9 Apr 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested a copy of the service records of their late father. The National Archives (TNA) provided a redacted copy of the records, withholding some information under section 41 of FOIA (information provided in confidence).
The Commissioner’s decision is that section 41 is engaged, and that TNA is entitled to refuse to disclose the withheld information.
The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 41
View The National Archives
8 Apr 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant made a request under the EIR for “all communications in any form” relating to his emails sent to three named individuals on specified dates at Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council (the ‘Council’). The information concerns issues arising from the proposed relocation of a market in Birkenhead. The Council initially responded under FOIA and said the complainant already had the majority of the emails in scope through his earlier exchanges with the named individuals. It refused to provide the remaining two emails, citing section 42(1) of FOIA – the exemption for legal professional privilege. It said no further information was held in scope of the request, a position the complainant disputes. During the course of the Commissioner’s investigation, the Council disclosed the two withheld emails, with redactions for the legal advice contained within them. It reconsidered its position and said the request was for environmental information, such that it was now relying on Regulation
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(b); EIR 5
View Wirral Council
8 Apr 2025Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The public authority has failed to respond to this request within 20 working days, as specified in the EIR. The Commissioner requires it to provide the complainant with a response to this request within 30 calendar days in accordance with its obligations under the EIR.
Exemptions cited: EIR 5(2)
View Cherwell District Council
8 Apr 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from Bedfordshire Fire and Rescue Service (“BFRS”) relating to a car fire. BFRS’s position is that it has disclosed all of the information held within the scope of the request. The complainant believes that BFRS holds further information that it has not disclosed. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, BFRS has disclosed all of the information it holds within the scope of the request. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1(1)
View Bedfordshire Fire and Rescue Service
8 Apr 2025Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The public authority has failed to respond to this request within 20 working days, as specified in the EIR. The Commissioner requires it to provide the complainant with a response to this request within 30 calendar days in accordance with its obligations under the EIR.
Exemptions cited: EIR 5(2)
View Bridgend County Borough Council
8 Apr 2025Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information from Oxford Direct Services Limited about the construction of specific houses. ODSL provided some information, stated that some was not held, and withheld some under section 43(2) (Commercial interests) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000. During the course of investigation, the Commissioner identified that the request sought information that was environmental and therefore invited ODSL to reconsider the withheld information under the terms of the Environmental Information Regulations 2004 rather than FOIA. ODSL confirmed that it now sought to withhold the information under regulation 12(5)(e) (Confidentiality of commercial or industrial information) of the EIR. The Commissioner’s decision is that, besides the information so far disclosed, and the withheld information considered in this decision, no further information is held by ODSL. In respect of the withheld information, the Commissioner has found that ODSL is not entitled to withhold it
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(e); EIR 5(1)
8 Apr 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested a list of subscribers to the Police National Legal Database of offence wordings. West Yorkshire Police (WYP) refused to disclose the requested information on the grounds that it was exempt under section 43 (Commercial interests) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that WYP was entitled to rely on the exemption to refuse the request.
Exemptions cited: FOI 43
View West Yorkshire Police
8 Apr 2025Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested various information. The above public authority refused the request as vexatious (section 14(1) of FOIA) and, to the extent it sought environmental information, manifestly unreasonable (regulation 12(4)(b) of the EIR). The Commissioner’s decision is that the request was not vexatious nor manifestly unreasonable. Therefore to the extent that the request sought environmental information, the public authority was not entitled to rely on regulation 12(4)(b) of the EIR. To the extent that the request sought non-environmental information, it was not vexatious and the public authority was not entitled to rely on section 14(1) of FOIA to refuse it. The public authority also breached regulation 11 of the EIR because its internal review was not completed within 40 working days. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. Issue a fresh response, to those parts of the request falling under FOIA,
Exemptions cited: EIR 11; EIR 12(4)(b); FOI 14(1)
8 Apr 2025Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested communications exchanged between Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole Council (the council) and Cycling UK about matters concerning access routes into Poole Park. The council advised the complainant that it did not hold information falling within scope of the request, although it did confirm that it held email communications between its own legal team and a legal team acting on behalf of Cycling UK. The council said that it considered that this information would be exempt from disclosure under section 42 of FOIA (legal professional privilege). During the Commissioner’s investigation, the council confirmed that it now considered the EIR to be the correct access regime. The council also said that it had now identified some communications sent directly between the council and Cycling UK which it would consider for potential disclosure to the complainant. The Commissioner is satisfied that an objective reading of the request does include communications held between
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(b); EIR 5
View BCP Council
8 Apr 2025Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from Sport Northern Ireland (Sport NI) regarding an historic whistleblowing allegation. Sport NI refused the request, citing sections 36(2)(b)(i) and (ii), and 36(2)(c) (Prejudice to effective conduct of public affairs) of FOIA. Sport NI then informed the Commissioner that it was only relying on section 36(2)(c) of FOIA as a basis for non-disclosure.
The Commissioner’s decision is that Sport NI was not entitled to rely on section 36(2)(c) to refuse the request.
The Commissioner’s decision is also that Sport NI has breached sections 1, 10 and 17 of FOIA by not responding to the complainant’s request within the statutory time period of 20 working days.
1. The Commissioner requires Sport NI to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation:
• Disclose the requested information, i.e. that information in the two documents shown to the Qualified Person (QP) which falls within the scope of the complainant’s request. Appropriate
Exemptions cited: FOI 36
View Invest Northern Ireland
8 Apr 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from Financial Ombudsman Service Limited (“the FOS”) relating to a complaint made to the FOS. The FOS has disclosed a small amount of information within the scope of the request but withheld the remainder of the requested information citing section 40(1) (personal data of which the applicant is the data subject) and section 40(2) (personal data of which the applicant is not the data subject) of FOIA as its bases for doing so. The Commissioner’s decision is that the FOS is entitled to rely on section 40(1) and 40(2) to withhold the information withheld on these bases. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40(1); FOI 40(2)
8 Apr 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to the occupation of a property. The Northern Ireland Housing Executive (NIHE) refused to neither confirm nor deny whether it held any information citing section 40(5B) of FOIA (neither confirm nor deny provision (NCND) within the personal information exemption). The Commissioner’s decision is that NIHE was correct to rely on section 40(5B) to issue an NCND response to the request. He does not require NIHE to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40(5)(b)
View Northern Ireland Housing Executive
8 Apr 2025Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested correspondence between council officers about its decision to prevent them from asking more than one question in public meetings. Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council (“the council”) refused the request on the basis that section 42(1) of FOIA applied (legal professional privilege (LPP). The Commissioner’s decision is that the council was correct to withhold the information under section 42(1) of FOIA. He has however, decided that the council’s response did not comply with section 17(1) of FOIA. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 42(1); FOI 17(1)
View Wirral Council
7 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 Health and Safety Executive
7 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
7 Apr 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information about concerns they had raised about unlicensed dumping and burning of mixed waste at a particular site. Basingstoke and Dean Borough Council (the Council) initially withheld the information requested under regulation 12(5)(b) (course of justice) of the EIR. In its internal review the Council withdrew its reliance on regulation 12(5)(b) of the EIR and disclosed the information requested, subject to some information being redacted under regulation 13 (personal data) of the EIR. During the course of the Commissioner’s investigation, the Council disclosed some of the information it had originally withheld, as it constituted the complainant’s own personal data. The Council continued to withhold the remaining information under regulation 13 of the EIR. The complainant considered that the Council held additional information relevant to the request, other than the documents disclosed and was unhappy with the information that the Council had redacted from
Exemptions cited: EIR 13; EIR 5
View Basingstoke and Deane Borough Council
7 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. 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 Home Office
7 Apr 2025Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information relating to emails sent or received by a specific member of staff at Hertsmere Borough Council (the Council) in relation to breaches of a planning condition.
The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has correctly applied regulation 12(4)(e) (internal communications) and 12(5)(f) (interests of the information provider) of the EIR to withhold some information falling within the scope of the request.
However, in failing to provide some environmental information within 20 working days it breached regulation 5(2) of the EIR.
It also breached regulation 11 of the EIR by failing to provide an internal review.
The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 11; EIR 12(4)(e); EIR 12(5)(f); EIR 5(2)
View Hertsmere Borough Council
7 Apr 2025Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The public authority has failed to respond to this request within 20 working days, as specified in the EIR. The Commissioner requires it to provide the complainant with a response to this request within 30 calendar days in accordance with its obligations under the EIR.
Exemptions cited: EIR 5(2)
View North Northamptonshire Council
7 Apr 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested documentary information from Poundstock Parish Council (the Council) which supports statements made by its Chair. The Council denied holding information falling within the scope of the request.
The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the Council does not hold information falling within the scope of the request.
The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
7 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 Sussex Partnership NHS Trust
7 Apr 2025Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to the funding of Coventry City of Culture Trust. Coventry City Council (the “Council”) disclosed some information and withheld other information under the exemption for information provided in confidence (section 41). The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council failed to demonstrate that the exemption under section 41 is engaged, and failed to respond in time, breaching section 10(1). The Commissioner requires the Council to disclose the information in part 1 of the request, subject to the appropriate redaction of personal data under section 40(2)of FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10(1); FOI 41
View Coventry City Council
4 Apr 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested from the Langton Grammar School for Boys (the School) information relating to the reconstitution of the Langton Governing Body, including internal and external communications with relevant parties. The School originally refused the request and cited section 14(2) (repeated requests) of FOIA. It subsequently revised its position and determined the request to be vexatious, relying on section 14(1) (vexatious requests) of FOIA.
The Commissioner’s decision is that the request was vexatious and the School was entitled to rely on section 14(1) of FOIA to refuse to comply with the request for information. The Commissioner does not require the School to take any steps as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14(1)
4 Apr 2025Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested, from the London Borough of Waltham Forest (the council), information about the cost of sending children to secure children’s homes, over five years. The council originally provided average weekly costs, for the years in question. During the Commissioner’s investigation, the council disclosed further information, namely total costs for each year. However, the council is withholding other information, under section 40(2) of FOIA (personal information), and has said that the last part of the request “could not be answered”. The Commissioner’s decision, based on the information available to him, is that the withheld ‘small numbers’ (ie the number of children sent to secure children’s homes in 2019-2020, 2020-2021 and 2023-2024) don’t constitute personal data, so section 40(2) of FOIA isn’t engaged for that information; he also finds that the council has breached section 16 (duty to provide advice and assistance) because the last part of the request was capable of
Exemptions cited: FOI 16; FOI 40(2)
View Waltham Forest Council
4 Apr 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about whether a specific individual at a specific address claims a council tax discount and any medical reasons for this. Bridgend County Borough Council (the Council) relied on section 40(5B) of FOIA (third party personal information) to refuse to confirm or deny that the information was held. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council correctly relied on section 40(5B) of FOIA to refuse to confirm or deny that the information was held. The Commissioner does not require further steps to be taken. Information Tribunal FT/EA/2025/0161 under appeal.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40(5)(b)
View Bridgend County Borough Council
3 Apr 2025Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information about financial and environmental costs to clean up a site being used for illegal waste disposal and bonfires. Northern Ireland Water (‘NI Water’) provided some of the requested information but stated that it was relying on regulation 12(4)(a) of the EIR as it did not hold any further information within scope of the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, NI Water doesn’t hold further recorded information concerning tonnage amounts and tyre removal. However, in terms of costs of clean-up activities per year, it is likely, on the balance of probabilities, that NI Water holds further recorded information within the scope of the request. The Commissioner requires NI Water to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: Issue a fresh response following searches aimed at identifying all information held concerning clean-up activities within the scope of the request.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(a)
View Northern Ireland Tourist Board
3 Apr 2025Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The Commissioner’s decision is that London Borough of Lambeth (‘the Council’) isn’t entitled to rely on section 12(1) of FOIA (cost limit) to refuse to comply with the complainant’s request for information about a consultation. However, the information it has identified that it does hold is exempt from disclosure under section 42(1) of FOIA, which concerns legal professional privilege. The Council communicated some relevant information outside of the timescale required under section 10(1) of FOIA and its refusal notice didn’t meet the requirements of section 17.The Commissioner requires the Council to take the following step to ensure compliance with the legislation: Provide the complainant with a fresh response to their request that doesn’t rely on section 12 of FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10(1); FOI 12(1); FOI 17; FOI 42(1)
View London Borough of Lambeth
3 Apr 2025Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about children on EHCP within the Borough. The public authority has failed to respond to the request within 20 working days. Therefore the Commissioner finds a breach of section 10. The public authority must provide a substantive response to the request in accordance with its obligations under FOIA. The public authority must take this step within 30 calendar days of the date of this decision notice. Failure to comply may result in the Commissioner making written certification of this fact to the High Court pursuant to section 54 of FOIA and may be dealt with as a contempt of court.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View London Borough of Havering
3 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)
View Ministry of Justice
3 Apr 2025Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has made a two part information request relating to an investigation report created in 2016 by Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council. In respect of part one of the request, the Council disclosed some information subject to redactions under section 40(2) (Personal information) of FOIA. In respect of part two of the request, the Council denied that information was held. In respect of part one of the request, the Commissioner’s decision is that the Council was entitled to withhold some, but not all of the information it withheld under section 40(2). The information to be disclosed is set out in a confidential annex which will be provided to the Council only. In respect of part two of the request, the information is not held. The Commissioner requires the Council to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 40(2)
View Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council
3 Apr 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested planning enforcement information about a residential address. The City of York Council withheld the information under the exceptions provided by regulation 13 (Personal information) and regulation 12(5)(b) (Course of justice) of the EIR. The Commissioner’s decision is that the information is personal data, and that the Council is entitled to rely on regulation 13 to refuse to disclose it. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 13(1)
View York City Council
3 Apr 2025Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about a specific licence plate. The above public authority refused the request as vexatious. The Commissioner’s decision is that the request was not vexatious and therefore the public authority was not entitled to refuse it. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. Issue a fresh response, to the request, that does not rely on section 14(1) of FOIA.
Keywords: cherished plates
Exemptions cited: FOI 14
View Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency
2 Apr 2025Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information produced by its Strategic Insight Unit from the Metropolitan Police Service (the “MPS”). The MPS advised that to comply with the request would exceed the cost limit as section 12(1) (Cost of compliance exceeds appropriate limit) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that section 12 is not engaged. He requires the MPS to issue a fresh response that does not rely on section 12.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12; FOI 16
View Metropolitan Police Service
2 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. 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 Cumberland Council
2 Apr 2025Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested a housing needs study carried out by a third party from Woodham Ferrers & Bicknacre Parish Council, (“the council”). The council refused the request under Regulation 12(4)(d) (material still in the course of completion). The Commissioner’s decision is that the council was not correct to apply Regulation 12(4)(d) to withhold the information. The Commissioner requires the council to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. To disclose the requested report to the complainant, subject to any appropriate redactions under Regulation 13 of the EIR (personal data of third parties).
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(d)
2 Apr 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested copies of any reports, briefings, readouts and minutes connected to meetings with Elbit from the Home Office. The Home Office disclosed some information but withheld the remainder citing sections 36(2)(ii)(b) (Prejudice to effective conduct of public affairs), 40(2) (Personal information), 24(1) (National security), 27(1) (International relations), 31(1)(a)(b)(c) (Law enforcement), 41(1) (Information provided in confidence) and 43(2) (Commercial interests) of FOIA. It would also neither confirm nor deny (NCND) holding further information citing sections 23(5) (Information supplied by, or relating to bodies dealing with security matters) and 24(2), in the alternative.
The Commissioner’s decision is that section 36(2)(ii)(b) is properly cited, which relates to all of the withheld information. He also finds that the Home Office was entitled to NCND holding further information. No steps are required.
Exemptions cited: FOI 23; FOI 24; FOI 36
View Department for Business and Trade
2 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 Bury Council
2 Apr 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested the names, job titles and assigned department of staff who work on FOI, EIR and data protection complaints concerning central government departments and the number of complaints with each department. The Information Commissioner’s Office (‘ICO’) provided links to already available information on the number of complaints and some information on staff roles. It relied on section 40(2) of FOIA to withhold staff names and individual job titles. The Commissioner’s decision is that the ICO was entitled to rely on section 40(2) to withhold the requested information. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40(2)
View Information Commissioner
2 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 Bury Council
1 Apr 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested copies of emails he sent and the email addresses of three individuals. The above public authority relied on section 21 (reasonably accessible) to withhold the emails and one of the email addresses. It relied on section 40(2) of FOIA (third party personal information) to withhold the remainder. The Commissioner’s decision is that the public authority was entitled to rely on both section 21 and section 40(2) in the manner that it has done. The Commissioner does not require further steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 21; FOI 40(2)
View Department for Education
1 Apr 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information held regarding disputes relating to road signage. The London Borough of Islington (the Council) advised it does not hold information within scope of the request.
The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council was entitled to apply section 12(1) of FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12
View Islington Council
1 Apr 2025Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information relating to a planning application. Colchester City Council (the council) responded that it held the information and provided a link to the planning application website for it to be accessed. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council has complied with regulation 5(1) of the EIR in relation to part 2 of the request, in that information falling within this part of the request has been provided. The Commissioner has also found that, on the balance of probabilities, the council does not hold information falling within the scope of part 1 of the request and therefore regulation 12(4)(a) is engaged. The Commissioner does not require any steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(a); EIR 5(1)
View Colchester City Council
1 Apr 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to a specific murder case. The Police Service of Northern Ireland (PSNI) provided some of the information but withheld the remaining information citing sections 30(1)(a) (investigations and proceedings), 40(2) (personal information) 31(1)(c) (law enforcement) and 12(2) (cost of compliance) of FOIA.
The Commissioner’s decision is that PSNI was entitled to rely on section 12(2) of FOIA to refuse the request. He does not require PSNI to take any further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12(2)
View Police Service of Northern Ireland
1 Apr 2025Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from the IMB Staff Group for Independent Monitoring Boards (the ‘IMB Staff Group’), specifically an organisation chart and a list of the Chairs for prisons oversight. The IMB Staff Group provided some explanatory information about its organisation structure but withheld the names of the Chairs, citing the exemptions in sections 40(2) (personal information), and section 31 (law enforcement) of FOIA. The Commissioner has determined that the IMB Staff Group (which provides the Independent Monitoring Boards or IMBs with administrative and policy support) falls under the remit of the Ministry of Justice (the ‘MOJ’) for the reasons set out in this notice. He has also determined that the requested list of Chairs’ names is held by the MOJ for the purposes of FOIA and that the MOJ was entitled to rely on section 40(2) of FOIA to refuse to provide the remaining information. As the Commissioner has found section 40(2) of FOIA to be engaged, he has not deemed
Exemptions cited: FOI 3; FOI 40
View Ministry of Justice
1 Apr 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested data about Covid-19 vaccinations. The above public authority provided some information and relied on section 21 of FOIA (reasonably accessible) to withhold the remainder. The Commissioner’s decision is that the public authority does not hold some of the information within the scope of the request. Where section 21 has been applied, it has been applied correctly. The Commissioner does not require further steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 21
View NHS Business Services Authority
1 Apr 2025Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
A public authority will breach regulation 5(2) of the EIR if it fails to respond to a request within 20 working days. Based on the evidence available to the Commissioner the Council did not provide a response within the statutory timeframe. Therefore the Commissioner finds a breach of regulation 5(2). A public authority will breach regulation 11 of the EIR if it fails to respond to a request for a reconsideration (internal review) within 40 working days. Based on evidence available to the Commissioner, the public authority did not provide an internal review response within the statutory time frame. Therefore the Commissioner finds a breach of regulation 11. The Commissioner does not require any further steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 11; EIR 5(2)
View Richmond upon Thames Council
1 Apr 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested an unredacted copy of the Home Office's review of the asylum seeker right-to-work policy. The Home Office confirmed it holds the requested information, but refused to provide it, citing section 35(1)(a) (formulation of government policy, etc) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Home Office was entitled to rely on section 35(1)(a) to withhold the requested information. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: FOI 35
View Home Office
1 Apr 2025Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested emails and letters between named individuals and the Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs (‘Defra’) relating to the appointment of Mark Tufnell to Natural England’s Board in May 2024. Defra provided some information with the personal information redacted under section 40(2) of FOIA and said some information was not held (both these aspects were not challenged by the complainant). Defra withheld the remaining information under section 36(2)(b)(i) – the exemption for prejudice to the free and frank provision of advice and section 36(2)(c) – the exemption for prejudice to the effective conduct of public affairs. The Commissioner’s decision is that he finds section 36(2)(c) of FOIA not to be engaged for the reasons set out in this notice. He finds that Defra was entitled to rely on section 36(2)(b)(i) of FOIA for the remaining withheld information. No steps are required as a result of this notice.
Keywords: Recruitment
Exemptions cited: FOI 36
1 Apr 2025Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested a copy of a third party’s response to a consultation. The Financial Reporting Council (FRC) refused the request, citing section 41 (information provided in confidence) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the FRC is not entitled to rely on the exemption at section 41(1) of FOIA to withhold the requested information. The Commissioner requires the FRC to take the following step to ensure compliance with the legislation: disclose the requested Consultation Response.
Exemptions cited: FOI 41
View Financial Reporting Council
1 Apr 2025Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information about a neighbourhood dispute. The above public authority provided some information, but relied on sections 41 (breach of confidence) and 40(2) of FOIA (third party personal information) to withhold the remainder. The Commissioner’s decision is that: the requested information is environmental and so the request should have been dealt with under the EIR; and the public authority was entitled to rely on regulation 13 of the EIR to withhold some, but not all of the information; and the public authority 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; and on the balance of probabilities the public authority holds no further information within the scope of the request; and the public authority breached regulations 5(2) and 14 of the EIR. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the leg
Exemptions cited: EIR 13; EIR 14; EIR 5(1); EIR 5(2); EIR 5(3)
View Merton Council