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
8 Jul 2025Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information about postage costs from East Lancashire Hospitals NHS Trust (the Trust). 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 Trust has not issued a substantive response to this request. Therefore the Commissioner finds a breach of section 10. The Trust must provide a substantive response to the request in accordance with its obligations under FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View East Lancashire Hospitals NHS Trust
8 Jul 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information about performance issues, of a specified third party, relating to the running of the Bronzefield prison. The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) confirmed it holds the requested information but refused to disclose it, citing section 43(2) (commercial interests) of FOIA. During the course of the Commissioner’s investigation, the MoJ revised its position, disclosing some of the requested information. However it continued to withhold the remaining information, information in scope of part (1) of the request, which relates to financial penalties imposed in 2024. The Commissioner’s decision is that the MoJ is entitled to rely on section 43(2) of FOIA to withhold that information. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: FOI 43
View Ministry of Justice
8 Jul 2025Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a two part request to the Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office (FCDO) seeking information about delisting decision for persons previously designated as subject to sanctions. The FCDO initially responded by stating that it held information in the scope of both parts of the request. It argued that in relation to part 1 the information was exempt from disclosure on the basis of sections 35 (formulation or development of government policy) and 36 (effective conduct of public affairs) of FOIA and in relation to part 2 that the information was exempt on the basis of sections 40 (personal data) and 41 (information provided in confidence). The FCDO subsequently amended its position and argued that none of this fell within the scope of the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the information initially withheld on the basis of sections 35 and 36 does not fall within the scope of part 1 of the request and nor does the FCDO hold any other information falling
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 17; FOI 40; FOI 41
8 Jul 2025Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested a copy of the village Hall committee minutes from Potto Parish Council (“the council”). The council initially said that it did not hold a copy for September 2023, however it subsequently disclosed a copy to the complainant during the course of the Commissioner's investigation. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council’s response did not comply with section 1(1) of FOIA as it incorrectly stated that it did not hold a copy of the newsletter. The Commissioner has also decided that the council did not comply with the requirements of section 10(1) of FOIA in that it did not provide a copy of the requested information to the complainant within 20 working days of the receipt of the request for information. As the information has now been disclosed, however, the Commissioner does not require the council to take any further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1(1); FOI 10(1)
8 Jul 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested corporation tax return information. HM Revenuand Customs (“HMRC”) relies on section 44(1)(a) of FOIA to withhold the requested information. The Commissioner’s decision is that HMRC’s reliance on section 44(1)(a) of FOIA was correct. Information Tribunal FT/EA/2025/0257 under appeal.
Exemptions cited: FOI 44
8 Jul 2025Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted multiple requests on the topics of discountable pension entitlements and audio recording equipment. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) is entitled to aggregate the requests by topic and consider them as two requests as provided by section 12(4) of FOIA. The Commissioner also finds that DWP is entitled to rely on section 12(1) to refuse to comply with the requests. The Commissioner does, however, find that DWP failed to provide adequate advice and assistance in accordance with section 16 of FOIA. DWP also responded outside of the statutory timeframe and so breached section 17(5). The Commissioner requires DWP to provide the complainant with advice and assistance on how to refine each of the two (aggregated) requests. The public authority 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 Hi
Exemptions cited: FOI 12; FOI 16; FOI 17
View Department for Work and Pensions
8 Jul 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
1. The complainant has requested information from Newry, Mourne and Down District Council (“the Council”) in relation to a specific meeting. The Council provided a response to the complainant’s request with some information, however the complainant is not satisfied with the response, as they consider that the Council should hold further information within the scope of their request.
2. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the Council has provided all the information it holds in relation to the request.
3. The Commissioner does not require the Council to take any steps as a result of this decision notice.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(a)
8 Jul 2025Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information about postage costs from Sandwell and West Birmingham NHS Trust (the Trust). 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 Trust has not issued a substantive response to this request. Therefore the Commissioner finds a breach of section 10. The Trust must provide a substantive response to the request in accordance with its obligations under FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Sandwell and West Birmingham Hospitals NHS Trust
8 Jul 2025Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a three part request for information from Mid Devon District Council (“the Council”) relating to a report produced by a working group into the lessons learned from 3 Rivers Developments. The Council provided the complainant with some information, but withheld the names of five former councillors under section 40(2) (third party personal information) of FOIA. The complainant also believes that the Council holds further information within the scope of part three of the request, beyond that which it has disclosed. The Commissioner’s decision is that: the Council is not entitled to rely on section 40(2) to withhold the names of five former councillors; on the balance of probabilities, the Council has disclosed all of the information held within scope of part three of the request. The Commissioner requires the Council to take the following step to ensure compliance with the legislation: Disclose the names of five former councillors.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1(1); FOI 40(2)
View Mid Devon District Council
8 Jul 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The Commissioner’s decision is that the Department for Education is entitled to refuse the complainant’s request for information about pension payments under section 12(1) of FOIA. This is because the cost of complying with the request would exceed the appropriate limit. There has been no breach of section 16(1) of FOIA, which concerns advice and assistance. The Commissioner doesn’t require any further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12(1); FOI 16(1)
View Department for Education
8 Jul 2025Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information relating to borehole testing at specific addresses. North Yorkshire Council (the council) initially provided some information, but at the internal review stage the council reconsidered the request and refused it under regulation 12(4)(b) as manifestly unreasonable. The Commissioner’s decision is that regulation 12(4)(b) of the EIR is not engaged. The Commissioner requires the council to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. Issue a fresh response to the complainant without relying on regulation 12(4)(b) of the EIR. 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 12(4)(b)
View North Yorkshire County Council
7 Jul 2025Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to a community fund from Puxton Parish Council (“the Council”). The Council said that it has disclosed all the information it holds, however the complainant believes it holds further information within the scope of the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the Council has not identified all of the information it holds within the scope of the request. The Commissioner requires the Council to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. Conduct fresh searches for information within the scope of the request and disclose any further information it identifies as a result of the fresh searches, or provide an appropriate refusal notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
7 Jul 2025Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about continuing healthcare. The above public authority relied on section 21 of FOIA (reasonably accessible) to withhold some of the information and section 12(1) of FOIA (costs) to refuse the remainder of the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the public authority was entitled to rely on sections 21 and 12 of FOIA in the manner that it has done. The public authority breached section 17 of FOIA as its refusal notice was inadequate. The public authority failed to provide reasonable advice and assistance and therefore failed to comply with section 16 of FOIA. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: either provide the complainant with advice and assistance to help her refine her request, such that it falls within the cost limit, or explain why the request cannot be meaningfully refined.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12; FOI 16; FOI 17
View NHS Buckinghamshire, Oxfordshire and Berkshire West ICB
7 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
7 Jul 2025Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to financial accounts. The above public authority relied on section 12 of FOIA to refuse the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the public authority was entitled to rely on section 12 of FOIA to refuse the request. However, the public authority breached section 16 of FOIA as it failed to provide reasonable advice and assistance. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: Either provide the complainant with advice and assistance to help him refine his request such that it falls within the cost limit or explain why the request cannot be meaningfully refined.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12; FOI 16
View University of Wales Trinity Saint David
7 Jul 2025Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information about a survey carried out by the council on a neighbour’s property. Epping Forest District Council (“the council”) refused part of the request on the basis that section 40(2) of FOIA applies (personal data of third parties). The Commissioner’s decision is that that the council should have considered the information under the EIR, and that it was only partially correct to withhold information under Regulation 13(1). The Commissioner therefore requires the council to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation.to carry out adequate and appropriate searches to locate any information falling within the scope of part 3 of the complainant's request for information, and to respond to this part of the request again as required by Regulation 5(1) of the EIR.To respond to the request regarding whether the person named as a surveyor was a chartered surveyor or had professional qualifications. Information Tribunal FT/EA/2025/0292 under
Exemptions cited: EIR 13; EIR 5(1)
View Epping Forest District Council
7 Jul 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information with regards to the redevelopment of Bankside Yards. The Commissioner’s decision is that Southwark Council (“the council”) does not hold any information falling within the scope of the request, therefore regulation 12(4)(a) of the EIR is engaged. The Commissioner does not require any steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(a)
View Southwark Council
7 Jul 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested standard clauses from settlement agreements held by Channel 4. Channel 4 stated they did not have standard clauses in their agreements. The Commissioner’s decision is that Channel 4 does not hold the information falling with the scope of this request. No steps are required.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 16
View Channel 4
7 Jul 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested copies of correspondence sent to and from Sex Matters. 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
7 Jul 2025Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about a settlement agreement that the City of Bradford Metropolitan Borough Council entered into with the NEC Group. The Council refused to disclose the information under section 43(2) (Commercial interests). The Commissioner’s decision is that the exemption provided by section 43(2) is engaged, but that the public interest test supports disclosure of the information. The Commissioner requires the Council to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: Disclose the withheld information.
Exemptions cited: FOI 43(2)
View City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council
7 Jul 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested copies of contracts with employees of the University of Chichester. The above public authority relied on section 40(2) of FOIA (third party personal information) to withhold the information. The Commissioner’s decision is that the public authority is entitled to rely on section 40(2) of FOIA to withhold the information. The Commissioner does not require further steps to be taken. Information Tribunal FT/EA/2025/0269 under appeal.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View The Open University
4 Jul 2025Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about mental health assessments. Central and North West London NHS Foundation Trust (‘the Trust’) has now disclosed relevant information it holds and the Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, it holds no further information. The Trust breached sections 1(1) and 10(1) of FOIA however, as it didn’t communicate the information it holds within the statutory time period. The Commissioner doesn’t require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1(1); FOI 10(1)
View Central and North West London NHS Foundation Trust
4 Jul 2025Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested from Translink, information regarding the Inspection and Maintenance Schedule of its infrastructure at Lough Foyle, adjacent to railway line and A2. Translink determined that the information is exempt from disclosure and applied regulation 12(5)(a) (International relations, defence, national security or public safety) of the EIR.
The Commissioner’s decision is that Translink was entitled to rely on regulation 12(5)(a) of the EIR to withhold the information requested, and the public interest favours maintaining the exception. However, the Commissioner finds that Translink breached regulation 10 of the EIR in its handling of the request by failing to either pass on the part of the request to the public authority that may hold the information, or advising the complainant they could do so.
The Commissioner does not require Translink to take any steps as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(a); FOI 10
4 Jul 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The Commissioner’s decision is that NHS England (NHSE) is entitled to refuse the complainant’s request for information about COVID-19 vaccination payments under section 12(1) of FOIA. This exemption concerns the cost of complying with a request. NHSE complied with its duty under section 16(1) to offer advice and assistance. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12(1); FOI 16(1)
View NHS England
4 Jul 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a four-part request, requesting information associated with a fixed penalty notice (FPN) they received in 2024 and later appealed.
London Borough of Bromley (the ‘Council’) provided information in response to part one, two and four. It stated it did not hold any further information within scope of the request.
In response to part three the Council withheld information under section 40(2) of FOIA, as it considered this to be personal data.
The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the Council does not hold any further information, other than that which has already been disclosed.
The Council is also entitled to withhold the roles and names of Council officer(s) under section 40(2) of FOIA as it is the personal data of another individual and disclosure would be unlawful.
The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 40(2)
View Bromley Council
4 Jul 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from the Social Care Institute for Excellence (SCIE) related to the 'Ella' Safeguarding Adult Review. SCIE provided some information and refused some information, citing sections 33 (audit), 38 (health and safety), 40(2) (personal information) and 41 (information provided in confidence) FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that SCIE has correctly applied sections 41 and 40(2) FOIA to the information it has withheld. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40(2); FOI 41(1)
4 Jul 2025Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information held by the London Borough of Barnet (the council) about a planning enforcement matter relating to a particular property. Whilst the council provided the complainant with some information in response to their request, it refused to provide the remaining information, citing the exceptions at regulation 6(1)(b) (form and format of information), regulation 13 (third party personal information), and regulation 12(5)(b) (course of justice), of the EIR. The Commissioner has found that regulation 6(1)(b) is not engaged, but that the council has complied with its obligations under regulation 5 of the EIR in respect of that information which is already publicly accessible. The Commissioner has also decided that part of the requested information is the complainant’s own personal data, and that the council is entitled to rely on regulation 5(3) (personal information of the requester) to withhold this information. With regard to all the remaining information,
Exemptions cited: EIR 13; EIR 5(1); EIR 5(3); EIR 6(1)(b)
View Barnet Council
4 Jul 2025Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant made three requests for information about property infestation and Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council’s (the Council) conduct. The Council relied on section 14(1) of FOIA (vexatious) to refuse the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that all three requests were vexatious, and the Council was entitled to rely upon section 14(1) of FOIA to refuse them. The Commissioner also finds that the Council breached section 17(1), by failing to issue an appropriate refusal notice to the complainant in regards to request 3. The Commissioner does not require any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14; FOI 17(1)
View Sandwell Council
3 Jul 2025Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The Commissioner’s decision is that Belfast Health and Social Care Trust (‘the Trust’) isn’t entitled to withhold the requested numerical data about cervical screening under section 40(2) of FOIA. This is because Commissioner hasn’t been persuaded that the withheld data can be categorised as personal data. The Commissioner requires the Trust to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: Disclose the numerical data that the complainant has requested; that is, without the initials or personnel information about some screeners. The Commissioner expects the Trust to take appropriate precautions when disclosing information in a spreadsheet or similar format, in line with the Commissioner’s advisory note on information held in spreadsheets.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40(2)
View Department of Health and Social Care
3 Jul 2025Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information about staffing. The above public authority provided all the requested information but not within 20 working days. The Commissioner’s decision is that the public authority breached section 10 of FOIA because it failed to provide all the requested information within 20 working days. The Commissioner does not require further steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View East and North Hertfordshire Teaching NHS Trust
3 Jul 2025Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information about the removal of two trees outside a specific address. Cardiff Council (the Council) initially stated that the information requested was exempt under section 32 (court records) of the FOIA. In its internal review the Council reconsidered the request under the EIR and stated that the information requested was exempt under regulations 13 (personal data), 12(5)(B) (course of justice) and 12(5)(d) (confidentiality of proceedings) of the EIR. During the course of the Commissioner’s investigation the Council disclosed some information, withdrew reliance on regulation 12(5)(d) of the EIR and maintained that the remaining information was exempt under regulations 13 and 12(5)(b) of the EIR. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council correctly applied regulation 13 of the EIR to the request. The Commissioner also finds that the Council breached regulation 11(4) in failing to provide the outcome of its internal review within 40 working days. The Comm
Exemptions cited: EIR 11; EIR 13
View Cardiff Council
3 Jul 2025Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information relating to an abatement notice, and information disclosed in response to a previous information request. The London Borough of Havering (the Council) provided some information but did not provide the information disclosed in response to the previous request.
The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has failed to comply with regulation 5(1) and regulation 5(2) in that it has failed to make environmental information available within the statutory time for compliance. The Commissioner requires the Council to provide the complainant with the information disclosed in response to the previous request.
Exemptions cited: EIR 11; EIR 5
View London Borough of Havering
3 Jul 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to particular safety and risk assessments. The Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) said that it did not hold some information. For the information it did hold, it applied section 31(1)(g) (Law enforcement) by way of subsections 31(2)(a), (b) & (c) of FOIA to refuse to disclose it. The Commissioner’s decision is that the CAA was entitled to rely on section 31(1)(g), by way of subsections 31(2)(a), (b) & (c), to refuse to disclose the information it holds. He also found that, on the balance of probabilities, the CAA does not hold the remaining information described in the request. Information Tribunal FT/EA/2025/0258 under appeal.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 31
View Civil Aviation Authority
3 Jul 2025Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested scoring criteria and scores awarded to candidates in a recruitment exercise. The above public authority relied on section 40(2) of FOIA (third party personal information) to withhold the information. The Commissioner’s decision is that the information is not personal information and therefore the public authority is not entitled to rely on section 40(2) of FOIA to withhold it. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: Disclose a copy of the scoring criteria; and Disclose the anonymised scores of each candidate on each part of the assessment.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust
3 Jul 2025Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from Liverpool City Council (the Council) regarding communication between Council staff, contracts, and the sale of various properties. The Council withheld information to some parts of the request and cited sections 31(1)(g) and 31(2)(b) (Law enforcement) of FOIA.
The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council was not entitled to rely on sections 31(1)(g) and 31(2)(b) of FOIA to refuse to provide the withheld information.
The Commissioner requires the Council to disclose the following information, subject to any personal data redactions in accordance with his guidance :
• Interviews supplied to the Commissioner
• Information provided to him in the email dated 25 April 2025
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 FOIA and may be dealt with as a contempt
Exemptions cited: FOI 31(1)(g); FOI 31(2)(b)
View Liverpool City Council
3 Jul 2025Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information about INEOS’ Project ONE. The above public authority relied on 12(5)(b) of the EIR (course of justice) to withhold the requested information. The Commissioner’s decision is regulation 12(5)(b) is engaged and that the public interest favours withholding the information. However, the public authority’s handling of the request breached regulations 5(2), 11 and 14 of the EIR. The Commissioner does not require further steps. Information Tribunal FT/EA/2025/0270 under appeal.
Exemptions cited: EIR 11; EIR 12(5)(b); EIR 14; EIR 5(2)
View UK Export Finance
3 Jul 2025Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested details about complaints relating to a particular surgery. The above public authority stated that it did not hold some of the requested information and relied on section 40(5B) of FOIA (third party personal information) to refuse to confirm or deny whether it held the remainder. The Commissioner’s decision is that the public authority is not entitled to rely on section 40(5B) of FOIA in the manner that it has. He is satisfied that, on the balance of probabilities, the public authority does not hold some of the requested information. The public authority breached section 10 of FOIA as it failed to provide its response within 20 working days. The public authority did not breach section 16 of FOIA. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: confirm or deny whether it holds any complaints about the staff of the practice specified in the request. If any information is held, the public au
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 16; FOI 40(5)(b)
View General Dental Council
2 Jul 2025Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested contractual information from the London Borough of Lambeth (“LBL”). LBL disclosed some but withheld the remainder citing regulation 12(5)(e) (commercially confidential information). It upheld this at internal review (albeit after considerable delay). The Commissioner’s decision is that LBL is entitled to withhold most of the requested information under regulation 12(5)(e) but not all of it. LBL also contravened its obligations under regulation 11 to conduct a timely internal review. The Commissioner requires LBL to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: Disclose the information listed in the Confidential Annex to this Notice. The public authority 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 11; EIR 12(5)(e)
View London Borough of Lambeth
2 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
2 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
2 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 parts 1, 3 and 4 of the request. Therefore the Commissioner finds a breach of regulation 5(2). 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 parts 2 and 5 of the request. Therefore the Commissioner finds a breach of section 10. The public authority must provide a substantive response to parts 1, 3 and 4 of the request in accordance with its obligations under the EIR. It must also provide a substantive response to parts 2 and 5 of the request in accordance with its obligations under FOIA. The public authority must take these steps within
Exemptions cited: EIR 5(2); FOI 10
View Enfield Council
2 Jul 2025Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant submitted a request to the London Borough of Enfield (the Council) seeking a copy of a research report carried out by Jones Lang LaSalle for the Council’s Housing and Regeneration Team. The Council withheld the report on the basis of section 43(2) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the report constitutes environmental information and therefore the request should have been handled under the EIR. The Commissioner has concluded that the report is not exempt from disclosure under regulation 12(5)(e) (commercial or industrial information). The Commissioner has concluded that the Council also breached regulation 11(4) by not completing the internal review of this request. Information Tribunal FT/EA/2025/0339 under appeal.
Exemptions cited: EIR 11; EIR 12(5)(e)
View Enfield Council
2 Jul 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a four part request to the Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office (FCDO) seeking information about the Government’s decision in September 2024 to suspend 30 licenses for the export of military equipment to Israel. The FCDO refused to confirm or deny whether it held information falling within the scope of part 1 of the request on the basis of sections 41(2) (information provided in confidence) and 43(3) (commercial interests) of FOIA. It confirmed that it held information falling within the scope of parts 2, 3 and 4 of the request but withheld this on the basis of sections 41(1) and 43(2), with section 27(1) (international relations) of FOIA also applying to parts 2 and 4. The Commissioner’s decision is that the FCDO is entitled to rely on section 41(2) to refuse to confirm or deny whether it holds information falling within the scope of part 1 of the request and is entitled to withhold the information falling within the scope of parts 2, 3 and 4 of the req
Exemptions cited: FOI 41
2 Jul 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested an unredacted version of a particular Board paper and any appendices associated with that paper. The Canal & River Trust (CRT) maintained the redactions previously made to the report under sections 36(2)(b)(ii) and 36(2)(c) of FOIA. It also disclosed one document associated with the report and has advised it holds no other relevant appendices to that report. In the course of the Commissioner’s investigation, CRT advised that, due to the passage of time, it could now disclose a little information it had previously withheld. The Commissioner’s decision is that the remaining information in the Board paper that CRT has redacted is exempt information under sections 36(2)(b)(ii) and 36(2)(c) of FOIA. The Commissioner also finds that, on the balance of probabilities, CRT holds no further information within scope of the complainant’s request.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1(1); FOI 36(2)(b)(ii); FOI 36(2)(c)
View Canal and River Trust
2 Jul 2025Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to texts currently forming part of the syllabus. OCR disclosed the majority of the information but withheld specific information under section 40(2) (personal information). The Commissioner’s decision is that OCR has provided the majority of the information requested and was correct to withhold the information it did under section 40(2). The Commissioner require the following steps: if it hasn’t already done so, confirm or deny that the specific information referred to within paragraphs 20-22 is held and either disclose it or issue a valid refusal notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10; FOI 17; FOI 40(2)
2 Jul 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a four part request to the Department for Business and Trade (DBT) seeking information about the Government’s decision in September 2024 to suspend 30 licenses for the export of military equipment to Israel. DBT refused to confirm or deny whether it held information falling within the scope of part 1 of the request on the basis of sections 38(2) (health and safety), 41(2) (information provided in confidence) and 43(3) (commercial interests) of FOIA. It confirmed that it held information falling within the scope of parts 2, 3 and 4 of the request but withheld this on the basis of sections 38(1), 41(1) and 43(2) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that DBT is entitled to rely on section 41(2) to refuse to confirm or deny whether it holds information falling within the scope of part 1 of the request and is entitled to withhold the information falling within the scope of parts 2, 3 and 4 of the request on the basis of section 41(1) of FOIA. Information Tribuna
Exemptions cited: FOI 41
View Department for Business and Trade
1 Jul 2025Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested Transport for Wales (TfW) to disclose information relating to the Rail Settlement Plan ticket specifications and public keys. TfW refused to disclose the requested information citing section 31(1)(a) of FOIA (prevention of crime). The Commissioner’s decision is that TfW is entitled to withhold the requested information under section 31(1)(a) of FOIA. It however breached section 17(1) of FOIA by failing to inform the complainant that it required additional time to consider the public interest test within 20 working days of the receipt of the request. The Commissioner does not require further steps. Information Tribunal FT/EA/2025/0282 under appeal.
Exemptions cited: FOI 31; FOI 17(1)
View Transport for Wales Rail
1 Jul 2025Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from the Council on 23 January 2025 and 3 February 2025 regarding a specific meeting and its agenda.
A public authority will breach section 10 of FOIA if it fails to respond to a request within 20 working days. Based on evidence available to the Commissioner, by the date of this notice the public authority has not issued a substantive response to this request. Therefore the Commissioner finds a breach of section 10.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
1 Jul 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a multi-part request for specified information relating to mortgage fraud and/or a specific criminal prosecution. Ultimately, the Crown Prosecution Service (the ‘CPS’) said that some of the requested information was not held (for parts 1 to 7 of the request) and that the remainder (part 8) was being withheld under section 31(1) of FOIA – the law enforcement exemption. During the course of the Commissioner’s investigation, the CPS partly revised its position; it said it was no longer relying on section 31(1) for part 8 of the request, but instead cited section 30(1)(c) – the FOIA exemption for any criminal proceedings which the authority has power to conduct. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, no recorded information is held by the CPS for parts 1 to 7 of the request. He also finds that the CPS properly relied on section 30(1)(c) of FOIA to withhold the information at part 8 of the request. No steps are required as a result of
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 30
View Crown Prosecution Service