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 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 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
View Department for Education
25 Mar 2025Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information about incident response levels. By failing to respond to the request within twenty working days, the public authority has breached section 10 of the FOIA. It must provide a substantive response within thirty calendar days of the date of this decision notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Maidstone and Tunbridge Wells NHS Trust
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
24 Mar 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about a particular decision. The above public authority relied on sections 31 (law enforcement), 40(2) (third party personal information), 42 (legal professional privilege) and 44 (statutory prohibitions) of FOIA to withhold the requested information. The Commissioner’s decision is that the public authority was entitled to rely on section 31 of FOIA and the balance of the public interest favours maintaining the exemption. The Commissioner does not require further steps to be taken.
Keywords: Summary Statement of Initial Findings (SSIF)
Exemptions cited: FOI 31
View Office of Gas and Electricity Markets
24 Mar 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to the number of occasions that Suella Braverman, the then Home Secretary, forwarded emails from her ministerial email account to one of her privately held email accounts. The Home Office cited section 21(1) (information accessible to the applicant by other means) of FOIA to refuse the request. The complainant disputes that the Home Office conducted appropriate searches to locate the information within the scope of the request and, therefore, that it was not entitled to rely on that exemption to refuse the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the Home Office does not hold further information within the scope of the request. He is also satisfied that the Home Office correctly applied section 21(1) in this case. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 21
View Home Office
24 Mar 2025Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a ten part request for information held by Basingstoke and Deane Borough Council (the council) about liability order applications it has submitted to the courts. The complainant is not satisfied with the council’s handling of part 8, and part 10, of their request. The Commissioner has decided that, on the balance of probabilities, the council does not hold information falling within scope of part 8 of the complainant’s request. With regard to part 10 of the request, whilst the Commissioner has decided that the information originally provided by the council was not what the complainant had asked for, he is satisfied that it has now disclosed the correct information. However, as the council failed to provide this information to the complainant within the statutory 20 working days, the Commissioner has found a breach of section 10(1) (time for compliance) of FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1(1); FOI 10(1)
View Basingstoke and Deane Borough Council
24 Mar 2025Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information relating to communications between South Cambridgeshire District Council (the Council) and East West Railway Company Limited (EWRC). The Council cited regulation 12(5)(f) (interests of the information provider) of the EIR to withhold information falling within parts A and B of the request.
The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has failed to demonstrate that the exception in regulation 12(5)(f) is engaged in regard to part A and B of the request
The Commissioner requires the Council to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation - Disclose all the withheld information falling under part A and B of the request to the complainant (with any personal data redacted as appropriate).
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 A
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(f)
View South Cambridgeshire District Council
24 Mar 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested a copy of the tender submission from the highest scoring bidder for a particular contract. The Welsh Government relied on section 43(2) of FOIA to withhold the requested information. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Welsh Government was entitled to rely on section 43(2) of FOIA to withhold the requested information. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 43(2)
View Welsh Government
24 Mar 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from the Home Office related to vouchers provided as Reward and Recognition to its members of staff. The Commissioner’s decision is that: The Home Office was entitled to rely on section 12(1) of FOIA to refuse the request. The Home 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(1); FOI 16
View Home Office
24 Mar 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to the Ministry of Defence (MOD) seeking held in respect of a particular he RAF Police investigation, including material that was not used during the subsequent trial. The MOD withheld the requested information on the basis of sections 30(1)(a) to (c) (investigations) and section 40(2) (third party personal data) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that all of the requested information is exempt from disclosure on the basis of sections 30(1)(a) to (c) and that that the public interest favours maintaining each of these exemptions. First-tier tribunal (General Regulatory chamber) information rights appeal FT/EA/2025/0173 under appeal.
Exemptions cited: FOI 30
View Ministry of Defence
24 Mar 2025Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant sent a request for information following-on from the decision notice (IC-297834-V6B6) response, to UK Health Security Agency (UKHSA) where they required specific information about employees. UKHSA explained that the information requested was redacted as it related to third party individuals under section 40(2) – personal information and therefore withheld the requested information.
The Commissioner’s decision is that UKHSA was entitled to rely on section 40(2) of FOIA to withhold information in scope of the request in this case. However, he finds UKHSA breached section 10(1) and 17(1) of FOIA in that it failed to provide its response and refusal notice within 20 working days of the request.
The Commissioner does not require any steps as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10(1); FOI 40(2); FOI 17(1)
View UK Health Security Agency
24 Mar 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested the Department for Work and Pensions (the DWP) provide the criteria used to make assessments and the assessments undertaken when removing deferrals from claimants. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the DWP does not hold the requested information. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Department for Work and Pensions
21 Mar 2025Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information from Southend-on-Sea City Council (“the Council”) regarding letters threatening fines for placing waste sacks on the highway. The Council has now disclosed the information requested, however there was a significant delay in providing all of the information held within the scope of the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council breached regulation 5(2) of the EIR by failing to disclose all of the information it held within scope of the request within 20 working days. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 5(2)
View Southend-on-Sea City Council
21 Mar 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested all pages from the Universal Credit online claim process. The Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) originally stated that it did not hold the requested information. However, during the course of the Commissioner’s investigation, it amended its position and relied on section 12(1) to refuse to comply with the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that DWP is entitled to rely on section 12(1) to refuse to comply with the request. The Commissioner also finds that DWP complied with its section 16(1) obligations to offer advice and assistance in relation to the request. No further steps are required.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12; FOI 16
View Department for Work and Pensions
21 Mar 2025Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from Melton Borough Council (“the Council”) on behalf of their father in relation to their father’s housing on 1 July 2024.
Based on the 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 of FOIA (time for compliance).
The Commissioner requires the Council to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: provide the complainant with a substantive response to the request in accordance with its obligations under FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10(1)
View Melton Borough Council
21 Mar 2025Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs (DAERA) relating to conflicts of interest. The Commissioner’s decision is that DAERA is entitled to rely on section 12(1) (cost limit) of FOIA to refuse to provide the requested information. However, he finds that DAERA failed to provide reasonable advice and assistance and therefore did not meet its obligations under section 16(1) of FOIA. The Commissioner requires DAERA to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. DAERA must provide the complainant with advice and assistance to help them submit a request falling within the appropriate limit. DAERA must take these steps within 30 calendar days of the date of this decision notice. Failure to comply may result in the Commissioner making written certification of this fact to the High Court pursuant to section 54 of the Act and may be dealt with as a contempt of court.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12; FOI 16
View Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs (Northern Ireland)
20 Mar 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to a firm that entered administration, including details of any action that had been or would be taken. The FCA refused the request under sections 44 (prohibitions on disclosure) and 31(1)(g) (law enforcement) FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the FCA was entitled to rely on sections 31(1)(g) and 44(1)(a) to withhold the information it holds. The Commissioner requires no steps as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: FOI 31; FOI 44
View Financial Conduct Authority
20 Mar 2025Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested the relevant professional registration numbers of individuals involved in his mother’s care. The above public authority initially relied on section 40(2) of FOIA to withhold the information, before claiming that some was reasonably accessible and therefore exempt under section 21 of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, he is not satisfied that the public authority has complied with its duty under section 1(1) of FOIA. The public authority has also breached sections 10 and 17 of FOIA. 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 explicitly confirms or denies that information, other than that already provided to the complainant, is held. If (and only if) further information is held, the public authority should either disclose it or issue a refusal notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10; FOI 17
View United Lincolnshire Hospitals NHS Trust
20 Mar 2025Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about trips made to Kyrgyzstan and Uzbekistan. The above public authority relied on section 12 of FOIA (costs) to refuse part of the request and section 27 of FOIA (international relations) to withhold the information within the scope of the remaining part. The Commissioner’s decision is that section 27 of FOIA is not engaged. Part 2 of the request would have exceeded the appropriate limit and therefore the public authority was entitled to refuse it. However the public authority failed to comply with its obligation, under section 16 of FOIA, to provide reasonable advice and assistance. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: disclose a copy of the Memorandum of Understanding. The public authority may make appropriate redactions to comply with its data protection obligations; either provide advice and assistance to help the complainant refine her request so that it fal
Exemptions cited: FOI 12; FOI 16; FOI 27
View Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority
20 Mar 2025Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested from Croydon College (the College) granular information about ‘A’ level results at the Coulsdon campus. The College refused to provide this information, citing section 43(2) of FOIA – commercial interests. It later added further exemptions – sections 36(2)(c) (prejudice to the effective conduct of public affairs), 41(1)(information provided in confidence) and 40(2)(personal information) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the College cited section 43(2) correctly and that the public interest favours non-disclosure. However, he has also decided that the College has breached sections 1(1), 10(1) and 17(1) of FOIA by not confirming that it held information or issuing a refusal notice within the statutory timeframe. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1(1); FOI 10(1); FOI 43(2); FOI 17(1)
20 Mar 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested from Education Authority (EA) information held by the school or EA relating to [name of school redacted] staff. EA relied on section 40(5B) (third party personal information) of FOIA to refuse to confirm or deny whether it holds the information requested.
The Commissioner’s decision is that EA correctly relied on section 40(5B) of FOIA to refuse to confirm or deny whether it holds information relating to the request. The Commissioner does not require EA to take any steps as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40(5)(b)
20 Mar 2025Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about data breaches over the previous ten years. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) is entitled to rely on section 12(1), cost of compliance exceeds the appropriate limit, to refuse to comply with the request. The Commissioner is also satisfied that DWP has provided adequate advice and assistance in accordance with its obligations with 16(1). The Commissioner does however find that DWP breached section 17(5) by failing to provide the refusal notice within the statutory timeframe. The Commissioner does not require any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12; FOI 16; FOI 17
View Department for Work and Pensions
20 Mar 2025Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant made a five part request for information about tinnitus. The above public authority refused the whole request as vexatious. The Commissioner’s decision is that the public authority was entitled to refuse parts 1, 2 and 5 of the request as vexatious. However, parts 3 and 4 were not vexatious and therefore the public authority was not entitled to refuse them. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. Issue a fresh response to parts 3 and 4 of the request that does not rely on section 14(1) of FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14
View Kent Police
20 Mar 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
1. The complainant has requested information from Lincolnshire Partnership NHS Foundation Trust (“the Trust”) regarding a Business Case presented internally in March 2024.
2. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Trust has not demonstrated that the requested information is commercially sensitive and therefore the exemption at section 43(2) is not engaged.
3. The Commissioner therefore requires the Trust to disclose the requested information.
4. The Trust must take these steps within 30 calendar days of the date of this decision notice. Failure to comply may result in the Commissioner making written certification of this fact to the High Court pursuant to section 54 of the Act and may be dealt with as a contempt of court
Exemptions cited: FOI 43(2)
View Lincolnshire Partnership NHS Foundation Trust
20 Mar 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 clarified request within 30 calendar days in accordance with its obligations under the EIR.
Exemptions cited: EIR 5(2)
View Enfield Council
20 Mar 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information relating to a specific incident reported to the Environment Agency (“the public authority”). The public authority disclosed information with redactions made under regulation 13(1) (personal information) of the EIR. The Commissioner’s decision is that the public authority was correct to withhold the personal information it did, because to disclose it would breach the data protection principles. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 13(1)
View Environment Agency
18 Mar 2025Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant submitted a number of requests about estate service charges for a housing estate and about the landscaping service provided by Lambeth Parks. The London Borough of Lambeth (“the Council”) provided the complainant with some information within scope of the requests, however stated that further recorded information was not held. The Commissioner’s decision is that on the balance of probabilities the Council holds information within scope of the request further than that which has already been provided.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(a)
View London Borough of Lambeth
18 Mar 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested statistical information on “subcontractual partnerships”. The Office for Students withheld the information under section 36(2)(c) of FOIA, which concerns prejudice to the effective conduct of public affairs. The Commissioner’s decision is that section 36(2)(c) is engaged, and he doesn’t require any further steps. Information Tribunal FT/EA/2025/0121 under appeal.
Exemptions cited: FOI 36(2)(c)
View Office for Students
18 Mar 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information about the recruitment of a previous officers appointed to the role of Executive Director of People Services. Sheffield City Council (the Council) stated information relevant to parts 1-3 of the request was not held and withheld information relating to part 4 of the request under section 40(2) (personal data) of the FOIA. During the course of the Commissioner’s investigation, the Council confirmed that it did not hold any information relevant to part 4 of the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the Council does not hold any recorded information falling within the scope of the request. However, the Commissioner finds that the Council breached section 1(1)(a) of the FOIA in failing to confirm it did not hold information relating to part 4 of the request, and section 10(1) in failing to confirm it did not hold information relating to part 4 of the request within 20 working days. The Commissioner does not requi
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Sheffield City Council
18 Mar 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information regarding whether a named Councillor had taken equalities training as a result of a complaint made against them and the outcome of a further complaint. North Yorkshire Council (the Council) stated it held no information regarding the first part of the request and cited section 40(5B)(a)(i) of FOIA to refuse to confirm or deny if it held information for the second part of the request.
The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council is entitled to rely on section 40(5B)(a)(i) of FOIA to refuse to confirm or deny whether it holds the information requested.
The Commissioner does not require any steps to be taken as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40(5)(b)(a)(i)
View North Yorkshire County Council
18 Mar 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested from Sefton Metropolitan Borough Council (the Council) site visit notes and images regarding a specific property development. The Council disclosed some information and applied regulations 5(3) and 13(1) to the remainder, which concern personal data. The Commissioner’s decision is that: The Council was entitled to rely on regulation 5(3) of the EIR when refusing to provide the complainant’s own personal data. The Council was entitled to rely on regulation 13(1) when refusing to provide the remaining information.
Exemptions cited: EIR 13; EIR 5(3)
View Sefton Council
17 Mar 2025Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested a list of Chief Constables from 2005 to present. Northamptonshire Police (“the public authority”) relied on section 40(2) of FOIA (third party personal information) to withhold some of the information.
The Commissioner’s decision is that the public authority has not correctly relied on section 40(2) of FOIA to withhold the information it refused to disclose.
The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation.
Disclose the remainder of the requested information.
The public authority must take these steps within 30 calendar days of the date of this decision notice. Failure to comply may result in the Commissioner making written certification of this fact to the High Court pursuant to section 54 of the Act and may be dealt with as a contempt of court.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40(2)
View Northamptonshire Police
17 Mar 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to the Cabinet Office seeking details of briefings the Prime Minister's office had received on UAPs (Unidentified Aerial or Anomalous Phenomena) or unidentified drones. The Cabinet Office refused to confirm or deny whether it held the requested information, citing sections 23 (security bodies), 24 (national security), 26 (defence) and 27 (international relations) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Cabinet Office was entitled to rely on section 23(5) to refuse to confirm or deny that it holds the requested information.
Exemptions cited: FOI 23
View Cabinet Office
17 Mar 2025Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to training delivered by Sour Lemons to Derby Theatre. The University of Derby (“the University”) disclosed training materials, policy documents and emails but stated no costings information or contracts were held. It is the Commissioner’s decision that, on the balance of probabilities, the University does not hold any further information relevant to the request in addition to that which has already been provided to the complainant. However, in providing information outside of the statutory time for compliance the University has breached section 10(1) of FOIA. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10
View University of Derby
17 Mar 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the Health and Safety Executive doesn’t hold the requested accident report and complied with section 1(1)(a) of FOIA. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1(1)(a)
View Health and Safety Executive
17 Mar 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about an incident which was reported to the police and resulted in a NIP being served. The public authority 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 public authority has 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.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40(5)(b)
View Lincolnshire Police
17 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 the UK’s presentation about UAP (Unidentified Aerial or Anomalous Phenomena) at a Five Eyes meeting. The MOD’s final position in respect of this request was to refuse to confirm or deny that it held the requested information, citing sections 23 (security bodies), 24 (national security), 26 (defence) and 27 (international relations) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the MOD was entitled to rely on section 23(5) to refuse to confirm or deny whether it holds the requested information. Information Tribunal FT/EA/2025/0146 under appeal.
Exemptions cited: FOI 23
View Ministry of Defence
17 Mar 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested from the Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office (the FCDO) correspondence between the then Prince of Wales (now King Charles) and the then Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary (Sir Alec Douglas-Home) on a specific topic between January 1973 and 1974. The FCDO stated that it did not hold the requested information but the complainant considers the information is held. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the FCDO does not hold the requested information. The Commissioner does not require the FCDO to take any further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
17 Mar 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from the Cabinet Office relating to national security vetting applications and outcomes. The Cabinet Office refused to provide the information, citing section 24(1) (national security) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Cabinet Office correctly relied on section 24(1) to withhold the information. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: FOI 24
View Cabinet Office
17 Mar 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information about transgender healthcare matters and Sherwood House Medical Practice (‘the Practice’) disclosed relevant information. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the Practice holds no further relevant information, and it complied with section 1(1) and 10(1) of FOIA. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1(1); FOI 10(1)
17 Mar 2025Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information in respect of Operation Magnolia, Operation Sacristy, Operation Pandect and its associated operations. Cleveland Police originally informed the complainant that with the exception of Operation Magnolia, it did not hold relevant information. Following a request for an internal review, Cleveland Police informed the complainant that it was likely that it did hold relevant information and confirmed that it would contact them again following a thorough search of its records. After a considerable delay, Cleveland Police sent its amended response to the complainant with a breakdown of some of the information relevant to their request. The Commissioner’s decision is that Cleveland Police has failed to demonstrate that it has conducted a reasonable and proportionate search of its records to identify all information falling within the scope of the request. The Commissioner requires Cleveland Police to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the l
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Cleveland Police
17 Mar 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted two requests to the Cabinet Office seeking information about ‘Five Eyes’ meeting which took place in May 2023. The Cabinet Office responded by stating that it did not hold the requested information and refused one part of the request on the basis of section 14(2) (repeated requests) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that on the balance of probabilities the Cabinet Office does not hold information falling within the scope of the complainant’s requests and that it is entitled to rely on section 14(2) in the manner in which it has.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 14
View Cabinet Office
17 Mar 2025Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant submitted a request to the Advanced Research and Invention Agency (ARIA) seeking information about its “Scoping Our Planet” project. ARIA responded by stating that the did not consider the requested information to be “environmental information” as defined by the EIR albeit it did provide the complainant with some of the information falling within the scope of his request. Following the Commissioner’s view that the requested information was “environmental information”, ARIA disclosed the remaining information it held in the scope of the request, with the exception of a small portion of information withheld on the basis of regulations 12(5)(e) (commercial or industrial information) and 12(5)(f) (interests of the person who provided) of the EIR. The Commissioner’s decision is that the redacted information is exempt from disclosure on the basis of 12(5)(e) of the EIR and that the public interest favours maintaining this exception. However, the Commissioner has concluded tha
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(e); EIR 5(2)
View Advanced Research and Invention Agency
17 Mar 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to the Cabinet Office seeking information about the deployment of civil servants overseas by the Government Communications Service International. The Cabinet Office provided some of the information falling within the scope of the request but sought to withhold the remainder on the basis of sections 27(1)(a), (c) and (d) (international relations) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the withheld information is exempt from disclosure on the basis of these exemptions.
Exemptions cited: FOI 27
View Cabinet Office
14 Mar 2025Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information about Independent Care Act Advocacy from the council. The council has not issued a substantive response to this request as specified by FOIA. Therefore, the Commissioner finds a breach of section 10(1) of FOIA. The council must provide a substantive response to the request in accordance with its obligations under FOIA. It must take this step within 30 calendar days of the date of this decision notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Calderdale Council
14 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 Cumberland Council
14 Mar 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 Metropolitan Police Service