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
14 May 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about a police escort from the Attorney General’s Office (“AGO”). The AGO would neither confirm nor deny (“NCND”) holding any information by virtue of section 35(3) (Formulation of government policy, etc) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that it was entitled to do so. No steps are required. First-tier tribunal (General Regulatory chamber) information rights appeal FT/EA/2025/0193 appeal allowed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 35
View Attorney General's Office
14 May 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information from South Gloucestershire Council (“the Council”) relating to a planning enforcement investigation. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council is entitled to rely on regulation 13(1) (personal data) of the EIR to refuse to provide the information requested in part 3 of the request. The Commissioner does not require the Council to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 13(1)
View South Gloucestershire Council
14 May 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to the current holder of a specified Registrar role. The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) ultimately confirmed it holds some information in scope of the request. It provided some relevant information, but withheld the remainder, citing sections 22 (information accessible to applicant by other means) and 40 (personal information) of FOIA. The MoJ later withdrew its reliance on section 40, stating instead that the requested information is not held. The complainant disputes that the MoJ does not hold the requested information relating to the educational qualifications and professional experience of the Registrar.
The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the MoJ does not hold the requested information relating to their educational qualifications and professional experience. The MoJ has therefore complied with section 1(1)(a) of FOIA. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken as a result of this decision. First-tier
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Ministry of Justice
13 May 2025Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested Fire Safety Reports and related information regarding a specific site. North Yorkshire Fire and Rescue Service (NYFRS) provided some information but withheld other information, applying sections 40(2) FOIA – personal information, 38(1)(a) FOIA – health and safety, 31(1)(a) – law enforcement and section 43(2) FOIA – commercial interests. The Commissioner’s decision is that some information was correctly withheld under sections 31 and 38 and that the public interest favours non-disclosure. Other information does not engage sections 38, and 31, though it does engage section 43(2) where the public interest favours disclosure. The Commissioner has also decided that the information withheld under section 40(2) has been correctly withheld. The Commissioner requires NYFRS to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation.
• Disclose all the information that has been withheld, apart from the information on p.14 (repeated on p.15) which was withh
Exemptions cited: FOI 31(1)(a); FOI 38(1)(a); FOI 40(2); FOI 43(2)
View North Yorkshire Fire and Rescue Service
13 May 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information connected with the visit of Wuhan police officers to Greater Manchester Police (‘GMP’) in late May/early June 2019. GMP responded, providing some information, stating it did not hold some and exempting the remainder. During the Commissioner’s investigation, only part 1 of the request remained in scope for “the risk assessment document regarding this visit”. Once GMP had provided the withheld risk assessment to the Commissioner, he noticed that the October 2019 date postdated the Wuhan visit referenced in the request. He queried this with GMP, who said it had misinterpreted the request. GMP then searched for a risk assessment held in connection with the earlier 2019 visit and said no recorded information was held. The complainant remained dissatisfied. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, no recorded information is held for part 1 of the request.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Greater Manchester Police
13 May 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from Waverton Parish Council (“the Parish Council”) relating to their own alleged “misbehaviour”. The Parish Council’s position is that it has disclosed all of the information it holds within the scope of the request. However, the complainant disputes this. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the Parish Council does not hold any further information within the scope of the request. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1(1)
13 May 2025Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant made a multipart request to the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (“the MHCLG”), of which part 2 sought the date on which its definition of the term ‘Windrush Generation’ was first announced to the public. During the course of the Commissioner’s investigation, the MHCLG informed the Commissioner that identifying the date would engage section 12(1) of FOIA (cost of compliance) and now relied on that provision. The Commissioner’s decision is that section 12(1) is not engaged. The Commissioner requires the MHCLG to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: Issue a fresh response to part 2 of the request in which it does not rely on section 12 of FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12(1)
View Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government
13 May 2025Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested financial information about all trusts in the national reinforced autoclaved aerated concrete programme since its inception. The above public authority (“NHSE”) relied on section 12 of FOIA (cost of compliance) to refuse the request.
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 NHSE complied with its section 16 obligation to offer advice and assistance. However, the Commissioner also finds that NHSE breached section 10(1) of FOIA by providing its initial response late.
The Commissioner does not require further steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 12(1)
View NHS England
13 May 2025Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about Houses of Multiple Occupation. Chorley Borough Council disclosed some of the information and directed the complainant to where the remainder was published on its website. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has provided all held information and is entitled to rely upon section 21 (Information accessible to the applicant by other means) for that which is already published on its website. However, the Council breached the time limits set by section 10(1) and section 17(1) in its handling of the request. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10(1); FOI 21; FOI 17(1)
View Chorley Borough Council
13 May 2025Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to its use of specific software. The Serious Fraud Office (SFO) denied holding some information within the scope of the request and refused to provide the remainder, citing sections 31(1) (law enforcement) and 22 (information intended for future publication) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the SFO does hold information in scope of part 1(a) of the request. The SFO therefore failed to comply with section 1 of FOIA (general right of access to information). The Commissioner also finds that the SFO was not entitled to apply section 22 to the information in scope of part 3 of the request. However, he finds that it was entitled to rely on section 31(1)(b) and (c) to withhold the information in scope of parts 1(b) and 4 of the request. The Commissioner requires the SFO to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: issue a fresh response to part 1(a) of the request confirming
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 22; FOI 31
View Serious Fraud Office
13 May 2025Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has asked about claims for Universal Credit being closed, and individuals prosecuted, as a result of being found to have spent significant time outside of the United Kingdom. The Department for Communities refused to confirm or deny that it held the requested information, citing section 31(3) in conjunction with section 31(1)(a) (prejudice to the prevention or detection of crime). The Commissioner’s decision is that the Department was not entitled to refuse to confirm or deny that it holds the requested information. The Commissioner requires the Department to confirm or deny whether the requested information is held.
Exemptions cited: FOI 31
13 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 Liverpool City Council
13 May 2025Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested the names and appointing ministers of special advisers in post at the time of the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that section 22(1) is not engaged and while section 36(2)(c) is engaged, the balance of the public interest favours disclosure. The Commissioner requires the Cabinet Office to disclose the requested information. The public authority must take these steps within 30 calendar days of the date of this decision notice. Failure to comply may result in the Commissioner making written certification of this fact to the High Court pursuant to section 54 of the Act and may be dealt with as a contempt of court.
Exemptions cited: FOI 22; FOI 35
View Cabinet Office
13 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 Bridgend County Borough Council
13 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 Bradford District Care NHS Trust
12 May 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested a copy of a footway parking resolution for a specified road in Romford. London Borough of Havering (the Council) initially erroneously processed the complainant’s request under FOIA and applied section 21 (information reasonably accessible to the applicant by other means). The Council subsequently provided the complainant, following a decision notice issued by the Commissioner on 22 July 2024, with an internal review and revised response under the Environmental Information Regulations 2004 (EIR). The Council applied regulation 12(4)(a)(information not held) and regulation 12(4)(d)(material in the course of completion, unfinished documents and incomplete date) to refuse the request During the course of the Commissioner’s investigation the Council revised their position, and applied regulation 6(1)(b)(information already available), a form and format provision, to the request, before reverting back to reliance on regulation 12(4)(a) only. The Commissioner’s
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(a)
View London Borough of Havering
12 May 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The Commissioner’s decision is that requested information about Ofgem’s inquiry into Drax Power Ltd is excepted from disclosure under regulation 12(5)(b) of the EIR, which concerns the course of justice, etc. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(b)
View Office of Gas and Electricity Markets
12 May 2025Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information relating to smell/odour emissions emanating from a waste facility site near their property from ANSA Environmental Services Limited (“ANSA”). ANSA refused the request on the basis that Regulation 12(4)(b) applied (manifestly unreasonable request). Cheshire East Council (“the council”) now have responsibility for the work previously carried out by ANSA, and confirmed its reliance upon this exception. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council was not correct to apply Regulation 12(4)(b) to refuse to respond to the request further. The Commissioner therefore requires the council to respond to the request again, without relying on up Regulation 12(4)(b).
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(b)
12 May 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested minutes of and other information relating to a specific meeting between the Culture Secretary (Lisa Nandy MP) and the BBC Director General (Tim Davie). The Department for Culture, Media and Sport made a partial disclosure but refused to provide the remainder citing section 36 (effective conduct of public affairs) and section 41 (information provided in confidence). They upheld and clarified this position at internal review. The Commissioner’s decision is that DCMS is entitled to rely on section 36(2)(b)(ii) as its basis for withholding the requested information. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 36
View Department for Culture, Media and Sport
9 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 Surrey Police
9 May 2025Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested, from Natural England (NE), a copy of the information that NE sent to the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman (PHSO), in relation to a complaint that the complainant had made to NE. NE has disclosed some information, but continues to withhold other information on the basis of regulations 12(3), 12(4)(e) and 12(5)(b) of the EIR (respectively, the exceptions for ‘personal data of which the applicant is not the data subject’, ‘internal communications’ and ‘course of justice’). The Commissioner’s decision is that NE is correct to rely on regulations 12(3) and 12(5)(b); however, whilst NE correctly withheld some information under regulation 12(4)(e), other information doesn’t engage regulation 12(4)(e). The Commissioner requires NE to disclose the information being withheld under regulation 12(4)(e) in NE’s email to PHSO of 22 February 2024, to ensure compliance with the legislation. NE must take this step within 30 calendar days of the date of this deci
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(3); EIR 12(4)(e); EIR 12(5)(b)
View Natural England
9 May 2025Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information from Pentir Community Council (the Council) which relates to Treborth Hall. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council was not entitled to combine the burden of six requests when citing regulation 12(4)(b) to refuse to comply with the request dated 22 February 2024. The Commissioner requires the Council to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. Issue a fresh response to the request dated 22 February 2024 which does not rely on regulation 12(4)(b). The Council must take these steps within 30 calendar days of the date of this decision notice. Failure to comply may result in the Commissioner making written certification of this fact to the High Court pursuant to section 54 of the Act and may be dealt with as a contempt of court.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(b)
9 May 2025Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information from the Royal Borough of Kingston Upon Thames (“the Council”) relating to three planning applications. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council is not entitled to rely on regulation 12(4)(b) (manifestly unreasonable) of the EIR to refuse to provide email correspondence held within the email inboxes of three planning officers that falls within the scope of the request. However, the Commissioner finds that the Council is entitled to rely on regulation 13(1) (personal data of a third party) and regulation 5(3) (personal data of the requester) to withhold information relating to three planning enforcement cases.
He also finds that on the balance of probabilities, the Council does not hold further information within the scope of the request which has not already been provided the complainant, withheld under an exception, or is available within the public domain. The Commissioner requires the Council to take the following steps to ensure complia
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(b); EIR 13(1); EIR 5(1); EIR 5(3)
View Kingston upon Thames Council
8 May 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested financial information about employees who left the Ministry of Defence in 2016 and 2017. The Cabinet Office disclosed some information and relied on section 40(2) of FOIA (third party personal information) to withhold the remainder. The Commissioner’s decision is that the public authority has correctly relied on section 40(2) of FOIA in respect of the withheld information. The Commissioner does not require further steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40(2)
View Cabinet Office
8 May 2025Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The Commissioner’s decision is that the complainant’s request for information to Waterbeach Parish Council (‘the Council’) about contractors is a vexatious request under section 14(1) of FOIA. The timeliness of the Council’s refusal didn’t comply with section 17(5). It’s not necessary for the Council to take any corrective steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14(1); FOI 17(5)
7 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 Birmingham City Council
7 May 2025Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested copies of communications between the public authority and a named general practitioner’s surgery. The Buckinghamshire, Oxfordshire & Berkshire West Integrated Care Board (“the Board”) refused the request, citing section 12 (cost limits) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Board is not entitled to rely on section 12 to refuse the request. The public authority also breached section 10 of FOIA by failing to respond to the request within 20 working days. The Commissioner requires the Care Board to issue a new response that does not rely on section 12 of the FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 12
View NHS Buckinghamshire, Oxfordshire and Berkshire West ICB
7 May 2025Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested a draft Chalk Stream Recovery Pack (CSRP) which Defra has refused under regulations 12(4)(d) and 12(4)(e) of the EIR. These exceptions concern material still in the course of completion etc and internal communications respectively. The Commissioner’s decision is as follows: The draft CSRP engages regulation 12(4)(d) of the EIR but the public interest favours disclosure. The information in the draft CSRP to which Defra has also applied regulation 12(4)(e) engages that exception and the public interest favours withholding this information. The Commissioner requires Defra to take the following step to ensure compliance with the legislation: Disclose to the complainant the information in the draft CSRP to which Defra has applied regulation 12(4)(d) of the EIR only.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(d); EIR 12(4)(e)
7 May 2025Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested from NHS England information relating to the Independent Review of Gender Identity Services for Children and Young People also known as the Cass review (the review). NHS England applied section 14(1) of FOIA (vexatious request) to refuse the three requests in this case. The Commissioner’s decision is that the requests were not vexatious and therefore NHS England was not entitled to rely on section 14(1) to refuse them. The Commissioner requires NHS England to issue a fresh response to the requests that does not rely on section 14(1) of FOIA. First-tier tribunal (General Regulatory chamber) information rights appeal FT/EA/2025/0212 appeal struck out.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14
View NHS England
7 May 2025Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested from Drumragh Integrated College information relating admissions and its admissons procedure. 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.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
7 May 2025Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information relating to successful dropped kerb applications from the Royal Borough of Windsor & Maidenhead (“the council”). The council applied Regulation 13 of the EIR (third party personal data) to withhold the locations/addresses from the information it disclosed. The Commissioner’s decision is that the public authority was correct to rely upon Regulation 13 of the EIR to withhold the information. He has, however, decided that the council initially considered the information under the wrong legislation, and therefore that its initial response did not comply with the requirements of Regulation 14. The Commissioner does not require the council to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 13; EIR 14
7 May 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information about a specific planning permission and Section 106 Agreement. Fareham Borough Council (the Council) provided some information and withheld other information under regulation 12(5)(b) (course of justice) of the EIR and regulation 13(1) (personal data) of the EIR. During the course of the Commissioner’s investigation the Council disclosed some additional information to the complainant, but maintained its reliance on regulations 12(5)(b) and 13 of the EIR. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council correctly applied regulation 12(5)(b) to the request. The Commissioner does not require any steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(b)
View Fareham Borough Council
7 May 2025Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information from the Department for Communities (DfC) relating to Casement Park. The Commissioner’s decision is that the DfC is not entitled to rely on regulation 12(4)(b) (manifestly unreasonable) to refuse to provide the requested information. The Commissioner requires the DfC to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. The DfC must issue a fresh response which does not rely on regulation 12(4)(b) of the EIR. The DfC must take these steps within 30 calendar days of the date of this decision notice. Failure to comply may result in the Commissioner making written certification of this fact to the High Court pursuant to section 54 of the Act and may be dealt with as a contempt of court.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(b)
7 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 Westminster Council
6 May 2025Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
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 Whittington Health NHS Trust
6 May 2025Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about NHS England's handling of ADHD treatment. 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 NHS England
6 May 2025Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about specified training. Thornton Le-Dale Parish Council (the Council) relied on section 40(2) of FOIA (third party personal information) to withhold some of the information requested at part 3 of the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has not correctly relied on section 40(2) of FOIA to withhold names of any councillors who attended specified training. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. Disclose the requested information to the complainant. The Council must take these steps within 30 calendar days of the date of this decision notice. Failure to comply may result in the Commissioner making written certification of this fact to the High Court pursuant to section 54 of the Act and may be dealt with as a contempt of court.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40(2)
6 May 2025Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to Childrens Social Work information from London Borough of Enfield. London Borough of Enfield 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
6 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 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
6 May 2025Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested from Police Service Northern Ireland (PSNI), information relating to the numbers of reported crimes and incidents against badgers (includes baiting, sett disturbance and destruction, trapping, snaring, poisoning and shooting) and clearance rates for the financial years 2022/23 2023/24 2024/25 (to date)
The Commissioner’s decision is that the information requested is environmental and therefore PSNI should have dealt with the request under the Environmental Information Regulations 2004 (“the EIR”) and not the FOIA.
The Commissioner requires PSNI to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation.
Reconsider and respond to the complainant’s request dated 12 October 2024 under the EIR.
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 deal
Exemptions cited: EIR 5(1)
View Police Service of Northern Ireland
6 May 2025Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information from the London Borough of Haringey Council (the Council) relating to the decision to scrap daily visitor permits in a specific controlled parking zone. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the Council has not conducted adequate searches for the requested information specified at part 2 of the request. The Commissioner also finds that the Council breached regulation 5(2) by failing to respond to the request within 20 working days. The Commissioner requires the Council to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. Conduct a fresh search for the requested information specified at part 2 using broader search terms and issue a fresh response to the complainant. The Council must take these steps within 30 calendar days of the date of this decision notice. Failure to comply may result in the Commissioner making written certification of this fact to the High Court pursuant to section 54 of the
Exemptions cited: EIR 5(1); EIR 5(2)
View Haringey Council
2 May 2025Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to an FCA investigation into Collateral UK. FCA relied on section 30(3) FOIA to neither confirm nor deny whether it held the requested information. The Commissioner’s decision is that parts 1-2 do not constitute valid requests for information under section 8 FOIA. The FCA is entitled to rely on section 30(3) to neither confirm nor deny if the information at parts 3-6 is held. For part 7 of the request the Commissioner does not consider that the FCA was entitled to neither confirm nor deny whether it held the requested information. The Commissioner therefore requires the FCA to issue a fresh response to part 7 of the request which confirms or denies that the requested information is held. If the requested information is held, it should either be disclosed or the FCA should issue a fresh refusal notice explaining why it is exempt from disclosure.
Exemptions cited: FOI 30
View Financial Conduct Authority
2 May 2025Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to an FCA investigation into Collateral UK and whether certain companies were involved in the investigation. The FCA relied on section 30(3) FOIA to neither confirm nor deny whether it held the requested information. The Commissioner’s decision is that the FCA is entitled to rely on section 30(3) to neither confirm nor deny if the information at parts 1-4 is held. For part 5 of the request the Commissioner does not consider that the FCA was entitled to neither confirm nor deny whether it held the requested information. The Commissioner therefore requires the FCA to issue a fresh response to part 5 of the request which confirms or denies if the requested information is held. If the requested information is held, it should either be disclosed or the FCA should issue a fresh refusal notice explaining why it is exempt from disclosure.
Exemptions cited: FOI 30
View Financial Conduct Authority
2 May 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information on the use of side letters by the Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS) and the Independent Assessor (IA). FOS stated the information wasn’t held. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on balance, FOS doesn’t hold the information requested and has complied with section 1(1). Information Tribunal FT/EA/2025/0192 under appeal.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
2 May 2025Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about police officers administering an emergency antidote for drug overdoses. North Wales Police (“NWP”) relied on section 12(1) (cost of compliance) of FOIA to refuse the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that NWP was entitled to rely on section 12(1) of FOIA to refuse the request. However, the Commissioner also finds that NWP did not comply with its section 16 obligation to offer advice and assistance. The Commissioner requires NWP 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 may fall within the appropriate limit. NWP 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; FOI 16
View North Wales Police
2 May 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested copies of patient safety incident reports involving Physician Associates. Airedale NHS Foundation Trust (ANFT) relied on section 40(2) of FOIA (third party personal information) to withhold the information. The Commissioner’s decision is that the public authority 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)
View Airedale NHS Foundation Trust
1 May 2025Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
1. The complainant has requested information from the Home Office in relation to proof of concept analyses produced by the National Police Data Laboratory. The Home Office relied on sections 31(1)(a), 31(1)(e) and 40 to withhold some of the requested information. It disclosed the remainder.
2. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Home Office has correctly applied section 31(1)(e) to all of the information withheld under that section. In relation to section 31(1)(a), the Commissioner considers that this has been correctly applied in respect of the additional information held by the Home Office in scope of the complainant’s request.
3. In relation to the information contained in the Proof of Concept analysis slides, which was redacted under section 31(1)(a), the Commissioner does not consider that section 31(1)(a) is engaged in relation to this.
4. The Commissioner requires the Home Office to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation.
• Disclose the inform
Exemptions cited: FOI 31
View Home Office
1 May 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested a copy of a report which was considered at a meeting held by the Investigation and Disciplinary Committee at Dover District Council (the council). The council refused the request, citing section 40(2) (third party personal information), and section 31 (law enforcement), of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council is entitled to rely on section 40(2) of FOIA as its basis for withholding all of the requested information. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40(2)
View Dover District Council
30 Apr 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant submitted a request for information relating to proposals mentioned in a joint statement addressing water scarcity in Greater Cambridge. The Ministry of Housing, Communities & Local Government (MHCLG) refused to provide the information requested citing regulation 12(4)(b) (manifestly unreasonable) of the EIR.
The Commissioner’s decision is that the MHCLG was entitled to rely on regulation 12(4)(b) to withhold information in scope of the request and that the public interest favours maintaining the exception. However, the MHCLG breached regulation 14 of the EIR by failing to issue its refusal notice within 20 working days.
The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(b)
View Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government