8 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 GMC
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
8 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
8 Sep 2025Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from the Foreign Commonwealth and Development Office. 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
5 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 Ambulance Service NHS Trust
5 Sep 2025Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from Nightingale Medical Centre regarding the treatment and management of ADHD patients at the Nightingale Practice.
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
5 Sep 2025Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from West Sussex Fire and Rescue Service, which for the purposes of FOIA, is part of West Sussex County Council (“the Council”), relating to incidents in which it had failed to meet response standards. The Council’s position is that it does not hold the information requested. The complainant disputes this. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the Council holds some information within the scope of the request. The Commissioner requires the Council to take the following step to ensure compliance with the legislation: Carry out further searches designed to identify any information held within the scope of the request and issue a fresh response to the complainant.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1(1)
View West Sussex County Council
5 Sep 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about the salaries and responsibilities of senior civil servants. The Department for Work and Pensions (“the DWP”) provided some of the information but exempted some under sections 21 (information reasonably accessible by other means) and section 40 (personal data). The Commissioner’s decision is that the DWP has complied with its obligations under the FOIA. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Department for Work and Pensions
4 Sep 2025Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
On 20 May 2025 the complainant requested information regarding works carried out for fire prevention and safety. London Borough of Southwark failed to acknowledge or respond to the request despite a number of chasers from the requester.
A public authority will breach section 10 of FOIA if it fails to respond to a request within 20 working days. Based on the evidence available 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. 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 Southwark Council
4 Sep 2025Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to Palantir Technologies UK Ltd. Cambridgeshire Constabulary would neither confirm nor deny (NCND) whether it held the requested information, citing sections 24(2) (National security) and 31(3) (Law enforcement) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that neither exemption is engaged. The Commissioner requires Cambridgeshire Constabulary 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.
Exemptions cited: FOI 24; FOI 31
4 Sep 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information regarding the performance of training providers delivering HGV Skills Bootcamps. The Department for Education (DfE) refused the request under section 43 of FOIA.
The Commissioner’s decision is that the DfE was entitled to engage section 43(2) to withhold information in scope of the request and the balance of the public interest favours maintaining the exemption in this case.
The Commissioner does not require any steps as a result of this decision. Information Tribunal FT/EA/2025/0341 under appeal.
Exemptions cited: FOI 43
View Department for Education
4 Sep 2025Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The Commissioner’s decision is that the Climate Change Committee (CCC) doesn’t hold certain information about emissions that the complainant has requested and that regulation 12(4)(a) of the EIR is engaged in that respect (information not held). However, the CCC didn’t comply with regulation 14(2) as it didn’t refuse these elements of the request under that exception within the required timescale. The timeliness of the CCC’s internal review response also didn’t comply with regulation 11(4). The Commissioner doesn’t require further steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 11(4); EIR 12(4)(a); EIR 14(2)
View Committee on Climate Change
4 Sep 2025Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to Palantir Technologies UK Ltd. Nottinghamshire Police would neither confirm nor deny (NCND) whether it held the requested information, citing sections 24(2) (National security) and 31(3) (Law enforcement) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that neither exemption is engaged. The Commissioner requires Nottinghamshire Police 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.
Exemptions cited: FOI 24; FOI 31
View Nottinghamshire Police
4 Sep 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to a Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service (MPTS) hearing about a named doctor. The General Medical Council (GMC) withheld the requested information under section 40(2) of FOIA on the basis that the requested information is third party personal data, and its disclosure would breach data protection law. The Commissioner’s decision is that the GMC is entitled to withhold this information in accordance with section 40(2) of FOIA. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps as a result of this decision notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40(2)
4 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 Department for Education
4 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
4 Sep 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from the BBC about complaints relating to articles and appearances by Jeremy Bowen. 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
4 Sep 2025Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to Palantir Technologies UK Ltd. Surrey Police would neither confirm nor deny (NCND) whether it held the requested information, citing sections 24(2) (National security) and 31(3) (Law enforcement) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that neither exemption is engaged. The Commissioner requires Surrey Police 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.
Exemptions cited: FOI 24; FOI 31
View Surrey Police
4 Sep 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information in respect of correspondence with past and present chief constables of the public authority in respect of Operation Magnolia.
The public authority relied on section 12(1) (cost limit) of FOIA to refuse the request.
The Commissioner’s decision is that the public authority was entitled to refuse to comply with the request in accordance with section 12(1).
The Commissioner finds that the public authority did not breach section 17 of FOIA as it did not fail to issue its refusal notice within 20 working days.
The Commissioner finds that the public authority complied with its obligations under section 16 of FOIA to offer advice and assistance.
No steps are required.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 12; FOI 16; FOI 17(1)
View Cleveland Police
4 Sep 2025Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to Palantir Technologies UK Ltd. Hertfordshire Constabulary would neither confirm nor deny (NCND) whether it held the requested information, citing sections 24(2) (National security) and 31(3) (Law enforcement) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that neither exemption is engaged. The Commissioner requires Hertfordshire Constabulary 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.
Exemptions cited: FOI 24; FOI 31
4 Sep 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested specific information from the Residential Property Southern Region - First Tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) (the “Southern Property Tribunal”). The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) denied holding the requested information.
The Commissioner’s decision is that the information sought by the complainant is not held by the MoJ for the purposes of FOIA and that the MoJ is entitled to rely on section 3(2)(a) (public authorities) of FOIA.
The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: FOI 3(2)
View Ministry of Justice
4 Sep 2025Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to Palantir Technologies UK Ltd. West Midlands Police would neither confirm nor deny (NCND) whether it held the requested information, citing sections 24(2) (National security) and 31(3) (Law enforcement) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that neither exemption is engaged. The Commissioner requires West Midlands Police 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.
Exemptions cited: FOI 24; FOI 31
View West Midlands Police
3 Sep 2025Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant submitted a request to the City of Westminster (the Council) seeking documentation about the ownership of particular pieces of infrastructure on a pavement in the borough. The Council explained that it did not hold any such documentation. The Commissioner’s decision is that on the balance of probabilities the Council does not hold any documentation of the nature requested by the complainant. However, in handling the complainant’s requests the Commissioner has found that the Council breached regulations 11(4) (time limits for an internal review) and 5(2) (time limit for responding to a request).
Exemptions cited: EIR 11(4); EIR 12(4)(a); EIR 5(2)
View Westminster Council
3 Sep 2025Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information concerning meetings between Thames Water and the Department for Environment Food & Rural Affairs (Defra) and a round table meeting with Defra. Defra provided some information in a redacted form, applying regulations 12(4)(e) – internal communications - and 12(5)(e) – confidentiality of commercial and industrial information - of the EIR to the withheld information. The Commissioner’s decision is that regulation 12(4)(e) of the EIR is engaged but that the public interest favours the disclosure of some of the withheld information. He does not accept that regulation 12(5)(e) of the EIR is engaged. The Commissioner requires Defra to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. Information Tribunal FT/EA/2025/0355 under appeal.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(e); EIR 12(5)(e)
3 Sep 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to the Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office (FCDO) seeking information about two meetings between the then Foreign Secretary, William Hague, and representatives of the International Committee of the Red Cross. The FCDO initially refused the request on the basis of section 12 (cost limit) but withdrew this at internal review. At that stage it explained that no information could be located for one meeting and for the other meeting whilst information had been found this was exempt disclosure on the basis of sections 27(1)(a), 27(1)(b) and 27(2) (international relations), and section 40(2) (personal data) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the withheld information is exempt from disclosure on the basis of section 27(1)(b) of FOIA and that the public interest favours withholding the information.
Exemptions cited: FOI 27
3 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)
3 Sep 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information about Ofgem’s investigation into Drax Power Ltd (Drax). Ofgem withheld reports commissioned by Drax and conducted by KPMG under regulations 12(5)(b), 12(5)(e) and 12(5)(d) EIR. The Commissioner’s decision is that the withheld information is excepted from disclosure under regulation 12(5)(b) EIR which concerns the course of justice. The balance of the public interest lies in maintaining the exception and withholding the information. No steps are required.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(b)
View Office of Gas and Electricity Markets
3 Sep 2025Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested various information about a ditch and culvert running alongside their property and an alleged encroachment on a village green. Horningsea Parish Council (the Council) provided some information, stated other information was not held and withheld some information under section 42 (legal professional privilege) of the FOIA and section 40(2) (personal data) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the requested information is environmental information within the definition at regulations 2(1)(a) and 2(1)(c) of the EIR. The request should, therefore, have been handled by the Council under the EIR rather than the FOIA. The Commissioner requires the Council to reconsider the request under the provisions of the EIR and issue a fresh response to the complainant.
Exemptions cited: EIR 2
3 Sep 2025Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested, from the Cabinet Office, the names of people who reviewed a witness statement that was made by a named senior civil servant, and information about any contact between that person and former Prime Ministers Theresa May or Boris Johnson since a certain date in December 2022. The Cabinet Office refused the request on the basis of section 14(1) of FOIA (vexatious or repeated requests). The Commissioner’s decision is that the Cabinet Office was correct to rely on section 14(1) of FOIA to refuse the complainant’s request of 21 November 2024; he also finds that the Cabinet Office breached section 17(5) of FOIA (refusal of request), as it failed to issue its refusal notice stating its reliance on section 14(1) within 20 working days of receiving the request. The Commissioner doesn’t require any steps. Information Tribunal FT/EA/2025/0351 under appeal.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14(1); FOI 17(5)
View Cabinet Office
3 Sep 2025Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested MHRA to disclose the Suspected Unexpected Serious Adverse Reactions (SUSARs) reports concerning the Moderna products mRNA-1345 and mRNA-1365. MHRA refused to disclose the requested information citing section 22A (research information), 38(1)(a) (health and safety) and 44 (prohibitions on disclosure) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that MHRA is entitled to rely on section 22A of FOIA. It however breached section 10 and 17 of FOIA by 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/2025/0350 under appeal.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 17; FOI 22A
View Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency
3 Sep 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information relating to dredging at Hayle Harbour. Cornwall Council (the “council”) refused the request on cost grounds, citing the exception in regulation 12(4)(b) of the EIR. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council was entitled to refuse the request on cost grounds under regulation 12(4)(b) and that it complied with the duty to provide advice and assistance under regulation 9. The Commissioner does not require the council to take further steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(b); EIR 9
View Cornwall Council
2 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 Department for Education
2 Sep 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested the trust to disclose the written report and the dates it was sent to the Care Quality Commission (CQC), relating to a complaint they made about a senior member of staff. The trust disclosed the relevant dates but confirmed that it does not hold a written report. The complainant disputed the dates given and that the trust does not hold a written report. The Commissioner’s decision is that on the balance of probabilities the trust has disclosed the recorded information it holds surrounding the dates the CQC was informed of the complaint and its outcome. He is also satisfied that on the balance of probabilities the trust does not hold a written report. The Commissioner does not require further steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Bradford District Care NHS Trust
2 Sep 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to complaints made to South Tyneside Council (the Council) about a named company. The Council refused to confirm or deny whether the requested information is held, citing section 44(2) (prohibitions on disclosure) of FOIA. It argued that to confirm or deny whether the information is held would breach the statutory prohibition on disclosure created by section 237 of the Enterprise Act 2002 (the Enterprise Act). The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council correctly applied section 44(2) to neither confirm nor deny whether the requested information is held. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: FOI 44
View South Tyneside Council
2 Sep 2025Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested various information about a noise nuisance issue present at their property. Gateshead Council (the Council) provided some information and withheld other information under regulation 12(5)(b) (course of justice) of the EIR. During the course of the Commissioner’s investigation, the Council confirmed that it was also relying on regulations 12(4)(e) (internal communications), 12(5)(d) (confidentiality of proceedings) and regulation 13(1) (personal data) of the EIR in relation to some information held relevant to the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that some of the withheld information, namely the Arriva noise assessment reports, constitutes information on emissions and as such regulations 12(5)(b) and 12(5)(d) of the EIR are not engaged in respect of this information. The Commissioner has also concluded that some of the withheld information constitutes the complainant’s own personal data, and as such regulation 5(3) of the EIR applies. Finally, the Commis
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(b); EIR 12(5)(d); EIR 5(3)
View Gateshead Council
1 Sep 2025Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
1. The complainant requested information relating to communications about a publication regarding Child Sexual Exploitation (CSE) from Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council (“the council”). The council relied on section 14(1) of FOIA (vexatious request) to refuse the request.
2. The Commissioner’s decision is that the request was not vexatious and therefore the council was not entitled to rely upon section 14(1) of FOIA to refuse it.
3. The Commissioner requires the council to take the following step to ensure compliance with the legislation.
• Issue a fresh response, to the request that does not rely on section 14(1) of FOIA.
4. 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.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14(1)
View Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council
1 Sep 2025Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information held by Shropshire Council (the council) about changes made to a local bus service. The council said that it did not hold the specific information requested by the complainant. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council holds a small amount of information that falls within scope of the complainant’s request. Whilst he considers that this information was reasonably accessible to the public at the time that the request was received, this was no longer the case by the end of the statutory time period that the council should have dealt with the request (20 working days). However, the Commissioner is satisfied that the council still held this information, and it should therefore have been provided to the complainant in response to their request. The Commissioner considers that, on the balance of probabilities, the council does not hold any other information falling within scope of the complainant’s request. As the council failed to confirm to the c
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10
View Shropshire Council
1 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
1 Sep 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information following two meetings between Lord Johnson and named participants in 2023 and 2024. The Department for Business and Trade (‘DBT’) disclosed the information it held in ‘Annexes A to D’ with redactions under a number of FOIA exemptions. Ultimately, the complainant was only concerned with the information in Annex C redacted under section 27(1) (the FOIA exemption for international relations). Specifically, the redactions in Annex C were withheld by DBT under FOIA exemptions section 27(1)(a) – relations between the United Kingdom and any other State, 27(1)(c) – the interests of the United Kingdom abroad and 27(1)(d) – the promotion or protection by the United Kingdom of its interests abroad. The Commissioner’s decision is that DBT has properly relied on sections 27(1)(a), (c) and (d) of FOIA for the redactions in Annex C. No steps are required as a result of this notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 27
View Department for Business and Trade
1 Sep 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested National Highways (NH) to disclose information relating to grade separation on the A406 and A10. NH initially handled the request under FOIA but later acknowledged that it should have been handled under the EIR. It changed its position from refusing the request under section 12 of FOIA (cost limit) to regulation 12(4)(b) of the EIR (manifestly unreasonable). The Commissioner’s decision is that NH is entitled to refuse to comply with the request in accordance with regulation 12(4)(b) of the EIR. He is also satisfied that it complied with its obligations under regulation 9 by providing appropriate advice and assistance. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(b); EIR 9
View National Highways
1 Sep 2025Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a multipart request for various costs and revenue information in respect of Specific Operations Risk Assessment (SORA), including Digitising Specific Category Operations (DiSCO) and Pre-Defined Risk Assessment (PDRA) applications from the Civil Aviation Authority (the CAA). The CAA provided some information but withheld some items of the request under section 43(2) (commercial interests) of the FOIA and other information on the basis of section 12 (costs exceed the appropriate limit) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the CAA failed to demonstrate that section 12 is engaged in respect of item 2 of the request. The Commissioner does however accept that the CAA was entitled to rely on section 43(2) in respect of items 1b, 4a and 10b of the request. The Commissioner requires CAA to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: issue a fresh response to items 2a and 2b of the request which does not rely on section 12 of the FOIA
Exemptions cited: FOI 12(1); FOI 43
View Civil Aviation Authority
1 Sep 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to the housing of illegal migrants. The Home Office refused the request, citing section 12 (cost of compliance) of FOIA. 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 requires no steps to be taken as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12
View Home Office
1 Sep 2025Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested email correspondence between two named individuals. The University of Surrey (‘the University’) relied on section 40 of FOIA (personal information) and section 43(2) of FOIA (commercial interests) to withhold the requested information. The Commissioner’s decision is that the University was entitled to rely on section 43(2) of FOIA to withhold the requested information. The Commissioner also finds that finds that the University didn’t comply with section 1(1)(a) of FOIA by failing to confirm it held all the information within the scope of the request within 20 working days.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 43(2)
View The University of Surrey
28 Aug 2025Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to The Civil Aviation Authority (the CAA) for information relating to the Air Travel Organiser’s Licensing (ATOL) scheme.
The Commissioner’s decision is that the CAA was entitled to rely upon section 44(1)(a) of FOIA (prohibitions on disclosure) via the statutory prohibition on disclosure created by section 23 of the Civil Aviation Act 1982. In relation to question seven, the Commissioner’s decision is that the CAA does not hold further information, and that it complied with its section 16 (advice and assistance) obligations. However, in failing to confirm that information, in relation to question seven, was held within the statutory timescale, the CAA breached sections 1(1)(a) and 10(1) of FOIA. Information Tribunal FT/EA/2025/0348 under appeal.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 1(1)(a); FOI 10; FOI 16; FOI 44(1)(a)
View Civil Aviation Authority
28 Aug 2025Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to the New Hospital Programme. The Department of Health and Social Care (‘DHSC’) withheld information under section 21 (information reasonably accessible via other means), section 36(2)(c) (prejudice to the effective
conduct of public affairs) and section 43(2) (commercial interests). The Commissioner’s decision is that the withheld information is exempt under section 36(2)(c). However, DHSC breached section 10 (timescale for compliance with the request). The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 36(2)(c)
View Department of Health and Social Care
22 Aug 2025Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from Liverpool City Council regarding Liverpool Area Special Educational Needs and Disability Strategy 2023-2026.
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 Liverpool City Council
22 Aug 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information on patient safety incidents from NHS England (NHSE). NHSE confirmed the requested information was intended for future publication, and applied section 22(1) of FOIA to withhold the information. The Commissioner’s decision is that NHSE was entitled to rely on section 22(1) FOIA to withhold the information. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 22
View NHS England
22 Aug 2025Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
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 parts 1-6 of the request. Therefore the Commissioner finds a breach of section 10. 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 parts 7-9 of the request. Therefore the Commissioner finds a breach of regulation 5(2). The public authority must provide a substantive response to parts 1-6 of the request in accordance with its obligations under FOIA. It must also provide a substantive response to parts 7-9 of the request in accordance with its obligations under the EIR. The public authority must take this step within 30 calendar days of the
Exemptions cited: EIR 5(2); FOI 10
View Hertsmere Borough Council
22 Aug 2025Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information from the London Borough of Lambeth (“the Council”) relating to a Growth and Investment Panel (GIP) and a proposed housing development.
The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council is not entitled to rely on regulation 12(4)(e) (internal communications) to refuse to provide the withheld information. He also finds that the Council breached regulation 11 (reconsideration) of the EIR by failing to complete its internal review within 40 working days. The Commissioner requires the Council to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. Disclose the withheld information making appropriate personal data redactions as described at paragraph 22 in this notice. The Council must take these steps within 30 calendar days of the date of this decision notice. Failure to comply may result in the Commissioner making written certification of this fact to the High Court pursuant to section 54 of the Act and may be dealt with as a contempt of
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(e)
View London Borough of Lambeth