 Sep 2025Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The public authority has failed to respond to this request within 20 working days, as specified under FOIA. The Commissioner requires it to provide the complainant with a response to this request within 30 calendar days in accordance with its obligations under FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Home Office
29 Sep 2025Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
A public authority will breach section 10 of FOIA if it fails to respond to a request within 20 working days. Based on evidence available to the Commissioner, by the date of this notice the public authority has not issued a substantive response to this request. Therefore the Commissioner finds a breach of section 10. The public authority must provide a substantive response to the request in accordance with its obligations under FOIA. The public authority must take this step within 30 calendar days of the date of this decision notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View London Borough of Lambeth
29 Sep 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to the handling of a previous request for information. The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) confirmed it holds some of the requested information but refused to provide it, citing section 36 (prejudice to effective conduct of public affairs) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the withheld information is exempt from disclosure on the basis of section 36(2)(b)(i) and (ii) and that the public interest favours maintaining the exemption. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: FOI 36
View Ministry of Justice
29 Sep 2025Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
A public authority will breach section 10 of FOIA if it fails to respond to a request within 20 working days. Based on evidence available to the Commissioner, the public authority failed to issue a substantive response to this request within 20 working days. Therefore, the Commissioner finds a breach of section 10. The Commissioner does not require further steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Redbridge Council
29 Sep 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested “any files or records” pertaining to Shropshire Council’s (the ‘Council’) request to a named judge to examine the historical circumstances surrounding the death of a named child. Ultimately, the Council cited the ‘neither confirm nor deny’ provision within section 32(3) of FOIA – the exemption for court records etc. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council was entitled, by virtue of section 32(3) of FOIA, to neither confirm nor deny holding information within the scope of the request. No steps are required as a result of this notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 32
View Shropshire Council
29 Sep 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about the awarding of an advertising contract concerning the Bobby Moore Bridge. The London Borough of Brent (“the public authority”) relies on section 43 (2) (commercial interests) to withhold the requested information. The Commissioner’s decision is that the public authority correctly relied on section 43(2) to withhold the requested information.The Commissioner does not require steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 43
View London Borough of Brent
29 Sep 2025Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested Defra to disclose the details of all GL43 and GL45 licenses granted within the NR12 (Norfolk) postcode area relating to 1 September 2024 to 1 February 2025 season. Defra initially confirmed that regulation 13 of the EIR applied to one element of the request and 12(4)(a) of the EIR to another. However, during the Commissioner’s investigation Defra altered its position and issued a revised response confirming that 12(4)(a) of the EIR applied to both elements of the request (there was third element, but Defra directed the complainant to where this can be accessed in the public domain). The Commissioner’s decision is that on the balance of probabilities Defra does not hold the requested information for parts one and three of the request and is therefore entitled to rely on regulation 12(4)(a) of the EIR. However, the Commissioner has recorded a breach of regulation 14(3) of the EIR for citing the incorrect exception in its refusal notice. The Commissioner does
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(a); EIR 14(3)
29 Sep 2025Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested a copy of a ministerial submission relating to Free School Meals. The Department for Education (DfE) provided the submission but withheld several paragraphs of information under sections 35(1)(a) and 42 FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the DfE has correctly withheld the information it identified as exempt under section 42. In terms of section 35, the Commissioner considers that the exemption is engaged but the public interest favours disclosing the information. The Commissioner requires the public authority to disclose the information the DfE had identified as exempt under section 35(1)(a) FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 35; FOI 42
View Department for Education
29 Sep 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted three requests to the Valuation Office Agency (VOA) seeking information about the council tax banding of specific properties. The VOA refused to disclose the information on the basis of section 44(1)(a) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the requested information is exempt from disclosure on the basis of section 44(1)(a) of FOIA. Information Tribunal FT/EA/2025/0395 under appeal.
Exemptions cited: FOI 44
View Valuation Office Agency
29 Sep 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested from the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) information about the Night Fighter jammer. The CAA applied section 24(2) FOIA – National security - to neither confirm nor deny whether it held this information. The Commissioner’s decision is that the CAA was entitled to rely on section 24(2). The Commissioner does not require further steps. Information Tribunal FT/EA/2025/0390 under appeal.
Exemptions cited: FOI 24(2)
View Civil Aviation Authority
29 Sep 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information about the High Speed Two Phase One Accounting Officer assessment. The Department for Transport refused the request under regulation 12(4)(b) of the EIR, which concerns manifestly unreasonable requests. The Commissioner’s decision is that regulation 12(4)(b) is engaged and there was no breach of regulation 9(1), which concerns advice and assistance. The Commissioner doesn’t require further steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(b); EIR 9(1)
View Department for Transport
29 Sep 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information about a former industrial site. Wrexham County Borough Council withheld the information under the exception provided by regulation 12(4)(b) (Manifestly unreasonable requests) on the grounds that the request was vexatious. The Commissioner’s decision is that regulation 12(4)(b) is engaged and that the balance of the public interest favours maintaining the exception. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(b)
View Wrexham County Borough Council
29 Sep 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information about contracts awarded to Hornsea 3 Offshore Wind Farm. The Low Carbon Contracts Company advised it doesn’t hold some information and withheld the information it does hold under regulation 12(4)(e) of the EIR, which concerns internal communications. The Commissioner’s decision is that regulation 12(4)(e) is engaged and he doesn’t require any further steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(e)
View Low Carbon Contracts Company
28 Sep 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 Barking and Dagenham Council
28 Sep 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
26 Sep 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 NHS Lancashire and South Cumbria ICB
26 Sep 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested publication of the cost of contracts between the University of Roehampton (the University) and SEAtS Software UK Limited (SEAtS) a software provider.
The Commissioner’s decision is that the University was entitled to rely on section 43(2) of FOIA to withhold information in scope of the request.
The Commissioner does not require any steps as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: FOI 43(2)
View Roehampton University
26 Sep 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about the due diligence process performed by the Advisory Committee on Business Appointments (ACOBA) in respect of applications for advice made to the Committee by General Sir Nick Carter concerning various positions.
ACOBA initially withheld the requested information (beyond that which had previously been published by ACOBA and which they directed the complainant to) under sections 36(2)(b)(i), 2(b)(ii) and (c)(prejudice to the effective conduct of public affairs). During the Commissioner’s investigation ACOBA also applied section 40(2)(third party personal data) to the requested information.
The Commissioner’s decision is that the withheld information is exempt from disclosure under section 36 of FOIA and that the balance of the public interest supports maintaining each of the section 36 exemptions cited by ACOBA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 36
View Advisory Committee on Business Appointments
26 Sep 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant had sent a multipoint follow-on request for information about the Autism Involvement Group (AIG). Devon County Council (the Council) provided some information and directed the complainant to where further information in scope of the request was already published but withheld the remaining information on the basis that sections 40(1) and 40(2) (Personal information) of FOIA were engaged.
The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council was entitled to rely on sections 40(1) and 40(2) to refuse to disclose this information.
The Commissioner does not require any steps as a result of this decision. Information Tribunal FT/EA/2025/0364 under appeal.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40(1); FOI 40(2)
View Devon County Council