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
24 Jul 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant made a request for information to Wirral Council (“the council“) about rent rises at Birkenhead Indoor Market. The council refused to respond further, relying upon section 14(1) of FOIA (vexatious requests), to refuse the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council was entitled to rely upon section 14(1) of FOIA to refuse to respond to the request further in this instance. The Commissioner does not require the council to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14(1)
View Wirral Council
24 Jul 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from Ulster University (the university) concerning a particular recruitment process. The university provided some information, stated that it did not hold some information and withheld some information, applying sections 40(2)(personal information) and section 36(2)(c) - prejudice to the effective conduct of public affairs. The Commissioner’s decision is that the university is entitled to rely on section 40(2) FOIA to withhold the requested information as it is the personal information of third parties and disclosure would be unlawful. On the balance of probability, the Commissioner accepts that the university does not hold any information regarding the relevant requests. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1(1); FOI 40(2)
View Ulster University
24 Jul 2025Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has made a six-part request to the London Borough of Lambeth (the Council), following ‘the Overview and Scrutiny Committee’ meeting and relating to the proposed changes to the tenancy law.
The Council provided information to parts 1, 3 and 4 of the request but withheld information related to parts 2, 5 and 6 citing section 42(1) – legal professional privilege.
The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council was entitled to rely on section 42(1) to withhold the requested information related to parts 2, 5 and 6 of the request. However, he finds that the Council breached section 17(1)(c) when it failed to provide its public interest arguments in the refusal notice to the complainant.
The Commissioner does not require further steps to be taken by the Council in relation to this case.
Exemptions cited: FOI 42(1); FOI 17(1)
View London Borough of Lambeth
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 not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant made six multifaceted requests for information to Wirral Council (“the council“) about its plan to relocate Birkenhead Market. The council aggregated a number of requests made within a 60-day period and refused to respond further, relying upon section Regulation 12(4)(b) of the EIR (manifestly unreasonable request) to refuse the requests. The Commissioner’s decision is that the requests were vexatious and therefore the council was entitled to rely upon Regulation 12(4)(b) to refuse them. The Commissioner does not require the council to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(b)
View Wirral Council
24 Jul 2025Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested, from the University of Salford (the university), information relating to certain groups and committees. The university originally refused to disclose any of the requested information, on the basis of section 43(2) of FOIA (commercial interests). During the Commissioner’s investigation, the university revised its position and disclosed information regarding two committees, however it continues to withhold other information under section 43(2). The Commissioner’s decision is that the university has failed to demonstrate that section 43(2) is engaged for the withheld information. The Commissioner therefore requires the university to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: disclose the withheld information – ie the withheld information that the university provided to the Commissioner on 27 June 2025, 22 July 2025 and 24 July 2025 – subject to any appropriate redactions for personal data in accordance with the Commissioner’s guidanc
Exemptions cited: FOI 43
View The University of Salford
24 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
23 Jul 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested from Casterton Parish Council (the Council) information regarding communications which concern the Council’s co-option process. The Council provided the complainant with information relating to the request and confirmed that it does not hold any further information.
The Commissioner’s decision is that on the balance of probabilities, the Council does not hold any further information falling within scope of the request. Therefore, the Commissioner does not require the Council to take any steps as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
23 Jul 2025Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about its Reoffender data science model from Avon & Somerset Police. Avon & Somerset Police disclosed some information and advised some was not held, but its response was incomplete.
The Commissioner’s decision is that Avon & Somerset Police has breached sections 1(1) and 10(1) of FOIA by failing to respond to parts of the request. He requires Avon & Somerset Police to respond to the points raised by the complainant when requesting an internal review.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10
23 Jul 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested a copy of the report “Triggers to Claiming Personal Independence Payment”. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) was entitled to rely on section 22(1), information intended for future publication, to withhold the information. The Commissioner does not require DWP to take any further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 22
View Department for Work and Pensions
23 Jul 2025Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about the teaching of relationships, sex and health education in a particular school. The London Borough of Wandsworth (the Council) said that the requested information was concerned with the statutory responsibilities of the school, and not the Council, and so it believed it did not hold it. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council failed to adequately ascertain whether or not it holds information falling within the scope of the request. This means that it has not complied with section 1(1) (General right of access) of FOIA. The Commissioner requires the Council to carry out searches to determine whether it holds any information falling within the scope of the request and then issue a fresh response to the complainant that conforms with section 1(1) of FOIA in respect of such information.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View London Borough of Wandsworth
23 Jul 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information with regards to flooding at a specific area. London Borough of Bexley (the council) responded that the requested information was not held. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council holds no information falling within the scope of the complainant’s request and therefore regulation 12(4)(a) of the EIR is engaged. The Commissioner does not require any steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(a)
View Bexley Council
22 Jul 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about the classification of Ysgol Brynhyfryd as a Welsh medium school. Denbighshire County Council (the Council) provided some information, and stated other information was not held. The complainant was unhappy with the Council’s response that it did not hold datasets used to classify the school as a Welsh medium school. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the Council does not hold the datasets requested. The Commissioner does not require any steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Denbighshire County Council
22 Jul 2025Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to funding provided to a specific GP practice. Humber and North Yorkshire Integrated Care Board (‘the public authority’) refused to provide any information, citing section 43(2) (commercial interests) and sections 36(2)(b)(ii) and (c) (prejudice to the effective conduct of public affairs). The Commissioner’s decision is that the withheld information doesn’t engage section 43(2) or section 36(2)(c). All of the withheld information engages section 36(2)(b)(ii) and the public interest lies in disclosing the part 1 and 2 information and maintaining the exemption for the part 3 information. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: disclose the part 1 and 2 information, the ‘excel spreadsheet.’ Information Tribunal FT/EA/2025/0308 under appeal.
Exemptions cited: FOI 36(2)(b)(ii); FOI 36(2)(c); FOI 43(2)
View NHS Humber and North Yorkshire ICB
22 Jul 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested from the Cabinet Office information regarding national talks, consultations and negotiations with PCS officials and representatives prior to, during, and following PCS' 2022 disaggregated statutory ballots and the subsequent national and targeted strike action. The Cabinet Office refused the request on the basis of section 12(1) (cost limit) of FOIA.
The Commissioner’s decision is that the Cabinet Office is entitled to refuse this request on the basis of section 12(1) of FOIA.
The Commissioner also found that the Cabinet Office complied with section 16(1) advice and assistance to allow the complainant to submit a refined request.
The Commissioner does not require the Cabinet Office to take further steps in relation to this complaint.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12; FOI 16
View Cabinet Office
22 Jul 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested a report on law firms’ practices on interest accrued on general client accounts. The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) confirmed it held the requested information, but refused to disclose it, citing sections 22(1) (information intended for future publication) and 35(1)(a) (formulation of government policy) of FOIA. The Commissioner has considered the MoJ’s application of section 35(1)(a) to the requested information. The Commissioner’s decision is that the MoJ was entitled to rely on section 35(1)(a) of FOIA to withhold the requested report. No steps are required as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: FOI 35
View Ministry of Justice
22 Jul 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information held by the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG) relating to investigations carried out into the safety of fire doors. The MHCLG refused the request, citing the exemption at section 14(1) of FOIA (vexatious requests) on the grounds that compliance would cause an unreasonable burden. The Commissioner’s decision is that the MHCLG is entitled to rely on section 14 to refuse to comply with the request, and that it has provided reasonable advice and assistance to the complainant as to how they might submit a request that would not be burdensome.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14(1)
View Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government
22 Jul 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested their personal information. The Department for Work and Pensions (“DWP”) refused to disclose the requested information under section 40(1) of FOIA on the basis that it is the complainant’s own personal data. The Commissioner’s decision is that the DWP was entitled to rely on section 40(1) of FOIA. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40(1)
View Department for Work and Pensions
22 Jul 2025Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The public authority has failed to respond to this request within 20 working days, as specified in 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(2)
View Staffordshire County Council
22 Jul 2025Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information about correspondence between Sheffield Council and the World Snooker Tour between 16 April 2024 to 30 April 2024.
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 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 Sheffield City Council
22 Jul 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested that the London Borough of Bexley (the council) provide any reports that it held which summarised the details of a survey conducted of potential pedestrian-crossing locations. The Commissioner is satisfied that, on the balance of probabilities, the council does not hold information that falls within scope of the complainant’s request, and therefore regulation 12(4)(a) is engaged.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(a)
View Bexley Council
21 Jul 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from NHS Sussex Integrated Care Board (“NHS Sussex”) relating to referrals to a memory assessment service (MAS). The Commissioner’s decision is that NHS Sussex is entitled to rely on section 40(2) (personal information) to refuse to provide the requested information. The Commissioner does not require NHS Sussex to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 40(2)
View NHS Sussex ICB
21 Jul 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information associated with a copyright and database exception. The Intellectual Property Office (IPO) disclosed some information with personal data redacted under section 40(2) of FOIA. The IPO withheld the remaining information under sections 21(1) and 27(1) of FOIA, which concern information accessible to the applicant by other means and international relations, respectively. The Commissioner’s decision is that the IPO is entitled to rely on sections 27(1)(a), 27(1)(b) and 40(2) of FOIA to withhold information in scope of the complainant’s request. It’s not necessary for the IPO to take any steps. Information Tribunal FT/EA/2025/0312 under appeal.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40(2); FOI 27(1)(a); FOI 27(1)(b)
View Intellectual Property Office
18 Jul 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested correspondence with the Scottish Police Pension Authority regarding a specific matter. The above public authority refused to confirm or deny that the information was held – relying on section 44 of FOIA (prohibitions on disclosure) in order to do so. The Commissioner’s decision is that the public authority was entitled to rely on section 44 of FOIA to refuse to confirm or deny that the information was held. The Commissioner does not require further steps to be taken.
Keywords/themes: Pensions Act 2004
Exemptions cited: FOI 44
View The Pensions Regulator
18 Jul 2025Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested Board minutes from Horsenden Primary School (‘the School’). Their interest is an Employment Tribunal case. The School disclosed some information and withheld other information, including about the Tribunal, under sections 36(2) and 40(2) of FOIA. These exemptions concern prejudice to the effective conduct of public affairs and personal data, respectively. The Commissioner finds that: On the balance of probabilities, other than the information the School has disclosed and the information about the Tribunal that it’s withholding, the School holds no further information about that Tribunal in the requested Board minutes. Section 40(2) of FOIA is engaged in respect of all the information in the 5 July 2023 minute that the School’s withholding. However, section 40(2) isn’t engaged in respect of the 20 March 2024 minute: some of that information isn’t personal data and, while the remainder is personal data, the Commissioner finds it would be lawful to disclose i
Exemptions cited: FOI 1(1); FOI 10(1); FOI 36(2)(c); FOI 40(2); FOI 17(1); FOI 9(3)
View RENDELL PRIMARY SCHOOL
18 Jul 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to the provision of healthcare services for asylum seekers/refugees at a named accommodation site. The Home Office neither confirmed nor denied holding the requested information, citing section 38(2) (health and safety) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Home Office was entitled to rely on section 38(2) of FOIA to refuse to confirm or deny whether it holds any information falling within the scope of the request. The Commissioner does not require the Home Office to take any further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 38
View Home Office
18 Jul 2025Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from the BBC the number of non-disclosure documents and settlement agreements it entered into. 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 BBC
18 Jul 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
18 Jul 2025Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about exit interviews. The above public authority eventually relied on section 12 of FOIA (costs) to refuse the request. The complainant is not challenging the reliance on section 12, but has challenged the procedural handling of the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the public authority breached section 17 of FOIA as its refusal notice was inadequate. It complied with section 16 as it did provide reasonable advice and assistance within 20 working days of receiving the request. The Commissioner does not require further steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 16; FOI 17
View CARLTON ACADEMY TRUST
18 Jul 2025Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information about Electric and Magnetic Fields (EMF). The above public authority provided some information. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the public authority has provided all the information it holds. The public authority breached regulation 5(2) of the EIR as it failed to provide the information that it did hold within 20 working days. The public authority also breached regulation 11 of the EIR as it failed to complete an internal review within 40 working days. The Commissioner does not require further steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: EIR 11; EIR 5(1); EIR 5(2)
View Health and Safety Executive
18 Jul 2025Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The public authority has failed to respond to this request within 20 working days, as specified in 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(2)
View Enfield Council
18 Jul 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about a particular employee. The above public authority refused to confirm or deny that the information was held relying on section 40(5B) of FOIA (third party personal information) in order to do so. The Commissioner’s decision is that the public authority was entitled to refuse to confirm or deny that the information was held. The Commissioner does not require further steps to be taken.
Keywords: training, complaints
Exemptions cited: FOI 40(5)(b)
View Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service
18 Jul 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to the Department for Business & Trade (DBT) seeking information about government subsidies in relation to new UK gigafactory being built by Agratas, part of the Tata Group. DBT confirmed that it held information but considered this to be exempt from disclosure on the basis of section 43(2) (commercial interests) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that DBT is entitled to rely on section 43(2) to withhold the information falling within the scope of the request and that the public interest favours maintaining this exemption.
Exemptions cited: FOI 43
View Department for Business and Trade
18 Jul 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested “the smallest existent dataset” of running times for a particular bus service. The above public authority provided some information, but the complainant argued that this was not sufficient. The Commissioner’s decision is that the public authority has provided the information that was sought by the request and therefore complied with its duties under section 1 of FOIA. The Commissioner does not require further steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Mayor of Greater Manchester
18 Jul 2025Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information about the adoption of a road. Central Bedfordshire Council (the “council”) disclosed some information and withheld other information under the exception for the course of justice (regulation 12(5)(b)). The Commissioner’s decision is that the exception in regulation 12(5)(b) is engaged but that, in this case, the public interest is weighted in favour of disclosing the information. The Commissioner requires the council disclose the withheld information, redacting any personal information in accordance with the Commissioner’s guidance.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(b)
View Central Bedfordshire Council
17 Jul 2025Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested copies of communications exchanged between the public authority and a named general practitioner’s surgery. The Buckinghamshire, Oxfordshire and Berkshire West Integrated Care Board (“BOB ICB”) refused the request, citing section 12 (cost limits) and section 40(2) (personal data) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that BOB ICB is not entitled to rely on section 12 to refuse the request. BOB ICB also breached section 16 of the FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12; FOI 16
View NHS Buckinghamshire, Oxfordshire and Berkshire West ICB
17 Jul 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested bird and bat mortality data. The above public authority relied on regulation 12(4)(a) of the EIR because it did not hold the requested information. The Commissioner’s decision is that the public authority has correctly applied regulation 12(4)(a) as, on the balance of probabilities, it does not hold the requested information. The public authority complied with its duties under regulations 9 (advice and assistance) and 10 (transfer of request) of the EIR respectively. The Commissioner does not require further steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: EIR 10; EIR 12(4)(a); EIR 9
17 Jul 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to a letter sent by University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust (the Trust) to patients in January 2023, informing them about the closure of the hereditary angioedema (HAE) service. The Trust provided the information it considered to be held within the scope of the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the Trust does not hold any further information falling within the scope of the request. The Commissioner does not require any further steps as a result of this decision notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust
17 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 Home Office
17 Jul 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from the BBC about complaints relating to an article. The Commissioner’s decision is that this information, if held at all, is held by the BBC for the purposes of journalism, art or literature and so is not covered by FOIA. He therefore upholds the BBC’s position and requires no steps to be taken in this case.
Exemptions cited: FOI 3
View BBC
17 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 NHS England
17 Jul 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested a copy of any due diligence reports relating to the appointment of Chris Pincher as Deputy Chief Whip, and the confidential annex that accompanied an ICO decision notice on a related complaint. The Cabinet Office refused the requests, citing sections 36 (Prejudice to effective conduct of public affairs), 40(2) (Personal information) and 41(1) (Information provided in confidence) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Cabinet Office was entitled to rely on section 36(2)(b)(i) & (ii) and 36(2)(c) to withhold the requested information. Information Tribunal FT/EA/2025/0264 under appeal.
Exemptions cited: FOI 36(2)(b)(i); FOI 36(2)(b)(ii); FOI 36(2)(c)
View Cabinet Office
17 Jul 2025Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested a copy of a revised Fire Risk Assessment from the University of Derby (the university). The Commissioner’s decision is that the university breached sections 1(1) and 10(1) of FOIA in this case. Since the requested information has now been disclosed to the complainant, the Commissioner does not require the university to take any further steps in relation to this complaint.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1(1); FOI 10(1)
View University of Derby
17 Jul 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has made two requests concerning the Department for Education’s internal handling of two requests made by another person. The Department for Education (DfE) relied on section 14 of FOIA (vexatious and repeated requests) to refuse the requests. The Commissioner’s decision is that DfE was entitled to rely on section 14 of FOIA to refuse the requests. The Commissioner does not require further steps. Information Tribunal FT/EA/2025/0294 under appeal.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14
View Department for Education
16 Jul 2025Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from the London Borough of Enfield about its temporary accommodation policy and homelessness strategy. 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
16 Jul 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from the BBC about the selection of the UK jury for the Eurovision Song Contest. The BBC responded that the requested information was covered by the derogation and hence excluded from FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that this information, if held at all, is held by the BBC for the purposes of journalism, art or literature and so is not covered by FOIA. He therefore upholds the BBC’s position and requires no steps to be taken in this case.
Exemptions cited: FOI 3
View BBC
16 Jul 2025Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from the Governing Boy of Langley Grammar School about its admissions arrangements. 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 LANGLEY GRAMMAR SCHOOL
16 Jul 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested various information in respect of a number of named pedestrian crossings within the boundaries of the Vale of Glamorgan Council (the Council). The Council originally informed the complainant that it did not hold relevant information. It also stated that it was relying on section 12 (cost exceeds appropriate limit) of the FOIA to refuse the request. During the course of the Commissioner’s investigation, the Council sent the complainant an amended response which provided some of the information falling within the scope of the request. However, the complainant remained dissatisfied that it had not provided all information relevant to their request. The Commissioner’s decision is that on the balance of probabilities, the Council does not hold information in respect of waiting times at pedestrian crossings and has therefore complied with its obligations under section 1(1) of the FOIA. The Commissioner does not require any steps to be taken.
Gofynnodd yr achwynydd
Exemptions cited: FOI 1(1)
View Vale of Glamorgan Council
16 Jul 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from the BBC on complaints about Doctor Who. The BBC responded that the requested information was covered by the derogation and hence excluded from FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that this information, if held at all, is held by the BBC for the purposes of journalism, art or literature and so is not covered by FOIA. He therefore upholds the BBC’s position and requires no steps to be taken in this case.
Exemptions cited: FOI 3
View BBC