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
25 Sep 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to various costs and expenditure incurred by the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA). The CAA provided some information falling within the scope of the request and advised that further information was not held.
It is the Commissioner’s decision that, on the balance of probabilities, the CAA does not hold any further information falling within the scope of the request in addition to that which has already been provided to the complainant.
The Commissioner does not require further steps. Information Tribunal FT/EA/2025/0380 under appeal.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1(1)
View Civil Aviation Authority
25 Sep 2025Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information relating to the Cross Border Connection Project. Even though Scottish Power Energy Networks (“the public authority”) responded to the request, the Commissioner’s decision is that: the public authority has breached regulation 5 (duty to make environmental information available), the public authority has breached regulation 14 (refusal to disclose information) and the public authority has breached regulation 11 (representations and reconsideration). The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: handle the whole request again, this time complying with regulation 5 and regulation 14.
Exemptions cited: EIR 11; EIR 14; EIR 5
24 Sep 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted an information request to Mid and West Wales Fire and Rescue Service (MWWFRS) for a current fleet list.
The Commissioner’s decision is that MWWFRS was entitled to withhold parts of the requested information under section 24(1) (national security) of FOIA.
The Commissioner does not require further steps, as a result of this decision notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 24(1)
24 Sep 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested funding information relating to a specific gurdwara. City of Wolverhampton Council (the council) responded that the information is not held. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the information is not held. The Commissioner does not require any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Wolverhampton City Council
24 Sep 2025Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information associated with illicit small boat crossings. The Met Office disclosed some information and withheld the remainder under regulation 12(5)(a) of the EIR, which concerns international relations, national security and public safety. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Met Office is entitled to rely on regulation 12(5)(a) to withhold the requested information but that the timeliness of the Met Office’s internal review didn’t comply with regulation 11(2). The Commissioner doesn’t require further steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 11(2); EIR 12(5)(a)
24 Sep 2025Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to the AI tools the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) intended to publish via the Algorithmic Transparency Recording Standard hub. DWP confirmed that it did not hold some of the information and the complainant does not dispute this. DWP withheld the information that was held on the basis of section 22(1). The Commissioner’s decision is that DWP is not entitled to rely on section 22(1) to withhold this information. The Commissioner considers, however, that a small amount of this information does engage section 21, information reasonably accessible to the applicant, as this had been published by the time of DWP’s response. The Commissioner requires DWP to disclose the list of all AI tools DWP plans to place on the Algorithmic Transparency Recording Standards Hub with the exception of the information already published. The public authority must take these steps within 30 calendar days of the date of this decision notice. Failure to c
Exemptions cited: FOI 21; FOI 22
View Department for Work and Pensions
24 Sep 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about a complaint that they made. Essex County Council disclosed information in response. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has disclosed all held information. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Essex County Council
23 Sep 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested further information concerning their Employment Tribunal following a previous request which resulted in a case considered and determined by the Commissioner. DBT confirmed holding information in the scope of the request some of which it provided with the remainder withheld in reliance of the exemptions at FOIA section 38 – health and safety, section 40(2) – personal information and section 42(1) – legal professional privilege.
The Commissioner’s decision is that DBT is correct in its application of the exemptions at FOIA sections 40(2) and 42(1) to withhold the requested information to which the exemptions were applied. He is satisfied that the remaining requested information, on the balance of probabilities, is not held. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 40(2); FOI 42(1)
View Department for Business and Trade
23 Sep 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information from Thames Water Utilities Ltd (Thames Water) about ground water levels regarding the proposed Abingdon Reservoir. Thames Water refused to provide the requested information, applying regulation 12(4)(d) of the EIR – material still in the course of completion. The Commissioner’s decision is that the exception at regulation 12(4)(d) of the EIR is engaged and that the public interest favours non-disclosure. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(d)
23 Sep 2025Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from the Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office (the public authority). By the date of this notice the public authority had not issued a substantive response to this request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the public authority has failed to complete its deliberations on the balance of the public interest within a reasonable time and has therefore breached section 17(3) of FOIA. The Commissioner requires the public authority to 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 17(3)
23 Sep 2025Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information about a financial agreement relating to the Ffos-y-fran opencast coal mine. Merthyr Tydfil County Borough Council (the Council) withheld the information under regulation 12(5)(e) (commercial confidentiality) of the EIR.
The Commissioner’s decision is that regulation 12(4)(e) is engaged, but that the public interest favours disclosure of the withheld information.
The Commissioner requires the Council to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation - Disclose the withheld information, ensuring that any personal data is redacted subject to the terms of the Data Protection Act 2018.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(e)
View Merthyr Tydfil County Borough Council
23 Sep 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested “any and all” ministerial submissions to Home Office Ministers and/or the Secretary of State relating to Manston Immigration Centre in 2022. The Home Office refused to provide the requested information, citing the FOIA exemptions in sections 31(1)(e) (the operation of immigration controls), 35(1)(a) (the formulation or development of government policy), 40(2) (personal information) and 42(1) (legal professional privilege). The complainant was not concerned about the application of section 40(2) so the Commissioner has disregarded this from his investigation. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Home Office was entitled to rely on section 35(1)(a) of FOIA applied to the majority of the withheld information. He also finds that section 42 of FOIA was engaged where applied. As he has found section 35(1)(a) to be engaged, the Commissioner has not deemed it necessary to consider the Home Office’s additional reliance on section 31(1)(e) of FOIA which was applied t
Exemptions cited: FOI 35; FOI 42
View Home Office
23 Sep 2025Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information produced by the Casement Park Project Board. The Department for Communities (the Department) provided some information but withheld the remainder.
The Commissioner’s decision is that regulations 12(4)(d) (material in the course of completion) and 12(5)(e) (commercial confidentiality) are engaged, but that the public interest favours disclosure of the withheld information.
However, the Department is entitled to rely on regulation 12(3) (personal data) to withhold personal information.
The Commissioner requires the Council to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation - Disclose the information withheld under regulations 12(4)(d) and 12(5)(e).
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(3); EIR 12(4)(d); EIR 12(5)(e)
23 Sep 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested from Ormiston Academies Trust (the Trust) information regarding contractual agreements and payments between the Trust and Advantage Education Ltd. The Trust refused the request as it considered it vexatious under section 14(1) (vexatious request) of FOIA.
The Commissioner’s decision is that the request was vexatious and the Trust was entitled to rely on section 14(1) of FOIA to refuse to comply with the request. The Commissioner does not require the Trust to take any steps as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14(1)
View ORMISTON ACADEMIES TRUST
23 Sep 2025Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information about historic deeds relating to a school site. The London Borough of Hackney (“the Council”) provided the complainant with details of searches it had undertaken when responding to their request, which identified the existence of four files relating to the school, but stated that this information did not fall within scope of the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council holds information within scope of the request and has therefore breached regulations 5(2) and 12(4)(a) of the EIR by failing to confirm the requested information was held within 20 working days. The Commissioner requires the Council to either disclose the further information contained in the folder titled “Advice – Colvestone House” identified as falling within scope of the request (as detailed in the confidential annexe appended to the decision), or issue a valid refusal notice in line with regulation 14 of the EIR in relation to this information. The public author
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(a); EIR 5(2)
View London Borough of Hackney
23 Sep 2025Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about a report on historic ties to the transatlantic slave economy. The University of Nottingham (“the University”) denied holding some of the information. It relied on sections 36 (prejudice to the effective conduct of public affairs), 41 (breach of confidence), 42 (legal professional privilege) and 43 (commercial interests) to withhold the information. The Commissioner’s decision is that the University has correctly engaged section 36 of FOIA in respect of information falling within the scope of parts 2 and 3 and, where it has done so, the balance of the public interest favours maintaining the exemption. The University has also correctly engaged section 42 in relation to the internal legal advice sought and provided. Neither section 41 nor 43 applies to any of the remaining information. As the University did not cite, within 20 working days, all the exemptions on which it ultimately came to rely, it breached section 17 of FOIA. The Commission
Exemptions cited: FOI 17; FOI 36; FOI 41; FOI 42; FOI 43
View University of Nottingham
23 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
23 Sep 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested evidence connected to a suicide from the Metropolitan Police Service (the “MPS”). The MPS refused to provide this citing sections 30(1) (Investigations and proceedings); 38(1) (Health and safety) and 40(2) (Personal information) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the MPS was entitled to rely on sections 30(1) and 38(1) of FOIA to withhold the requested information; he did not find it necessary to consider section 40(2) of FOIA. The Commissioner does not require further steps. Information Tribunal FT/EA/2025/0365 under appeal.
Exemptions cited: FOI 30; FOI 38
View Metropolitan Police Service
23 Sep 2025Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested four requests for the number of students based on campus in 2021, 2022, 2023, and 2024 as recorded in the student census. The University of Exeter (“the University”) provided lists of distinct student codes, noting this was not an accurate representation of the number of students. The Commissioner’s decision is that the University has not complied with the request. The University must issue a fresh response to the complainant based on the student census.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View The University of Exeter
23 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
23 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 Redbridge Council
23 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 Enfield Council
22 Sep 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information about the coverage of of Israel and Palestine. 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
22 Sep 2025Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
A public authority will breach section 10 of the 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 of the FOIA.
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 Bristol City Council
22 Sep 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to applications for philosophy, politics and economics (‘PPE’). The University of Oxford (‘the University’) refused to disclose it, citing section 43(2) (commercial interests) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the requested information is exempt under section 43(2). The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 43(2)
View The University of Oxford
22 Sep 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested legal documents held by the UK Supreme Court (the Supreme Court). The Supreme Court withheld the information under section 32(1) (Court records) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Supreme Court was entitled to rely on sections 32(1)(a) and (c) of FOIA to refuse the request. The Commissioner is also satisfied that the Supreme Court provided reasonable advice and assistance in accordance with section 16(1) (duty to provide advice and assistance) of FOIA. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: FOI 32
18 Sep 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about an alleged crime that took place in Huyton Village. Merseyside Police refused confirm nor deny holding the requested information citing section 30 (investigations and proceedings), section 40(5A) and section 40(5B) (personal information) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that section 40(5B)(a)(i) of FOIA was properly engaged. No steps are required as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40(5)(b)
View Merseyside Police
18 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 Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea
18 Sep 2025Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to a block of commercial flats from Barnsley Metropolitan Borough Council (“the council”). The council refused to provide some information applying sections 40(2) (personal data). It also refused to confirm or deny whether it holds other information on the basis that section 40(5B) (personal data) and 38(2) (health and safety) applied. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council was correct to apply section 38(2) of FOIA to neither confirm nor deny whether relevant information is held by it. He has also decided that two of the complainant's requests relate to information which is not held by the council for the purposes of section 1 of FOIA. However, during the course of the Commissioner's investigation the council agreed to disclose information in respect of part 1 of the request to the complainant. The Commissioner therefore requires the council to disclose the information in relation to part 1 to the complainant.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 38(2)
View Barnsley Council
18 Sep 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to the housing of a particular tenant. Westminster City Council (“the Council”) relied on section 40(2) (third party personal information) of FOIA to withhold the information. The Commissioner’s decision is that the public authority has correctly relied on section 40(2) of FOIA to withhold the information. The Commissioner does not require further steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40(2)
View Westminster Council
17 Sep 2025Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to London Legacy Development Corporation (LLDC) for information relating to the management company of the London Aquatic Centre.
The Commissioner’s decision is that LLDC was correct to withhold some of the requested information under section 43(2) (commercial interests) and section 40(2) (third-party personal information) of FOIA. However, he finds that some of the withheld information does not engage section 43(2). The Commissioner also found that LLDC breached sections 1(1)(a), 10(1) and 17(1) of FOIA regarding the timeliness of its response.
The Commissioner requires LLDC to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation:
• Disclose the documents titled Schedule 1 Appendix 12 Sports Development Proposals and Schedule 1 Appendix 12 Sports Development Plan 2024-2025 with any personal data redacted in accordance with his guidance.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1(1)(a); FOI 10(1); FOI 40(2); FOI 43(2); FOI 17(1)
View London Thames Gateway Development Corporation
17 Sep 2025Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The Commissioner’s decision is that the public authority breached section 10(1) of FOIA by failing to provide a response within 20 working days
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Epsom and St Helier University Hospitals NHS Trust
17 Sep 2025Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to the approval of a Homes of Multiple Occupancy (“HMO”) licence application for a specific property. South Tyneside Council (“the Council”) refused to respond to the request, citing section 14(1) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council is entitled to rely on section 14(1) of FOIA to refuse the request. The Commissioner does however find that the Council breached section 10 of FOIA, as it did not respond within 20 working days. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10(1); FOI 14(1)
View South Tyneside Council
17 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 London Borough of Hackney
17 Sep 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
1. The complainant has requested copies of all emails between the Home Office and Care4Calais from 1 January 2023 to date. The Home Office relied on section 12 of FOIA (cost of compliance) to refuse the request.
2. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Home Office was entitled to rely on section 12(1) of FOIA to refuse the request. The Commissioner also finds that the Home Office complied with its section 16 obligation to offer advice and assistance.
3. The Commissioner does not require further steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12(1)
View Home Office
17 Sep 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information relating to a fence. North Tyneside Council (the “council”) refused the request under regulation 12(4)(b) (manifestly unreasonable). The Commissioner’s decision is that the request was vexatious and therefore the council was entitled to rely upon Regulation 12(4)(b) to refuse it. The Commissioner does not require the council to take any further steps. Information Tribunal FT/EA/2025/0375 under appeal.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(b)
View North Tyneside Council
17 Sep 2025Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information about Five or Six Facet Survey findings. Queen Mary University of London (the University) relied on section 21 of FOIA (information accessible by other means) to withhold the requested information. The Commissioner’s decision is that the information the complainant has requested is environmental information. The University should therefore have handled the request under the EIR and it breached regulation 14(3) of the EIR by incorrectly issuing its refusal notice under FOIA. The Commissioner requires the University to take the following step to ensure compliance with the legislation: Issue the complainant with a fresh response to their request under the EIR, in accordance with its obligations under that legislation.
Exemptions cited: EIR 14(3)
View Queen Mary University of London
17 Sep 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The Commissioner’s decision is that the requested information about a specific Local Authority Assessment is exempt information under section 31(1)(g) of FOIA, by way of subsection 31(2)(c). This is because disclosure would be likely to prejudice the Care Quality Commission’s ability to carry out its regulatory functions.
Exemptions cited: FOI 31(1)(g)
View CQC
17 Sep 2025Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested from Buckinghamshire, Oxfordshire and Berkshire West Integrated Care Board (the ICB) information relating to the Practice Guide 1.3 contained within the National Framework for NHS Continuing Healthcare and NHS-funded Nursing Care (July 2022 (Revised). The ICB provided some information but applied section 12 FOIA - cost of compliance exceeds appropriate limit - and section 22(1) FOIA – future publication - to some of the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that section 12(1) FOIA is not engaged. He has also decided that section 22 FOIA is not engaged. Additionally, he has concluded that the ICB has breached section 16(1) FOIA because it did not provide advice and assistance to the complainant. The ICB also breached section 17(5) FOIA by relying on section 12(1) but failing to provide the complainant with a notice stating that fact within the 20 working day timescale. The Commissioner requires the ICB to take the following steps to ensure compliance with
Exemptions cited: FOI 12(1); FOI 16(1); FOI 17(5); FOI 22(1)
View NHS Buckinghamshire, Oxfordshire and Berkshire West ICB
16 Sep 2025Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested NT to provide the new AI voice files, introduced on the Televic system. NT refused the request citing sections 14(1) (vexatious request), 12 (cost of compliance), 43(2) (commercial interests), 24 (national security) and 38 (health and safety) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that NT is entitled to refuse to comply with the request in accordance with section 14(1) of FOIA. The Commissioner does not require further steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14(1)
View Northern Rail
16 Sep 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested a copy of an email from Wraysbury Parish Council (“the council”). The council refused the request on the basis that section 40(2) of FOIA applied (personal data of third parties), section 44 (information provided in confidence), and section 44 (statutory prohibition on disclosure). The Commissioner’s decision is that the council was entitled to withhold all of the information under section 40(2) of FOIA. The Commissioner does not require the council to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40(2)
16 Sep 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information about aircraft fuel composition and testing. The Civil Aviation Authority (‘the CAA’) relied on regulation 12(4)(a) of the EIR and stated that that it did not hold the requested information. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the CAA doesn’t hold the requested information. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(a)
View Civil Aviation Authority
16 Sep 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested from Reigate & Banstead Borough Council (the Council) information about a formal complaint regarding an outbuilding at [address redacted]. The Council provided information to part of the request but withheld some of the information under section 40(2) (personal information) of FOIA.
The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council was entitled to withhold information under section 40(2) of FOIA. He does not require the Council to take any steps as a result of this decision. Information Tribunal FT/EA/2025/0445 under appeal.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40(2)
View Reigate and Banstead Borough Council
16 Sep 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about the inspection of a road. Essex County Council disclosed information in response. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has disclosed all held information. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Essex County Council
16 Sep 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested from the Greater London Authority (GLA) minutes from the meeting between Mayor Khan and Mayor Chowdry of Sylhet City Corporation, Bangladesh which took place at the City Hall on 4 June 2024. The complainant also requested a list of all attendees to the meeting.
GLA stated that it did not hold the minutes of the meeting but it provided a list of five attendees, specifying roles and names of three whilst withholding names of two junior officers.
The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, GLA does not hold recorded information in relation to the minutes and has therefore complied with section 1(1) of FOIA. He has also considered that GLA was correct to withhold the names of two attendees on the basis of section 40(2) (personal data) of FOIA.
The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 40(2)
View Greater London Authority
16 Sep 2025Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested a report relating to a landslide at a specified location. Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council (the ‘Council’) initially cited Regulation 12(4)(d) - of the EIR – the exception for material in the course of completion etc. At internal review, the Council revised its position and said it did not hold a “report”. During the course of the Commissioner’s investigation, the Council advised that it held an email from one of the surveyors who had visited the landslide, which set out his recommendations. The Commissioner deems this email to be in scope of the request. The Council refused to disclose the non-excepted parts of the email to the complainant prior to the issuing of this notice, as it did not agree that this email constitutes a “report”. It withheld the remainder under the EIR, citing Regulation 12(5)(d) – confidentiality of proceedings, Regulation 12(5)(e) - commercial or industrial confidentiality, Regulation 12(5)(f) – adverse effect on the interests of
Exemptions cited: EIR 11(4); EIR 12(5)(d); EIR 13; EIR 5(3)
View Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council
16 Sep 2025Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested the Financial Analysis of a market test carried out by Hebden Royd Town Council (the council). The council has stated that it does not hold the information requested. The Commissioner’s decision is that on the balance of probabilities, the council’s response did not comply with section 1(1) and section 10(1) of FOIA.
The Commissioner requires the council to take the following step to ensure compliance with the legislation: Disclose the financial analysis. The council 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. Information Tribunal FT/EA/2025/0361 under appeal.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1(1); FOI 10(1)
15 Sep 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The Commissioner’s decision is that Ofcom was entitled to withhold some information about online safety matters that the complainant has requested under section 44(1) of FOIA and was entitled to neither confirm nor deny it holds other information under 44(2). These exemptions concern prohibitions on disclosure. The Commissioner does not require further steps. Information Tribunal FT/EA/2025/0381 under appeal.
Exemptions cited: FOI 44(2); FOI 44(1)
View Ofcom
15 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 Derbyshire County Council