15 Sep 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information about risk assessments in the coverage of Glastonbury Festival 2025. 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
15 Sep 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested legal advice that the MOD possesses about changes in the Defence Equipment and Support organisation. The MOD relies on section 42 to withhold the requested information. The Commissioner’s decision is that the MOD was entitled to rely on section 42 to withhold the requested information, as the exemption was engaged and the public interest favoured maintaining the exemption. The Commissioner does not require steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 42
View Ministry of Defence
15 Sep 2025Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested for a copy of the summary of legal agreements (contained in Appendix 2 - Hemisphere, Paddington Central- Summary of key terms) which was presented to Liverpool City Council (the council) on 19 March 2024. The council disclosed a redacted copy of the appendix and refused to disclose the redacted information on the basis of regulation 12(5)(e) of the EIR (confidentiality of commercial or industrial information). The Commissioner’s decision is that the council has failed to demonstrate that regulation 12(5)(e) is engaged. He also considers that the council has breached regulation 5(2) as it failed to respond to the complainant’s request within 20 working days and regulation 11(4) as it did not provide an internal review within the 40 working day requirement. The Commissioner requires the council to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation.
• Disclose the redacted information in the Appendix.
The public authority must take these step
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(e)
View Liverpool City Council
15 Sep 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested copies of all correspondence and documents held by the Financial Ombudsman Service (the FOS) in relation to their complaint. The FOS refused the request citing section 40(1) of the FOIA on the basis that the information was the applicant’s own personal data. The FOS further suggested that the complainant submitted a subject access request (under the UK GDPR) During the course of the Commissioner’s investigation, the FOS also confirmed that it was refusing some limited information on the basis of section 40(2) (third party personal data) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that section 40(1) (personal data of the requestor) of the FOIA applies as the information requested constitutes the complainant’s own personal data. The Commissioner has also determined that the FOS was entitled to refuse a small amount of information in reliance on section 40(2) of the FOIA. The Commissioner does not require any steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40(1); FOI 40(2)
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 Bromley Council
15 Sep 2025Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
A public authority will breach regulation 5(2) of the EIR if it fails to respond to a request within 20 working days. Based on evidence available to the Commissioner, by the date of this notice the public authority has not issued a substantive response to this request. Therefore the Commissioner finds a breach of regulation 5(2).
The public authority must provide a substantive response to the request in
accordance with its obligations under EIR. 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 Warwickshire County Council
15 Sep 2025Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested Brighton and Hove Council (the council) to disclose all internal and external correspondence and meeting minutes between 1 March 2022 and the date of the request relating to Montreal Arms. The Council refused to comply with the request, citing regulation 12(4)(b) (manifestly unreasonable) of the EIR. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council is entitled to rely on regulation 12(4)(b) of the EIR. The council however breached regulation 9 of the EIR by providing late appropriate advice and assistance. The Commissioner does not require further steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(b); EIR 9
View Brighton and Hove City Council
15 Sep 2025Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from Swansea Council. 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 Swansea Council
15 Sep 2025Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about the research project: ‘Review of data, statistics on sex and gender.’ University College London withheld some of the requested information under section 36(2)(b)(ii) of FOIA, which concerns prejudice to the effective conduct of public affairs. The Commissioner’s decision is that section 36(2)(b)(ii) is engaged but that the timeliness of the response didn’t comply with sections 1(1), 10(1) and 17(1) of FOIA. He doesn’t require any further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1(1); FOI 10(1); FOI 36(2)(b)(ii); FOI 17(1)
View University College London
15 Sep 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information about a specific road traffic accident. Essex Police (the “public authority”) relied on section 40(2) of FOIA (third party personal information) to withhold the information.
The Commissioner’s decision is that the public authority has correctly relied on section 40(2) of FOIA to withhold the information.
The Commissioner does not require further steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40(2)
View Essex Police
15 Sep 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information about East West Rail’s car park proposal which Bedfordshire Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust withheld under regulations 12(4)(e) and 12(5)(e) of the EIR. These exceptions concern internal communications and commercially confidential information, respectively. The Commissioner’s decision is that the requested information is excepted from disclosure under regulation 12(5)(e) of the EIR. He doesn’t require further steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(e)
View Bedfordshire Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust
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 Merseyside Police
15 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.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View London Borough of Lambeth
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
15 Sep 2025Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested briefing packs provided to the then Secretary of State for Education when she was appointed. The DfE considered the information exempt under sections 35(1)(d) and 36(2)(b)(ii) and 36(2)(c). The Commissioner’s decision is that section 36(2) is engaged and the public interest favours withholding the information. The Commissioner does find a breach of section 10(1) and 1(1)(a) as the DfE failed to respond within the statutory timeframe. No steps are required.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10; FOI 36
View Department for Education
12 Sep 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to the hereditary angioedema (HAE) service at University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust (the Trust). The Trust provided some information but redacted other information relying on section 40(2) of FOIA (exemption for third party personal data). The Commissioner’s decision is that the Trust has correctly relied on section 40(2) of FOIA to withhold the redacted information. The Commissioner also finds that, on the balance of probabilities, the Trust does not hold any further information falling within the scope of the request. The Commissioner does not require the Trust to take any further steps as a result of this decision notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 40(2)
View University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust
12 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 Croydon
12 Sep 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested a breakdown of the costs incurred by the Royal Borough of Greenwich (“the Council”) in handling two corporate complaints. The Council provided the complainant some information within scope of their request but stated that the remainder is not held. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has provided the complainant with the information it holds within scope of part [1] of their request and that it does not hold information within part [2] of their request. The Commissioner also finds that part [3] of the request does not meet the requirements of a valid request as it does not seek recorded information as defined at section 8(1)(c) of FOIA. The Commissioner does not require any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 8
View Royal Borough of Greenwich
12 Sep 2025Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to Birkenhead Park School, part of BePART Educational Trust (‘the Trust’), for statistical and policy-related information. The Trust refused the request as a vexatious request under section 14(1) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the request isn’t vexatious and the Trust incorrectly applied section 14(1) to it. The Commissioner requires the Trust to take the following step to ensure compliance with the legislation: Issue the complainant with a fresh response to their request that doesn’t rely on section 14(1) of FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14(1)
12 Sep 2025Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested WYAS to disclose the John Poulson bankruptcy files. WYAS confirmed what information the complainant could inspect and advised that the remainder is exempt from disclosure under sections 40(2) (personal data) and 41 (information provided in confidence) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that WYAS is entitled to rely on section 40(2) of FOIA. He has however found WYAS in breach of section 10 and 17 of FOIA, for failing to respond to the request within 20 working days of receipt. The Commissioner does not require further steps to be taken. Information Tribunal FT/EA/2025/0366 under appeal.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 17; FOI 40
View NHS West Yorkshire ICB
12 Sep 2025Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to the hereditary angioedema (HAE) service at University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust (Trust). The Trust provided some information but redacted other information relying on section 40(2) (third party personal data) and section 43(2) (prejudice to commercial interests) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Trust has correctly relied on section 40(2) to withhold the third party personal data, has not demonstrated that section 43(2) of FOIA applies to the remaining withheld information; and on the balance of probabilities, does not hold any further information falling within the scope of the request. The Commissioner requires the Trust to disclose to the complainant the information that the Trust has relied on section 43(2) to withhold.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 40(2); FOI 43(2)
View University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust
11 Sep 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information about the Parking (Code of Practice) Act 2019. The Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG) withheld the information requested under section 35(1)(a) (formulation or development of government policy) and section 22 (information intended for future publication) of the FOIA. During the course of the Commissioner’s investigation, MHCLG stated that it also wished to rely on section 40(2) (personal data) and section 43 (commercial interests) of the FOIA in relation to some parts of the withheld information. The Commissioner’s decision is that MHCLG was entitled to rely upon section 35(1)(a) to withhold the requested information. The Commissioner does not require any streps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 35
View Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government
11 Sep 2025Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about a catchment area for a secondary school. The London Borough of Redbridge states that it has complied with the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the public authority failed to adequately ascertain whether or not it holds information falling within the scope of the request. This means that it has not complied with section 1(1) (General right of access) of FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Redbridge Council
11 Sep 2025Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about a specific supplier. NHS Property Services Limited (‘the public authority’) disclosed information but denied holding the remainder.
The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the public authority has disclosed all of the information it holds and has complied with its section 1 (general right of access to information) of FOIA obligations. However, it breached section 10 (timescale for compliance) of FOIA. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10
View LocatED Property Limited
11 Sep 2025Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested minutes of Equality and Involvement Committee meetings from NHS Midlands and Lancashire Commissioning Support Unit. 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 Midlands and Lancashire Commissioning Support Unit
11 Sep 2025Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information about Irby upon Humber Parish Council’s (the “council”) banking arrangements. The council disclosed the information to the complainant during the Commissioner’s investigation. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council failed to provide the requested information within the statutory time limit and breached section 10(1). The Commissioner does not require the council to take any further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
11 Sep 2025Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested copies of internal correspondence held by Durham County Council (the council) about the status and maintenance of certain footpaths. The council initially refused the request, citing the exceptions at regulation 12(4)(e) (internal communications), and regulation 12(5)(d) (confidentiality of proceedings), of the EIR. At the internal review stage, the council said that it had changed its position. It confirmed that it now wished to rely on the exceptions at regulation 12(4)(e), and regulation 12(5)(b) (course of justice), as its basis for refusing to comply with the request. The Commissioner has decided that the council is entitled to withhold the requested information under the exceptions at regulation 12(5)(b), and regulation 12(4)(e), of the EIR. However, as the council failed to issue a refusal notice within 20 working days, and also failed to issue its internal review response within 40 working days, the Commissioner has found a breach of regulation 14, and
Exemptions cited: EIR 11(4); EIR 12(4)(e); EIR 12(5)(b); EIR 14
View Durham County Council
11 Sep 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information about an incident that took place on 9 and 10 October 2020. Brighton & Hove City Council (the Council) refused to comply with the request, citing section 14 of the FOIA (vexatious requests). The Commissioner’s decision is the Council was entitled to rely on section 14(1) of the FOIA to refuse the request. The Commissioner does not require any steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14
View Brighton and Hove City Council
11 Sep 2025Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested the school to disclose copies of governing body committee meeting minutes from 2018 to the date of their request. The school disclosed some information but withheld the remainder citing sections 40(2) (personal data), 41(1) (information provided in confidence) and 43(2) (commercial interests) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that section 40(2) of FOIA applies but sections 41(1) and 43(2) do not. The Commissioner requires the school to disclose the information withheld under sections 41(1) and 43(2) of FOIA to the complainant.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40; FOI 41; FOI 43
11 Sep 2025Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about conflicts of interest. City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council (‘the Council’) initially advised that it didn’t hold a register of conflicts of interest. It has subsequently confirmed that it does hold some relevant information and that this is exempt from disclosure under section 40(2) of FOIA as it’s other people’s personal data. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council incorrectly applied section 40(2) to the requested information. And the timeliness of the Council’s handling of the request didn’t comply with sections 1(1), 10(1) and 17(1) of FOIA. The Commissioner requires the Council to take the following step to ensure compliance with the legislation: Disclose to the complainant the information they’ve requested.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1(1)(a); FOI 10(1); FOI 40(2); FOI 17(1)
View City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council
11 Sep 2025Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested various information about two reservoirs. The City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council disclosed some of the requested information, but in respect of the remainder of the request, it withheld the information under the exceptions provided by regulation 12(5)(a) (International relations, defence, national security or public safety) and regulation 13 (Personal data) of the EIR. During the course of investigation, the Council informed the Commissioner that it also sought to withhold the information under regulation 12(4)(b) (Manifestly unreasonable requests) on the grounds of cost and now sought to do so. The Commissioner’s decision is that regulation 12(4)(b) is engaged and that the balance of the public interest favours maintaining the exception. However, the Council’s handling of the request breached regulation 14 (Refusal to disclose information). The Commissioner does not require further steps but refers the Council to the points raised in ‘Other ma
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(b); EIR 14; EIR 9(1)
View City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council
11 Sep 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested documentation from a meeting between DBT and Loke Marine Minerals. DBT confirmed holding a presentation document circulated by Loke to DBT following the meeting. The presentation was withheld in reliance of EIR regulation 12(5)(f), interests of the information provider and regulation 12(5)(e), confidentiality of commercial or industrial information. At the time of the Commissioner’s investigation DBT determined that the majority of the information could be disclosed and provided that information to the complainant but maintained its reliance on the cited exceptions to withhold some information. The Commissioner’s decision is that the remaining information is correctly withheld in reliance of regulation 12(5)(e) and the public interest favours maintaining the exception. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(e)
View Department for Business and Trade
11 Sep 2025Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested details of Fixed Penalty Notices issued in respect of fly-tipping. Westminster City Council (the Council) provided some information and withheld the remainder in reliance on the exception at regulation 12(5)(b) (the course of justice) and regulation 13 (personal data) of the EIR. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council was entitled to rely on the exceptions cited in respect of some of the withheld information. However it was not entitled to rely on regulation 12(5)(b) in respect of the requests submitted on 12 May 2024, 15 May 2024 and 3 June 2024. The Commissioner also finds that the Council failed to comply with regulation 11(3) of the EIR in that it took more than 40 working days to complete five internal reviews. The Commissioner requires the Council to disclose the information requested on 12 May 2024, 15 May 2024 and 3 June 2024, to the extent that it was withheld under regulation 12(5)(b). The Council is not required to disclose any informa
Exemptions cited: EIR 11; EIR 12(5)(b); EIR 13
View Westminster Council
10 Sep 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information about payments made to the Pensby High School Foundation Trust. 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
10 Sep 2025Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from the University of Bristol (the university) about child deaths in the National Child Mortality Database. The university initially stated that it did not hold the information relating to part one and refused to provide the requested information, at part two, applying section 12(1) FOIA – cost limit. Later, the university accepted that it did hold the information at part one and section 12(1) also applied. During the Commissioner’s investigation, the university additionally cited section 22(A) FOIA – research – to part two. The Commissioner’s decision is that the university correctly applied section 12(1) FOIA to the requested information. However, he has found the university to have breached section 16(1) FOIA as it neither offered advice and assistance to the complainant or explained why it could not do so. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12(1); FOI 16(1)
View The University of Bristol
10 Sep 2025Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
When submitting an FOI request to the London Borough of Hackney (the Council) the complainant also requested permission under RPSI to re-use the information sought. The Council did not respond to this re-use request within 20 working days, the timeframe required by regulation 8(1) of RPSI. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council therefore breached regulation 8(1) of RPSI.
Exemptions cited: RPSI 8
View London Borough of Hackney
10 Sep 2025Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to the London Borough of Hackney (the Council) seeking a list of all domestic properties within the borough, including the full address, the assigned Council Tax band, the Council's property reference, and the Unique Property Reference Number. The Council refused the request on the basis of sections 31(1)(a) (law enforcement) and 43(2) (commercial interests) of FOIA. During the course of the Commissioner’s investigation the Council disclosed the requested information. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council breached section 10(1) of FOIA by failing to provide the complainant with the requested information within 20 working days of his request.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View London Borough of Hackney
9 Sep 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about the Chimeric Antigen Receptors T-cell Therapy tariff. NHS England disclosed some information and withheld the remainder under section 41(1) of FOIA, which concerns information provided in confidence. The Commissioner’s decision is that section 41(1) has been correctly applied and he doesn’t require any further steps. Information Tribunal FT/EA/2025/0370 under appeal.
Exemptions cited: FOI 41(1)
View NHS England
9 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 Sunderland City Council
9 Sep 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested a copy of a Final Certificate issued in relation to works carried out on a named property. The London Borough of Croydon Council (the Council) refused the request citing regulations 13 (personal data) and 12(5)(d) (confidentiality of proceedings) of the EIR. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council was entitled to refuse the request by virtue of regulation 13 of the EIR. The Commissioner has however found a breach of regulation 14 of the EIR due to the Council’s failure to provide its response within the statutory time period. The Commissioner does not require any steps to be taken. Information Tribunal FT/EA/2025/0363 under appeal.
Exemptions cited: EIR 13
View London Borough of Croydon
9 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
9 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 Free London NHS Foundation Trust
9 Sep 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information primarily relating to the parents of the convicted Southport attacker. Lancashire Constabulary refused to confirm or deny that it held any of the requested information. It cited the FOIA ‘neither confirm nor deny’ (‘NCND’) provisions in sections 30(3) – investigations, 31(3) – law enforcement and 40(5) – personal information. During the course of the Commissioner’s investigation, Lancashire Constabulary additionally relied on the NCND provision contained in section 38(2) of FOIA - health and safety etc. The Commissioner’s decision is that Lancashire Constabulary was entitled to issue a ‘neither confirm nor deny’ response in accordance with section 40(5B)(a)(i) of FOIA for the reasons set out in this notice. As he has made this determination, he has not deemed it necessary to consider Lancashire Constabulary’s reliance on the other cited NCND provisions. No steps are required as a result of this decision.
Keywords: Public Inquiry
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View Lancashire Constabulary
9 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 Bromley Council
9 Sep 2025Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The Commissioner’s decision is that West Lindsey District Council (‘the Council’) correctly applied section 40(2) to one element of the requested information about its officers. That information is the officers’ personal data and disclosing it wouldn’t be lawful. However, the Council incorrectly applied section 40(2) to the remaining element. The Commissioner requires that the Council takes the following step to ensure compliance with the legislation: Disclose to the complainant the job titles they requested.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40(2)
View West Lindsey District Council
9 Sep 2025Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from Shropshire Council regarding flooding of the road outside or property [house number redacted] SY12 9QA.
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 Hampshire County Council
9 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 Westmorland and Furness Council
9 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
8 Sep 2025Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information relating to a letter sent to their client by the council. Rochdale Metropolitan Borough Council (“the council”) refused to confirm or deny whether any information is held by it under section 40(5B) of FOIA, (Personal data). The Commissioner’s decision is that the information falls within the definition of environmental information for the purposes of the EIR. Furthermore, the Commissioner has decided that the council was not able to rely upon the equivalent exception to section 40(5B) of FOIA, Regulation 13(5A), to neither confirm nor deny whether relevant information is held by it. The Commissioner requires the council to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: To issue a fresh response to the complainant under the EIR, without applying Regulation 13(5A).
Exemptions cited: EIR 13(5a)
View Rochdale Metropolitan Borough Council
8 Sep 2025Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from Hartlepool Borough Council about parking restrictions. 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 Hartlepool Council