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
15 Jul 2025Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from Bedfordshire Police on 3 April 2025 regarding the NECTAR Project/Platform. Bedfordshire Police stated it required more time to carry out the Public Interest Test (PIT) on 6 May 2025.
Section 10(1) of FOIA states that a public authority must respond to a request within 20 working days. Section 17(3) of FOIA states that where a public authority is relying on a qualified exemption, it can have a “reasonable” extension of time to consider the public interest in maintaining the exemption or disclosing the information.
The section 45 Code of Practice states that usually this should be no more than a further 20 working days. This means that the total time spent responding to a request should not exceed 40 working days unless there are exceptional circumstances.
The Commissioner does not consider there to be any exceptional circumstances and finds that, by failing to respond to the request within a reasonable time frame, the public authority has
Exemptions cited: FOI 17(3)
View Bedfordshire Police
15 Jul 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested copies of correspondence between Cherwell District Council (CDC) and the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO). Initially, CDC refused the request under sections 21 (Information accessible by other means) and 31 (Law enforcement) of FOIA. However, during the Commissioner’s investigation it suspected the complainant had made the request using a pseudonym. It asked the complainant for confirmation of their identity, which they did not provide. CDC then argued that the request was not a valid request for information within the meaning at section 8(1)(b) (Request for information) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that, in the circumstances of this case, CDC was entitled to consider that the request did not meet the criteria for a valid request under section 8(1)(b) of FOIA without verification of the complainant’s identity.
Exemptions cited: FOI 8
View Cherwell District Council
15 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(1)
View Ministry of Justice
15 Jul 2025Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The Commissioner’s decision is that the public authority breached section 10(1) of FOIA by failing to provide a response within 20 working days.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Avon and Somerset Police
15 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 the 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 East Lancashire Hospitals NHS Trust
15 Jul 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information about himself, his property and several planning applications he has submitted in respect of it. Stroud District Council (the Council) refused the request, citing regulations 12(4)(e) (Disclosure of internal communications), 5(3) (Applicant’s own personal data) and 13 (Personal data of third parties) of the EIR. The Commissioner’s decision is that the complainant requested his own personal data and that the Council was entitled to apply regulation 5(3) of the EIR to refuse the request.
Exemptions cited: EIR 5(3)
View Stroud District Council
15 Jul 2025Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about a consultation exercise and the publication of its findings. NHS England (‘NHSE’) provided some of the requested information but stated that it didn’t have a confirmed publication date for the consultation report. It relied on section 22A of FOIA to withhold the requested raw response data. The Commissioner’s decision is that NHSE was not entitled to rely on section 22A of FOIA. The Commissioner requires NHSE to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: Disclose the free text response information it holds within scope of the last part of the request.
Exemptions cited: FOI 22A
View NHS England
15 Jul 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested specified information about the imposition of sanctions under the Russia regime “on persons regarded as associated with Mr Roman Abramovich”. The Home Office initially refused to provide any information, citing the FOIA exemptions contained in section 24(1) – national security and sections 31(1)(a) and (c) - law enforcement. At internal review, the Home Office maintained that these exemptions applied, but additionally relied on sections 27(1) and (2) – international relations, and section 40(2) – personal information, of FOIA. During the course of the Commissioner’s investigation, the Home Office partly revised its position. It now said it no longer wished to rely on section 24(1) of FOIA “independently” to protect some of the withheld information. Instead the Home Office said it was relying on section 23(1) – security bodies or section 24(1) ‘in the alternative’, in addition to sections 27(1) and (2) and 31(1) of FOIA to protect that information. The Commissi
Exemptions cited: FOI 27
View Home Office
14 Jul 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from the BBC about production staff on The Traitors. 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
14 Jul 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted two requests to the Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office (FCDO) both of which sought information about the Chagos Islands. In response to the first request the FCDO withheld information on the basis of sections 24(1) (national security), 27(1)(a), (c) and (d) (international relations), and 35(1)(a) (formulation or development of government policy). In response to the second request the FCDO disclosed some information but withheld the remainder on the basis of sections 27(1)(a), (c) and (d), 35(1)(a) and 40(2) (personal data). The Commissioner’s decision is that the information withheld in response to the first request is exempt from disclosure on the basis of section 27(1)(a), (c) and (d), and the information withheld in response to the second request is exempt from disclosure on the basis of sections 27(1)(a), (c) and (d), section 35(1)(a), and section 40(2).
Exemptions cited: FOI 27; FOI 35; FOI 40
14 Jul 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from the BBC about news subscriptions. 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
14 Jul 2025Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to the Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office (FCDO) seeking documents relating to an article published in The Sunday Times in May 1999 alleging Colonel Gaddafi's personal involvement in the bombing of Pan Am 103. The FCDO disclosed some information but withheld further information on the basis of section 21 (information reasonably accessible by other means), and section 23(1) (security bodies) or, in the alternative, section 24(1) of FOIA. The complainant disputed the application of the latter two exemptions. The Commissioner has concluded that the disputed information is exempt from disclosure on the basis of section 23(1) or section 24(1) of FOIA. However, the FCDO breached section 17(1) by failing to issue a response to the request within 20 working days.
Exemptions cited: FOI 17; FOI 23; FOI 24
14 Jul 2025Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about various issues they have raised in connection to a suicide, from the Metropolitan Police Service (the “MPS”). The MPS would neither confirm nor deny (“NCND”) holding the requested information, citing sections 40(5A) and (5B) (Personal information) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the MPS was entitled to rely on section 40(5A) of FOIA in respect of both sets of requests listed under headings B and C. However, he finds breaches of section 17 in respect both. No steps are required. Information Tribunal FT/EA/2025/0297 under appeal.
Exemptions cited: FOI 17; FOI 40
View Metropolitan Police Service
14 Jul 2025Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from Dr T Cheesman and others. 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
14 Jul 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The Commissioner’s decision is that the General Dental Council is entitled to neither confirm nor deny it holds information about complaints about a named registrant under section 40(5B) of FOIA. This exemption concerns personal data. The Commissioner doesn’t require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40(5)(b)
View General Dental Council
14 Jul 2025Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information connected to a suicide from the Metropolitan Police Service (the “MPS”). The MPS did not respond to the requests under FOIA.
The Commissioner’s decision is that the correspondence of 2 August 2024 does not contain any valid requests for the purposes of FOIA so did not require a response under FOIA. However, the correspondence of 1 August 2024 does contain valid requests. In failing to respond to these, the MPS has breached sections 1 and 10 of FOIA. The Commissioner requires the MPS to either disclose the information requested on 1 August 2024 or issue a valid refusal notice as set out in section 17 of the FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10
View Metropolitan Police Service
14 Jul 2025Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from Department for Education. 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 Department for Education
14 Jul 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The Commissioner’s decision is that the General Dental Council is entitled to neither confirm nor deny it holds information about complaints about a named registrant under section 40(5B) of FOIA. This exemption concerns personal data. The Commissioner doesn’t require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40(5)(b)
View General Dental Council
14 Jul 2025Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about children and families in temporary accommodation. 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
14 Jul 2025Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from Ernulf Academy, a member of Astrea Academy Trust, about an alleged incident. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Academy should have relied on section 40(5B) of FOIA to refuse to confirm or deny whether any information was held and has applied this exemption himself proactively. He also finds that it breached section 17(1) of FOIA by failing to provide a refusal within 20 working days. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40(5); FOI 17(1)
View ASTREA ACADEMY TRUST
11 Jul 2025Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested NHSE to disclose a copy of one page of a 1939 Transcript Book. NHSE disclosed some information but withheld the remainder, citing sections 21, 40 and 41 of FOIA. The complaint to the Commissioner only concerned NHSE’s application of section 21 of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that NHSE is entitled to rely on section 21 of FOIA for the remaining withheld information but not for one small element. The Commissioner requires NHSE to disclose the sub district codes for death information withheld under section 21 of FOIA. Information Tribunal FT/EA/2025/0304 under appeal.
Exemptions cited: FOI 21
View NHS England
11 Jul 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information about a named senior manager who had been the complainant’s line manager, and other third parties. The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) explained that the information was being withheld as it related to the requester themselves and third-party identifiable individuals under section 40(1) and 40(2) of FOIA, respectively.
The Commissioner’s decision is that the MoJ was entitled to rely on sections 40(1) and 40(2) of FOIA to withhold information in scope of the request in this case.
The Commissioner does not require any steps as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40(1); FOI 40(2)
View Ministry of Justice
11 Jul 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information regarding a decision about the implementation of the Auckland Road LTN. London Borough of Croydon (the Council) provided information in scope of the request, and after a number of email exchanges and a lengthy delay for the internal review, it stated that no further information was held in scope of the request.
The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the Council does not hold further requested information. However, the Commissioner has recorded a procedural breach of section 10 of FOIA.
The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1(1)
View London Borough of Croydon
11 Jul 2025Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested from the London Borough of Tower Hamlets (LBTH) information about a planning application submitted by LBTH in relation to a proposal to carry out work to a building at 15 Chandler Street, Wapping E1W 2QL in order to convert it for multi-occupancy use, namely the establishment of a substance misuse rehabilitation centre. In its internal review response to the complainant, LBTH responded that it did not hold further information within the scope of the request. However, during the Commissioner’s investigation LBTH confirmed that it never held the requested information.
The Commissioner’s decision is that on the balance of probabilities LBTH did not hold the requested information.
The Commissioner found that LBTH breached regulation 14(2) by not providing a refusal notice within 20 working days.
The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(a); EIR 14(2)(1)
View London Borough of Tower Hamlets
11 Jul 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The Commissioner’s decision is that the requested information about Notices of Intended Prosecution is exempt information under section 31(1) of FOIA, which concerns law enforcement. The Commissioner doesn't require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 31(1)
View Transport for London
11 Jul 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested Great Western Trains Limited’s Train Formation Capacity Plan and Benchmark Tables. The Department for Transport (DfT) provided the Tables but withheld the Plan under section 43(2) and 44(1)(a) FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the DfT has correctly withheld the Train Formation Capacity Plan under section 44(1)(a) FOIA. No steps are required.
Exemptions cited: FOI 44
View Department for Transport
11 Jul 2025Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted two requests to the Cabinet Office seeking information about the performance of MyCSP in respect of the Civil Service Pension Scheme. The Cabinet Office disclosed information in response to the first request concerning the number of complaints about MyCSP but withheld the information sought by the second request on the basis of section 43(2) (commercial interests) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that all of the withheld information engages section 43(2). However, the balance of the public interest favours disclosure of information contained in the Service Level Agreement (SLA) reports. For the remainder of the withheld information the balance of the public interest favours maintaining the exemption and withholding this information. The Cabinet Office also breached section 10(1) by failing to respond to the first request within 20 working days.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 43
View Cabinet Office
11 Jul 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about a specific speed limit. The above public authority relied on section 31 of FOIA (law enforcement) to withhold the requested information. The Commissioner’s decision is that the public authority was entitled to rely on section 31 of FOIA to withhold the requested information and the balance of the public interest favours maintaining the exemption. The Commissioner does not require further steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 31
View National Highways
11 Jul 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about the valuation of a specific property. The above public authority relied on section 44 of FOIA (prohibitions on disclosure) to withhold the information. The Commissioner’s decision is that the public authority has correctly applied section 44 of FOIA. The Commissioner does not require further steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 44
View Valuation Office Agency
11 Jul 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested grievance statistics involving specific universities. The above public authority relied on section 44 of FOIA (prohibitions on disclosure) in order to withhold the information. The Commissioner’s decision is that the public authority has correctly relied on section 44 of FOIA. The Commissioner does not require further steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 44
View Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service
11 Jul 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested any recorded information that would provide clarification of a statement made in a service specification document. NHS England stated no recorded information was held. The Commissioner’s decision is that NHS England is correct to state it does not hold the requested information. It has therefore complied with section 1(1) FOIA. He requires no steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View NHS England
11 Jul 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested from Chelmsford County High School for Girls (the School) information regarding Discrimination, Diversity and Inclusion and LGBT/LGBTQ materials for year 8 pupils. The School advised that the information was intended for future publication, and it was relying on section 22 of FOIA to refuse the request.
The Commissioner’s decision is that the School was entitled to rely on the exemption at section 22(1) (information intended for future publication) of FOIA to withhold information in scope of the request.
The Commissioner does not require any steps as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: FOI 22
View CHELMSFORD COUNTY HIGH SCHOOL FOR GIRLS
11 Jul 2025Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information on two meetings and correspondence between Lord Johnson and Anduril regarding defence matters . DBT provided redacted information within the scope of the request whilst withholding the remaining information in reliance of the exemptions at FOIA section 41(1) - Information provided in confidence, section 40(2) – Personal information, section 35 – Operation of any ministerial office and section 43 – Commercial interests. The Commissioner’s decision is that DBT has correctly relied on the exemptions at FOIA sections 41(1), 43(2) and 40(2). However, although he finds the exemption at section 35(1)(d) engaged, the public interest favours disclosure. The Commissioner requires DBT to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. • Disclose the information redacted under section 35(1)(d).
Exemptions cited: FOI 35; FOI 40; FOI 41; FOI 43
View Department for Business and Trade
11 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
10 Jul 2025Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information relating to notices or other correspondence issued to owners/landowners concerning two specific highways. Powys County Council (the Council) provided some information, subject to some information being redacted under regulation 13 (personal data) of the EIR and stated that it did not hold any information relating to the second part of the request. During its internal review the Council provided some additional information subject to some personal data being redacted under regulation 13 of the EIR. During the course of the Commissioner’s investigation the Council located some additional information, which again it disclosed to the complainant, subject to some information being under regulation 13 of the EIR. The Commissioner’s decision is that on the balance of probabilities, the Council does not hold any additional information relevant to the request other than that which it has disclosed or redacted under regulation 13 of the EIR. The Commissioner
Exemptions cited: EIR 11(4); EIR 12(4)(a); EIR 13; EIR 5(1); EIR 5(2)
View Powys County Council
10 Jul 2025Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about Defra’s intranet. Defra relied on section 14(1) of FOIA to refuse the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the request was not vexatious and therefore Defra was not entitled to rely on section 14(1) of FOIA to refuse it. The Commissioner requires Defra to take the following step to ensure compliance with the legislation. Issue the complainant with a fresh response to their request that does not rely on section 14(1) of FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14(1)
10 Jul 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about the Health Mission Board. The Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC) withheld the information under sections 35(1)(a) and 35(1)(b) of FOIA. These exemptions concern the formulation of government policy and ministerial communications, respectively. The Commissioner’s decision is that DHSC correctly applied sections 35(1)(a) and 35(1)(b) of FOIA to the requested information and the public interest favours maintaining the exemptions. The Commissioner doesn’t require DHSC to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 35(1)(a); FOI 35(1)(b)
View Department of Health and Social Care
10 Jul 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
1. The complainant has requested information from Brighton and Hove City Council (“the Council”) in relation to correspondence about planning matters. The Council initially withheld the information under sections 36(2)(b)(ii) and 36(2)(c) of FOIA, however it later marked some correspondence within the scope of the request as being able to be disclosed to the complainant.
2. The Commissioner then found that the withheld information was environmental in nature so the Council re-considered the request under the provisions of the Environmental Information Regulations 2004 (EIR) and applied regulations 12(4)(e) - (internal communications) and 12(5)(b) – (course of justice) to some of the requested information (“the withheld information”).
3. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has correctly applied regulations 12(4)(e) and 12(5)(b) to part of the complainant’s request. There is some requested information to which no exception has been applied which the Council has stated can b
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(e); EIR 12(5)(b)
View Brighton and Hove City Council
10 Jul 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
1. The complainant requested information about business rates liability from Oxford City Council (“the Council”). The Council relied on section 14(1) of FOIA (vexatious) to refuse the request.
2. The Commissioner’s decision is that the request was vexatious and therefore the Council was entitled to rely upon section 14(1) of FOIA to refuse it.
3. The Commissioner does not require any steps.
Information Tribunal FT/EA/2025/0260 under appeal.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14(1)
View Oxford City Council
10 Jul 2025Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information held by Kent County Council (the council) relating to a planning application and subsequent planning appeal. The council provided the complainant with some information, but advised that it had withheld pre-application advice under the exemption at section 43(2) (commercial interests) of FOIA. At the internal review stage, the council confirmed that it now considered the EIR to be the correct access regime, and that it was relying on the exception at regulation 12(5)(d) (confidentiality of proceedings) as its basis for withholding the pre-application advice. At a late stage of the Commissioner’s investigation, the council revised its position, and said that it now considered that the pre-application advice did not fall within scope of the complainant’s request. Whilst the Commissioner considers that the EIR is the correct access regime, he considers that the council failed to obtain the correct objective reading of the request. The Commissioner
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(d); EIR 14; EIR 5
View Kent County Council
10 Jul 2025Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about redundancies and staff numbers. The Commissioner’s decision is that UCL was entitled to rely on section 40(5)(b) to neither confirm nor deny whether it holds information. He also finds UCL breached section 17(1)(c) of the FOIA by failing to issue an adequate refusal notice within the timeframe. No steps are required.
Exemptions cited: FOI 17; FOI 40(5)
View University College London
9 Jul 2025Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested Durham University (the university) to disclose email correspondence relating to a previous FOIA request, copies of two specific emails and the correspondence surrounding those emails. The university refused to comply with the request, citing section 14 of FOIA (vexatious request). The Commissioner’s decision is that the university is not entitled to rely on section 14 of FOIA. The Commissioner requires the university to issue a fresh response to the request in accordance with FOIA, which does not rely on section 14 of FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14
View University of Durham
9 Jul 2025Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested copies of Mental Health Act (MHA) reports carried out by Care Quality Commission (CQC) MHA reviewers. The CQC has refused the request under section 14(1) of FOIA (vexatious requests), on the basis that complying with the request would place an unreasonable burden on the CQC. The Commissioner’s decision is that the CQC is entitled to refuse the request on the basis of section 14(1) of FOIA. However, it breached section 17(5) of FOIA by issuing its refusal notice informing the requester of this decision outside the allowed 20 working day time limit. The Commissioner does not require any further steps to be taken as a result of this decision notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14(1); FOI 17(5)
View CQC
9 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 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(2)
View Tees Valley Combined Authority
9 Jul 2025Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested from Sparsholt College (the College) information regarding room usage and occupancy. The College refused to comply with the request and cited section 38 (health and safety) and section 43 (commercial interests) of FOIA.
The Commissioner’s decision is that the withheld information engages section 38 of FOIA and the public interest favours maintaining the exemption.
The Commissioner finds that the College had not provided reasonable advice and assistance to the complainant, therefore it did not comply with its obligations under section 16(1) (Advice and assistance) of FOIA. The Commissioner does not require the College to take any further steps as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: FOI 16(1); FOI 38
9 Jul 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested copies of expert opinions used in a claim he made. The above public authority dealt with the request as a SAR, but the complainant insisted on a FOIA response. The Commissioner’s decision is that the only correct FOIA response to this request would have been for the public authority to rely on section 40(5A) of FOIA to refuse to confirm or deny that the information is held. To the extent that it is necessary to do so, the Commissioner therefore applies this exemption himself, proactively. The Commissioner does not require further steps to be taken. Information Tribunal FT/EA/2025/0259 under appeal.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40(5)(a)
View NHS Resolution
9 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.
Exemptions cited: EIR 5(2)
View Bridgend County Borough Council
9 Jul 2025Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested Goldsmiths, University of London (the university) to disclose the total amount paid to a list of publishers for 2020 to 2023. The university refused to comply with the request, citing section 12 of FOIA (cost limit). The Commissioner’s decision is that the university is entitled to refuse to comply with the request in accordance with section 12 of FOIA. However, it breached section 16 of FOIA by providing advice and assistance late. The Commissioner does not require any steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12; FOI 16
9 Jul 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about particular complaints. 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