17 Apr 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to one of the University of Cambridge’s (the University’s) academics. The University withheld the information at part one of the request under section 40(2) FOIA (personal information) and stated that any information relating to parts two and three of the request is not held for the purposes of FOIA under the provisions of section 3(2). The Commissioner’s decision is that any requested information relating to parts two and three of the request is not held by the University for its own purposes and therefore falls outside the definition of information held for the purposes of FOIA under section 3(2). He has also decided that the information at part one of the request was correctly withheld under section 40(2) FOIA. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 3; FOI 40(2)
View The University of Cambridge
17 Apr 2025Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information about the Vision Point development. The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) initially refused the entire request under section 43 of FOIA (commercial interests) and then section 31(1) (law enforcement). It has now disclosed some information, withheld some under section 31(1) and advised it doesn’t hold the remainder.The Commissioner’s decision is as follows: The request is for environmental information which HSE should have handled under the EIR. HSE breached regulation 14(3) in that respect, which concerns refusing a request. In respect of part 2 of the request, there are alternative interpretations of this part. The complainant’s interpretation should be accepted and this part of the request processed based on this interpretation in order for HSE to have discharged its duties fully under the EIR.The Commissioner requires HSE to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation:Provide the complainant with a fresh response to pa
Exemptions cited: EIR 14(3)
View Health and Safety Executive
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 partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested cost information relating to a particular NHS incentive. NHS England (“the public authority”) refused the request, citing section 43(2) (commercial interests). The Commissioner’s decision is that the part 1 information engages section 43(2) but the part 2 information doesn’t. The public interest lies in maintaining the exemption in relation to the part 1 information. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: disclose the part 2 information.
Exemptions cited: FOI 43(2)
View NHS England
17 Apr 2025Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about Surrey Police’s crime reporting systems and sodium nitrite. 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 Surrey Police
16 Apr 2025Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information from the London Borough of Lambeth (the Council) about its ownership of a school building. Based on evidence available to the Commissioner, he finds that the Council has breached regulation 5(2) of the EIR by failing to provide a response within 20 working days, as well as regulation 14 by failing to provide a refusal notice that cites the exception relied upon to refuse to disclose information sought at part [3] of the request. Furthermore, the Commissioner finds that the Council has breached regulation 11 by failing to provide an internal review outcome within 40 working days. The Commissioner requires the Council to provide the complainant with a fresh response to part [3] of the request that complies with the regulations, per the advice given at paragraph 20 of this notice.
Exemptions cited: EIR 11; EIR 14; EIR 5(2)
View London Borough of Lambeth
16 Apr 2025Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to transgender Shared Care Agreements and Bridging Prescriptions. 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
16 Apr 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested a copy of the Code of Conduct and other information used by the Public Service Ombudsman for Wales (‘the Ombudsman’) in its work and when carrying out investigations. They also requested information concerning a particular complaint. The Ombudsman provided links to where the information requested in the first part of the request could be found on its website. The Ombudsman relied on section 40(1) of FOIA to withhold the information requested in the second part of the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Ombudsman should have relied on section 21 of FOIA to withhold the information requested in the second part of the request. He has decided to proactively apply this exemption in this case. He also finds that, on the balance of probabilities, the Ombudsman does not hold any further information in relation to acceptable working hours within scope of the request. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 21
View Public Services Ombudsman for Wales
16 Apr 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about offenders carrying out community service in a particular location. The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) disclosed some information, but it would neither confirm nor deny whether it held information relating to whether any of the offenders were sex offenders, citing section 38(2) (Health and safety) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the MoJ was entitled to rely on section 38(2) to neither confirm nor deny whether it held the requested information.
Exemptions cited: FOI 38
View Ministry of Justice
16 Apr 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information about the cladding material on a specific building. Westminster City Council (the Council) provided the information held relevant to the request. The complainant does not consider the Council has provided the information they requested. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the Council has provided the complainant with the information it holds in relation to the request and has complied with section 1(1) of the FOIA. The Commissioner cannot consider the accuracy of the information provided. He therefore, does not require the Council to take any steps as a result of this decision notice. First-tier tribunal (General Regulatory chamber) information rights appeal FT/EA/2025/0180 under appeal.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Westminster Council
16 Apr 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information related to three consultations on free speech regulation. The Office for Students (OfS) advised that it doesn’t hold some of the information, it communicated some and withheld the remaining information under sections 36(2)(b)(ii), 36(2)(c) and 42(1) of FOIA. These exemptions concern prejudice to the effective conduct of public affairs and legal professional privilege, respectively. The Commissioner’s decision is that the information being withheld under sections 36(2)(b)(ii) and 36(2)(c) engages those exemptions. He doesn’t require any further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 36(2)(b)(ii); FOI 36(2)(c)
View Office for Students
16 Apr 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information connected to, or generated, by the former Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s trip to Kyiv in April 2022. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Cabinet Office is entitled to withhold the requested information on the basis of the following exemption(s):
• Section 23(1), information supplied by, or relating to, bodies dealing with security matters, or section 24(1), national security, in the alternative. Information Tribunal FT/EA/2025/0183 under appeal.
Exemptions cited: EIR 23(1); EIR 24(1)
View Cabinet Office
15 Apr 2025Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information about a specific telephone connection. BT declined to answer the request because it did not consider that it was subject to the EIR. The Commissioner’s decision is that part 1 of the request was for environmental information. He also finds that BT is subject to the EIR and was therefore under a duty to respond to the request. The Commissioner requires BT to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: issue a response to part 1 of the request in accordance with the EIR. First-tier tribunal (General Regulatory chamber) information rights appeal FT/EA/2025/0187 under appeal.
Exemptions cited: EIR 2(2)
15 Apr 2025Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to transgender Shared Care Agreements and Bridging Prescriptions. 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 Kockey Road Medical Centre
15 Apr 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about the Independent Office for Police Conduct’s (IOPC) investigation into the fatal shooting of Chris Kaba. The IOPC refused the request, citing section 30(1)(a)(i) (Investigations and proceedings) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the IOPC was entitled to rely on section 30(1)(a)(i) to withhold the information.
Exemptions cited: FOI 30
View Independent Office for Police Conduct
15 Apr 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about a company from Surrey Police. Surrey Police would neither confirm nor deny (“NCND”) holding any information in reliance on section 40(5B)(a)(i) (Personal information) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that it was entitled to do so. No steps are required.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View Sussex Police
15 Apr 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested parcel grid reference numbers relating to countryside stewardship. The Rural Payments Agency (“the public authority”) disclosed some information but refused to provide the rest, citing regulation 13 (personal data). The Commissioner’s decision is that the public authority correctly withheld the information it did under regulation 13 as to disclose it would breach the data protection principles. The Commissioner does not require further steps. Information Tribunal FT/EA/2025/0240 under appeal.
Exemptions cited: EIR 13
View Rural Payments Agency
15 Apr 2025Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested minutes of any meetings considering their request for traffic calming measures on a particular road. Godmanchester Town Council (“the council”) refused to disclose the requested information on the basis that Regulation 12(4)(b) of the EIR applied. 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 requires the council to: disclose the requested information to the complainant, subject to the appropriate redaction of personal data under Regulation 13 and Regulation 5(3) of the EIR.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(b)
View Manchester City Council
15 Apr 2025Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to transgender Shared Care Agreements and Bridging Prescriptions. 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
15 Apr 2025Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested a copy of their late father’s service record. The National Archives (‘TNA’) disclosed most of the record but relied on section 41(1) of FOIA to redact information relating to medical records. The Commissioner’s decision is that TNA is entitled to rely on section 41(1) of FOIA to withhold the redacted information. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10(1); FOI 17; FOI 41
View The National Archives
15 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(1)
15 Apr 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested from Telford & Wrekin Council (the “Council”) planning documentation in respect of a specific historic planning application.
The Council refused to provide the requested information under regulation 6(1)(b) of the EIR, as it considered the information requested to be publicly available and easily accessible to the complainant.
The Commissioner’s decision is that the information is publicly available and easily accessible to the complainant, and therefore regulation 6(1)(b) of the EIR is engaged.
The Commissioner does not require any steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: EIR 6(1)(b)
View Telford and Wrekin Council
15 Apr 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested reports about an expedition to Honduras. The British Museum disclosed one report but withheld the rest under section 21 (information reasonably accessible to applicant via other means). The Commissioner’s decision is that the British Museum has correctly applied section 21. The Commissioner does not require further steps. First-tier tribunal (General Regulatory chamber) information rights appeal FT/EA/2025/0186 under appeal.
Exemptions cited: FOI 21
View British Museum
15 Apr 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information about telephone exchanges. BT provided some information, but not within 20 working days. The complainant argued that BT had breached the EIR. The Commissioner’s decision is that the information requested was not environmental and so no obligation under the EIR could have arisen. The Commissioner does not require further steps to be taken. First-tier tribunal (General Regulatory chamber) information rights appeal FT/EA/2025/0189 under appeal.
Exemptions cited: EIR 2(1)
15 Apr 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to the UK’s Migration and Economic Development Partnership (MEDP) with Rwanda. The Home Office refused to disclose the requested information, on the basis of sections 27(1) and 43(2) of FOIA (the exemptions for international relations and commercial interests, respectively). The Commissioner’s decision is that the Home Office was entitled to rely on section 27(1) to withhold the information. The Commissioner doesn’t require any steps to be taken in response to this decision notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 27
View Home Office
15 Apr 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 Kent County Council
15 Apr 2025Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information about connections. Openreach Ltd did not respond. It subsequently confirmed to the Commissioner that it did not consider itself to be subject to the EIR. The Commissioner’s decision is that the request was for environmental information. He also finds that Openreach Ltd is subject to the EIR and was therefore under a duty to respond to the request. The Commissioner requires Openreach Ltd to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: issue a response to the request in accordance with the EIR. First-tier tribunal (General Regulatory chamber) information rights appeal FT/EA/2025/0188 under appeal.
Exemptions cited: EIR 2(2)
15 Apr 2025Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested minutes of meetings, and associated documentation, from the Department of Justice Northern Ireland (the “DOJ”). The DOJ refused to provide the requested information, citing sections 35(1)(a) and 35(3) (Formulation of government policy, etc) and 36(2)(b) and (c) (Prejudice to effective conduct of public affairs) of FOIA.
The Commissioner’s decision is that sections 35(1)(a) and 36(2)(b) and (c) have been properly cited. However, he finds that section 35(3) is not engaged. The DOJ is required to confirm or deny whether any further information is held and either disclose that information or issue a fresh refusal notice which does not rely on section 35(3) of FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 35; FOI 36
View Department of Justice (Northern Ireland)
14 Apr 2025Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from the Chief Constable of Northamptonshire Police. 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 Northamptonshire Police
14 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 ST ANNE'S CATHOLIC SCHOOL
14 Apr 2025Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested, from the British Film Institute (BFI), information about particular funding applications. BFI issued a revised response to the complainant, during the Commissioner’s investigation, in which BFI disclosed further information. However, BFI continues to withhold other information, on the basis of sections 40(2) and 43 of FOIA (the personal information and commercial interests exemptions). The Commissioner’s decision is that BFI is correct to withhold personal data under section 40(2), but has failed to demonstrate that section 43(2) is engaged for the information that BFI is withholding under that exemption. The Commissioner therefore requires BFI to disclose the information that BFI is withholding under section 43(2) of FOIA (subject to any appropriate redactions for personal data). BFI 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 t
Exemptions cited: FOI 40(2); FOI 43(2)
View British Film Institute
14 Apr 2025Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
Section 10(1) of FOIA states that a public authority must respond to a request within 20 working days. Section 17(3) of FOIA states that where a public authority is relying on a qualified exemption, it can have a “reasonable” extension of time to consider the public interest in maintaining the exemption or disclosing the information. The section 45 Code of Practice states that usually this should be no more than a further 20 working days. This means that the total time spent responding to a request should not exceed 40 working days unless there are exceptional circumstances. The Commissioner does not consider there to be any exceptional circumstances and finds that, by failing to respond to the request within a reasonable time frame, the public authority has breached section 17(3) of FOIA. 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 o
Exemptions cited: FOI 17(3)
View Home Office
14 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 Bexley Council
14 Apr 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about the criminal conviction of an MP. Essex Police refused to disclose the information, citing section 40(2) (Personal information) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that Essex Police was entitled to rely on section 40(2) to refuse to disclose the requested information.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View Essex Police
14 Apr 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from the Ministry of Defence (MoD) relating to the Board of Inquiry report on Jaguar XZ363. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the MoD does not hold the requested information. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Ministry of Defence
14 Apr 2025Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested from the Maritime and Coastguard Agency (“the MCA”) information relating to an incident on 10 October 2009 at Mistley Quay, Essex. The MCA refused the request on the grounds that compliance would exceed the appropriate cost limit under section 12 of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the MCA was entitled to rely on section 12(1) of FOIA to refuse the request. The Commissioner also finds that the MCA breached section 16 of FOIA in this case. However, the Commissioner is satisfied that on this occasion there was no advice or assistance that could have been provided. He therefore does not require any further steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12; FOI 16
View Maritime and Coastguard Agency
14 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
View The Executive Office (Northern Ireland)
14 Apr 2025Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information held by North Tyneside Council (the council) relating to a procurement exercise that took place in 2023, for the provision of management information software to schools. The council issued a refusal notice citing section 43(2) of FOIA (commercial interests), but confirmed that it required a further 20 working days to consider the public interest test. The council subsequently advised the complainant that it had changed its position, and was now relying on section 14(2) of FOIA (vexatious), as its basis for refusing the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council has failed to provide sufficient evidence to show that section 14 of FOIA is engaged. The Commissioner has also found a breach of section 17 of FOIA, as the council failed to issue a refusal notice within 20 working days which confirmed that it was relying upon the exemption at section 14 to refuse the request. The Commissioner requires the council to issue a fresh response to
Exemptions cited: FOI 14; FOI 17
View North Tyneside Council
11 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 Birmingham City Council
11 Apr 2025Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about a particular investigation. The above public authority relied on section 31 of FOIA (law enforcement) to withhold some of the information and to refuse to confirm or deny that the remaining information was held. The Commissioner’s decision is that the public authority was not entitled to rely on section 31 to refuse to confirm or deny that it held information within the scope of parts 3, 4, 5 or 6 of the request. The Commissioner considers that section 31 does apply to the information falling within the scope of part 10 of the request and the balance of the public interest favours maintaining the exemption. However the exemption is not engaged in relation to the information falling within the scope of parts 1, 2, 7, 8 and 9. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: Confirm or deny whether it holds any information within parts 3, 4, 5 or 6 of the request. If any i
Exemptions cited: FOI 31
View Gambling Commission
10 Apr 2025Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The public authority must provide a substantive response to both of the requests 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
10 Apr 2025Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to a specific investigation. The Care Quality Commission (‘CQC’) refused to provide specific information, firstly two reports (‘the expert reports’), citing section 30(1)(b) (investigations and proceedings) and secondly, the explanation around why an expert withdrew, citing section 40(2) (personal information), section 30(1)(b) and section 31(1)(g) (law enforcement). The Commissioner’s decision is as follows: The reports engage section 30(1)(b) but the public interest lies in disclosure; the body of the email, and some information contained within the report, cannot be withheld under section 40(2) and the email engages section 30(1)(b) and the public interest lies in disclosure, because the email engages section 30(1)(b), it cannot engage section 31(1)(g). The Commissioner requires the CQC to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: disclose the reports and the email, except for the information that the Commi
Exemptions cited: FOI 17; FOI 30; FOI 31(1)(g); FOI 40(2)
View CQC
10 Apr 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information on agreements between De Montfort University Leicester (“the University”) relating to advanced entries, specifically to include the identity of overseas partners, qualifications accepted and year of entry. The University refused the request under section 43 FOIA – commercial interests. The Commissioner’s decision is that the University has correctly applied section 43(2) FOIA and the public interest favours maintaining the exemption and withholding the information. He requires no steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 43
View De Montfort University
9 Apr 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested various information in relation to discussions or opinions on the topic of “occupation of the Wellington Sq offices by pro-Palestine activist groups such as OA4P”. The Conference of Colleges (University of Oxford) (the Conference) did not respond to the request. Following the intervention of the Commissioner, the Conference informed the Commissioner that it was not a public authority for the purposes of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Conference is not a public authority for the purposes of the FOIA and is not therefore required to respond to the request. The Commissioner does not require any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 6
9 Apr 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information (in two requests) relating to a statement quoted by a school that is now part of the Harbour Schools Partnership (the Partnership). The Partnership relied on section 14(1) of FOIA (vexatious) to refuse the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the requests were vexatious and therefore the Partnership was entitled to rely upon section 14(1) of FOIA to refuse it. The Commissioner does not require any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14(1)
9 Apr 2025Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to procedures for declining internal reviews for Freedom of Information requests. The Cabinet Office relied on section 14(1) of FOIA (vexatious) to refuse the request.
The Commissioner’s decision is that the request was not vexatious and therefore the Cabinet Office was not entitled to rely upon section 14(1) of FOIA to refuse it.
The Commissioner requires the Cabinet Office to take the following step to ensure compliance with the legislation - Issue a fresh response to the request that does not rely on section 14(1) of FOIA.
The Cabinet Office 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 the Act and may be dealt with as a contempt of court.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14(1)
View Cabinet Office
9 Apr 2025Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information from Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council (“the Council”) relating to a traffic regulation order (TRO). The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council is entitled to rely on regulation 12(4)(e) (internal communications) of the EIR to withhold meeting minutes from an internal briefing meeting. However, he finds that the Council is not entitled to rely on regulation 12(4)(e) to withhold a presentation that was given during that meeting. The Commissioner requires the Council to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. Disclose the withheld presentation. 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)(e)
View Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council
9 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. 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 Derbyshire County Council
9 Apr 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from the Department of Health Northern Ireland (DoH) relating to the Northern Ireland major trauma centre and network. The Commissioner’s decision is that the DoH is entitled to rely on section 14(1) (vexatious request) of FOIA to refuse to provide the requested information. The Commissioner does not require the DoH to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14(1)
View Department of Health NI
9 Apr 2025Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about a specific complaint against officers, including employees of other another organisation. Oxford City Council originally indicated that no information was held, or was otherwise exempt from disclosure. During the course of the Commissioner’s investigation, the Council revised its position, and informed the Commissioner that it 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) to refuse to confirm or deny that it holds the requested information. However, by failing to issue a refusal notice to the complainant, it breached the requirement of section 17(1) of FOIA. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40(5); FOI 17(1)
View Oxford City Council