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
1 Jul 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested North Trains Limited (NT) to disclose information relating to the Rail Settlement Plan ticket specifications and public keys. NT refused to disclose the requested information citing section 31(1)(a) of FOIA (prevention of crime). The Commissioner’s decision is that NT is entitled to withhold the requested information under section 31(1)(a) of FOIA. The Commissioner does not require further steps. Information Tribunal FT/EA/2025/0278 under appeal.
Exemptions cited: FOI 31
View Northern Rail
1 Jul 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested SE Trains Limited (SET) to disclose information relating to the Rail Settlement Plan ticket specifications and public keys. SET refused to disclose the requested information citing section 31(1)(a) of FOIA (prevention of crime). The Commissioner’s decision is that SET is entitled to withhold the requested information under section 31(1)(a) of FOIA. The Commissioner does not require further steps. Information Tribunal FT/EA/2025/0281 under appeal.
Exemptions cited: FOI 31
1 Jul 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested London North Eastern Railway (LNER) to disclose information relating to the Rail Settlement Plan ticket specifications and public keys. LNER refused to disclose the requested information citing section 31(1)(a) of FOIA (prevention of crime). The Commissioner’s decision is that LNER is entitled to withhold the requested information under section 31(1)(a) of FOIA. The Commissioner does not require further steps. Information Tribunal FT/EA/2025/0275 under appeal.
Exemptions cited: FOI 31(1)(a)
1 Jul 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information relating to the purchase of land. Mid Devon District Council (the “Council”) disclosed some information and confirmed that further information was not held. The complainant disputes this and considers that the Council holds further information relating to parts 1 and 2 of their request.
The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council was entitled to rely on regulation 12(4)(a) of the EIR as, on balance, he is satisfied that it does not hold further information falling within parts 1 and 2 of the request and, as the review request was submitted out of time, regulation 11(2) disapplied the Council’s duty to carry out an internal review in this case. The Commissioner does not require the Council to take any further steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 11; EIR 12(4)(a)
View Mid Devon District Council
30 Jun 2025Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information from Wakefield Council (“the Council”) relating to a Tree Preservation Order (TPO) application. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council is not entitled to rely on regulation 13(1) (personal data) of the EIR to withhold a sketch showing the location of trees subject to the TPO application. The Commissioner requires the Council to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. Disclose the sketch which shows the location of trees subject to the TPO application. 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 13(1)
View Wakefield Council
30 Jun 2025Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to child sexual exploitation in Sheffield. Sheffield City Council (the Council) initially cited section 12 (cost of compliance) of FOIA. The Council revised its position during the Commissioner’s investigation, relying on section 21 (information accessible to applicant by other means) of FOIA to refuse the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council breached section 17(1) (refusal of request) of FOIA. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: FOI 17
View Sheffield City Council
30 Jun 2025Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from London Borough of Hillingdon (the council) with regards to a block of flats. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council has breached section 1 and 17 of the FOIA as it has not issued a valid response or refusal notice in response to the request. The Commissioner also finds that the council breached section 10 of the FOIA as it did not respond to the request within the required timeframe. The Commissioner requires the council to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. issue a fresh response to the request in accordance with the FOIA, either providing the requested information or issuing a valid refusal notice. The council must take these steps within 30 calendar days of the date of this decision notice. Failure to comply may result in the Commissioner making written certification of this fact to the High Court pursuant to section 54 of the Act and may be dealt with as a contempt of court.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10; FOI 17
View Hillingdon Council
30 Jun 2025Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from Ministry of Justice on 15 April 2025 about a new facility for applying for "Vexatious Litigant Permission" to the Administrative Court and on E-Filing.
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 Ministry of Justice has not issued a substantive response to this request. Therefore, the Commissioner finds a breach of section 10.
The Ministry of Justice must provide a substantive response to the request in accordance with its obligations under FOIA.
The Ministry of Justice 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 Ministry of Justice
30 Jun 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 Barking and Dagenham Council
30 Jun 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested meta-data relating to the handling of one of their previous requests. The London Borough of Hackney (“the Council”) provided the complainant with information within scope of their request and stated that no further information was held. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has provided the complainant with the information it holds within scope of the request and it is unlikely to hold anything further. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View London Borough of Hackney
30 Jun 2025Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to opticians appointments. NHS England (‘NHSE’) denied holding some information and refused to disclose what it did hold under section 43(2) (commercial interests) and section 22 (information intended for future publication). The Commissioner’s decision is as follows: the part 1 information doesn’t engage section 22, the part 2 information doesn’t engage section 43(2) and the part 3 information is held for the purposes of FOIA. The Commissioner requires NHSE to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: disclose all information requested.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 22; FOI 43(2)
View NHS England
27 Jun 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to the Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office (FCDO) seeking communications relating to the Duke of York’s visit to Azerbaijan in November 2008. The FCDO explained that it did not hold any information falling within the scope of the request. The complainant disputed this position. The Commissioner’s decision is that on the balance of probabilities the FCDO does not hold any information falling within the scope of the request.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
27 Jun 2025Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to a Staff Survey Report from Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust (the Trust). The Trust has failed to respond to this request within 20 working days, as specified under FOIA. The Commissioner requires it to provide the complainant with a response to this request within 30 calendar days in accordance with its obligations under FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust
27 Jun 2025Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to the Mayor and CX Diaries from York and North Yorkshire Combined Authority (YNYCA). YNYCA has failed to respond to this request within 20 working days, as specified under FOIA. The Commissioner requires it to provide the complainant with a response to this request within 30 calendar days in accordance with its obligations under FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View York and North Yorkshire Combined Authority
27 Jun 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has sought to obtain from the Valuation Office Agency (VOA) information about the Council Tax band, specific methodology and process of assessing his own property. The complainant also asked for information about comparable properties considered during the band process.
The Commissioner’s decision is that the VOA was entitled to rely on section 44(1)(a) to withhold the requested information.
The Commissioner does not require further steps to be taken by VOA in relation to this case.
Exemptions cited: FOI 44
View Valuation Office Agency
27 Jun 2025Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested a copy of the response submitted by Devon County Council to the Department for Transport (DfT) consultation on proposed changes to bus franchising guidance. The DfT refused to provide this information applying section 35(1)(a) FOIA – formulation of government policy etc. The Commissioner has concluded that the requested information is not environmental information. The Commissioner’s decision is that the exemption at section 35 is engaged but he finds that the public interest in maintaining the exemption does not outweigh the public interest in disclosure. The Commissioner requires the DfT to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation.
• Disclose the information falling within scope of the request subject to any appropriate redactions for personal data.
Exemptions cited: FOI 35(1)(a)
View Department for Transport
27 Jun 2025Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from Maidstone and Tunbridge Wells NHS Trust (the Trust). The Trust has failed to respond to this request within 20 working days, as specified under FOIA. The Commissioner requires it to provide the complainant with a response to this request within 30 calendar days in accordance with its obligations under FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Maidstone and Tunbridge Wells NHS Trust
26 Jun 2025Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested from London Borough of Haringey information about an agreement to redevelop Hornsey Town Hall. 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 Haringey Council
26 Jun 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested copies of correspondence and other types of documentation containing their own name and/or that of their business from Cornwall Council (“the Council”). The Council provided some information within scope of the request; however, it withheld other information, citing the exemptions at sections 40(1) (personal information of the requester), 40(2) (third-party personal information), 42 (legal professional privilege) and 43(2) (commercial interests) of FOIA as its bases for doing so. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council is entitled to withhold the information withheld under the exemptions at sections 40(1), 40(2), 42 and 43(2) on these bases. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40(1); FOI 40(2); FOI 42; FOI 43(2)
View Cornwall Council
26 Jun 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant made a request for information relating to the interviewing of Hungarian Refugees. The Home Office refused the complainant’s request under section 23(1) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Home Office was entitled to rely on section 23(1) of FOIA to refuse the request. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 23(1)
View Home Office
26 Jun 2025Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about patients transferring between GP practices in the Banbury area following a moratorium. NHS Buckinghamshire, Oxfordshire and Berkshire West Integrated Care Board (‘the ICB’) advised it didn’t hold some of the information. It disclosed the relevant information it does hold, withholding small numbers under section 40(2) of FOIA. This exemption concerns personal data. The Commissioner finds that the ICB wrongly applied section 40(2) to one number that’s fewer than 10 but correctly applied it to the remaining information it’s withholding. The Commissioner requires the ICB to take the following step to ensure compliance with the legislation: Disclose to the complainant the number for Hightown under ‘March’ and given as ‘Fewer than 10’.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40(2)
View NHS Buckinghamshire, Oxfordshire and Berkshire West ICB
26 Jun 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested a copy of a misconduct report about a named police officer. Essex Police would neither confirm nor deny whether it holds the requested information, citing section 30(3) (Investigations and proceedings) and section 40(5B)(a)(i) (Personal information) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that Essex Police was entitled to rely on section 40(5B)(a)(i) of FOIA to neither confirm nor deny whether it holds the requested information.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View Essex Police
26 Jun 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information about the decision not to renew the contract for the creative directors on the Haugh Hall Project. Wigan Council (the Council) stated that it did not hold the requested information. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the Council does not hold any information falling within the scope of the request. The Commissioner does not require any steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Wigan Council
26 Jun 2025Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information related to decision notices issued by the ICO. The ICO refused the request as vexatious under section 14(1) FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the request was not vexatious and therefore the ICO was not entitled to rely on section 14(1) to refuse it. The Commissioner requires the ICO to issue a fresh response to the request that does not rely on section 14(1) of FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14
View Information Commissioner
26 Jun 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested a copy of a letter sent from Buckingham Palace to the then-Director General of the BBC. The above public authority relied on section 44 of FOIA to withhold the information. The Commissioner’s decision is that the public authority was entitled to rely on section 44 of FOIA in order to withhold the information. The Commissioner does not require further steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 44
View Information Commissioner
26 Jun 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from the BBC about a presenter’s expenses. 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
26 Jun 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from the BBC about the decision to cancel the Drama Medal competition at the 2024 Eisteddfod festival. 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
26 Jun 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from Hughenden Parish Council (“the Parish Council”) regarding various aspects of staffing at the Parish Council. The Parish Council has disclosed some information held within the scope of the request. However, its position is that it does not hold any information within the scope of part 2d of the request. The complainant disputes this. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Parish Council is correct to state that it does not hold any information within the scope of part 2d of the request. It has therefore complied with section 1(1) of FOIA. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1(1)
26 Jun 2025Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The public authority has failed to respond to this request within 20 working days, as specified under FOIA. The Commissioner requires it to provide the complainant with a response to this request within 30 calendar days in accordance with its obligations under FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Birmingham City Council
25 Jun 2025Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to communications between the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) and the Police Service of Northern Ireland (“PSNI”), connected to its Spotlight TV series. PSNI disclosed some of the information, withholding the remainder under sections 30(1) (Investigations and proceedings), 31(1), (Law enforcement), 40(2) (Personal information) and 38(1) (Health and safety) of FOIA.
The Commissioner finds that sections 30(1) and 40(2) are only partly engaged. He finds that, where cited in isolation, ie not in conjunction with section 30(1) or deemed out of scope, section 38(1) is not engaged. He did not find it necessary to consider section 31(1). He further finds that, on the balance of probability, PSNI has failed to identify all of the withheld information.
The Commissioner requires PSNI to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: Identify any further correspondence that flows from the documents on pages 17 and 25
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 30; FOI 38; FOI 40
View Police Service of Northern Ireland
25 Jun 2025Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested from the Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS) a list of topics from its guidance library. The FOS provided some information, stated that it did not hold some information, and withheld other information under sections 31(1) FOIA – law enforcement and 36(2) FOIA – prejudice to the effective conduct of public affairs. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the FOS does not hold the discussion board titles. He has decided that section 31(1)(a) is not engaged with regard to the one title the FOS withheld under that exemption and the information must be disclosed. However, the Commissioner is persuaded that section 31(1)(c) is engaged for the remaining titles and the public interest favours non-disclosure. He has also decided that the FOS breached sections 1(1) and 10(1) because it didn’t communicate all the non-exempt information it holds within the statutory period. Finally, he has found that the FOS did not comply with its obligati
Exemptions cited: FOI 1(1); FOI 10(1); FOI 11; FOI 31(1)(a); FOI 31(1)(c)
25 Jun 2025Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
1. The complainant has requested information relating to a Councillor’s declaration of interest. Bridgend County Borough Council (“the Council”) refused to disclose the requested information under section 44(1)(a) of FOIA.
2. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has not correctly applied section 44(1)(a) FOIA in this case.
3. The Commissioner requires the Council to take the following step:-
• Disclose the requested information, with appropriate redactions as per the Commissioner’s guidance.
4. The Council 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 44
View Bridgend County Borough Council
25 Jun 2025Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to complaints. Welwyn Hatfield Borough Council (“the Council”) disclosed information but refused to provide the political breakdown requested, citing section 36(2)(c) (prejudice to the effective conduct of public affairs) and section 31(1)(g) (law enforcement). The Commissioner’s decision is that the withheld information engages the exemptions but the balance of the public interest lies in disclosure. The Commissioner requires the Council to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: disclose the political breakdown.
Exemptions cited: FOI 31(1)(g); FOI 36(2)(c)
View Welwyn Hatfield Borough Council
24 Jun 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 Queen Victoria Hospital NHS Foundation Trust
24 Jun 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested copies of correspondence regarding a parliamentary petition calling for the creation of a statutory duty of care in Higher Education. The Department for Education (DfE) disclosed some information, but it withheld most of it, citing sections 35 (Formulation of government policy), 40(2) (Personal information) and 42 (Legal professional privilege) of FOIA. The complainant disagreed with the “blanket” application of these exemptions, although they only challenged the application of section 40(2) to the extent that it may have been applied to withhold the name and contact details of a Senior Civil Servant. They also raised concerns about the DfE’s compliance with the duty to provide advice and assistance under section 16. The Commissioner is satisfied that the DfE did not apply section 40(2) to withhold a Senior Civil Servant’s personal data. His decision is that it was entitled to rely on sections 35 and 42 to withhold the remaining information specified in th
Exemptions cited: FOI 16; FOI 35; FOI 42
View Department for Education
24 Jun 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested from the Metropolitan Police Service (the “MPS”) policing costs for Princess Eugenie. The MPS would neither confirm nor deny (“NCND”) holding the requested information, citing sections 24(2) (National security), 31(3) (Law enforcement), 38(2) (Health and safety) and 40(5) (Personal information) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the MPS was entitled to rely on section 24(2) of FOIA to NCND whether any information is held. No steps are required.
Exemptions cited: FOI 24
View Metropolitan Police Service
24 Jun 2025Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant made a 13 part request for information to Trafford Metropolitan Borough Council (the ‘Council’) relating to its Flexible Purchasing System (‘FPS’). The Council refused the whole request as vexatious under section 14(1) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council was entitled to refuse part 1 of the request as vexatious. However, parts two to 13 were not vexatious and therefore the Council was not entitled to refuse them. The Commissioner requires the Council to issues a fresh response to parts two to 13 of the request that does not rely on section 14(1) of FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14(1)
View Trafford Council
24 Jun 2025Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
1. The complainant made a request to the Department for Education (“DfE”) for information regarding admissions to selective schools and pupil premium funding. The DfE disclosed some information, applied section 21 of FOIA (information accessible to the applicant by other means) to some further information, and applied sections 40(2) (personal data of third parties), 38(1)(a) and 38(1)(b) (health and safety) of FOIA.
2. The Commissioner considers that the DfE correctly applied sections 38(1)(a) and (b) of FOIA in this case, however he finds that section 21 was incorrectly applied in relation to part of the request.
3. The Commissioner requires the DfE to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation:
Disclose the requested information to which it applied section 21 of FOIA.
4. 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 t
Exemptions cited: FOI 21; FOI 38
View Department for Education
24 Jun 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about a specific meeting and its attendees. Devon County Council directed the complainant to where some of the requested information was already published but withheld the remaining information on the basis that it was personal information. The Commissioner’s decision is that the information is personal information, and that the Council is entitled to rely on section 40(1) and section 40(2) (Personal information) to refuse to disclose it. The Commissioner does not require further steps. Information Tribunal FT/EA/2025/0249 under appeal.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40(1); FOI 40(2)
View Devon County Council
24 Jun 2025Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information relating to the protection of badgers and compensation measures linked to a particular planning application. Tonbridge and Malling Borough Council (the ‘Council’) initially refused the request in its entirety, citing Regulation 12(4)(d) of the EIR – the exception for material in the course of completion. At internal review, the Council revised its position and provided a URL to some of the requested information on its planning portal. It also said it had provided all the remaining information it held in scope of the request in response to an earlier request made by the complainant. The complainant disputed this position. Finally, the Council stated that no EIR exception should have been cited in response to the request under consideration here as it claimed no information had been created since the complainant’s earlier request. During the latter stages of the Commissioner’s investigation, the Council disclosed the information it said was held in
Exemptions cited: EIR 2; EIR 5(1)
24 Jun 2025Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested all correspondence held by Gwynedd Council (the Council) relating to Pentir Community Council in respect of an alleged footpath running through Treborth Hall. The Council provided some information and withheld other information on the basis of section 40(2) (personal information) of the FOIA. Following the intervention of the Commissioner, the Council provided additional information with its internal review and confirmed that it had now provided everything it holds relevant to their request. It also informed the complainant that it had reconsidered their request under the EIR. The Commissioner’s decision is that, based on the balance of probabilities, the Council has failed to demonstrate that it has conducted a reasonable and proportionate search and has therefore no option but to conclude that that it has not complied with its obligations under regulation 5 of the EIR. The Commissioner has also recorded a breach of regulation 11(4) due to the Council’s fail
Exemptions cited: EIR 11(4); EIR 5(1)
View Gwynedd Council
24 Jun 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The Commissioner’s decision is that the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency is entitled to withhold the requested information about compulsory re-examination of drivers under section 35(1)(a) of FOIA. This exemption concerns the formulation of government policy, etc. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 35(1)(a)
View Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency
23 Jun 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to the guidance provided to staff who use Offender Assessment System (OASys) software. The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) refused to disclose the requested information, citing section 31(1)(a) (law enforcement) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the MoJ was entitled to rely on section 31(1)(a) of FOIA to withhold the information. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: FOI 31
View Ministry of Justice
23 Jun 2025Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested copies of correspondence relating to a proposed new parish hall. Poundstock Parish Council (the Council) provided some information falling within the scope of the request. During the course of investigation, the Council acknowledged that further information was held, which it could disclose.
The Commissioner’s decision is therefore that the Council does hold some further information falling within the scope of the request. However, the Commissioner is satisfied that, on the balance of probabilities, no other information is held besides this.
The Commissioner requires the Council to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation - Disclose the further information that it has identified, ensuring that any personal data is redacted subject to the terms of the Data Protection Act 2018.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
23 Jun 2025Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information from the London Borough of Tower Hamlets (“the Council”) relating to the Council’s handling of three requests for information which were submitted by the complainant. The Commissioner’s decision is that the requested information relating the requests referenced 55364113 and 56138077 is not environmental information and therefore, the Council should have considered the complainant’s request for such information under FOIA rather than the EIR. The Commissioner requires the Council to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. Reconsider the complainant’s request for information relating to the requests referenced 55364113 and 56138077 under FOIA, and provide the complainant with a fresh response in relation to that information. 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 Cou
Exemptions cited: EIR 2(1)
View London Borough of Tower Hamlets
23 Jun 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested the name and registration number of a social worker, specifying the circumstances and date. Medway Council (the ‘Council’) refused to provide the requested information, but failed to cite any FOIA exemption. During the course of the Commissioner’s investigation, the Council revised its position and cited section 40(5)(b)(i) – the ‘neither confirm nor deny’ provision within FOIA for third party personal data. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council should have instead issued a ‘neither confirm nor deny’ response in accordance with section 40(5A) of FOIA for the reasons set out in this notice. No steps are required as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View Medway Council
23 Jun 2025Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested correspondence with Bedfordshire Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust. The above public authority disclosed most of the information but eventually relied on regulation 12(4)(e) – internal communications – regulation 12(5)(d) – confidentiality of proceedings – and regulation 12(5)(e) – commercially confidential – of the EIR in order to withhold a summary note of a meeting. The Commissioner’s decision is that neither regulation 12(5)(d) nor regulation 12(5)(e) is engaged. Regulation 12(4)(e) is engaged, but the public interest favours disclosure. The Commissioner also disagrees with a small portion of the redactions the public authority has relied on regulation 13 of the EIR to make. The public authority breached regulations 5(2) and 14 of the EIR as it failed to issue an EIR-complaint response within 20 working days. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: Disclose an unredacted version
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(e); EIR 12(5)(d); EIR 12(5)(e); EIR 13; EIR 14; EIR 5(2)
View East West Railway Company Limited
23 Jun 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 Department of Health and Social Care
20 Jun 2025Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested the waiting times of trolley patients (from decision to admit to admission) in Accident & Emergency from Mersey and West Lancashire Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust (the Trust). The Trust refused to provide the requested information, applying section 12(1) FOIA – cost limit. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Trust applied section 12(1) correctly. The Commissioner also finds that the Trust did not breach section 16 FOIA. However, the Commissioner has decided that the Trust breached section 17(5) FOIA by not stating its reliance on section 12(1) within the statutory timeframe. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12(1); FOI 16(1); FOI 17(5)
View Mersey and West Lancashire Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust