10 Jun 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested from Department for Transport (DfT) information relating to Mersey Gateway Bridge Scheme. Dft provided some information and withheld the remaining information under section 43(2) (commercial interests) and section 22(1) (information intended for future publication) of FOIA.
The Commissioner’s decision is that DfT was entitled to rely on sections 43(2) and 22(1) of FOIA to withhold the information requested. However, the Commissioner finds that DfT breached section 10(1) (time limits for compliance) of FOIA by not responding to the request within 20 working days.
The Commissioner does not require DfT to take any steps as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: FOI 22; FOI 43(2)
View Department for Transport
10 Jun 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested “all versions” of the External Examiners’ reports for a specified type of degree course for May/June 2023. Ulster University refused to provide the requested information, citing sections 40 (personal information) and 43 (commercial interests) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that Ulster University was entitled to rely on section 43 of FOIA, and that the balance of the public interest favours maintenance of this exemption. He also finds that Ulster University correctly applied section 40(2) of FOIA to the personal information within the withheld reports. No steps are required as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40; FOI 43
View Ulster University
10 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 Somerset Council
9 Jun 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested, from the ICO, information about whether the Judicial Conduct Investigations Office (JCIO) is subject to FOIA and the Environmental Information Regulations 2004 (the EIR). The complainant requested that information across two requests (submitted on the same day) – one about FOIA, and one about the EIR. The ICO refused the requests, on the basis of section 14(1) of FOIA (vexatious requests). Subsequently, in their internal review request, the complainant requested further information about the case officer “obtaining approval” before issuing the refusal, and ICO officers. The Commissioner’s decision is that FOIA was the relevant information access regime; the ICO was correct to refuse the requests on the basis of section 14(1) of FOIA; and there have been no procedural breaches. The Commissioner doesn’t require any steps as a result of this decision notice. Information Tribunal FT/EA/2025/0250 under appeal.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10; FOI 14(1); FOI 17
View Information Commissioner
9 Jun 2025Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about the amount spent on legal fees. Devon Partnership NHS Foundation Trust (‘the Trust’) relied on section 21 of FOIA (information accessible by other means) to refuse part one of the request. It relied on sections 36(2)(b) and 36(2)(c) of FOIA to withhold the information requested in part two of the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Trust was not entitled to rely on sections 36(2)(b)(ii) nor 36(2)(c) of FOIA to withhold the information requested in part two of the request. The Commissioner requires the Trust to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: Disclose the information it has relied on section 36 of FOIA to withhold.
Exemptions cited: FOI 36(2)(b)(ii); FOI 36(2)(c)
View Devon Partnership NHS Trust
9 Jun 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested to be told the reason why a particular flight was diverted. The above public authority refused to confirm or deny that the information was held, relying on section 44 of FOIA (prohibited by other legislation) in order to do so. The Commissioner’s decision is that the public authority was entitled to rely on section 44 of FOIA to refuse to confirm or deny that the information is held. The Commissioner does not require further steps to be taken.
Keywords: European Regulation (EU) No. 376/2014, MOR data
Exemptions cited: FOI 44
View Civil Aviation Authority
9 Jun 2025Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The Commissioner’s decision is that the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) has correctly applied section 30(1)(b) of FOIA to information about a fatality that it’s withholding. Section 30 concerns investigations and proceedings. However, the timeliness of HSE’s response didn’t comply with sections 1(1) and 10(1) of FOIA. The Commissioner requires HSE to take the following step to ensure compliance with the legislation: Communicate to the complainant the information it has advised it can disclose that is relevant to question 5 of the request.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1(1); FOI 10(1); FOI 30(1)(b)
View Health and Safety Executive
9 Jun 2025Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to overtime worked by police officers attached to the Police Service of Northern Ireland (PSNI) Close Protection Unit. PSNI refused the request in reliance on the exemptions at sections 31(1)(a) (prevention or detection of crime), 31(1)(b) (apprehension or prosecution of offenders), 38(1)(b) (endangering the safety of any individual) and 40(2) (personal data) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that PSNI was not entitled to rely on any of the exemptions cited in order to refuse the request. However the Commissioner also finds that PSNI should have cited section 40(5) of FOIA to neither confirm nor deny that any of the requested information comprised personal information relating to the complainant. The Commissioner requires PSNI to disclose the requested information, with the exception of any information that is personal data of the complainant.
Exemptions cited: FOI 31; FOI 38; FOI 40
View Police Service of Northern Ireland
9 Jun 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has made multiple requests for information. Lewes and Eastbourne Borough Council (“the Council”) refused the requests under section 14(1) (vexatious requests) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council was entitled to refuse the requests under section 14. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14(1)
View Eastbourne Borough Council
9 Jun 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about Type A intruder alarm systems from Lancashire Constabulary. Although Lancashire Constabulary initially disclosed the requested information, it subsequently advised the complainant that the information was exempt from disclosure, under sections 31(1)(a) and (b) (Law enforcement) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that Lancashire Constabulary was entitled to rely on section 31(1)(a) of FOIA. No steps are required.
Exemptions cited: FOI 31
View Lancashire Constabulary
9 Jun 2025Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about Common User Charges. The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (‘Defra’) initially relied on section 41 of FOIA and section 43 of FOIA to withhold the requested information. However, at internal review Defra withdrew its application of these exemptions and instead stated that it considered section 14 of FOIA to apply (vexatious request). The Commissioner’s decision is that Defra was entitled to rely on section 14(1) of FOIA to refuse the request. He also finds that Defra breached section 17 of FOIA by failing to issue its refusal notice within 20 working days. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14(1); FOI 17
6 Jun 2025Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information related to the COVID-19 Operations committee meetings held in May 2020. The Cabinet Office refused the request relying on the exemption at FOIA section 35(1)(b) – information relating to ministerial communications. The Commissioner’s decision is that the exemption is engaged but the public interest favours disclosure of the information. The Commissioner requires the Cabinet Office to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation - Disclose the withheld information with any junior names redacted under FOIA section 40 – personal information, in accordance with his guidance. 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. Information Tribunal FT/EA/2025/0248 under appeal
Exemptions cited: FOI 35(1)
View Cabinet Office
6 Jun 2025Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The public authority has failed to respond to this request within 20 working days, as specified in the EIR. The Commissioner requires it to provide the complainant with a response to this request within 30 calendar days in accordance with its obligations under the EIR.
Exemptions cited: EIR 5(2)
View Enfield Council
6 Jun 2025Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested from the London Borough of Havering (LBH) information about parking area in Lodge Farm Carlton Road in relation to Penalty Charge Notices (PCN).
LBH provided its response outside the required time of 20 working days.
The Commissioner’s decision is that LBH breached section 10(1) of FOIA by failing to provide a valid response to the request within the statutory timeframe of 20 working days.
The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View London Borough of Havering
6 Jun 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information held by National Highways about variable speed limits at a particular location, date and time. National Highways issued a refusal notice, citing the exemptions at sections 31(1)(a), 31(1)(b) and 31(1)(c) (law enforcement) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that National Highways is entitled to rely on sections 31(1)(a), 31(1)(b) and 31(1)(c) as its basis for withholding the requested information.
Exemptions cited: FOI 31
View National Highways
6 Jun 2025Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
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 Commissioner finds that by failing to respond to the request within a reasonable time frame, the public authority has breached section 17(3) of FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 17(3)
View UK Health Security Agency
6 Jun 2025Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested documents submitted by the Department for Education (DfE) to the Commissioner as part of an earlier investigation and subsequent decision notice. The DfE refused the request as vexatious under section 14 FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the request is vexatious and the DfE has correctly refused it under section 14(1) FOIA. The Commissioner finds the DfE breached section 1(1)(a) and 10(1) as if failed to confirm in writing that the information was held within 20 working days but no steps are required. Information Tribunal FT/EA/2025/0247 under appeal.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10; FOI 14; FOI 16
View Department for Education
6 Jun 2025Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant submitted a request to London Borough of Tower Hamlets (the Council) for all communications sent to or from any member of the Council staff (including the Cabinet and Mayor) regarding the establishment of a "Culturally Sensitive Substance Misuse Recovery Centre" at 15 Chandler Street. The Council confirmed that it held information falling within the scope of the request but considered this to be exempt from disclosure on the basis of regulation 12(4)(e) (internal communications). The Commissioner’s decision is that some of the communications do not fall within the definition of the internal communications and therefore are not exempt from disclosure on the basis of regulation 12(4)(e). The Commissioner accepts that the remaining information is exempt from disclosure on the basis of regulation 12(4)(e) but that the public interest favours disclosure of this information.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(e)
View London Borough of Tower Hamlets
5 Jun 2025Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information in two separate requests from Durham University (the University) relating to the availability and allocation of accommodation for first year students who started at the University at the start of Michaelmas term in 2023-24 academic year and 2024-25 academic year to date and also information related to stock purchases for all university bars. The University aggregated the two requests along with five other requests made to it. The University relied on section 12(2) of FOIA (cost of compliance) to refuse the two requests.
The Commissioner’s decision is that the University was entitled to aggregate the requests and that the University has demonstrated that it would exceed the cost limit to confirm what information is held under section 12(2) of the FOIA. The University has also complied with its duty under section 16 of the FOIA by providing advice and assistance.
The Commissioner’s decision is that the University was entitled to rely on section 12(2)
Exemptions cited: FOI 12(2)
View University of Durham
5 Jun 2025Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information on the business case for stabilisation and the long-term operation and maintenance of Hammersmith Bridge. The public authority, the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham (“the Council”), withheld the information in reliance of FOIA section 43(2), Commercial interests. The Commissioner determined that the Council should have considered the request under the EIR. The Council then relied on EIR exception regulation 12(5)(e), confidentiality of commercial or industrial information, to withhold the information. The Commissioner decided that in the circumstances of this case the Council is entitled to rely on the exception at regulation 12(5)(e) to withhold the requested information which is not already in the public domain and the public interest favours maintaining the exception in that regard. However, with respect to that information already in the public domain the Commissioner requires the Council to take the following steps.
• Disclose the
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(e)
View Hammersmith and Fulham Council
5 Jun 2025Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about sexual safety incidents recorded in 2022/23 and 2023/24. University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust (‘the Trust’) relied on section 12 of FOIA to refuse the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Trust is entitled to rely on section 12(1) of FOIA to refuse to provide the requested information. However, he finds that the Trust failed to provide reasonable advice and assistance and therefore did not meet its obligations under section 16(1) of FOIA. The timeliness of its response also didn’t comply with section 17(5). The Commissioner requires the Trust to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: The Trust must provide the complainant with advice and assistance to help them submit a request falling within the appropriate limit.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12; FOI 16; FOI 17
View University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust
5 Jun 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information from the London Borough of Camden Council (“the Council”) relating to agreements between the Council and Thames Water Utilities.
The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council is entitled to refuse the request under regulation 12(4)(b) (manifestly unreasonable) of the EIR.
He also finds that the Council complied with regulation 9(1) of the EIR (advice and assistance). However, the Council breached regulations 5(2) and 14(2) of the EIR by failing to respond to the request within 20 working days.
The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(b)
View Camden Council
5 Jun 2025Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the Council does not hold the information within scope of the request.
However, the Commissioner finds that the Council breached section 10(1) of FOIA as it did not provide the complainant with a response within 20 working days of the request.
The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1(1)(a); FOI 10(1)
View Bromley Council
5 Jun 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from Ministry of Justice (MOJ). The Commissioner’s decision is that the MOJ was entitled to refuse to confirm or deny whether it held information within the scope of the request, in accordance with section 12(2) (cost limit) of FOIA. The Commissioner also finds that the MOJ complied with its obligations under section 16 of FOIA to offer advice and assistance.
The Commissioner does not require the MOJ to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12(2)
View Ministry of Justice
5 Jun 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested copies of email correspondence between Thanet District Council (TDC) and a particular councillor, regarding complaints about a community interest company. Initially, TDC disclosed some information, said that some information was exempt from disclosure under regulation 12(5)(d) (Confidentiality of proceedings) of the EIR and said that it did not hold the remaining information specified in the request. During the Commissioner’s investigation, TDC withdrew reliance on regulation 12(5)(d) and said it did not hold any further information falling within scope. The Commissioner’s decision is that TDC was entitled to rely on regulation 12(4)(a) of the EIR as, on balance, he is satisfied that TDC does not hold any further information. Information Tribunal FT/EA/2025/0245 under appeal.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(a)
View Thanet District Council
5 Jun 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested a copy of a Serious Incident Review report. Corpus Christi College Oxford (‘the College’) relied on section 40(2) of FOIA, section 41 of FOIA, section 36 of FOIA and section 44 of FOIA to withhold the requested information. The Commissioner’s decision is that the College was entitled to rely on section 41 and sections 36(2)(b)(i) and 36(2)(b)(ii) of FOIA to withhold the requested incident review report. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 36(2)(b)(i); FOI 36(2)(b)(ii); FOI 41
5 Jun 2025Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about the handling of a previous information request. Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council the information under section 36(2)(c) (prejudice to the effective conduct of public affairs). The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council was not entitled to withhold the requested information under section 36(2)(c). The Commissioner requires the Council to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: Disclose the withheld information, ensuring that any personal data is redacted subject to the terms of the Data Protection Act 2018. Information Tribunal FT/EA/2025/0246 under appeal.
Exemptions cited: FOI 36(2)(c)
View Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council
5 Jun 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested from the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (DESNZ) a copy of the scope of work to update noise guidance for onshore wind farms. DESNZ refused the request under regulation 12(4)(d) of the EIR – material in the course of completion.
The Commissioner’s decision is that DESNZ has correctly applied regulation 12(4)(d) and that the public interest favours maintaining the exception. The Commissioner does not require further steps. Information Tribunal FT/EA/2025/0242 under appeal.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(d)
View Department for Energy Security and Net Zero
5 Jun 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested an electronic copy of the parties’ written submissions to the Judicial Committee of the House of Lords in a particular judgement. The House of Lords (“the public authority”) issued a Fees Notice pursuant to section 9(1) of the FOIA, which provides that a public authority may give the requester a notice in writing stating that a fee be paid prior to it complying with section 1(1).The Commissioner’s decision is that the Fees Notice was correctly issued. Information Tribunal FT/EA/2025/0215 under appeal.
Exemptions cited: FOI 9
5 Jun 2025Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant made seven requests for information about a parking scheme. Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council issued a statement in response, but did not confirm or deny the requested information was held for the purposes of section 1(1) (General right of access to information) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has failed to issue a response that complies with section 1(1). The Commissioner requires the Council to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: Issue a response to the requests in which it complies with section 1(1) of FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10(1)
View Wirral Council
5 Jun 2025Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested from The Nursing Midwifery Council (“the NMC”) on 8 November 2024 information relating to a hearing decision. 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 NMC has not issued a substantive response to this request. Therefore the Commissioner finds a breach of section 10. The NMC must provide a substantive response to the request in accordance with its obligations under FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View NMC
5 Jun 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from West Yorkshire Police (WYP) relating to a historical criminal prosecution.
WYP refused to confirm or deny whether the requested information was held under section 40(5B) of FOIA as to do so would disclose personal information.
The Commissioner considers that WYP was correct to apply section 40(5B) of FOIA in this case.
The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40(5)(b)
View West Yorkshire Police
5 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 Redbridge Council
5 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 Walsall Council
5 Jun 2025Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The Commissioner’s decision is that the requested legal advice about COVID-19 vaccine contracts that UK Health Security Agency (UKHSA) is withholding is exempt from disclosure under section 42(1) of FOIA. This exemption concerns legal professional privilege. The timeliness of UKHSA’s response didn’t comply with sections 10 and 17 of FOIA. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 17; FOI 42
View UK Health Security Agency
5 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 Bridgend County Borough Council
4 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 Humberside Police
4 Jun 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested a copy of a confidential annex. The above public authority relied on section 44 of FOIA to withhold the information. The Commissioner’s decision is that the public authority is entitled to rely on section 44 of FOIA to withhold the information. The Commissioner does not require further steps to be taken. Information Tribunal FT/EA/2025/0213 under appeal.
Exemptions cited: FOI 44
View Information Commissioner
4 Jun 2025Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested external examiner reports for all taught higher education course between 2019 and 2023. The Governing Body of the Wiltshire College & University Centre (“the College”) relied on section 12 of FOIA (cost of compliance) to refuse the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the College was not entitled to rely on section 12(1) of FOIA to refuse the request. The Commissioner requires the College to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. Issue a fresh response that does not rely on section 12 of FOIA. The College 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 12(1)
4 Jun 2025Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from NHS England. 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 NHS England
4 Jun 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested various information regarding Exeter Canal and Quay Trust (ECQT) from Exeter City Council (the Council). The Council provided some information via a link to its website and refused the remainder citing regulation 12(5)(e) (confidentiality of commercial information), regulation 12(5)(f) (the interests of the person who provided the information), and regulation 13 (personal information)of the EIR. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council was entitled to rely on regulation 12(5)(f) to refuse the withheld information. The Commissioner does not require any steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(f)
View Exeter City Council
4 Jun 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about meetings in which the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act 2023 was discussed. The Department for Education (DfE) withheld some of the information under sections 35(1)(a) and 40(2) of FOIA. These exemptions concern the formulation of government policy, etc and personal data respectively. DfE has subsequently confirmed that it is also relying on section 41(1) of FOIA to withhold the information, which concerns information provided in confidence. The Commissioner’s decision is that DfE correctly applied sections 35(1)(a) and 40(2) of FOIA to the information it’s withholding. It’s not necessary for DfE to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 35(1)(a); FOI 40(2)
View Department for Education
4 Jun 2025Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to postgraduate exhibits. The Royal College of Art (‘the College’) disclosed information but also withheld information under section 43(2) (commercial information) and section 36(2)(b) and (c) (prejudice to the effective conduct of public affairs). The Commissioner’s decision is that the withheld information engages both section 43(2) and section 36(2)(b) and the public interest lies in maintaining the exemptions. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 36(2)(b); FOI 36(2)(c); FOI 43(2)
View Royal College of Art
3 Jun 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested DfE to disclose all information recorded on the Moderator Proposition as submitted by the complainant to the department. DfE disclosed the information to the complainant. However, the complainant believes further recorded information is held. The Commissioner’s decision is that on the balance of probabilities DfE has now disclosed all the recorded information it holds falling within the scope of the request. The Commissioner does not require further steps to be taken. First-tier tribunal (General Regulatory chamber) information rights appeal FT/EA/2025/0220 appeal struck out.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Department for Education
3 Jun 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested a copy of a case management review report produced by Northumberland County Council (the council). The council refused to disclose the requested information on the basis that it is the personal data of the complainant and the personal data of third parties and is therefore exempt from disclosure under section 40(1) and section 40(2) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council was entitled to rely on sections 40(1) and 40(2) of FOIA to withhold the requested information. The Commissioner does not require the council to take any further steps as a result of this decision notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40(1); FOI 40(2)
View Northumberland County Council
3 Jun 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to unfilled vacancies at the council. The City of York Council (“the council”) disclosed some information, however it applied section 12 to refuse the remainder of the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council was able to apply section 12 to refuse to respond to the request further. The Commissioner does not require the council to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12
View York City Council
3 Jun 2025Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested from DVLA information about a vehicle they own, namely whether its vehicle identification number (VIN) and engine number match any of four specified vehicle records listed in their request. DVLA gave a ‘neither confirm nor deny’ (NCND) response to the complainant, on the basis of sections 40(5A) and 41(2) of FOIA (NCND provisions in the exemptions for personal information and information provided in confidence). During the Commissioner’s investigation, DVLA relied on two additional NCND provisions – sections 31(3) and 40(5B) of FOIA (law enforcement and personal information). The Commissioner finds that DVLA is correct to rely on section 31(3) to NCND whether it holds the requested information; and that DVLA has breached section 17(1)(b), because its refusal notice failed to specify its reliance on section 31(3). The Commissioner doesn’t require any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 17; FOI 31(3)
View Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency
3 Jun 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating misconduct complaint and investigations from Oxford Direct Services Limited (“ODSL”). ODSL said that it does not hold any information falling within the scope of the complainant's request for information. The Commissioner’s decision is that ODSL does not hold any information falling within the scope of the complainant's request for the purposes of section 1 of FOIA. The Commissioner does not require ODSL to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
3 Jun 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested a list of the Secretaries of State and their Permanent Secretaries email addresses. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Cabinet Office (“the public authority”) correctly relied on sections 36(2)(c) (effective conduct of public affairs) and/or 21 (reasonably accessible) not to provide the requested information. The Commissioner does not require steps to be taken by the public authority.
Exemptions cited: FOI 21; FOI 36
View Cabinet Office
3 Jun 2025Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about a named person and complaints made to the Royal Borough of Greenwich (“the public authority”). The public authority provided some of the requested information but relied on sections 14 (vexatious request) and 40(2) (personal data) to not provide the remainder. The Commissioner’s decision is that the public authority correctly relied on section 40(2) to withhold requested information but not section .The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14; FOI 40(2)
View Royal Borough of Greenwich