30 Apr 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested email correspondence between several named individuals discussing specific topics in six specific time periods. City St. George’s, University of London (‘the University’) relied on section 12 of FOIA to refuse the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the University was entitled to rely on section 12(1) of FOIA to refuse the request. The Commissioner also finds that the University complied with its section 16 obligation to offer advice and assistance. The Commissioner does not require further steps. First-tier tribunal (General Regulatory chamber) information rights appeal FT/EA/2025/0206 under appeal.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12; FOI 16
View City of London
30 Apr 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
1. The complainant has requested information from Oxford University Endowment Management (OUEM). The above public authority relied on sections 43(2) and 43(3) of FOIA (commercial interests) as a basis for neither confirming or denying that it held some of the requested information and as a basis for non-disclosure of the remainder.
2. The Commissioner’s decision is that OUEM has correctly relied upon section 43 of FOIA in order to both NCND (in respect of one part of the request and to withhold some of the requested information (in respect of the other part of the request).
3. The Commissioner does not require further steps. First-tier tribunal (General Regulatory chamber) information rights appeal FT/EA/2025/0217 under appeal.
Exemptions cited: FOI 43
30 Apr 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information about the 2024 Downhill Derby. Penarth Town Council (the Council) originally refused to provide information in scope of the request citing section 43 of FOIA but reconsidered its position at internal review providing the information it held.
The Commissioner considers that on the balance of probabilities, the Council did not hold any further information in scope of the request.
The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
30 Apr 2025Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information about the registration of political parties. The Electoral Commission disclosed some information, and its final position is that the remaining information is exempt from disclosure under section 42(1) of FOIA, which concerns legal professional privilege. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Electoral Commission correctly applied section 42(1) of FOIA to certain information. On the balance of probabilities, the Commission holds no further information within scope of the request, but the timeliness of its response breached sections 1(1), 10(3) and 17. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1(1); FOI 17; FOI 42(1); FOI 10(3)
View The Electoral Commission
30 Apr 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from the BBC about the production of the documentary “Gaza: How to Survive a War Zone”. 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
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
30 Apr 2025Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The Commissioner’s decision is that the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman (PHSO) is entitled to refuse the complainants’ request for information about their late relative under section 44(1)(a) of FOIA, which concerns prohibitions on disclosure. PHSO failed to issue a section 44 refusal notice, however, and so didn’t comply with section 17(1). The Commissioner doesn’t require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 44(1)(a); FOI 17(1)
View The Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman
30 Apr 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested Royal Borough of Kingston Upon Thames (the council) to disclose the identities of individuals that objected to a planning application. The council refused to disclose the information citing regulation 13 of the EIR. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council is entitled to refuse to disclose the requested information in accordance with regulation 13 of the EIR. He has however recorded a breach of regulation 14(2) of the EIR by failing to issue its refusal notice within 20 working days of receipt of the request. The Commissioner does not require further steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: EIR 13; EIR 14(2)(1)
View Kingston upon Thames Council
30 Apr 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about the Home Office’s Interactive Advance Passenger Information (iAPI) and (Electronic Travel Authorisation (ETA) systems. The Home Office disclosed some information, but it withheld a detailed technical specification document, citing section 31(1)(e) (Law enforcement - prejudice to the operation of the immigration controls) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Home Office was entitled to apply section 31(1)(e) to withhold the information.
Exemptions cited: FOI 31
View Home Office
30 Apr 2025Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
In a multi-part request, the complainant requested information relating to sanctions applied under the violence and aggressions policy. Dartford and Gravesham NHS Trust (the Trust) refused to provide some information in scope of the request, citing sections 40(2) (personal information) and 41(1) (information provided in confidence) of FOIA. The Commissioner investigated the Trust’s application of section 40(2) to the withheld information in scope of parts 3-6 of the request (it made no further submission regarding the application of section 41(1) of FOIA). The Commissioner’s decision is that the Trust was not entitled to rely on the exemption to withhold the requested information. The Commissioner requires the Trust to take the following step to ensure compliance with the legislation: disclose the requested information in scope of parts 3-6 of the request.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View Dartford and Gravesham NHS Trust
30 Apr 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a multipart request to the Department for Business and Trade (DBT) about arms licensing. At the point this decision notice is being issued the outstanding issues are DBT’s reliance on sections 41(2) (information provided in confidence) and 43(3) (commercial interests) to neither confirm nor deny (NCND) parts 1a) and 1b) of the request and its reliance on sections 41(1) and s43(2) to withhold information in the scope of parts 7, 8 (goods descriptions) and 9 of the request.
The Commissioner’s decision is that DBT was entitled to rely on the NCND provision at section 41(2) in relation to parts 1a) and 1b) and section 41(1) to withhold information sought by parts 7, 8 (goods descriptions) and 9 of the request.
The Commissioner does not require DBT to take any further steps in relation to this complaint. First-tier tribunal (General Regulatory chamber) information rights appeal FT/EA/2025/0207 under appeal.
Exemptions cited: FOI 41; FOI 43
View Department for Business and Trade
30 Apr 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested copies of materials produced for HMRC’s PRIDE 2024 event. HM Revenue and Customs (“HMRC”) provided some information within scope of the request but stated that no further information was held. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, HMRC does not hold further information within scope of the request.
The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
30 Apr 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 East Lancashire Hospitals NHS Trust
30 Apr 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information about the use of Thursley Common National Nature Reserve as a filming location. Natural England provided some of the requested information but it relied on regulation 12(5)(e) of the EIR to withhold details of remuneration and information from an ecologist about the site. The Commissioner’s decision is that Natural England was entitled to rely on regulation 12(5)(e) of the EIR to withhold the information requested in part d) of the request. The Commissioner requires Natural England to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: Disclose the redacted copy of the ecological report requested in part e) of the request as planned.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(e)
View Natural England
29 Apr 2025Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant, a limited company, requested information about the costs incurred by Durham University (the University) in particular legal cases. The University argued that a company name was not a valid name for the purposes of section 8(1)(b) (Request for information) of FOIA. It refused to respond to the request unless an individual name was provided for the requester. The Commissioner’s decision is that the request for information was valid under section 8 of FOIA. The Commissioner requires the University to issue a substantive response to the request which does not rely on section 8 of FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 8
View University of Durham
29 Apr 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested correspondence between Planning Inspectors and between Planning Inspectors and the Health and Safety Executive regarding a proposed development in Runcorn. The Planning Inspectorate (“the authority”) provided some information, however it applied Regulation 13 and Regulation 12(4)(e) to redact or withhold other information. During the course of the Commissioner's investigation, the authority changed its position to apply Regulation 12(4)(b) to withhold the information from disclosure. The Commissioner’s decision is that the authority was correct to apply Regulation 12(4)(b) to refuse to respond to the request further. The Commissioner does not require the authority to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(b)
View Planning Inspectorate
29 Apr 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested copies of settlement agreements. Channel Four Television Corporation (‘Channel 4’) disclosed redacted copies of 61 settlement agreements and relied on section 40(2) of FOIA and section 43(2) of FOIA to withhold the redacted information. The Commissioner’s decision is that Channel 4 was entitled to rely on sections 40(2) and 43(2) of FOIA to withhold the redacted information. The Commissioner does not require further steps. Information Tribunal FT/EA/2025/0169 appeal withdrawn.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40(2); FOI 43(2)
View Channel 4
29 Apr 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested particular information about juror expenses for the period 1 July 2022 until 30 June 2024. The Ministry of Justice (the ‘MOJ’) provided some information, but withheld the remainder, citing section 35(1)(a) – the formulation or development of government policy and section 35(1)(b) of FOIA – Ministerial communications. During the course of the Commissioner’s investigation, the MOJ said it no longer wished to rely on section 35(1)(b) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the MOJ has properly relied on section 35(1)(a) of FOIA and that the public interest favours maintaining the exemption for the reasons set out in this notice. No steps are required as a result of this notice.
Keywords: Remuneration
Exemptions cited: FOI 35
View Ministry of Justice
29 Apr 2025Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The Commissioner’s decision is that the Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency (DVSA) holds no further information within scope of the request for information about a coach service’s wheelchair accessibility. However, the timeliness of DVSA’s response to the request breached 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 17(1)
View Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency
29 Apr 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested copies of the notes of the last five meetings of Horseheath Parish Council (the Council). The Council stated that it did not hold the information requested. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the Council does not hold any information relevant to the request. However, the Commissioner finds that the Council breached section 1(1)(a) of the FOIA in failing to confirm it did not hold information relating to the request, and section 10(1) of the FOIA in failing to confirm it did not hold information relating to the request within 20 working days. The Commissioner does not require any steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
29 Apr 2025Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The public authority has failed to respond to this request within 20 working days, as specified under FOIA. The Commissioner requires it to provide the complainant with a response to this request within 30 calendar days in accordance with its obligations under FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Somerset Council
28 Apr 2025Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about bullying and discrimination complaints from individuals on the autistic spectrum that are also transgender. They also requested similar complaint information about race or physical disability. The Lancashire and South Cumbria NHS Foundation Trust (the Trust) provided some information but applied section 12(1) FOIA (cost of compliance) to information concerning patient diagnoses. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Trust has correctly cited section 12 FOIA. However, he finds that the Trust failed to provide reasonable advice and assistance and therefore did not meet its obligations under section 16(1) of FOIA. The Commissioner has also decided that section 17(5) FOIA was breached in that the Trust did not confirm its reliance on section 12 within the statutory timeframe. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12; FOI 16; FOI 17
View Lancashire and South Cumbria NHS Foundation Trust
28 Apr 2025Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information related to the delivery of Arterio trains. The above public authority relied on section 43(2) of FOIA (commercial interests) to withhold the information. The Commissioner’s decision is that the public authority has not demonstrated that section 43 is engaged and consequently is not entitled to rely on that information. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: disclose the information it has relied on section 43 of FOIA to withhold.
Exemptions cited: FOI 43
View Department for Transport
28 Apr 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to handwritten notes taken in a Council meeting. Poundstock Parish Council (the Council) stated it does not hold the requested information.
The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the Council does not hold the requested information.
The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
28 Apr 2025Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about care agreements. The above public authority stated that it did not hold some of the requested information. The Commissioner’s decision is that the public authority failed to comply with its section 16 duty to provide advice and assistances, because it did not obtain the correct objective reading of the request. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. Contact the complainant to help him clarify part 1 of his request such that it is both clear and valid for the purposes of section 8 of FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 16
View Somerset Council
28 Apr 2025Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information about the costs of a social housing project. The Northern Ireland Housing Executive (NIHE) refused the request, citing regulation 12(5)(e) (the confidentiality of commercial or industrial information) of the EIR. The Commissioner’s decision is that, whilst NIHE was correct to handle the request under the EIR, NIHE is not entitled to rely on regulation 12(5)(e), as it has not demonstrated that the exception is engaged. The Commissioner requires NIHE to disclose the withheld information (ie the withheld information provided to the Commissioner in NIHE’s submissions of 28 March 2025).
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(e)
View Northern Ireland Housing Executive
28 Apr 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested evidence of police forces failing to follow reasonable lines of enquiry. The above public authority stated that it did not hold some information and relied on sections 21 (reasonably accessible), 35 (formulation of government policy), 36 (prejudice to effective conduct of public affairs) and 40 (third party personal information) of FOIA to withhold information. The Commissioner’s decision is that the public authority does not in fact hold any information within the scope of the request, other than that already published. The Commissioner does not require further steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Home Office
28 Apr 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
25 Apr 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested statistical information on referrals to social services by Kisharon Noé School (the school). The school has relied on section 14(1) of FOIA to refuse the request on the basis that it is vexatious. The Commissioner’s decision is that the school was entitled to refuse the request under section 14(1) of FOIA. The Commissioner does not require any further steps to be taken as a result of this decision notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14
25 Apr 2025Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested from Ballycastle Integrated Primary School and Nursery Unit 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
25 Apr 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from the BBC about the selection of audience members for the television programme Question Time. 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
25 Apr 2025Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from Portsmouth Hospitals University NHS Trust. 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 Portsmouth Hospitals NHS Trust
25 Apr 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
25 Apr 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information relating to development of land at Chipping Campden. Gloucestershire County Council (the “Council”) disclosed some information and withheld other information under the exceptions for internal communications (regulation 12(4)(e)) and commercial confidentiality (regulation 12(5)(e)). The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council correctly withheld information under regulation 12(4)(e) and regulation 12(5)(e) but that it should have relied on regulation 5(3) of the EIR to withhold those parts of the requested information that were the complainant’s own personal information. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(e); EIR 12(5)(e)
View Gloucestershire County Council
25 Apr 2025Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from South West Yorkshire Partnership NHS Foundation Trust on 23 February 2025 regarding Barnsley CAMHS ADHD service. 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 South West Yorkshire Partnership NHS Foundation Trust
25 Apr 2025Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from Leicestershire Police on 28 January 2025 related to software or other services provided to them by Palantir such as Impact Assessments, case summaries, data sharing and contracts.
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 Leicestershire Police
24 Apr 2025Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information associated with the implications for the Northern Ireland Policing Board (NIPB) of a particular Court of Appeal judgement. NIPB disclosed some information and withheld the remainder under sections 36(2) and 40(2) of FOIA. These exemptions concern prejudice to the effective conduct of public affairs and personal data, respectively. NIPB has subsequently advised that some of the withheld information can be disclosed due to the passage of time. It is continuing to withhold the remainder under section 36(2)(c), 40(2) and also section 42, which concerns legal professional privilege. The Commissioner’s decision is as follows: NIPB is entitled to withhold some of the information the complainant has requested under sections 36(2)(c) and 42(1) of FOIA. The timeliness of NIPB’s initial response to the request didn’t comply with sections 1(1), 10(1) and 17(1). The Commissioner requires NIPB to take the following step to ensure compliance with the legislat
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10; FOI 17; FOI 36; FOI 42
View Northern Ireland Policing Board
24 Apr 2025Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested statistical information about suicides. The above public authority relied on sections 38 (health and safety), 36 (effective conduct of public affairs) and 41 (breach of confidence) of FOIA to withhold the information. The Commissioner’s decision is that section 38 of FOIA is engaged and that the balance of the public interest favours maintaining the exemption. The public authority’s handling of the request breached sections 10 and 17 of FOIA. The Commissioner does not require further steps to be taken. First-tier tribunal (General Regulatory chamber) information rights appeal FT/EA/2025/0197 under appeal.
Keywords/themes: Samaritans
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 17; FOI 38
View Department of Health and Social Care
24 Apr 2025Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information about refurbishment work at Coral Reef Leisure Centre. Bracknell Forest Council (the “Council”) confirmed that it was withholding the information under the exemption for information provided in confidence (section 41). During the Commissioner’s investigation the Council disclosed some information and dropped its reliance on section 41, confirming that it was now relying on the exemption for prejudice to commercial interests (section 43(2)) to withhold a Settlement Agreement. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the Council correctly confirmed that it holds no further information falling within the scope of the request but that it failed to demonstrate that section 43(2) is engaged. The Commissioner requires the Council to disclose the Settlement Agreement to the complainant.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 43
View Bracknell Forest Council
24 Apr 2025Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested communications between the Department for Communities and the UK Government regarding the redevelopment of Casement Park. The Department disclosed some information but withheld the remainder, citing regulation 12(4)(d) (material in the course of completion), regulation 12(5)(e) (confidentiality of commercial information) and regulation 13 (personal data). The Commissioner’s decision is that the exceptions are engaged in respect of some of the withheld information, but not all of it. The Commissioner also finds that the Department failed to comply with regulation 14 in issuing an inadequate refusal notice. The Commissioner requires the Department to disclose the information set out in the annex at the end of this decision notice.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(d); EIR 12(5)(e); EIR 13
24 Apr 2025Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested Christ’s College Finchley (the College) to disclose the names of teaching staff who were employed by the College between 1984 and 1990. The College confirmed that it does not hold all the information but for the information it does hold it considers section 40 of FOIA (personal data) applies. The Commissioner’s decision is that on the balance of probabilities the College does not hold any further recorded information to that already identified. In terms of section 40 of FOIA the Commissioner is satisfied that this has been applied appropriately to former member of staff which have left in the last six years. However, for current members of staff, he has decided that section 40 of FOIA does not apply. The Commissioner has also found the College in breach of section 10 of FOIA, by failing to respond to the information request within 20 working days of receipt. The Commissioner requires the College to disclose the names of current teaching staff which were em
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 40
23 Apr 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information with regards to Poynton Pool. Cheshire East Council (the council) provided the information it held. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the council has provided all the information it holds falling within the scope of the request and therefore complied with regulation 5(1) of the EIR. The Commissioner does not require any steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 5(1)
View Cheshire East Council
23 Apr 2025Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested the number of prisoners released on licence whose release conditions require them to wear an electronic tag who, at the time of the request, had not been fitted with one. The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) denied holding the requested number. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the MoJ does hold information in scope of the request. The Commissioner requires the MoJ to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: issue a fresh response confirming it holds the information and either disclose it or issue a refusal notice in accordance with section 17 of FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Ministry of Justice
23 Apr 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information in relation to complaints or unsubstantiated claims regarding them made to Steeple Morden Parish Council (“the Council”). The Council refused the request, citing section 40(2) of FOIA – personal information. The Commissioner’s decision is that the requested information relates to the complainant’s own personal information and would be exempt under section 40(1) of FOIA .The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
22 Apr 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a five-part request to the Home Office about data errors made by the Animals in Science Regulation Unit. The Home Office responded to each part of the request. Ultimately, the complainant was only concerned with the Home Office’s response to part 2 of her request which was for the audit reports. The Home Office relied on section 36(2)(b)(i) – prejudice to the free and frank provision of advice and 36(2)(b)(ii) of FOIA – prejudice to the free and frank provision of views for the purposes of deliberation, to withhold the requested reports. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Home Office has properly relied on sections 36(2)(b)(i) and (ii) of FOIA for part 2 of the request, and that the public interest favours maintaining the exemptions. No steps are required as a result of this notice. First-tier tribunal (General Regulatory chamber) information rights appeal FT/EA/2025/0176 under appeal.
Exemptions cited: FOI 36
View Home Office
22 Apr 2025Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested the dates of any complaints made about Gregg Wallace since 2000. The BBC withheld the information under section 40(2) of FOIA, which concerns personal data. The Commissioner has decided that the BBC correctly applied section 40(2) of FOIA, but the timeliness of its refusal didn’t comply with section 17(1). He doesn’t require any further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 17; FOI 40
View BBC
17 Apr 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about agreements the University of the West of England has with organisations from the People’s Republic of China. The Commissioner’s decision is this information is exempt information under section 43(2) of FOIA, because disclosure would be likely to prejudice the University’s commercial interests. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 43(2)
View University of the West of England, Bristol
17 Apr 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, Cheshire East Council (‘the Council’) holds no further information about particular planning applications. The Council has correctly applied regulation 13(1) of the EIR to personal data that it’s withholding. It’s not necessary for the Council to take any further steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 13(1); EIR 5(1)
View Cheshire East Council
17 Apr 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
1. The complainant has requested information from Transport for London (“TfL”) regarding the number of Penalty Charge Notices (PCNs) issued within a certain time period. TfL refused to disclose the requested information, citing sections 31(1)(b) and (g) of FOIA as a basis for non-disclosure.
2. The Commissioner’s decision is that TfL has correctly applied section 31 of FOIA to the requested information.
3. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 31
View Transport for London
17 Apr 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