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 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
31 Mar 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information with regards to specific trees. The Commissioner’s decision is that West Northamptonshire Council (the Council) holds no information falling within the scope of the request, other than the complainant’s own personal data. Therefore regulation 12(4)(a) (Information not held) of the EIR is engaged. The Commissioner does not require any steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(a)
View West Northamptonshire Council
31 Mar 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to the Department for Business and Trade (DBT) seeking information about how it handled a press query he had submitted to it. DBT initially withheld all of the information in scope of the request on the basis of sections 36(2)(b)(i) and (ii) (effective conduct of public affairs) and section 40(2) (third party personal data) of FOIA. It disclosed a redacted version of the information in scope during the course of the Commissioner’s investigation. The Commissioner’s decision is that: some of the information DBT withheld on the basis of sections 36(2)(b)(i) and (ii) is the complainant’s personal data and is therefore exempt from disclosure under FOIA on the basis of section 40(1) (first party personal data); the remainder of the information DBT withheld on the basis of sections 36(2)(b)(i) and (ii) is exempt from disclosure on the basis of those exemptions and the public interest favours maintaining each exemption; and the information redacted on the ba
Exemptions cited: FOI 36; FOI 40
View Department for Business and Trade
31 Mar 2025Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The council must provide a substantive response to the request in accordance with its obligations under FOIA. The council must take this step within 30 calendar days of the date of this decision notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10(1)
View Birmingham City Council
31 Mar 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 Ministry of Justice
31 Mar 2025Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
A public authority will breach section 17 of FOIA if it fails to issue a refusal notice within 20 working days. Based on evidence available to the Commissioner, the London Borough of Richmond Upon Thames (the Council) did not provide a refusal notice within the statutory time frame. Therefore the Commissioner finds a breach of section 17(5). The Commissioner also finds that the Council breached section 16 by failing to provide the complainant with advice and assistance.
Exemptions cited: FOI 17(5)
View Richmond upon Thames Council
31 Mar 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested from Durham University (the University) information about student affiliation and changes of college between 2023 and 2024. The University refused the request, citing section 12(2) of FOIA. It later changed this to section 12(1) of FOIA – cost of compliance. The Commissioner’s decision is that the University was entitled to rely on section 12(1) to refuse to comply with the request. The Commissioner also finds that the University complied with its section 16(1) obligation to offer advice and assistance in relation to the request. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12(1); FOI 16(1)
View University of Durham
31 Mar 2025Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a two part request to the Civil Aviation Authority (the CAA) for various information in respect of drones and Flight Restriction Zones (FRZ’s). The CAA informed the complainant that it did not hold relevant information in respect of item one of the request and cited section 44(2) (prohibitions on disclosure) to neither confirm nor deny whether it held relevant information in relation to data on false positive detections of drones posing a threat (item two). The Commissioner’s decision is that the CAA has failed to demonstrate that it has identified all relevant information falling within the scope of item one of the request, or that section 44(2) applies to any information it potentially holds in relation to item two of the request. The Commissioner requires the CAA to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. Conduct a further search of its records in relation to item one of the request to confirm what information it holds. Confirm o
Exemptions cited: FOI 1(1); FOI 44(2)
View Civil Aviation Authority
31 Mar 2025Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information to explain how the London Borough of Hackney (the Council) calculates an energy charge. The Council provided narrative responses but did not address whether or not it held recorded information relevant to the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that, if the Council does hold recorded information, it has failed to make this available within the statutory time for response set out at regulation 5(2). If the Council does not hold recorded information then it has failed to issue a refusal notice citing regulation 12(4)(a) within the statutory time for response. The Commissioner requires the Council reconsider the request, conducting appropriate searches, and issue a fresh response to the complainant.
Exemptions cited: EIR 14; EIR 5
View London Borough of Hackney
31 Mar 2025Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted four requests to the London Borough of Richmond upon Thames (the Council) about emails between senior staff members on a variety of topics. The Council initially aggregated all four of the requests and refused them with reliance on section 12 (cost limit) of FOIA, however during the course of the Commissioner’s investigation it amended its position and relied on section 14(1) of FOIA (vexatious) to refuse the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the requests were not vexatious and therefore the Council was not entitled to rely upon section 14(1) of FOIA to refuse them. The Commissioner also finds that the Council breached section 17(5) of FOIA by failing to provide a refusal notice within the statutory timeframe, and section 16 of FOIA by failing to provide reasonable advice and assistance to the complainant. The Commissioner requires the Council to issue a fresh response to the requests that does not rely on section 14(1) of FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14(1); FOI 16; FOI 17(5)
View Richmond upon Thames Council
31 Mar 2025Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
A public authority will breach section 17 of FOIA if it fails to issue a refusal notice within 20 working days. Based on evidence available to the Commissioner, the London Borough of Richmond Upon Thames (the Council) did not provide a refusal notice within the statutory time frame. Therefore the Commissioner finds a breach of section 17(5). The Commissioner also finds that the Council breached section 16 by failing to provide the complainant with advice and assistance.
Exemptions cited: FOI 16; FOI 17(5)
View Richmond upon Thames Council
31 Mar 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information related to the Cass Review. NHS England relied on section 12 of FOIA to refuse the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that NHS England was entitled to rely on section 12(1) of FOIA to refuse the request. The Commissioner also finds that NHS England complied with its section 16 obligation to offer advice and assistance. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12; FOI 16
View NHS England
31 Mar 2025Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to the hereditary angioedema (HAE) clinic and the clinical immunology service at University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust (the Trust). The Trust provided the information it held within the scope of the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the Trust does not hold any further information falling within the scope of the request. However, it failed to comply with section 1 of FOIA due to it not conducting proper searches at the time of the request. The Commissioner does not require any further steps as a result of this decision notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust
31 Mar 2025Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information relating to a central heating and hot water system. The London Borough of Camden (the Council) initially refused the request under regulation 12(4)(b) of the EIR on the grounds that it was manifestly unreasonable. However the Council withdrew reliance on regulation 12(4)(b) during the Commissioner’s investigation and issued a fresh response to the complainant. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council failed to comply with regulation 11 of the EIR in that it did not conduct an adequate internal review. He finds that the Council provided reasonable advice and assistance in line with regulation 9. The Commissioner does not require further steps. However he has provided good practice advice to both parties in the event of future requests being submitted. Information Tribunal FT/EA/2025/0170 appeal consent order.
Exemptions cited: EIR 11; EIR 9
View Camden Council
31 Mar 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to UK Research and Innovation (UKRI) seeking information about research integrity. UKRI provided information it held falling within the scope of the request with the exception of one email chain which it withheld on the basis of section 41(1) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the email chain in question is exempt from disclosure on the basis of section 41(1) of FOIA. With regard to the complainant’s other grounds of complaint, the Commissioner is satisfied that UKRI interpreted and correctly located (and either disclosed or withheld on the basis of section 41(1)), all of the information falling within the scope of the request. Information Tribunal FT/EA/2025/0168 under appeal.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 41
View UK Research and Innovation
31 Mar 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested incident logs and emails relating to small boat crossings on the English Channel on a particular date. Maritime and Coastguard Agency (MCA) refused the request under section 31 FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that MCA has correctly engaged sections 31(1)(b) and (c) and the public interest favours withholding the information and maintaining the exemptions. He doesn’t require MCA to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 31
View Maritime and Coastguard Agency
31 Mar 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to the Ministry of Defence (MOD) seeking information about health and safety assurance checks undertaken at RAF cadet squadrons. The MOD explained that it could not confirm or deny, within the appropriate cost limit, whether it held any information falling within the scope of the request and it therefore relied on section 12(2) (cost limit) of FOIA to refuse the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the MOD is entitled to rely on section 12(2) of FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12
View Ministry of Justice
28 Mar 2025Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about nurses and midwives referred to the Nursing and Midwifery Council over five years. Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust (‘the Trust’) has disclosed some relevant information but has refused part of the request under section 12(1) of FOIA because it says the cost of complying with this part would exceed the appropriate limit. The Commissioner’s decision is that section 12(1) isn’t engaged. The Commissioner requires the Trust to take the following step to ensure compliance with the legislation: Issue the complainant with a fresh response to their request that doesn’t rely on section 12 of FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12(1)
View Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust
28 Mar 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information in respect of employees accused of or arrested for sex related offences. South East Coast Ambulance Service NHS Foundation Trust (the Trust) provided some information in scope of the request but refused the bulk of the request citing section 40(2) (personal information).
The Commissioner’s decision is that the Trust was entitled to refuse the information on the basis of section 40(2) of FOIA. He also finds that section 41 of FOIA is engaged, this is because it’s information that was provided in confidence, and the public interest favours maintaining the exemption in this case.
No steps are required as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40(2); FOI 41
View South East Coast Ambulance Service NHS Foundation Trust
28 Mar 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant made two requests for information to the Cabinet Office relating to the respect and inclusion review, presentation slides and the protected characteristics of staff disciplined or dismissed. The Cabinet Office relied on section 12 of FOIA (cost of compliance) to refuse the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Cabinet Office was entitled to rely on section 12(1) of FOIA when refusing both requests. The Commissioner also finds that the Cabinet Office complied with its section 16 obligation to offer advice and assistance. The Commissioner does not require further steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12; FOI 16
View Cabinet Office
28 Mar 2025Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested a study of local housing need projections. The above public authority relied on regulation 12(4)(d) of the EIR (material in the course of completion) to withhold the information. The Commissioner’s decision is that regulation 12(4)(d) of the EIR is engaged, but that the public interest favours disclosure. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: disclose a copy of the report.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(d)
View Wirral Council
28 Mar 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
In a two-part request, the complainant has requested information about ‘Do Not Travel’ or equivalent warnings issued and staffing levels on Sundays. Merseytravel (MT) provided information about its remit and advised no information in scope of the request was held.
The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, MT did not hold information in scope of the request and has complied with section 1(1)(a) of FOIA.
The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1(1)(a)
28 Mar 2025Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested from University College London (UCL) the names of lochs that had been used as research sites to test the impact of fish farms and resulted in a Research Paper. UCL refused to provide the requested information, citing regulations 12(5)(f) – interests of the information provider and 12(5)(e) - commercial or industrial information. The Commissioner’s decision is that UCL cited both regulations 12(5)(f) and (e) incorrectly. He has also found that UCL breached regulations 14(2) and 11(4) of the EIR by failing to issue a refusal notice within the statutory timeframe and not providing an internal review within 40 working days respectively. The Commissioner requires UCL to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation.
• Disclose the identity of the lochs.
Exemptions cited: EIR 11(4); EIR 12(5)(e); EIR 12(5)(f); EIR 14(2)(1)
View University College London
28 Mar 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has asked for the underlying information used to support a public statement made by the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) about Royal Bank of Scotland (RBS). The FCA refused the request under section 44 FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the FCA has correctly applied section 44 to withhold the information it holds in scope of the request. He requires no steps to be taken. Information Tribunal FT/EA/2025/0162 under appeal.
Exemptions cited: FOI 44
View Financial Conduct Authority
28 Mar 2025Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information about the disposal of specific properties. The above public authority provided some information and relied on section 43 of FOIA to withhold the remainder. The Commissioner’s decision is that the information was environmental and so the request should have been dealt with under the EIR. The public authority has not demonstrated that regulation 12(5)(e) of the EIR is engaged. The public authority also breached regulation 14 of the EIR because its refusal notice was inadequate. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. Disclose copies of the report and the two records of delegated authority. The public authority may make appropriate redactions to comply with its data protection obligations, but these must not include redacting the professional qualifications of the author, or reviewer, of the valuation report.
Keywords: West Tree Estates
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(e)
View Liverpool City Council
28 Mar 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information related to an evaluation of support provided to vulnerable Universal Credit claimants. The Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) denied holding information falling within the scope of the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, DWP does not hold the requested information. The Commissioner does not require DWP to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Department for Work and Pensions
28 Mar 2025Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to the Ministry of Defence (MOD) seeking a copy of the 2017 version of ‘JSP 398 - UK Rules of Engagement’. The MOD provided the complainant with a redacted version of this with the material being withheld on the basis of sections 23(1) (security bodies), 24(1) (national security), 26(1)(a) and (b) (defence), 27(1)(a) and (b) (international relations), and 40(2) (personal data) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the redacted material information is exempt from disclosure on the basis of section 23(1) and sections 26(1)(a) and (b) of FOIA. However, the MOD breached sections 10(1) and 17(1) by failing to respond to the request within 20 working days.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 17; FOI 23; FOI 26
View Ministry of Defence
28 Mar 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested the Equality Impact Assessments (EqIAs) commissioned by the Minister for Disabled People over a thirteen year period. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) is entitled to rely on section 12(2), cost of compliance, to refuse to confirm or deny whether it holds the information. The Commissioner is also satisfied that DWP provided adequate advice and assistance to aid the complainant in refining their request. The Commissioner does not require DWP to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12(2)
View Department for Work and Pensions
27 Mar 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested from the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (the FCDO) information related to the sources of information and the relevant dates, resulting in sanctions against Mr Zvi Bar Yosef. The FCDO refused the request relying on section 38 (health and safety) of the FOIA.
The Commissioner’s decision is that the FCDO was entitled to rely on section 38 to exempt the requested information from disclosure. Consequently, the Commissioner does not require further steps to be taken by the FCDO in relation to this complaint.
Exemptions cited: FOI 38
27 Mar 2025Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information relating to complaints about residents at a specific property. Durham County Council (the “Council”) refused to confirm or deny whether the information was held, citing the exception in regulation 13(5)(a) of the EIR. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council correctly relied on regulation 13(5)(a) of the EIR to refuse to confirm or deny whether it held the requested environmental information and, in relation to non-environmental information, that it should have relied on section 40(5B)(a)(i) of the FOIA to refuse to confirm or deny whether any information was held; the Commissioner has decided to apply this exemption himself proactively; the Commissioner also finds that the Council breached section 17(1) as it failed to issue a refusal notice within the statutory 20 working days. The Commissioner does not require further steps. Information Tribunal FT/EA/2025/0139 appeal withdrawn
Exemptions cited: EIR 13(5a); FOI 40(5)(b)(a)(i); FOI 17(1)
View Durham County Council
27 Mar 2025Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to funding provided for Education, Health and Care Plans (EHCPs) to educational institutes. Medway Council (the Council) provided some information and stated that other information was exempt under sections 21 (information accessible to the applicant by other means) of the FOIA and section 43 (commercial interests). During the course of the Commissioner’s investigation the Council withdrew its reliance on section 43 and provided additional information. It maintained its reliance on section 21 of the FOIA but also stated that it considered section 12 (appropriate limit) of the FOIA to also apply to the information. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has failed to comply with section 1 of the FOIA as it has not identified the information falling within the scope of the request. The Commissioner also finds the Council incorrectly applied section 21 of the FOIA to information relating to the local authority area for each education
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 12; FOI 21
View Medway Council
27 Mar 2025Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to the Ministry of Defence (MOD) seeking a list of all versions of the NATO/ISAF "night raid tactical directive" along with copies of these documents. The MOD provided a list of the directives it held, noting that two of these were available in the public domain. It relied on sections 27(1)(a) and (b), and section 27(2) (international relations) to withhold the third version of the document that it held. The Commissioner’s decision is that the third version of the Directive is exempt from disclosure on the basis of section 27(1)(b) and that in all the circumstances of the case the public interest favours maintaining this exemption. However, the Commissioner has found that the MOD breached section 17(1) by failing to respond to the request within 20 working days and section 10(1) by only providing the non-exempt information to the complainant outside of this timescale.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 17; FOI 27
View Ministry of Defence
27 Mar 2025Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information about a meeting between the Home Office (HO) and Facewatch. HO originally withheld all the information under sections 35(1), 43(2) and 40(2) of FOIA, which concern the formulation of government policy etc, commercial interests and personal data respectively. HO has now withdrawn its application of the exemptions to some of the information and has confirmed that it will disclose this. The Commissioner’s decision is that the remaining information that HO continues to withhold is exempt information under sections 35(1)(a) and 43(2) of FOIA. Because it’s communicating some of the requested information at this point, HO didn’t comply with sections 1(1) and 10(1) of FOIA, which concern timeliness. The Commissioner requires HO to take the following step to ensure compliance with the legislation: If it hasn’t already done so, disclose to the complainant the information in the briefing document that HO has identified it can release.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1(1); FOI 10(1); FOI 35(1)(a); FOI 43(2)
View Home Office
26 Mar 2025Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to the register of interests of a named Councillor. West Mersea Town Council (the council) stated it did not hold the requested information. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the council does not hold the requested information. However, the Commissioner has recorded a procedural breach of section 10 of FOIA. The Commissioner does not require any further steps to be taken as a result of this decision notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10
26 Mar 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 Nottinghamshire Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust
26 Mar 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested various information, including about the Green Party, councillors, and decision making on a range of topics. Bristol City Council relied on section 14(1) (vexatious requests) of FOIA and regulation 12(4)(b) (manifestly unreasonable requests) of the EIR to refuse the requests. The Commissioner’s decision is that the requests were vexatious and therefore the Council was entitled to rely upon section 14(1) of FOIA, and where the requests seek environmental information, regulation 12(4)(b) (manifestly unreasonable requests) of the EIR. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(b); FOI 14(1)
View Bristol City Council
26 Mar 2025Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
A public authority will breach section 10 of FOIA if it fails to respond to a request within 20 working days. Based on evidence available to the Commissioner, by the date of this notice the public authority has not issued a substantive response to this request. Therefore the Commissioner finds a breach of section 10. The public authority must provide a substantive response to the request in accordance with its obligations under FOIA. The public authority must take this step within 30 calendar days of the date of this decision notice. Failure to comply may result in the Commissioner making written certification of this fact to the High Court pursuant to section 54 of FOIA and may be dealt with as a contempt of court.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View London Borough of Croydon
25 Mar 2025Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a six part request to the Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office (FCDO) seeking information about a bombing by the Saudi-led coalition in Yemen. The FCDO refused parts 1 to 5 of the request on the basis of section 12(1) of FOIA. It provided a copy of the document sought by part 6 of the request but redacted this on the basis of sections 23(1) (security bodies) and section 24(1) (national security), applied in the alternative, section 26 (defence), section 27 (international relations) and section 42 (legal professional privilege). The Commissioner found that section 12(1) applied, but that the FCDO breached section 16(1) by not providing sufficient advice and assistance. It also breached section 17(5) by issuing a delayed response to the request. The Commissioner has also concluded that some of withheld information is not exempt from disclosure.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12; FOI 16; FOI 17; FOI 23; FOI 24
25 Mar 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 Department for Education
25 Mar 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to the chartering of a plane for the Foreign Secretary. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (FCDO) is entitled to redact the information withheld under section 24, national security; section 35(1)(d), the operation of any Ministerial private office; section 38, Health and Safety; and section 40(2), personal data. The Commissioner does not require FCDO take any further steps. Information Tribunal FT/EA/2025/0123 under appeal.
Exemptions cited: FOI 24; FOI 35; FOI 38; FOI 40
25 Mar 2025Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from the Royal United Hospitals Bath NHS Foundation Trust about incident response levels. 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 Royal United Hospitals Bath NHS Foundation Trust
25 Mar 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 Mar 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to the Ministry of Defence (MOD) seeking a copy of his late grandfather’s service record. The MOD provided the complainant with a copy of the record but redacted some parts of this on the basis of section 41(1) (information provided in confidence). The Commissioner’s decision is that the redacted information is exempt from disclosure on the basis of section 41(1) of FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 41
View Ministry of Defence
25 Mar 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested correspondence provided to HM Revenue & Customs (HMRC) in relation to a specific case. HMRC refused to confirm or deny whether it held the requested information and cited section 44(2) (prohibitions on disclosure) of FOIA.
The Commissioner’s decision is that HMRC has correctly relied upon section 44(2) of FOIA to neither confirm nor deny holding the information.
The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 44(2)
25 Mar 2025Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about waste collections. The public authority has failed to respond to this request within 20 working days, as specified under FOIA. The Commissioner requires it to provide the complainant with a response to this request within 30 calendar days in accordance with its obligations under FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Bridgend County Borough Council
25 Mar 2025Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested from Department of Health Northern Ireland (DoH) information regarding DoH’s involvement in the Northern Ireland Electronic Care Record (NIECR). DoH provided information to some of the questions within the request, but considered the remaining questions not a valid request under section 8(1)(c) (request for information) of FOIA.
The Commissioner’s decision is that questions 1, 3, 4 and 6 are valid requests under section 8(1)(c) of FOIA. DoH incorrectly determined the questions are not valid and therefore, it was not entitled to apply the exemption.
The Commissioner requires DoH to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation.
• Provide the complainant with a fresh response which states whether or not it holds the information to the unanswered parts of the request relating to questions 1, 3, 4 and 6. If the requested information is held, DoH should disclose it to the complainant or issue a valid refusal notice.
DoH must take these ste
Exemptions cited: FOI 8(1)(c)
View Department of Health NI
25 Mar 2025Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information from London Borough of Bexley (LBB). By the date of this notice the public authority had not issued a substantive response to this request.
A public authority will breach regulation 5(2) of the EIR if it fails to respond to a request within 20 working days. Based on evidence available to the Commissioner, by the date of this notice LBBC has not issued a substantive response to this request. Therefore, the Commissioner finds a breach of regulation 5(2).
LBBC must provide a substantive response to the request in accordance with its obligations under the EIR.
LBBC must take this step within 30 calendar days of the date of this decision notice. Failure to comply may result in the Commissioner making written certification of this fact to the High Court pursuant to section 54 of FOIA and may be dealt with as a contempt of court.
Exemptions cited: EIR 5(2)
View Bexley Council
25 Mar 2025Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from the Ministry of Justice about offence categories and nationality of individuals. 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 Ministry of Justice
25 Mar 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information in relation to Houses of Multiple Occupation (HMOs) located in Perivale Ward in the London Borough of Ealing.
Although responding to some parts of the request, the London Borough of Ealing (the Council) refused the request relying on section 12 (Cost of compliance exceeds appropriate limit).
The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council was entitled to rely on section 12 to refuse the request.
The Commissioner does not require the Council to take further steps in relation to this complaint.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12
View Ealing Council