22 May 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about a complaint they submitted to the Food Standards Agency (‘FSA’s) about the management of ‘novel foods’, specifically hemp and cannabidiol (‘CBD’). The FSA disclosed information with redactions made under section 40(1), 40(2) (personal information), section 31(1)(g) (law enforcement), section 43(2) (commercial interests) and section 41(1) (information provided in confidence). The Commissioner’s decision is that the FSA was entitled to withhold the information it did under section 40(1), 40(2) and section 31(1)(g). The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40(1); FOI 40(2)
View Food Standards Agency
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 not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested Sefton Metropolitan Council (the council) to disclose social services information relating to their deceased mother. The council refused to disclose the information citing section 41(1) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council is entitled to rely on section 41(1) of FOIA. The Commissioner does not require further steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 41(1)
View Sefton Council
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
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 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
21 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
View NHS England
21 May 2025Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The public authority has failed to complete its public interest test considerations within a reasonable time in accordance with its obligations under FOIA. The Commissioner requires it to provide a substantive response to the request within 30 calendar days in accordance with its obligations under FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 17(3)
View Department for Education
21 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 this request. Therefore the Commissioner finds a breach of section 10.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Royal College of Art
21 May 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested to know the council’s valuation of a piece of land which it is considering selling. Bournemouth, Christchurch & Poole Council (“the council”), refused the request on the basis that Regulation 12(5)(e) (commercial confidentiality) and Regulation 12(4)(e) (internal communications) of the EIR apply. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council was correct to apply Regulation 12(5)(e) and Regulation 12(4)(e) to withhold the information from disclosure. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(e); EIR 12(5)(e)
View BCP Council
21 May 2025Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) for information regarding the double taxation agreement with Australia.
The Commissioner’s decision is that sections 27(1)(c) (international relations) of FOIA is engaged and that the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosure. However, he finds that HMRC was not entitled to apply section 21 (information accessible to the applicant by other means) of FOIA to question b of the request.
The Commissioner requires HMRC to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation:
Disclose the requested information in relation to question b of the request.
HMRC 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 21; FOI 27(1)(c)
21 May 2025Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant made a four part request for information about ‘blasphemy extremism’ within the Prevent programme. The Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government stated that the information was withheld under the exemption provided by section 35(1)(a) (formulation or development of government policy) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that, in respect of parts a) and b) of the request, the MHCLG was entitled to withhold the information under section 35(1)(a). However, in respect of parts c) and d) of the request, the MHCLG failed to inform the complainant whether information is held. The Commissioner requires the MHCLG to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: Issue a response to parts c) and d) of the request in which it complies with section 1(1) of FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10(1); FOI 35(1)(a)
View Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government
21 May 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested copies of minutes, agendas, correspondence and accounts covering June and July 2023. After correspondence between the public authority and the complainant, he amended this to include copies of communications sent by a named Councillor. Mentmore Parish Council (“the Council”) refused the request, citing section 14(1) (vexatious) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council is entitled to rely on section 14(1) to refuse the request. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14(1)
21 May 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information on planning matters associated with Eshott Airfield. Northumberland County Council (the “Council”) withheld the information under the exceptions for internal communications (regulation 12(4)(e)) and the course of justice (regulation 12(5)(b)). The Commissioner’s decision is that:
• some of the requested information constitutes the complainant’s own personal data, and as such, regulation 5(3) of the EIR applies and the Council correctly applied regulation 12(5)(b) to withhold the remaining information. The Commissioner does not require the Council to take further steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(b); EIR 5(3)
View Northumberland County Council
21 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 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.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Redbridge Council
21 May 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information about appeals under the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000. The Planning Inspectorate refused to comply with the request under regulation 12(4)(b) (manifestly unreasonable requests) of the EIR on the grounds of cost. The Commissioner’s decision is that the PI is entitled to rely on regulation 12(4)(b) of the EIR to refuse to comply with the request, and that the PI has complied with its duty under regulation 9(1) of the EIR to provide advice and assistance to the complainant. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(b); EIR 9(1)
View Planning Inspectorate
21 May 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant submitted a request for information relating to safety certificates for 5G mast planning applications involving Three UK Limited. The Royal Borough of Kingston Upon Thames (the Council) provided some general advice and guidance but refused the request under regulations 12(4)(b) (manifestly unreasonable) and 12(4)(a) (Information not held) of the EIR.
The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council was entitled to rely on regulation 12(4)(b) to withhold information in scope of parts 1 and 3 of the request and that the public interest favours maintaining the exception, and that on the balance of probabilities, does not hold information within the scope of parts 2, 4 and 5 of the request.
The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps as a result of this decision. First-tier tribunal (General Regulatory chamber) information rights appeal FT/EA/2025/0196 under appeal.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(a); EIR 12(4)(b)
View Kingston upon Thames Council
20 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 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.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Somerset Council
20 May 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant made a request which was then refined twice, for information relating to individuals with Indeterminate Sentences for Public Protection (IPP), the latest refined request is the subject of this decision notice. The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) refused the complainant’s latest refined request under section 12(1) of FOIA (cost limit). The Commissioner’s decision is that the MoJ was entitled to rely on section 12(1) of FOIA to refuse the latest request. The Commissioner also finds that the MoJ complied with its section 16 obligation to offer advice and assistance. The Commissioner does not require further steps. Information Tribunal FT/EA/2025/0234 under appeal.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12(1); FOI 16
View Ministry of Justice
20 May 2025Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested Potto Parish Council (the council) to disclose information relating to the amendments of its meeting minutes. The council disclosed details of two amendments but disclosed the detail of the third late. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council breached section 1(1)(a), 1(1)(b) and 10(1) of FOIA in this case. However, the Commissioner does not require any further steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10
20 May 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from Morecambe Town Council (the Council) regarding requests made by the Council to Lancaster City Council. The Council initially refused the request under section 21, but later relied on section 12 of FOIA (cost of compliance) to refuse the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council was entitled to rely on section 12(1) of FOIA to refuse the request. The Commissioner also finds that the Council met its section 16 obligations to offer appropriate advice and assistance. The Commissioner does not require steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12; FOI 16
20 May 2025Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested North Sea Transition Authority (NSTA) to disclose the name of the operator(s) it has started to investigate in relation to alleged failures to complete timely plugging and abandonment in line with approved plans. NSTA refused to disclose the requested information citing regulation 12(5)(b) of the EIR. The Commissioner’s decision is that NSTA is entitled rely on regulation 12(5)(b) of the EIR. NSTA breached regulation 14(2) by failing to issue its refusal notice within 20 working days of receipt. The Commissioner does not require any further action to be taken.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(b); EIR 14(2)(1)
20 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
View West Midlands Combined Authority
20 May 2025Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to the circumstances surrounding the purchase of a computer. Witherley Parish Council (the “Council”) provided some information, confirmed other information was not held and refused to provide other information on the basis that it was confidential. During the Commissioner’s investigation the Council confirmed that it was relying on the exemptions in section 31 (law enforcement) and section 40 (personal information) to withhold information. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council should have relied on section 40(5A) and section 40(5B) of the FOIA to refuse to confirm or deny whether any information was held; the Commissioner has decided to apply these exemptions himself proactively and the Council failed to issue a compliant refusal notice and breached section 10(1) and section 17 of the FOIA. The Commissioner does not require the Council to take further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10(1); FOI 17; FOI 40(5)(a)
20 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 Humberside Police
20 May 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested copies of a specific email trail. Rochdale Borough Council (the Council) refused to confirm or deny whether the information was held, relying on the exemption for personal information in section 40(5B) of the FOIA.
The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council is entitled to rely on section 40(5B) of FOIA to refuse to confirm or deny whether it holds the requested information.
The Commissioner does not require further steps. First-tier tribunal (General Regulatory chamber) information rights appeal FT/EA/2025/0229 under appeal.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40(5)(b)
View Rochdale Metropolitan Borough Council
19 May 2025Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information in relation to Dash Cam submissions which have lead to the driver getting charged with a traffic offence. Nottinghamshire Police (“the public authority”), has refused to provide the requested information, citing section 12(1) of FOIA – cost exceeds the appropriate limit.
The Commissioner’s decision is that the public authority was correct to withhold the requested information under section 12(1) of FOIA. However he find that there has been a breach of section 16 of FOIA as advice and assistance was not provided via its initial response The public authority has since provided advice and assistance and, as such, no steps are required.
The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12(1); FOI 16
View Nottinghamshire Police
19 May 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted four separate requests for information on various topics on 6 February 2024. Loddon Town Council (the Council) refused each requested under section 14(1) of the FOIA as it considered each request to be vexatious. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council is entitled to rely on section 14(1) – vexatious requests, of FOIA, as its basis for refusing each of the complainant’s four requests. The Commissioner does not require further steps to be taken as a result of this decision notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14
19 May 2025Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information about school admissions. Cheshire East Council (the council) provided the information it held to each part of the request. Following clarification at the internal review stage, the council amended its response to part 1 of the request stating that it did not hold the information. During the Commissioner’s investigation, the council determined it does hold the information to part 1 of the request. The Commissioner therefore finds that the council has breached section 1 of the FOIA as it did not confirm to the complainant that the information is held. The Commissioner requires the council to issue a fresh response to the complainant to part 1 of the request in accordance with the FOIA, either providing the 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 Cou
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Cheshire East Council
19 May 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested an investigation report into a particular planning related issue from the Local Government and Social Ombudsman (the ‘LGSCO’). The request was refused by the LGSCO applying Regulation 12(5)(d) of the EIR – the exception for the confidentiality of proceedings. The Commissioner’s decision is that the LGSCO correctly handled the request under the EIR and that Regulation 12(5)(d) was properly applied. No steps are required as a result of this notice.
Keywords: Complaint
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(d)
View Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman
19 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
View Enfield Council
19 May 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from the Council of the University of Cambridge (the University) regarding an article which a student co-authored. The University advised that this information was not held by it for the purposes of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the University does not hold the requested information for its own purposes and it therefore falls outside the definition of information held for the purposes of FOIA under section 3(2). The Commissioner does not require further steps. First-tier tribunal (General Regulatory chamber) information rights appeal FT/EA/2025/0202 under appeal.
Exemptions cited: FOI 3(2)
View The University of Cambridge
19 May 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about speed enforcement cameras. Kent Police refused the requests, citing section 14(1) (Vexatious requests) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that Kent Police was entitled to rely on section 14(1) of FOIA to refuse the requests. First-tier tribunal (General Regulatory chamber) information rights appeal FT/EA/2025/0195 under appeal.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14
View Kent Police
16 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 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 Wirral Council
16 May 2025Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The Commissioner’s decision is that Greater Manchester Combined Authority (‘the Authority’) is entitled to withhold some of the correspondence the complainant has requested under section 36(2)(b)(ii) of FOIA. This exemption concerns prejudice to the effective conduct of public affairs. The Commissioner requires the Authority to take the following step to ensure compliance with the legislation: If the Authority hasn’t already done so, disclose to the complainant the information, formerly withheld under section 36, that it advised in its submission can now be disclosed. Under section 40 of FOIA, any personal data should first be redacted from the information to be disclosed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1(1); FOI 10(1); FOI 36(2)(b)(ii); FOI 17(1)
View Greater Manchester Combined Authority
16 May 2025Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from Oxford University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust on 6 August 2024 for ICD10 first/Primary diagnosis discharge codes and cases, and OPCS4 primary procedure codes and cases, recorded per individual hospital for the last five calendar years, i.e. 2018-19, 2019-20, 2020-21, 2021-22, 2022-23
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 secti
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Oxford University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust
16 May 2025Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from the Home Office. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Home Office failed to respond to the request within 20 working days and has therefore breached section 10 of FOIA. The Home Office must provide a substantive response to the request in accordance with its obligations under FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Home Office
16 May 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information about a road closure in Helsby. Cheshire West and Chester Council (the “Council”) refused the request under regulation 12(4)(b) of the EIR (manifestly unreasonable). The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council is entitled to rely on regulation 12(4)(b) (manifestly unreasonable) to withhold the information requested. He also finds that the Council complied with its obligations under regulation 9 of the EIR to offer advice and assistance. The Commissioner does not require the Council to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(b); EIR 9
View Cheshire West and Chester Council
15 May 2025Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The Commissioner’s decision is that NHS England (NHSE) is entitled to withhold information about enforcement undertakings in relation to the Countess of Chester NHS Foundation Trust under section 31(1)(g) of FOIA. This exemption concerns law enforcement. NHSE’s handling of the request didn’t comply with sections 1(1), 10(1) and 17(1) of FOIA. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1(1); FOI 10(1); FOI 31(1)(g); FOI 17(1)
View NHS England
15 May 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The Commissioner’s decision is that the requested correspondence between members of the Welsh Government and the UK Government is exempt information under section 28(1) of FOIA. This exemption concerns relations between administrations in the United Kingdom. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 28
View Welsh Government
15 May 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information about the decision to reduce the size of the Planning Committee from 15 to 12 members. Bracknell Forest Council (the Council) stated that information relating to the meetings where the matter was discussed was available on its website. and withheld all other information relating to the request under section 36 (prejudice to the effective conduct of public affairs). During the course of the Commissioner’s investigation, the Council withdrew reliance on section 36 and disclosed the information held relevant to the request. Following this disclosure the complainant alleged that the Council had not disclosed all of the information held relevant to their request. The Council subsequently disclosed some additional information relevant to the request and stated that no further information was held. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the Council does not hold any further recorded information falling within the scope of th
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Bracknell Forest Council
15 May 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a four part request for information held by the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) about licence applications for the exhumation of remains buried in the wrong grave. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the MoJ does not hold information falling within scope of the complainant’s request.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Ministry of Justice
15 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 Oxford City Council
15 May 2025Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information about a detailed report prepared by the planning officer on traffic and parking issues for surrounding roads to Planning Application 23/03973/FUL from London Borough of Enfield on 5 March 2025
A public authority will breach regulation 5(2) of the EIR if it fails to respond to a request within 20 working days. Based on evidence available to the Commissioner, by the date of this notice the public authority has not issued a substantive response to this request. Therefore the Commissioner finds a breach of regulation 5(2).
The public authority must provide a substantive response to the request in accordance with its obligations under the EIR.
The public authority must take this step within 30 calendar days of the date of this decision notice. Failure to comply may result in the Commissioner making written certification of this fact to the High Court pursuant to section 54 of FOIA and may be dealt with as a contempt of court.
Exemptions cited: EIR 5(2)
View Enfield Council
15 May 2025Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about any investigations or disciplinary action conducted concerning the then Chief Executive Officer and Covid breaches that occurred in 2020 or 2021. The Equality and Human Rights Commission (‘the EHRC’) relied on section 40(2) of FOIA to withhold the requested information. The Commissioner’s decision is that EHRC was entitled to rely on section 40(2) to withhold the investigation report and supporting documentation, but it was not entitled to rely on section 40(2) to withhold the information in response to the questions in the request. The Commissioner requires the EHRC to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: The EHRC must disclose the information requested in response to the questions in the request. First-tier tribunal (General Regulatory chamber) information rights appeal FT/EA/2025/0223 under appeal.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40(2)
View Equality and Human Rights Commission
15 May 2025Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from the Home Office regarding a hotel used to accommodate asylum seekers. The Home Office relied on section 12 of FOIA (cost of compliance) to refuse part of the request.
The Commissioner’s decision is that the Home Office was entitled to rely on section 12(1) of FOIA to refuse the request. The Commissioner also finds that the Home Office did not comply with its section 16 obligation to offer advice and assistance.
The Commissioner requires the Home Office to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation.
• provide the complainant with appropriate advice and assistance to help them submit a request that falls within the appropriate limit.
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 cou
Exemptions cited: FOI 12; FOI 16
View Home Office
15 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 Flintshire County Council
14 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 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 London Borough of Croydon
14 May 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024 (“LFRA”) from MHCLG. MHCLG refused to provide the requested information, citing section 35(1)(a) of FOIA (formulation or development of government policy). The Commissioner’s decision is that MHCLG was entitled to withhold the requested information under section 35(1)(a) of FOIA. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 35(1)(a)
View Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government