3 Jun 2025Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted three requests to The Nursing and Midwifery Council (‘the NMC’) seeking information about nurse and midwife referrals. The NMC relied on section 12(4) of FOIA (aggregated costs) to refuse the requests.The Commissioner’s decision is that, as the NMC has first failed to comply with the requirements of section 12(1) of FOIA (estimate the cost of complying with the requests), it was therefore not entitled to rely on 12(4) of FOIA to refuse the requests. The Commissioner also finds that the NMC failed to provide reasonable advice and assistance and therefore did not meet its obligations under section 16(1) of FOIA. The Commissioner requires the NMC to issue a fresh response that does not rely on section 12 of FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12; FOI 16(1)
View NMC
2 Jun 2025Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to their late mother. Herefordshire Council (the “Council”) disclosed some information and withheld other information under the exemptions for personal information (section 40) and information provided in confidence (section 41). The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council correctly relied on the exemptions in section 40(1), section 40(2) and section 41 to withhold the requested information but that it failed to issue a refusal notice in time and breached section 17(1). The Commissioner does not require the Council to take any further steps. Information Tribunal FT/EA/2025/0233 under appeal.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40(1); FOI 40(2); FOI 41; FOI 17(1)
View North Hertfordshire District Council
2 Jun 2025Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information about families and households placed in temporary accommodation, broken down by calendar year, from 2021 to 2024 inclusive.
A public authority will breach section 10 of FOIA if it fails to respond to a request within 20 working days. Based on evidence available to the Commissioner, by the date of this notice the public authority has not issued a substantive response to this request. Therefore the Commissioner finds a breach of section 10. The Commissioner requires it to provide the complainant with a response to this request within 30 calendar days in accordance with its obligations under FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View London Borough of Croydon
2 Jun 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to various officers within Oxford City Council (the Council). The Council relied on section 14(1) of FOIA (vexatious requests) to refuse the request.
The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council is entitled to refuse to comply with the request under section 14(1).
The Commissioner does not require any steps. First-tier tribunal (General Regulatory chamber) information rights appeal FT/EA/2025/0231 under appeal.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14(1)
View Oxford City Council
2 Jun 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to the council’s accounts and background information. Potto Parish Council (“[the council]”) provided some information, however it said that no other information is held by it. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council does not hold the requested information. The Commissioner does not require the council to take any steps. Information Tribunal FT/EA/2025/0228 under appeal.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
2 Jun 2025Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information transferred to the Public Records Office of Northern Ireland (PRONI), part of the Department for Communities for Northern Ireland. At the time of issuing this decision notice PRONI had not provided the complainant with a substantive response to the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the public authority has failed to respond to the complainant’s request within the statutory timescale. The Commissioner requires the public authority to provide the complainant with a substantive response to the information request.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
30 May 2025Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from Liverpool City Council. 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 Liverpool City Council
30 May 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested a copy of a report produced for the Council by PWC. The Council has withheld the entire report under section 43(2) of FOIA (commercial interests). It has also withheld parts of the report under section 41 (information provided in confidence), section 40(2) (personal data), section 42 (legal professional privilege) and section 21 (information reasonably accessible to the applicant by other means). The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council is entitled to withhold the entire report under section 43(2). The Commissioner has therefore not gone on to consider the Council’s application of the further exemptions cited. The Commissioner does not require further steps. First-tier tribunal (General Regulatory chamber) information rights appeal FT/EA/2025/0208 under appeal.
Exemptions cited: FOI 43(2)
View Leeds City Council
30 May 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information about planning applications at a particular site. Braintree District Council (the Council) provided some information but withheld information under regulations 12(4)(d) (material in the course of completion), regulation 12(4)(e) (internal communications), regulation 12(5)(b) (course of justice) and regulation 13 (personal data) of the EIR.
The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council was entitled to apply regulation 12(4)(d), regulation 12(4)(e), regulation 12(5)(b) and regulation 13 to withhold information falling within scope of the request.
However, in failing to provide environmental information within 20 working days it breached regulation 5(2) of the EIR. It also breached regulation 11 of the EIR by failing to provide an internal review response.
The Commissioner does not require any steps as a result of this decision. First-tier tribunal (General Regulatory chamber) information rights appeal FT/EA/2025/0227 under appeal.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(d); EIR 12(4)(e); EIR 12(5)(b); EIR 13
View Braintree District Council
30 May 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information about referrals from Independent Assessor (IA) to the Student Loans Company (SLC). The Department for Education (the DfE) originally refused the request citing section 12 of FOIA but reconsidered its position at internal review providing the information it held in scope of the complainant’s subsequent refined request.
The Commissioner considers that on the balance of probabilities, the DfE did not hold any further information in scope of the refined request.
The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Department for Education
30 May 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information, including financial information, from the BBC about the documentary film ‘Gaza: How to Survive a Warzone.’ The BBC responded that all the requested information was covered by the derogation and so was excluded from FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that, if held, the requested financial information is held by the BBC for the purposes of journalism, art or literature and so isn’t covered by FOIA. He therefore upholds the BBC’s position and it’s not necessary for it to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 3
View BBC
29 May 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from the Police Service of Northern Ireland (“PSNI”) relating to when PSNI had contacted An Garda Siochana (AGS) about a named individual being sort for interview about alleged offences. The PSNI refused to comply with the request citing section 12 (cost limit) of FOIA.
The Commissioner’s decision is that the PSNI was entitled to refuse to comply with the request in accordance with section 12(2) of FOIA. The Commissioner also finds that the PSNI complied with its obligations under section 16 to offer advice and assistance.
The Commissioner does not require any steps as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12(2)
View Police Service of Northern Ireland
29 May 2025Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about a review of road safety on a specific road. North Lincolnshire Council disclosed information in response. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has disclosed all held information. However, the Council breached the time limit set by section 10(1) in its handling of the request. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1(1); FOI 10(1)
View North Lincolnshire Council
29 May 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested various information in respect of the Exeter Canal and Quay Trust Executive committee governance subcommittee meetings. Exeter City Council (‘the Council’) refused the request on the basis that it does not hold relevant information. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council does not hold the requested information for the purposes of the EIR. The Commissioner does not require any steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 3(2)
View Exeter City Council
29 May 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested correspondence sent by or to the People Advisor at Oxford Direct Services Limited (“ODSL”). ODSL disclosed some correspondence, but relied on section 40(2) of FOIA (third party personal information) to redact information from the correspondence. The complainant argues that ODSL has over-redacted the information it disclosed under section 40(2). The Commissioner’s decision is that ODSL has correctly relied on section 40(2) of FOIA to withhold the information. The Commissioner does not require further steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40(2)
29 May 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
1. The complainant requested information from the Council about a certain publication. The Council had previously relied on section 14(1) of FOIA (vexatious requests) to refuse similar requests and was now relying on section 17(6) as a basis for not responding to the complainant’s current request.
2. The Commissioner’s decision is that the request was vexatious and that the Council’s previous refusal notice was valid. Therefore, the Council was entitled to rely upon section 17(6) of FOIA to refuse to provide a response.
3. The Commissioner does not require any steps. First-tier tribunal (General Regulatory chamber) information rights appeal FT/EA/2025/0221 under appeal.
Exemptions cited: FOI 17(6)
View Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council
29 May 2025Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The Commissioner’s decision is that Ofqual isn’t entitled to rely on section 31(3) of FOIA to refuse to confirm or deny it holds the requested information about two awarding bodies. The section 31 exemption concerns law enforcement. The Commissioner requires Ofqual to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: Confirm or deny to the complainant whether it holds any information within the scope of their request. If any information is held, Ofqual must disclose it or issue a refusal notice that complies with section 17 of FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 31(3)
View Ofqual
29 May 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from the BBC about the legislation of medicinal cannabis. The BBC responded that, if held, the requested information would be derogated and so would be 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 isn’t covered by FOIA. He therefore upholds the BBC’s position and doesn’t require it to take any steps. First-tier tribunal (General Regulatory chamber) information rights appeal FT/EA/2025/0225 under appeal.
Exemptions cited: FOI 3
View BBC
29 May 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information about immigration raids carried out in specific postcode areas of Kent between 2022 to 2024. The Home Office provided information in scope of the request but explained that the information with five or fewer results was being withheld as it related to third party individuals under section 40(2) – personal information.
The Commissioner’s decision is that the Home Office was entitled to rely on section 40(2) of FOIA to withhold information in scope of the request in this case.
The Commissioner does not require any steps as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40(2)
View Home Office
29 May 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information about responses to a public consultation on proposals to evolve badger control policy and introduce additional cattle measures. The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (‘Defra’) relied on regulation 12(4)(b) of the EIR to refuse to provide the requested information. The Commissioner’s decision is that Defra was entitled to rely on regulation 12(4)(b) of the EIR to refuse the request. He also finds that Defra complied with its obligations under regulation 9 of the EIR to offer advice and assistance. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(b); EIR 9
29 May 2025Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested a copy of a report from Newby and Scalby Town Council (“the Council”) about how the Council had managed a charitable grant. The Council has withheld the whole report under both section 32 of FOIA (court records, etc.) and section 40(2) of FOIA (personal information). The Commissioner’s decision is that: The Council is not entitled to rely on section 32 to withhold any information within the report; The Council is entitled to withhold only a small amount of information within the report under section 40(2). The Commissioner requires the Council to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: Disclose the report, except for the following information which can be withheld under section 40(2) and therefore should be redacted: all names and initials of individuals, the first sentence of the final paragraph on page six of the report (which is page seven of the PDF document), the final six words of the penultimate sentence in the third paragrap
Exemptions cited: FOI 32; FOI 40(2)
28 May 2025Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
A public authority will breach section 10 of FOIA if it fails to respond to a request within 20 working days. Based on evidence available to the Commissioner, by the date of this notice the public authority has not issued a substantive response to the refined request. Therefore the Commissioner finds a breach of section 10. The public authority must provide a substantive response to the refined 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
28 May 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 Ashford and St Peter's Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust
28 May 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested correspondence regarding an alleged footpath and Definitive Map Modification Order (DMMO) application. The Council provided some information and withheld other information under section 40(2) (personal data) of the FOIA. During the course of the Commissioner’s investigation the Council reconsidered the request under the EIR and sought to rely regulation 12(4)(b) (manifestly unreasonable) and regulation 13 (personal data) of the EIR. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council is entitled to refuse the request under regulation 12(4)(b). The Commissioner does not require any steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(b)
View Gwynedd Council
28 May 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from Leicester City Council (“the Council”) relating to an ESPO Liquid Fuels Framework. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the Council does not hold information within the scope of the request. The Commissioner does not require the Council to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Leicester City Council
28 May 2025Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested copies of the full accounts for Police Crime Prevention Initiatives Ltd (‘PCPI’). The Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime (‘MOPAC’) provided links to publicly available information and stated that it did not hold any further information within scope of the request. At internal review it asked PCPI to provide a copy of its accounts and stated that no further information was held within scope of the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that PCPI held the requested information on behalf of MOPAC for the purposes of FOIA, but, on the balance of probabilities, no further information was held within scope of the request. He also finds that MOPAC breached section 1(1)(b) and 10(1) of FOIA by providing information to which the complainant was entitled outside the statutory timeframe. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10; FOI 3
27 May 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested the BBC to disclose how much it spends each year on securing the right to broadcast the Glastonbury Festival over the last five years. BBC responded that the requested information was covered by the derogation and hence excluded from FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the requested information would be held by the BBC for the purposes of ‘journalism, art or literature’ and would therefore be outside the scope of FOIA. He therefore upholds the BBC’s position and requires no further steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 3
View BBC
27 May 2025Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information about admissions for disadvantaged children. King Edward VI Academy Trust Birmingham (the Trust) provided the majority of information but withheld the cost of entrance tests under section 43(2) (commercial interests) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Trust has not demonstrated why section 43 was engaged and consequently is not entitled to rely on this exemption. The Commissioner requires the Trust to Disclose the withheld information, namely the cost of the entrance tests.
Exemptions cited: FOI 43
27 May 2025Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about an investigation into conduct at a planning committee meeting. The public authority relies on section 36 to withhold the requested information.The Commissioner’s decision is that some information does not engage section 36 and should be disclosed to the complainant. The remainder of the information does engage section 36 and the public interest favours maintaining the exemption.
Exemptions cited: FOI 36
View London Borough of Hounslow
27 May 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from the BBC about the costs of covering the 2024 US presidential election. 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
27 May 2025Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested the costs involved in dealing with nine specific complaints. Durham County Council (the Council) initially stated that the information requested was exempt under section 30 (investigations) of the FOIA. During its internal review the Council withdrew reliance on section 30 of the FOIA, and stated that it was now relying on section 22 (information intended for future publication) of the FOIA. During the course of the Commissioner’s investigation the Council stated that it did not hold the specific information requested.The Commissioner’s decision is that section 22 of the FOIA is not engaged as, at the time of the request, the information requested was not held. In failing to confirm that the information requested was not held and for failing to confirm the information was not held within the statutory time period, the Commissioner finds that the Council breached sections 1 and 10 of the FOIA. The Commissioner requires the Council to issue a fresh response to t
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10; FOI 22
View Durham County Council
23 May 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
23 May 2025Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information about an application for a lawful development certificate. To the extent that the information was not already publicly available, the above public authority relied on regulation 12(4)(e) of the EIR (internal communications). The Commissioner’s decision is that the public authority has correctly applied regulation 12(4)(e) and that the balance of the public interest favours maintaining the exception. The public authority breached regulation 5(2) of the EIR as it failed to identify all information within the scope of the request within 20 working days. The Commissioner does not require further steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(e); EIR 5(2)
View Welwyn Hatfield Borough Council
23 May 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to an investigation into a named charity. The Charity Commissioner refused the request under section 31 FOIA, later adding reliance on section 41 and 40 to parts of the information. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Charity Commission has correctly engaged section 31(1)(g) and the public interest favours maintaining the exemption and withholding the information. No steps are required.
Exemptions cited: FOI 31
View The Charity Commission
23 May 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)
23 May 2025Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested a copy of a report referred to in an appendix to another report. East West Railway Company Ltd (EWR) stated this report was in fact an early draft of the published report and its title changed before publication. As such it identified two early drafts (version 3 and 4) that carried the name Affordable Connections Project Report and considered these should be withheld under Regulation 12(4)(d) EIR. The Commissioner’s decision is that the information does engage regulation 12(4)(d) as it relates to draft documents. He finds the public interest favours disclosure of version 3 of the report but that the balance of public interest for version 4 lies in withholding the information. The Commissioner requires EWR to disclose version 3 of the Affordable Connections Project Report.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(d)
View East West Railway Company Limited
23 May 2025Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested, from Betsi Cadwaladr University Health Board (BCUHB), a contract between BCUHB and Bangor University (BU), dating to 2012. BCUHB has disclosed some information, and withheld some information under section 40(2) of FOIA (‘personal information’). The Commissioner’s decision is that BCUHB is correct to rely on section 40(2) to withhold the redacted information; he also finds that BCUHB breached sections 1(1)(b) and 10(1) of FOIA (‘general right of access to information’ and ‘time for compliance’ respectively), because it disclosed information outside of the statutory timeframe. The Commissioner doesn’t require any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1(1)(b); FOI 10(1); FOI 40(2)
View Betsi Cadwaladr University Health Board
23 May 2025Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information on grievances. NHS England (NHSE) refused the request under section 12 FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that NHSE was entitled to rely on section 12(1) of FOIA to refuse the request. The Commissioner also finds that NHS England complied with its section 16 obligation to offer advice and assistance. However, the Commissioner does find NHSE has breached section 10 as it failed to respond to the request within 20 working days. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 12; FOI 16
View NHS England
23 May 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested from the University Hospitals Bristol and Weston NHS Foundation Trust (the Trust) information relating to policies. The Trust disclosed the documents requested but redacted some of the information and applied section 31(1)(a) (law enforcement) of FOIA.
The Commissioner’s decision is that the Trust was entitled to rely on section 31(1)(a) of FOIA to refuse to provide the withheld information (unredacted documents). The Commissioner does not require the Trust to take any steps as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: FOI 31(1)(a)
View University Hospitals Bristol and Weston NHS Foundation Trust
23 May 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information on how the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) decided the order in which to contact claimants to move them on to Universal Credit.
The Commissioner’s decision is that it does not hold any further information to that already provided to the complainant. The Commissioner does not require DWP to take any steps. First-tier tribunal (General Regulatory chamber) information rights appeal FT/EA/2025/0219 under appeal.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Department for Work and Pensions
23 May 2025Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information on the number of ‘Access to Work’ claimants who had their social media checked by the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP). DWP originally denied holding the requested information but revised its response during the Commissioner’s investigation. It relied on section 12(2), costs, to refuse to confirm or deny whether it held the requested information. The Commissioner’s decision is that DWP is entitled to rely on section 12(2) to refuse to confirm or deny whether it holds the requested information. The Commissioner considers that DWP has not provided sufficient advice and assistance in accordance with section 16(1) and it breached section 17(5) as it failed to provide its refusal notice within the statutory time frame of 20 working days. The Commissioner requires DWP to provide the complainant with advice and assistance on when social media checks may be undertaken. The public authority must take these steps within 30 calendar days of the date
Exemptions cited: FOI 12; FOI 16; FOI 17
View Department for Work and Pensions
23 May 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant submitted a request to the London Borough of Haringey (the Council) seeking information it held about the basis of two letters it sent to him regarding an alleged encroachment of his boundary onto Council land. At the point this decision notice is being issued, the Council’s position is that it does not hold any information falling within the scope of the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council did at the time of the request, on the balance of probabilities, hold some information falling within the scope of the request, albeit that such information has now been disclosed to the complainant. The Commissioner is also satisfied that beyond this information, on the balance of probabilities, the Council does not continue to hold any further information falling within the scope of this request. Furthermore, having clarified the nature of the information in the scope of the request during the course of his investigation, the Commissioner has concluded that the
Exemptions cited: EIR 5(3)
View Haringey Council
22 May 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 Redbridge Council
22 May 2025Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested the metadata associated with his previous requests. South Yorkshire Police (“SYP”) refused the request, citing section 14(1) (vexatious) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that SYP were entitled to rely on section 14(1) to refuse the request. The Commissioner does not require further steps. He also finds that they breached section 10 of FOIA by failing to respond to the request within 20 working days.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 14
View South Yorkshire Police
22 May 2025Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested various information in respect of the Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office (FCDO) policy not to nominate any UK nationals for the new Head or Deputy Head of OSCE (Organisation for Security & Co-operation in Europe) Misson roles which do not include a remuneration package paid for by the FCDO. The FCDO provided some redacted information to the complainant, but withheld the remaining information on the basis of section 27 (International relations), section 35 (formulation of government policy), section 36 (prejudice to the effective conduct of public affairs, section 40 (personal information) and section 41 (information provided in confidence) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the FCDO has complied with its obligations under section 1(1) of the FOIA, that it was entitled to rely on section 27(1) and section 40(2) in respect of information withheld under these exemptions. However, the Commissioner does not accept that the FCDO was entitled to
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 27; FOI 35(1); FOI 40(2)
22 May 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information in relation to overpayment of wages to employees. Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council (the Council) cited section 12 of FOIA to refuse the request.
The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council was entitled to rely on section 12 of FOIA to withhold information in scope of the request. However, the Council failed to carry out its internal review within 40 working days.
The Commissioner does not require any steps as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12(1)
View Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council
22 May 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant made a follow-on request for information relating to the Creative Industries Independent Standards Authority (CIISA). The British Broadcasting Corporation (the BBC) cited section 14(1) of FOIA to refuse the request as vexatious to withhold the requested information.
The Commissioner’s decision is that the public authority was entitled to rely on section 14(1) of FOIA to refuse the request.
The Commissioner does not require any steps as a result of this decision. First-tier tribunal (General Regulatory chamber) information rights appeal FT/EA/2025/0214 under appeal.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14(1)
View BBC
22 May 2025Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to the decision by East West Rail Company (EWR) and the Department for Transport (DfT) to issue a safeguarding direction in respect of land required for the delivery of the Bedford to Cambridge and Western Improvement Development Consent Order. East West Rail Company 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
22 May 2025Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to the decision by East West Rail Company (EWR) and the Department for Transport (DfT) to issue a safeguarding direction in respect of land required for the delivery of the Bedford to Cambridge and Western Improvement Development Consent Order. East West Rail Company 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
22 May 2025Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to the decision by East West Rail Company (EWR) and the Department for Transport (DfT) to issue a safeguarding direction in respect of land required for the delivery of the Bedford to Cambridge and Western Improvement Development Consent Order. East West Rail Company 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 East West Railway Company Limited