12 Aug 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information from Cornwall Council (“the Council”) regarding dredging activities at Hayle Harbour estuary and beaches. The Council’s position is that it has now disclosed all of the information it holds within the scope of the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the Council does not hold further information within the scope of the request. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 5(1)
View Cornwall Council
12 Aug 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested a copy of a report by KPMG into a cyber attack on Synnovis in 2024. NHS South East London Integrated Care Board (the ICB) advised it did not commission a report as described and therefore was unable to provide a copy as requested.
The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the ICB does not hold the requested information.
The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View NHS South East London ICB
12 Aug 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to the considerations made towards pay and allowances for dog handlers. The Office for the Pay Body Review Bodies (OPBR) – acting on behalf of the Prison Service Pay Review Body - withheld the information and cited sections 36(2)(b)(i) & (ii) as its basis for doing so.
The Commissioner’s decision is that the OPBR was entitled to withhold the information under sections 36(2)(b)(i) & (ii) of FOIA.
The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 36(2)(b)(i); FOI 36(2)(b)(ii)
View Prison Service Pay Review Body
12 Aug 2025Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested from the Charity Commission information about a particular charity, including names and associated correspondence. The Charity Commission withheld the requested information under section 32(2) FOIA – court records and section 40(2) FOIA – personal information.The Commissioner’s decision is that the Charity Commission has applied section 32(2) correctly to withhold the requested information. However, the Charity Commission breached section 17(1) by failing to issue a response to the request within 20 working days. The Commissioner does not require further steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 32(2); FOI 17(1)
View The Charity Commission
12 Aug 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. 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 Northern Ireland Prison Service
12 Aug 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information regarding a report given in evidence at the trial of [named person]. The Crown Prosecution Service (“the CPS”) refused to provide the information, citing section 30(1)(c) of FOIA – investigations and proceedings conducted by public authorities. The CPS also cited section 38 of FOIA – health and safety and section 40(2) – personal information. The Commissioner’s decision is that the CPS is entitled to rely on section 30(1)(c) of FOIA to withhold the requested information. As the Commissioner is satisfied that section 30(1)(c) applies to the information, he did not go on to consider section 38 and section 42(2) of FOIA. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 30(1)(c)
View Crown Prosecution Service
12 Aug 2025Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from the London Borough of Croydon about its newsletter. 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 London Borough of Croydon
12 Aug 2025Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from Pentraeth Community Council about its financial accounts. 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 1
11 Aug 2025Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information regarding the cancellation of an event from Manchester City Council (the Council). The Council disclosed information within the scope of the request, but withheld information that relates to personal data under section 40(2). The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council, on the balance of probabilities, has not conducted adequate searches for some of the requested information. The Commissioner also finds that the Council was only partly entitled to rely on section 40(2) when withholding the requested information. The Commissioner requires the Council to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation.Conduct a fresh search for the requested information as outlined in paragraph 36. Disclose the information outlined in the attached confidential annex. 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
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 40
View Manchester City Council
11 Aug 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested from HM Treasury (HMT) a copy of an assessment on the negative impact to net tax revenue from behavioural change due to the income tax personal allowance taper as of 23 July 2023.
HMT stated that it did not hold any further information than that already disclosed in response to the complainant’s previous requests concerning the same subject matter.
The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, HMT does not hold any further information falling within the scope of the request other than that which they have previously disclosed to the complainant.
The Commissioner does not require HMT to take any further steps in relation to this complaint.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View HM Treasury
11 Aug 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The Commissioner’s decision is that, under section 12(4) of FOIA, Channel 4 is entitled to aggregate the complainant’s request for information about settlement agreements with an earlier request and to refuse to comply with it under section 12(1) (cost of compliance). There has been no breach of section 16(1), which concerns advice and assistance. The Commissioner does not require further steps. Information Tribunal FT/EA/2025/0336 under appeal
Exemptions cited: FOI 12(1); FOI 16(1)
View Channel 4
11 Aug 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
11 Aug 2025Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from Nursing and Midwifery 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 NMC
11 Aug 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested an email trail relating to a LinkedIn post. The Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) disclosed some information but withheld the remaining information on application of section 40(2) (personal data of a third party) and section 38 (health and safety) of FOIA. The complainant is dissatisfied with the CAA’s application of section 38 to withhold information. The Commissioner’s decision is that the requested information relates to the complainant’s own personal information and would be exempt under section 40(1) of FOIA. He has therefore applied this exemption himself, proactively, to prevent disclosure of the information. The Commissioner does not require any steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40(1)
View Civil Aviation Authority
11 Aug 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested a copy of a briefing given to journalists on 3 October 2022 prior to the start of the trial of Lucy Letby. Cheshire Constabulary withheld the information requested under section 30 (investigations) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the information requested constitutes third party personal data and is exempt from disclosure by virtue of section 40(2) (personal data) of the FOIA. The Commissioner does not require any steps to be taken. Information Tribunal FT/EA/2025/0333 under appeal.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40(2)
View Cheshire Constabulary
11 Aug 2025Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested various pieces of information about stolen vehicles. Lincolnshire Police refused to comply with the requests, citing section 12(1) (Cost of compliance exceeds appropriate limit). The Commissioner found that some of the requests were not valid requests within the meaning of section 8(1)(c) of FOIA, and so Lincolnshire Police was not required to comply with them. However, it was not entitled to use its costs estimate for dealing with those invalid requests, as a basis for refusing to comply with the other, valid requests. The Commissioner’s decision is that Lincolnshire Police was not entitled to rely on section 12(1) to refuse to comply with the valid requests. The Commissioner also found that Lincolnshire Police did not properly comply with the duty to provide advice and assistance, under section 16. As the complainant has since submitted refined requests which Lincolnshire Police has indicated could be complied with without exceeding the cost limit, the C
Exemptions cited: FOI 12; FOI 16
View Lincolnshire Police
11 Aug 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. 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 Merton Council
11 Aug 2025Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The public authority has failed to respond to this request within 20 working days, as specified under FOIA. The Commissioner requires it to provide the complainant with a response to this request within 30 calendar days in accordance with its obligations under FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View London Borough of Havering
11 Aug 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 Merseyside Police
11 Aug 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 Isle of Wight NHS Trust
11 Aug 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The Commissioner’s decision is that, under section 12(4) of FOIA, Channel 4 is entitled to aggregate the complainant’s request for information about settlement agreements with an earlier request and to refuse to comply with it under section 12(1) (cost of compliance). He also finds, however, that complying with the request would exceed the cost limit in its own right. There has been no breach of section 16(1), which concerns advice and assistance. The Commissioner does not require further steps. Information Tribunal FT/EA/2025/0347 under appeal.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12(1); FOI 16(1)
View Channel 4
11 Aug 2025Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
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: EIR 5(2)
View Kirklees Council
11 Aug 2025Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested specified information relating to prisoners’ pay and the review of the prison retail service. The Ministry of Justice (the ‘MOJ’) said it did not hold some of the requested information (a position which the complainant has not disputed). The MOJ originally cited section 35(1)(a) (the FOIA exemption for the formulation or development of government policy) to withhold the requested information in its entirety. It additionally relied on section 43(2) (the commercial interests exemption) to withhold part of that information. During the course of the Commissioner’s investigation, the MOJ partly revised its position, but ultimately relied on 35(1)(a) of FOIA to withhold all of the withheld information, additionally relying on sections 31(1)(f), (the FOIA exemption for the maintenance of good order and security in prisons) and 43(2) for some of the information. The Commissioner’s decision is that the MOJ was entitled to rely on section 35(1)(a) of FOIA for the majori
Exemptions cited: FOI 35
View Ministry of Justice
11 Aug 2025Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from UK Research and Innovation. 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 UK Research and Innovation
9 Aug 2025Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The Commissioner’s decision is that the complainant’s request for information about their previous requests about the Media Café is vexatious under section 14(1) of FOIA. However, the timing of the BBC’s refusal didn’t comply with section 17(5). The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14(1); FOI 17(5)
View BBC
8 Aug 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant asked for copies of surveys carried out for Stockton-on-Tees Borough Council (the Council) after the purchase of the former Debenhams building in Stockton. The Council provided some information in scope of the request but cited regulation 12(5)(e) of the EIR to withhold the mechanical, electrical, and asbestos surveys.
The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council was entitled to rely on regulation 12(5)(e) to withhold the requested information and that the public interest favours maintaining the exception.
The Commissioner does not require any steps to be taken as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(e)
View Stockton-on-Tees Council
8 Aug 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to records linked to the decision of the UK to leave the EU. The Cabinet Office relied on section 14(1) of FOIA (vexatious requests) to refuse the request.
The Commissioner’s decision is that the request was vexatious and therefore the Cabinet Office was entitled to rely upon section 14(1) of FOIA to refuse it.
The Commissioner does not require any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14(1)
View Cabinet Office
8 Aug 2025Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested a copy of the Service Level Agreement (SLA) for student accommodation between City St George's, University of London (the university) and its provider IQ.
The Commissioner’s decision is that the university was not entitled to rely on section 43(2) of FOIA for the related redactions to the Nomination Agreement.
The Commissioner requires the university to take the following step to ensure compliance with the legislation:
• To disclose the withheld information, subject to appropriate redactions for any personal data.
The university 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 43(2)
View City of London
8 Aug 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested the number of Community Resolution Notices (CRNs) issued to police officers. The Police Service of Northern Ireland (“the PSNI”) refused the request under section 12(1) (cost limits) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the PSNI is entitled to rely on section 12(1) to refuse the request. The PSNI also met its obligations under section 16(1) (advice and assistance) of the FOIA. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12(1); FOI 16(1)
View Police Service of Northern Ireland
7 Aug 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information about the Council’s consideration of planning enforcement at a neighbouring property. Pendle Borough Council disclosed information in response but also withheld some under the exception provided by regulation 13(1) (Personal data) of the EIR. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has correctly withheld the information under regulation 13(1) of the EIR and has otherwise disclosed all held information. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 13(1); EIR 5(1)
7 Aug 2025Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about the qualifications required for specific job titles within Lewes District Council (“the council”). The council said that it does not hold any information falling within the scope of the request as it does not have any jobs with the specified job titles. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on a balance of probabilities, the council does not hold the requested information for the purposes of section 1 of FOIA. He has, however decided that the complainant's secondary request for information was unclear, but the council did not comply with its obligations under section 16 of FOIA as it failed to seek further clarification from the complainant as to the information they were intending to request. The Commissioner requires council to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. To seek further clarification from the complainant as to the scope of their request as required by section 16(1) of FOIA, and once this has been
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 16
View Lewes District Council
7 Aug 2025Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information about asbestos from the University of Oxford (‘the University’). The University disclosed some information and relied on EIR regulations 12(5)(d) (confidentiality of proceedings) and 12(4)(c) (request too general) to withhold some of the information. It also withheld two asbestos audit documents in their entirety under regulation 12(5)(a) (public safety). The University subsequently disclosed the information withheld under regulation 12(5)(d). It has advised that it will also now disclose the majority of the information in the two audit documents but is withholding some of it under EIR regulations 12(5)(a), 12(5)(g) (protection of the environment) and 13 (personal data). In respect of the audit reports, the Commissioner’s decision is that regulations 12(5)(a) and 12(5)(g) aren’t engaged but that regulation 13 is engaged. The University’s handling of the request also breached regulations 5(2), 9(2) and 11(4) of the EIR. The Commissioner requires
Exemptions cited: EIR 11(4); EIR 12(5)(a); EIR 12(5)(g); EIR 13; EIR 5(2); EIR 9(2)
View The University of Oxford
7 Aug 2025Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about correspondence, contact details and non-compliant organisations. The Charity Commission provided information regarding contact details and relied on section 21 of FOIA for information about replying to correspondence. For information about non-compliant organisations, the Charity Commission stated that it did not hold information within scope of this part of the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the Charity Commission likely holds some information concerning non-compliant organisations. The Commissioner also finds that the Charity Commission breached sections 1(1) and 10(1) of FOIA by failing to provide a response within 20 working days. The Commissioner requires the Charity Commission to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: Conduct fresh searches for the requested information and disclose any information it identifies as a result or provide an appropriate refusal
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10
View The Charity Commission
7 Aug 2025Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about the qualifications required for specific job titles within Eastbourne Borough Council (“the council”). The council said that it does not hold any information falling within the scope of the request as it does not have any jobs with the specified job titles. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on a balance of probabilities, the council does not hold the requested information for the purposes of section 1 of FOIA. He has, however decided that the complainant's secondary request for information was unclear, but the council did not comply with its obligations under section 16 of FOIA as it failed to seek further clarification from the complainant as to the information they were intending to request. The Commissioner requires council to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. To seek further clarification from the complainant as to the scope of their request as required by section 16(1) of FOIA, and once this has b
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 16
View Eastbourne Borough Council
6 Aug 2025Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested various information in relation to Physician Associates. Lewisham and Greenwich NHS Trust (the Trust) provided some information and stated that other information was not held. The complainant queried the accuracy of information the Trust provided in relation to part 2 of the request. In its internal review the Trust provided an amended response in respect of part 2 of the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Trust does not hold any further recorded information relevant to the request. However, in failing to provide all of the information held relevant to the request within the statutory timescale, the Commissioner finds that the Trust breached section 10 of the FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10
View Lewisham and Greenwich NHS Trust
6 Aug 2025Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to meetings held regarding the ‘Loan charge’. HMT withheld the information and cited sections 36(2)(b)(i) and (ii)- prejudice to effective conduct of public affairs, as its basis for doing so. HMT also redacted information on the basis of section 40(2)-personal information.
The Commissioner’s decision is that HMT is entitled to rely on sections 36(2)(b)(i) and (ii) of FOIA. The Commissioner is satisfied that the balance of the public interest favours maintaining the exemption. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 36(2)(b)(i); FOI 36(2)(b)(ii)
6 Aug 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. 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 Folkestone and Hythe District Council
6 Aug 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to a particular road junction in Sutton Coldfield town centre. West Midlands Police (“WMP”) relied on section 14(1) (vexatious requests) of FOIA to refuse the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the requests were vexatious and therefore WMP was entitled to rely upon section 14(1) of FOIA to refuse them. The Commissioner does not require WMP to take any further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14(1)
View West Midlands Police
6 Aug 2025Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information relating to the Council’s handling of a complaint regarding a dilapidated property. Causeway Coast and Glens Borough Council provided some information and withheld some information under regulation 12(5)(b) (course of justice) and regulation 13 (personal data) of the EIR. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council was entitled to rely on regulation 12(5)(b). It was entitled to rely on regulation 13 in respect of some information but not other information. The Commissioner requires the Council to disclose the name and contact details of the elected representative and the job title and department or organisation of officials.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(b); EIR 13; EIR 14; EIR 5
6 Aug 2025Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information about a citation for a named person. The House of Lords Appointments Committee (“HOLAC”) relied on section 14(2) (repeat request) to refuse the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that HOLAC is not entitled to rely on section 14(2) of FOIA to refuse this request.
Exemptions cited: EIR 14(2)(1)
View House of Lords Appointments Commission
6 Aug 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested correspondence between the Metropolitan Borough of Wirral Council (the Council) and the RNLI for a specified period. The Council refused the request citing regulation 12(4)(d) (Information in the course of completion) of the EIR. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council was entitled to rely on regulation 12(4)(d) to refuse the request. The Commissioner does not require any steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(d)
View Wirral Council
6 Aug 2025Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
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 [1], [4], [5] and [6] of this request.
Therefore the Commissioner finds a breach of regulation 5(2).
Exemptions cited: EIR 5(2)
View London Borough of Havering
6 Aug 2025Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information relating to the Council’s handling of a complaint regarding a dilapidated property. Causeway Coast and Glens Borough Council provided some information and withheld some information under regulation 12(5)(b) (course of justice) and regulation 13 (personal data) of the EIR. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council was entitled to rely on regulation 12(5)(b). It was entitled to rely on regulation 13 in respect of some information but not other information. The Commissioner requires the Council to disclose the name and contact details of the elected representative and the job title and department or organisation of officials.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(b); EIR 13; EIR 14; EIR 5
6 Aug 2025Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to staff working from abroad. North East London NHS Foundation Trust (the Trust) stated that it did not hold the requested information.
The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council’s response did not comply with section 1(1) of FOIA as it has failed to carry out reasonable searches to locate the requested information.
The Trust should take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation.
Issue a fresh response under FOIA as per paragraph 24 of this decision notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1(1)
View North East London NHS Foundation Trust
6 Aug 2025Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to a Landscape and Visual Study from Catworth Parish Council (“the Parish Council”). The Parish Council confirmed that it holds information within the scope of the request, however it has neither disclosed a copy of this information or issued a valid refusal notice. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Parish Council had failed to comply with section 17 of FOIA as it had not cited a specific exemption as its basis for withholding the requested information. The Commissioner requires the Parish Council to take the following step to ensure compliance with the legislation: Issue a fresh response to the request. It should first consider whether any of the information requested may be environmental information as defined in regulation 2(1) of the EIR and ensure that the fresh response is issued under the correct access regime(s). It should either disclose the requested information or issue a valid refusal notice in line with section 17 of FOI
Exemptions cited: FOI 17
6 Aug 2025Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested any correspondence received by UK Health Security Agency (UKHSA), when it was previously Public Health England, which were sent or received by the IPC cell. UKHSA provided some information within the scope of the request and advised the remaining was being withheld under section 40(2). The Commissioner’s decision is that: On the balance of probabilities, UKHSA has not conducted adequate searches for some of the requested information. UKHSA was only partially entitled to rely on section 40(2) when withholding some of the requested information. The Commissioner requires UKHSA to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. Conduct a fresh search for the requested information which the complainant referred to in point 3 of their internal review request. Disclose the information which the Commissioner has outlined in a confidential annex. UKHSA must take these steps within 30 calendar days of the date of this decision notice. Failure to
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 40(2)
View UK Health Security Agency
5 Aug 2025Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about the London Borough of Lambeth’s (LBL) “Investment Committee”. LBL said it did not hold this information because it did not have an Investment Committee. It failed to respond to an internal review request despite the complainant requesting one with evidence that appeared to contradict its initial refusal.
The Commissioner’s decision is that LBL is not correct when it says that it does not have an Investment Committee and therefore does not hold any information within the scope of the request. Furthermore, LBL should have provided reasonable advice and assistance and explained to the complainant that it had an internal officer group which referred to itself as an investment committee although it was not a formal council committee as the name superficially suggested.
In failing to provide a correct and timely response, LBL contravened its obligations under sections 1 and 10 of the FOIA. In failing to provide an adequate explanation regardi
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10; FOI 16
View London Borough of Lambeth
5 Aug 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested from Newcastle City Council (the Council) information regarding Urban Green Newcastle Review Report. The Council refused the request and cited section 41(1) (information provided in confidence) of FOIA.
The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council was entitled to rely on section 41(1) of FOIA to refuse to provide the information requested. The Commissioner does not require the Council to take any steps as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: FOI 41(1)
View Newcastle City Council
5 Aug 2025Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested from the London Borough of Enfield (Council) governance and procedural information regarding the Council’s handling of FOI requests. 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 Enfield Council
5 Aug 2025Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The Commissioner’s decision is that the public authority breached regulation 5(2) of the EIR by failing to provide a response within 20 working days.
Exemptions cited: EIR 5(2)
View Warrington Council