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 not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The Commissioner’s decision is that the requested information about railcards is commercially sensitive information and exempt from disclosure under section 43(2) of FOIA. The Commissioner doesn’t require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 43(2)
View Department for Transport
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
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
4 Aug 2025Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested the incident log / report for a fire at a warehouse from West Midlands Fire Service (“WMFS”). WMFS refused to provide the requested information, citing section 40(2) (Personal information) of FOIA. WMFS also made some brief reference to sections 24(1) (National security), 38(1) (Health and safety) and 41(1) (Information provided in confidence), saying that they “may” apply; the Commissioner has used his discretion and considered these. The complainant has advised that he is happy for names, a telephone number and operational codes / call signs to be withheld.
In respect of the remaining information, the Commissioner’s decision is that none of the cited exemptions are engaged. The Commissioner requires WMFS to disclose the withheld information other than any names, the journalist’s telephone number and any operation codes / call signs.
Exemptions cited: FOI 24; FOI 38; FOI 40; FOI 41
4 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 Ceredigion County Council
4 Aug 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about asset freezing proposals made by Jersey to the UK under the Russia sanctions regime. The Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (“FCDO”) explained that the information formed part of the information described in an earlier request made by the complainant. After internal review, it explained that the information it held within the scope of the request (which was not previously disclosed to the complainant) was exempt under section 27(1)(a), (c) and (d) and section 27(2) (international relations), section 31(1)(a) (law enforcement), and section 40(2)(3A) (personal data). It also refused to confirm or deny whether all the above information caught by these exemptions represents all the information held that would meet the terms of the complainant’s request. It cited section 23(5) (security bodies) and section 24(2) (national security) as its basis for doing so. During the course of the Commissioner’s investigation, it introduced section
Exemptions cited: FOI 23; FOI 24; FOI 27; FOI 31; FOI 40
4 Aug 2025Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to the systems used by the Home Office to store information on the Gatwick Drone (Operation Trebor) Incident. The Home Office would neither confirm nor deny (NCND) holding the requested information, citing section 24(2) (national security) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Home Office is not entitled to refuse to confirm or deny, under section 24(2) of FOIA, holding the requested information in scope of the first part of the request. With respect to the information in scope of the second part of the request, the Commissioner’s decision is that the Home Office was entitled to rely on section 24(2) of FOIA to neither confirm nor deny holding that information. The Commissioner requires the Home Office to take the following step to ensure compliance with the legislation: confirm or deny whether it holds information in scope of part (1) of the request. If any information is held, the Home Office must either disclose it or issue
Exemptions cited: FOI 24
View Home Office
4 Aug 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about coordination with Jersey relating to asset freezing under the Russia sanctions regime in respect of two named individuals. The Foreign Commonwealth and Development Office (FCDO) made a partial disclosure but refused to provide the remainder citing section 27(1)(a), (c) and (d) (international relations), section 31(1)(a) (law enforcement), and section 40(2)(3A)(a) (personal data). After a considerably delayed internal review which followed the Commissioner’s intervention, FCDO made a further partial disclosure. It introduced reliance on section 27(2) and refused to confirm or deny whether all the above information caught by these exemptions represents all the information held that would meet the terms of the complainant’s request. It cited section 23(5) (security bodies) and section 24(2) (national security) as its basis for refusing to confirm or deny if further information is held. During the course of the Commissioner’s investigation, i
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 23; FOI 24; FOI 27; FOI 31; FOI 40
1 Aug 2025Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to the London Borough of Hackney (the Council) seeking information about its decision to introduce a fee for garden waste collection. The Council provided some information in response to the request. The complainant argued that further information was likely to be held and should have been provided to her. During the course of the Commissioner’s investigation the Council identified further information which was provided to the complainant. The Commissioner’s decision is that on the balance of probabilities the Council does not hold any further information, beyond that now disclosed to the complainant, falling within the scope of this request. However, the Council breached section 10(1) of FOIA by failing to respond to the request within 20 working days and by not providing all of the requested information it held within this timeframe.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10
View London Borough of Hackney
1 Aug 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to the Cabinet Office seeking information about particular guidance concerning the treatment of abatement to deferred members of the Civil Service Pension Scheme. The Cabinet Office withheld the information on the basis of sections 36(2)(b)(i) and (c) (effective conduct of public affairs) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the withheld information is exempt from disclosure on the basis of sections 36(2)(b)(i) and (c) and the public interest favours maintaining both of the exemptions.
Exemptions cited: FOI 36
View Cabinet Office
1 Aug 2025Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information relating to water quality in their area from Severn Trent Water (STW). STW 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 the EIR.
Exemptions cited: EIR 5
View Severn Trent Water
1 Aug 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information regarding the total number of nurses and midwives referred to the Nursing and Midwifery Council, and the protocol for fitness to practice referrals from Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust (the Trust). The Trust relied on section 12(4) of FOIA (aggregation of related requests) and section 12(1) of FOIA (cost of compliance) to refuse the requests. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Trust is entitled to rely on section 12(4) of FOIA to aggregate the requests and is entitled to rely on section 12(1) of FOIA to refuse the requests. The Commissioner also finds that the Trust complied with its section 16 obligation to offer advice and assistance. The Commissioner does not require further steps to be taken. Information Tribunal FT/EA/2025/0360 under appeal.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12(1); FOI 16; FOI 12(4)
View Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust
1 Aug 2025Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested the British Museum (the museum) to disclose information relating to the Thomas Gann related acquisitions. It disclosed some information, confirmed that it did not hold other information and refused to disclose what it had already provided the complainant in response to an earlier request and any other information already accessible to them under section 21 of FOIA (section 14(2) of FOIA was initially claimed for some of this information, but this was later withdrawn in preference of section 21). The Commissioner’s decision is that the museum is entitled to rely on section 21 of FOIA where that has been applied. It is also the Commissioner’s decision that on the balance of probabilities the museum does not hold any further recorded information. He has however found a breach of section 1(1)(b) and 10 of FOIA. The Commissioner does not require further steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10; FOI 21
View British Museum
31 Jul 2025Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to student safety at Stratford One. The University disclosed information but also applied section 12(1) (cost of compliance exceeds appropriate limit). The Commissioner’s decision is that section 12(1) applies. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12(1)
View University of the Arts, London
31 Jul 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested from Bolton Council (the Council) information relating to a highway implemented by United Utilities (UU) in April 2008. The Council stated it does not hold information to parts 1, 4 and 5 of the request and cited regulation 12(4)(a) (information not held) of the EIR. With regard to parts 2 and 3 of the request, the complainant withdrew his complaint.
The Commissioner’s decision is that on the balance of probabilities, the Council does not hold any information falling within scope of the request and correctly applied regulation 12(4)(a) of the EIR. The Commissioner does not require the Council to take any steps as a result of this decision. Information Tribunal FT/EA/2025/0321 under appeal.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(a)
View Bolton Council
31 Jul 2025Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to the Council for the Curriculum, Examinations & Assessment (CCEA). The Department of Education for Northern Ireland (“the public authority”) refused the request, citing section 14(1) of FOIA (vexatious request). The Commissioner’s decision is that the request isn’t vexatious and the public authority wasn’t entitled to rely upon section 14(1) to refuse it. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: either disclose the information or provide a response to the request that doesn’t rely upon section 14(1).
Exemptions cited: FOI 14(1)
View Department of Education (Northern Ireland)
31 Jul 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about a webpage maintained by Essex County Council. The Council disclosed information but withheld some under section 40 (personal information) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has correctly withheld some information under section 40(1) (personal data of the applicant) and section 40(2) (personal data of third parties) and has otherwise disclosed all held information. The Commissioner does not require further steps. Information Tribunal FT/EA/2025/0320 under appeal.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 40(1); FOI 40(2)
View Essex County Council
31 Jul 2025Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested copies of internal correspondence about Richmond Park. 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 Richmond upon Thames Council
31 Jul 2025Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information about advertising costs and budget from Reach Healthcare. Having initially provided a response to the complainant that failed to cite an exemption to refuse the request, Reach Healthcare subsequently confirmed during the Commissioner’s investigation that it is relying on section 14(1) of the FOIA (vexatious request) to refuse the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that Reach Healthcare was not entitled to rely on section 14(1) in refusing to comply with the request. He also finds that it breached section 17 of FOIA by failing to issue an adequate refusal notice. The Commissioner requires Reach Healthcare to issue a fresh response to the request, which does not rely on section 14(1) of FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14(1)
30 Jul 2025Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The Commissioner’s decision is that the complainant’s request for information about monthly reports of racism isn’t a vexatious request and, as such, Audenshaw High School (‘the School’) incorrectly applied section 14(1) of FOIA to it. The Commissioner requires the School to take the following step to ensure compliance with the legislation: Issue the complainant with a fresh response to their request of 22 April 2025 that complies with FOIA but that doesn’t rely on section 14(1).
Exemptions cited: FOI 14(1)
29 Jul 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from Staffordshire Moorlands District Council (“the Council”) relating to a statement made by a Councillor. The Commissioner’s decision is that on the balance of probabilities, the Council does not hold any information within the scope of the request that has not already been disclosed to the complainant. The Commissioner does not require the Council to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Staffordshire Moorlands District Council
29 Jul 2025Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted two requests to the Ministry of Defence (MOD) both of which sought Army Equipment Support Publications concerning Bedford trucks. The MOD responded by stating that it did not hold one such manual and that for the remaining manuals refused to provide them on the basis of section 14(1) (vexatious) of FOIA. It subsequently withdrew its reliance on section 14(1) and argued instead that these manuals were exempt from disclosure on the basis of sections 41(1) (information provided in confidence) and 43(2) (commercial interests) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that on the balance of probabilities the MOD does not hold a copy of a manual which it stated it could not locate. However, for the remaining requested manuals the Commissioner has concluded that these are not exempt from disclosure on the basis of sections 41(1) or 43(2) of FOIA. Information Tribunal FT/EA/2025/0324 under appeal.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 41; FOI 43
View Ministry of Defence
29 Jul 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information about training and guidance in relation to the new Domestic Abuse Act 2021. Portsmouth City Council (the Council). The Council stated that it did not hold some of the information requested and provided a “no” or “not applicable” response to some parts of the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the Council does not hold the requested information.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Portsmouth City Council
29 Jul 2025Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information relating to a planning application from Waverley Borough Council (“the council”). The council initially said that the information was exempt under Regulation 13(1) of the EIR (personal data). In its review it amended its position and said that the information had been deleted prior to the request being received. During the course of the Commissioner's investigation, however, it said that it had carried out further searches of its email archives and had located a copy of the information. It therefore disclosed this to the complainant. The Commissioner’s decision is therefore that the council failed to comply with Regulation 5(2) in that it did not provide the information to the complainant within 20 working days. As the information has now been disclosed, the Commissioner does not require the council to take any further steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 5(2)
View Waverley Borough Council
29 Jul 2025Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested meeting notes from Shropshire Council (the Council). The Council explained the requested information was not held by it for the purposes of the EIR. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council does hold the requested information for the purposes of the EIR. The Commissioner requires the Council to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. Provide the complainant with a fresh response to the request and either provide the requested information, or issue an appropriate refusal 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 court.
Exemptions cited: EIR 3(2)
View Shropshire Council
29 Jul 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the Department for Transport doesn’t hold the requested information about an amendment to the Transport Act 2000 and has complied with sections 1(1)(a) and 10(1) of FOIA. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1(1)(a); FOI 10(1)
View Department for Transport
29 Jul 2025Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested communication made relating to a planning application from New Alresford Town Council (“the council”). The council disclosed some information, however the complainant argued that further information would be held by it in the clerk’s email account. During the course of the Commissioner's investigation, the council carried out searches of the specified email account and disclosed one further email to the complainant. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council does not hold any further information falling within the scope of the request. However, the Commissioner has decided that the council did not comply with Regulation 5(2) of the EIR in that it did not disclose all of the requested information to the complainant within 20 working days of receiving their request for information. The Commissioner does not require the council to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 5(1); EIR 5(2)
29 Jul 2025Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information associated with meetings of the Council for the Curriculum, Examinations and Assessment. The Department of Education Northern Ireland (DE) disclosed some information, advised it doesn’t hold some and withheld the remaining information under sections 35, 40 and 43 of FOIA. These exemptions concern the formulation of government policy, personal data and commercial interests, respectively. The Commissioner’s decision is that DE has correctly applied sections 35(1)(a) and 43(2). DE has also correctly applied section 40(2) to most of the information to which it applied this exemption but incorrectly applied it to a small amount. DE must take the following step to ensure compliance with the legislation: Disclose the name of the auditor in the report document.
Exemptions cited: FOI 35(1)(a); FOI 40(2); FOI 43(2)
View Department of Education (Northern Ireland)
28 Jul 2025Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested a report relating to an enforcement matter. The London Borough of Camden (“the Council”) provided the complainant with some information within scope of their request but stated that further information is not held. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has provided the complainant with all of the information it holds within scope of the request. The Commissioner finds that the Council has breached regulation 5(2) by failing to provide disclosable information within scope of the request within 20 working days. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(a); EIR 5(2)
View Camden Council
28 Jul 2025Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to HM Revenue & Customs (HMRC) seeking copies of emails to or from Jim Harra (Chief Executive of HMRC) concerning the loan charge and that contained the word ‘suicide’. HMRC disclosed information in relation to the request but redacted information on the basis of a number of exemptions including section 35(1)(a) (formulation or development of government policy) and sections 36(2)(b)(i), (ii) and 36(2)(c) (effective conduct of public affairs) of FOIA. The complainant challenged HMRC’s reliance on sections 35 and 36. The Commissioner’s decision is that HMRC is entitled to redact information on the basis of section 35(1)(a) and sections 36(2)(b)(i), (ii) and 36(2)(c) in the manner which it has. However, it breached sections 10(1) and 17(1) by failing to respond to the request within 20 working days.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 17; FOI 35; FOI 36
28 Jul 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
In a multi-part request, the complainant requested information, held by the public authority and named individuals, on a number of related topics. The West of England Combined Authority (the Combined Authority) relied on section 12 (cost of compliance) of FOIA to refuse
the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Combined Authority was entitled to refuse to comply with the request in accordance with section 12(1). The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12
View West of England Combined Authority
28 Jul 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to the Ministry of Defence (MOD) seeking a copy of two reports completed following the ‘Astral Bend’ emergency exercise. The MOD initially withheld the reports in full on the basis of sections 24(1) (national security), and 26(1)(a) and (b) (defence). It subsequently disclosed redacted versions of the reports relying on the above exemptions and section 40(2) (personal data) to withhold information. The Commissioner’s decision is that the redacted information is exempt from disclosure on the basis of sections 26(1)(a) and (b), and section 40(2) of FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 26; FOI 40
View Ministry of Defence
28 Jul 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The Commissioner’s decision is that the ICO is entitled to withhold correspondence between the ICO and the Metropolitan Police (the MPS), relating to the Pimeyes facial recognition search engine, under section 44(1) of FOIA as there’s a prohibition on its disclosure. It’s not necessary for the ICO to take any corrective steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 44
View Information Commissioner
28 Jul 2025Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about the National Congenital Anomaly and Rare Disease Registration Service and congenital heart defect detection rates. NHS England (NHSE) disclosed some information and withheld numbers less than 5 under section 41(1) of FOIA, which concerns information provided in confidence. During the investigation, NHSE identified that it holds further relevant information, which it disclosed having again redacted some information under section 41(1). The Commissioner’s decision is that section 41(1) has been correctly applied. He has also decided that, on the balance of probabilities, NHSE doesn’t hold any further relevant information. The timeliness of NHSE’s response breached sections 1(1), 10(1) and 17(1) of FOIA, however. The Commissioner doesn’t require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1(1); FOI 10(1); FOI 41(1); FOI 17(1)
View NHS England
28 Jul 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 consular support provided to a UK citizen sentenced to death in the Democratic Republic of Congo following a failed coup. The FCDO initially refused to confirm or deny whether it held any information but subsequently disclosed some information but withheld the remainder on the basis of sections 27(1)(a) and 27(2) (international relations) and 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)(a) and the public interest favour maintaining this exemption.
Exemptions cited: FOI 27
28 Jul 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to first time users of the Tyne Tunnels. North East Combined Authority (NECA) stated that it did not hold the requested information.
The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, NECA does not hold information falling within the scope of the request.
The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View North East Mayoral Combined Authority
28 Jul 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information relating to a planning enforcement matter. Cheshire East Council (the “council”) refused the request, citing the exception for the course of justice (regulation 12(5)(b)). The Commissioner’s decision is that the council was entitled to rely on regulation 12(5)(b) of the EIR to withhold the requested information. The Commissioner does not require the council to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(b)
View Cheshire East Council
28 Jul 2025Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested the guidance manual issued to sensitivity reviewers. The Cabinet Office refused the request under section 14(1) (vexatious request) of FOIA.
The Commissioner’s decision is that the Cabinet Office was not entitled to rely on section 14(1) of FOIA.
The Commissioner requires the Cabinet Office issue a fresh response to the request in accordance with FOIA, which does not rely on section 14(1) of FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14
View Cabinet Office
25 Jul 2025Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant made a request for information about Waterhead Academy, naming members of staff they wanted information about. South Pennine Academies (SPA) provided some information in scope of the request and explained that the remaining information was being withheld as it related to third-party identifiable individuals.
The Commissioner’s decision is that SPA failed to provide an adequate refusal notice and cite the relevant exemption it was reliant upon to refuse the request, and therefore, breached section 17 of FOIA. In this case the Commissioner considers section 40(2) (third-party personal data) of FOIA applies to the remaining withheld information in scope of the request.
The Commissioner does not require any steps as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: FOI 17; FOI 40(2)
View SOUTH PENNINE ACADEMIES
25 Jul 2025Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested, from the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis (MPS), information relating to vehicles stolen in the UK and recovered abroad. At internal review stage, MPS cited section 12(1) of FOIA (‘exemption where cost of compliance exceeds appropriate limit’) for part of the request. During the Commissioner’s investigation, MPS explained that it’s relying on section 12(1) to refuse the whole request. The Commissioner’s decision is that MPS is correct to refuse the whole request on the basis of section 12(1); and MPS complied with section 16 (‘duty to provide advice and assistance’); and MPS breached sections 1(1)(a) (‘general right of access’) and 10(1) (‘time for compliance’), because it took more than 20 working days to confirm holding information within scope of the request; and MPS breached section 17(5) (‘refusal of request’), because it took more than 20 working days to issue a refusal in reliance on section 12. The Commissioner doesn’t require any steps in
Exemptions cited: FOI 1(1)(a); FOI 10(1); FOI 12(1); FOI 16; FOI 17(5)
View Metropolitan Police Service
25 Jul 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 the 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 Enfield Council
25 Jul 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 Bristol City Council
25 Jul 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 the 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 Enfield Council
25 Jul 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
25 Jul 2025Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested various items of administrative information from Four Oaks Primary School (‘the School’). The School provided some information, advised it doesn’t hold some of the information and relied on sections 21 and 41 to withhold the remainder. These exemptions concern information accessible to the applicant by other means and information provided in confidence, respectively.During the Commissioner’s investigation, the School disclosed further information. The School has now confirmed that it’s withholding information from published meeting papers relevant to request 2 under sections 36, 38, 40(2) and 41 of FOIA. The first three of these concern the effective conduct of public affairs, health and safety and personal data, respectively. The Commissioner’s decision is as follows: The School is entitled to apply sections 36(2)(b)(i), 36(2)(b)(ii) and 36(2)(c) of FOIA to the information within scope of request 2. The information within scope of request 4 is exempt info
Exemptions cited: FOI 1(1); FOI 10(1); FOI 36(2); FOI 40(1)
View BURNT ASH PRIMARY SCHOOL
25 Jul 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 Enfield Council
24 Jul 2025Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information on failure rates in hernia operations due to obesity from Hywel Dda University Health Board (UHB). UHB refused the request as responding would exceed the cost limit under section 12 FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that UHB is entitled to rely on section 12(1) FOIA to refuse to provide the requested information. However, he finds UHB failed to provide reasonable advice and assistance and therefore did not meet its obligations under section 16(1) FOIA. No steps are required.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12; FOI 16
View Hywel Dda University Health Board
24 Jul 2025Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information in relation to the 2017 security incident that led to the removal of public access to the Media Cafe. The British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) relied on sections 38(1)(b) (health and safety), and 40 (personal information) of FOIA to withhold information.
The Commissioner’s decision is that section 38(1)(b) of FOIA is engaged and that the balance of the public interest favours maintaining the exemption. However, he considers that the BBC’s handling of the request breached section 17(3) of FOIA.
The Commissioner does not require any steps to be taken as a result of this decision. Information Tribunal FT/EA/2025/0290 under appeal.
Keywords: Security Risk Assessment 2017 (SRA).
Exemptions cited: FOI 17(3); FOI 38(1)(b)
View BBC