16 Jul 2026Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to the General Dental Council’s (GDC) membership of the Diversity in Dentistry Action Group (DDAG). The GDC stated that it did not hold the requested information.
The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the GDC does not hold information falling within the scope of the request and has therefore complied with section 1(1) of FOIA.
The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1(1)
View General Dental Council
16 Jul 2026Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has made two requests for information about a complaint they made in 2021. West Rainton and Leamside Parish Council (“the Council”) refused the requests, citing section 14(1) (vexatious) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council is entitled to rely on section 14 to refuse the request. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14
15 Jul 2026Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from Sandwell and West Birmingham Hospitals NHS Trust relating to a thematic analysis undertaken by NHS Resolution in 2024. 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 Sandwell and West Birmingham Hospitals NHS Trust
15 Jul 2026Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested Department for Education (DfE) to disclose its full investigation report into Dorrington Academy. DfE refused to disclose the information citing sections 36(2)(b)(ii) and 36(2)(c) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that DfE was entitled to rely on section 36(2)(b)(ii) of FOIA. He has however recorded a breach of section 17(1) of FOIA. The Commissioner does not require further steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 36(2)(b)(ii); FOI 17(1)
View Department for Education
15 Jul 2026Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about staff salaries above a specified amount. Colwich Parish Council relied on section 40(5B) of FOIA (third party personal information) to refuse to confirm or deny that the information is held. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has correctly relied on section 40(5B) of FOIA to refuse to confirm or deny that the information is held. The Commissioner does not require further steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40(5)
15 Jul 2026Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The public authority has failed to complete its public interest test considerations within a reasonable time in accordance with its obligations under FOIA. The Commissioner requires it to provide a substantive response to the request within 30 calendar days in accordance with its obligations under FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 17
View Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office
15 Jul 2026Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from Chief Constable Humberside Police about a stop search record. 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 Humberside Police
14 Jul 2026Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant submitted a request to the London Borough of Enfield (the Council) seeking information about the Strategic Industrial Land masterplan at Meridian Water. The Council disclosed some information but sought to withhold the remainder of this on the basis of regulation 12(4)(d) (material in the course of completion, unfinished documents and incomplete data). The Commissioner’s decision is that Council is entitled to withhold this information on the basis of that exception. However, it breached regulations 5(2) and 11(2) by failing respond to the request and complete the internal review within time limits required by the legislation.
Exemptions cited: EIR 11(2); EIR 12(4)(d); EIR 5(2)
View Enfield Council
14 Jul 2026Complaint 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. 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
14 Jul 2026Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The Commissioner’s decision is that Ofgem is entitled to neither confirm nor deny whether it held information falling within parts b) to h) of the request for information about Customer Credit Balances under section 44(2) of FOIA. This exemption concerns prohibitions on disclosure. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 44(2)
View Office of Gas and Electricity Markets
14 Jul 2026Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted an information request to The National Archives (TNA) for six judgements published on the Find Case Law website, requesting them in Word document format.
TNA applied section 21(information accessible to applicant via other means) of FOIA to the six judgements, and applied section 40(2) (third-party personal data) of FOIA to the metadata contained within the Word documents.
The Commissioner’s decision is that TNA was entitled to rely upon sections 21 and 40(2). Given this decision, section 11 of FOIA which concerns the means of communicating the information is not relevant.
The Commissioner does not require further steps, as a result of this notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 21; FOI 40(2)
View The National Archives
14 Jul 2026Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information about a specific planning application. London Borough of Croydon (the Council) provided some information and stated that all other information relevant to the request was publicly available and as such regulation 6(1)(b) (form and format) of the EIR applied. The complainant raised concerns that the Council held additional information other than that which it disclosed and that which was publicly available. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council breached regulation 5(1) of the EIR because it holds environmental information falling within the scope of the request which it neither disclosed nor made available under regulation 6(1)(b). The Commissioner requires the Council to disclose the planning application form submitted on 8 December 2020 together with any accompanying documents submitted with that application, with any personal data redacted in accordance with regulation 13 of the EIR.
Exemptions cited: EIR 5(1); EIR 6
View London Borough of Croydon
14 Jul 2026Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about a residential parking permit scheme recently introduced around a local school. Knowsley Metropolitan Borough Council (the Council) disclosed some information and provided links to information available online. The complainant believed it held further information it had not disclosed. The Commissioner’s decision is that on the balance of probabilities, the Council has identified all the information it holds falling within the scope of the request and has either disclosed it or provided access to it. However, it breached section 10 of FOIA by failing to respond to the request within the statutory time for compliance.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10
View Knowsley Council
14 Jul 2026Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information from Staffordshire Counyty Council (SCC) relating to green space known in Madeley Crewe Cheshire as College Fields which forms part of the land currently leased to Madeley High School Academy Trust. The SCC has failed to respond to this request within 20 working days, as specified under the EIR. The Commissioner requires it to provide the complainant with a response to this request within 30 calendar days in accordance with its obligations under EIR.
Exemptions cited: EIR 5(2)
View Staffordshire County Council
14 Jul 2026Complaint 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. 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
14 Jul 2026Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to the London Borough of Brent (the Council) seeking information about its investigation into a number of properties he had previously raised concerns about. The Council provided some information in response to the complainant but sought to withhold further correspondence on the basis of sections 30(1)(a) and (b) (investigations), 40(2) (personal data) and 41(1) (information provided in confidence). The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council breached section 1(1)(a) by failing to clearly confirm to the complainant whether it held information falling within the individual parts of his request. However, the Commissioner is satisfied that the information which has been withheld is exempt from disclosure on the basis of sections 30(1)(a) and (b).
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 30
View London Borough of Brent
13 Jul 2026Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested from the London Borough of Richmond upon Thames (the Council) information about the name of an overseas manufacturer of solar panels in relation to the Richmond Cycle Hub project.
The Council responded that it did not hold the requested information.
The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the Council does not hold information within the scope of the request and has therefore complied with section 1(1) of FOIA. The Commissioner is also satisfied that the requested information is not held by SWR on the Council’s behalf under section 3(2)(b).
The Commissioner does not require further steps to be taken by the Council in relation to this complaint.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 3(2)(b)
View Richmond upon Thames Council
13 Jul 2026Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about Prevent from the Home Office. The Home Office provided some information but withheld the remainder citing section 24(1) (National security) of FOIA. During the Commissioner’s investigation, it further relied on section 23(1) (Information supplied by or relating to bodies dealing with security matters) and 40(2) (Personal information) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that all three exemptions are properly engaged. No steps are required.
Exemptions cited: FOI 23; FOI 24; FOI 40
View Home Office
13 Jul 2026Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from the Home Office about a surveillance tower. The Home Office ultimately provided some information and advised that some information was not held. It said that the remaining information was exempt from disclosure, citing sections 31(1)(a), (b) and (e) (Law enforcement) and 21(1) (Information available by other means) of FOIA. The Commissioner has investigated the application of section 31 of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Home Office was entitled to rely on section 31 to withhold the related information. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: FOI 31
View Home Office
13 Jul 2026Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about the variable speed limit signage (VSL) displayed at a particular date, time and location. National Highways withheld the requested information, citing section 31 (Law enforcement) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that National Highways was entitled to rely on sections 31(1)(a), (b) and (c) to refuse the request and that the balance of the public interest favours maintaining the exemption.
Exemptions cited: FOI 31
View National Highways
13 Jul 2026Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested the cost estimate to establish a single portal for publishing all government department transparency returns, which cover meetings, gifts, hospitality and travel. The Cabinet Office initially relied on section 35(1)(a) (formulation or development of government policy) FOIA to withhold the information. At internal review, the Cabinet Office changed its position to rely on both section 35(1)(a) and section 43(2) (commercial interests).
The Commissioner’s decision is that the Cabinet Office is entitled to rely on section35(1)(a) as its basis for withholding the information and the public interest favours maintaining the exemption. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 35(1)(a)
View Cabinet Office
13 Jul 2026Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to historical child abuse at two named Detention Centres. The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) relied on section 12(2) (cost of compliance) of FOIA to refuse the request, on the basis that it would exceed the appropriate limit to determine whether it holds the information. The Commissioner’s decision is that the MoJ was entitled to rely on section 12(2) to refuse the request. The Commissioner also finds that the MoJ complied with its obligation to provide advice and assistance in accordance with section 16 (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 12
View Ministry of Justice
13 Jul 2026Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from Maidstone and Tunbridge Wells NHS Trust. The public authority has failed to respond to this request within 20 working days. 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 Maidstone and Tunbridge Wells NHS Trust
13 Jul 2026Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information from the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham (“the Council”) relating to the proposed implementation of a cycleway. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council is entitled to rely on regulation 13(1) (personal data) of the EIR to withhold some information within the scope of the request. However, he finds that the Council is not entitled to rely on regulation 13(1) of the EIR to withhold the names and email addresses of senior Council officers and Councillors. Furthermore, the Commissioner’s decision is that the Council is entitled to rely on regulation 12(5)(f) (interests of the person who provided the information to the public authority) of the EIR to withhold some information within the scope of the request, that being information that would identify the third party individuals who provided information to the Council. However, he finds that the Council is not entitled to rely on regulation 12(5)(f) of the EIR to withhold the remainder o
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(f); EIR 13(1); EIR 5(1)
View Hammersmith and Fulham Council
10 Jul 2026Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested planning and legal correspondence about a retrospective planning application. The Council refused the request under regulation 12(4)(b) of the EIR as manifestly unreasonable. The complainant disputed that reliance and raised concerns about the Council’s handling of the request.
The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council was entitled to rely on regulation 12(4)(b) to withhold information in scope of the request and that the public interest favours maintaining the exception. However, the Council breached regulation 14 of the EIR by failing to issue its refusal notice within 20 working days.
The Commissioner does not require the Council to take any steps as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(b)
View Worcester City Council
10 Jul 2026Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested details of all payments made over £25,000. Barnsley Hospital NHS Foundation Trust (‘the trust’) disclosed some information and withheld supplier names under sections 43(2), 31(1)(a), 41(1) and 40(2) of FOIA. These exemptions concern commercial interests, law enforcement, information provided in confidence and personal data, respectively. The Commissioner’s decision is that the trust is entitled to withhold the supplier names under section 31(1)(a) of FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 31(1)(a)
View Barnsley Hospital NHS Foundation Trust
10 Jul 2026Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information about parking and traffic charge appeals from Parking and Traffic Regulations Outside London (PATROL) (“the public authority”). The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the public authority holds no further recorded information relevant to the complainant’s request and has complied with section 1 of FOIA. The Commissioner also finds a breach of section 10 (timescale for compliance) of FOIA. The Commissioner does not require further steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10
10 Jul 2026Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted an information request to the Department of Education for Northern Ireland (DENI) for copies of correspondence between the Education Minister and the Head of NCIS between two dates in 2024.
DENI withheld the requested information under sections 35(1)(a) (formulation or development of government policy), 40(2) (third-party personal data), and 35(1)(d) (operation of ministerial office) of FOIA.
The Commissioner’s decision is that section 35(1)(a) is not engaged but that DENI was correct to withhold the whole of the requested information under section 40(2) of FOIA. The Commissioner also finds that, in failing to respond to the request within the statutory timescale, DENI breached sections 1(1), 10(1) and 17(1) of FOIA.
The Commissioner does not require further steps, as a result of this notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1(1); FOI 10(1); FOI 17; FOI 35(1)(a); FOI 40(2)
View Department of Education (Northern Ireland)
10 Jul 2026Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested copies of communications between the Oxford Internet Institute’s Director and researchers, and representatives of Facebook/Meta and Google/Alphabet. The University relied on sections 40(2) and 41 of FOIA to withhold information.
The Commissioner’s decision is that the University was entitled to withhold the information in scope of the request under sections 40(2) and 41 of FOIA.
No steps are required as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40(2); FOI 41
View The University of Oxford
10 Jul 2026Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from Surrey Police about a review of SCARF (Single Combined Assessment of Risk Form) undertaken by multi-agency partners, including the police. Surrey Police considered the requested information exempt from disclosure under section 14(1) (vexatious requests) of FOIA.
The Commissioner’s decision is that the request was not vexatious and Surrey Police was not entitled to rely on section 14(1) of FOIA to refuse to comply with the request.
The Commissioner requires Surrey Police to take the following step to ensure compliance with the legislation:
• Either disclose the information or issue the complainant with a fresh response to the request that does not rely on section 14(1) of FOIA.
Surrey Police must take this step within 30 calendar days of the date of this decision notice. Failure to comply may result in the Commissioner making written certification of this fact to the High Court pursuant to section 54 of the Act and may be dealt with as a conte
Exemptions cited: FOI 14(1)
View Surrey Police
10 Jul 2026Complaint 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 Dudley Council
10 Jul 2026Complaint 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 Ministry of Defence
10 Jul 2026Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a multi-part request to the council seeking a range of information concerning council tax, the status of the council, the identities of officers involved in responding to previous correspondence and copies of receipts and supporting documentation relating to council expenditure. The council answered several questions asked and stated information was not held for some of the questions. The council refused to provide information under section 21 FOIA as the information was accessible to the applicant via links provided. The council also refused to provide names of officers under section 40(2) FOIA and relied on section 14 in relation to receipts of expenditure. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council was entitled to rely on sections 21(1), 40(2) and 14(1) FOIA. No steps are required.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14; FOI 21; FOI 40
View Central Bedfordshire Council
10 Jul 2026Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from Cornwall Council about accessible properties. A public authority will breach section 10 of FOIA if it fails to respond to a request within 20 working days. Based on evidence available to the Commissioner, the public authority did not provide a valid response within the statutory time frame. Therefore the Commissioner finds a breach of section 10.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Cornwall Council
10 Jul 2026Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information relating to a planning application. London Borough of Croydon (the Council) provided some information falling within the scope of the request.
The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council failed to comply with regulation 5(1) because, on the balance of probabilities, the Council has not demonstrated that all information falling within the scope of the request has been identified.
The Commissioner requires the Council to issue a fresh response to the request.
In doing so, the Council must carry out adequate and appropriately targeted searches for all information falling within the scope of the request, including any emails, notes, records and correspondence referred to in the documents identified by the complainant, and either
disclose any information identified or issue a refusal notice which complies with regulation 14 of the EIR.
Exemptions cited: EIR 5(1)
View London Borough of Croydon
10 Jul 2026Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information about a property tribunal hearing. The Ministry of Justice (MOJ) applied section 14(1) of FOIA (vexatious requests) and refused the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the request was vexatious, and therefore the MOJ correctly relied on section 14(1) of FOIA to refuse it. The Commissioner does not require any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14(1)
View Ministry of Justice
10 Jul 2026Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information relating to plant and animal control substances used by Network Rail. Network Rail refused the request under regulation 12(4)(b) of the EIR as manifestly unreasonable.
The Commissioner’s decision is that Network Rail was correct to apply regulation 12(4)(b) to refuse the request.
The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(b)
9 Jul 2026Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information from London Borough of Lambeth about the complainant’s appeal. The Commissioner’s decision is that the public authority has breached regulation 11 of the EIR by failing to provide a reconsideration (internal review) of a response within 40 working days. The Commissioner requires it to provide the complainant with the internal review within 30 calendar days in accordance with its obligations under the EIR.
Exemptions cited: EIR 11
View London Borough of Lambeth
9 Jul 2026Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The Commissioner’s decision is that the requested information about houses built by Advance Northumberland is excepted from disclosure under regulation 12(5)(e) of the EIR. Advance Northumberland incorrectly handled the request under FOIA, however, and so its refusal notice did not comply with the requirements of regulation 14(3). The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(e); EIR 14(3)
9 Jul 2026Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about Research and Development (R&D) tax credit claims. HM Revenue and Customs (“HMRC”) withheld some information within scope of the request with reliance on section 31(1)(d) and stated that the remainder was not held. The Commissioner’s decision is that HMRC was entitled to rely on section 31(1)(d) to withhold information within scope of the request and that it does not hold information within scope of the remaining parts of the request. The Commissioner finds a breach of section 17(1) in respect of the complainant’s reframed and clarified request of 29 May 2025. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 17(1); FOI 31(1)(d)
View HM Revenue & Customs
9 Jul 2026Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested from Invest Northern Ireland (INI) information relating to Dalradian Gold Ltd . INI disclosed some of the information but withheld the names and contact details of junior staff and cited regulation 13(1) (third party personal data) of the EIR. Regarding part two of the request, INI stated information is not held.
The Commissioner’s decision is that INI was entitled to withhold some information under regulation 13(1) of the EIR. Regarding part two of the request, on the balance of probabilities, INI does not hold recorded information within scope of this part of the request. The Commissioner is satisfied that INI complied with its duty under regulation 5(1) of the EIR by virtue of the exception at regulation 12(4)(a) (information not held). Therefore, the Commissioner does not require the INI to take any steps as a result to this decision.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(a); EIR 13(1)
View Invest Northern Ireland
9 Jul 2026Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about communications exchanged over a one-year period between a regional group of the Department for Education (DfE) and a named education provider, and with the office of a senior official of DfE, concerning governance. DfE has refused to either confirm or deny whether it holds the requested information under section 36(3) of FOIA (prejudice to effective conduct of public affairs). It considers the public interest favours maintaining this position. The Commissioner’s decision is as follows:
• DfE is entitled to rely on section 36(3) to neither confirm nor deny whether it holds information falling within the terms of the request, and the balance of the public interest favours maintaining this exemption.
The Commissioner does not require any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 36(3)
View Department for Education
9 Jul 2026Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested a copy of a noise management plan. The London Borough of Havering (the Council) refused to disclose the information, relying on the exception at regulation 12(5)(f) (interests of the person who provided the information) of the EIR. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council was not entitled to rely on regulation 12(5)(f) to refuse the request. The Commissioner requires the public authority to disclose the requested information to the complainant.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(f); EIR 5
View London Borough of Havering
9 Jul 2026Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested the information reportedly provided by MI6 to author Michael Shelden while researching his biography of Graham Greene.
The Commissioner’s decision is that the Cabinet Office is entitled to rely on section 23(5), information supplied by, or relating to, bodies dealing with security matters, to refuse to confirm or deny whether it holds the information.
The Commissioner does not require the Cabinet Office to take any further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 23
View Cabinet Office
9 Jul 2026Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from the London Borough of Havering on 21 April 2026. 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 within 30 calendar days of the date of this decision notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View London Borough of Havering
9 Jul 2026Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information about Winstanley Hall and related development proposals. Wigan Metropolitan Borough Council disclosed some information but withheld further information under regulations 12(4)(d), 12(4)(e), 12(5)(e) and 12(5)(f) of the EIR. The Commissioner found that the council had failed to demonstrate that regulations 12(4)(d), 12(5)(e) or 12(5)(f) were engaged. Although some information appeared capable of falling within regulation 12(4)(e), the council failed to identify adequately the information to which the exception applied and failed to demonstrate that the public interest favoured maintaining the exception. The Commissioner also found that the council breached regulation 14(5)(a) of the EIR because it did not adequately explain its reliance on the exceptions. The Commissioner requires the council to disclose the withheld information, subject to the redaction of any personal data in accordance with regulation 13 of the EIR.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(d); EIR 12(4)(e); EIR 12(5)(e); EIR 12(5)(f); EIR 14(5)(a)
View Wigan Council
9 Jul 2026Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information from Cotswold District Council (“the Council”) relating to a specific planning application.
2. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council is entitled to rely on regulation 12(5)(e) (commercial or industrial information) to withhold the requested information.
3. The Commissioner does not require the Council to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(e)
View Cotswold District Council
9 Jul 2026Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested from Health and Safety Executive Northern Ireland (HSENI) information relating to Dalradian Gold Ltd. HSENI confirmed it does not hold information to each part of the request.
The Commissioner’s decision is that on the balance of probabilities, HSENI does not hold recorded information within the scope of the request. He is satisfied that HSENI complied with its duty under regulation 5(1) of the EIR by virtue of the exception at regulation 12(4)(a) (information not held) and the exception is therefore engaged.
The Commissioner does not require HSENI to take any steps as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(a); EIR 5(1)
8 Jul 2026Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information in relation to a complaint they submitted to Companies House. The Commissioner’s decision is that Companies House should have refused to confirm or deny whether it held the requested information under section 40(5) of FOIA. The Commissioner does not require Companies House to take further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 40
View Companies House
8 Jul 2026Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
1. The complainant has requested information which constitutes correspondence relating to football rules from the Competition and Markets Authority (“CMA”.) The CMA refused to disclose the requested information under sections 31 and 44(1)(a) of FOIA.
2. The Commissioner’s decision is that the CMA has correctly applied section 44(1)(a) FOIA in this case.
3. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 44
View Competition and Markets Authority