7 Mar 2025Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested communications between Professor Whitty and the Antivirals and Therapeutics Taskforce about Evusheld. The DHSC initially stated no information was held but later revised its position to refuse the request as vexatious. The Commissioner’s decision is that the public authority was not entitled to refuse to comply with the request on the basis of section 14(1) FOIA. The Commissioner requires the DHSC to issue a fresh response which does not rely on section 14(1) FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14
View Department of Health and Social Care
7 Mar 2025Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from Hart District Council (“the Council”) relating to two freedom of information requests. The Commissioner’s decision is that that the Council is not entitled to rely on section 14(1) of FOIA to refuse to provide the requested information. The Commissioner requires the Council to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. The Council must issue a fresh response to the request which does not rely on section 14(1) of FOIA. The Council must take these steps within 30 calendar days of the date of this decision notice. Failure to comply may result in the Commissioner making written certification of this fact to the High Court pursuant to section 54 of the Act and may be dealt with as a contempt of court.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14(1)
View Hart District Council
7 Mar 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested the number of complaints made about a named health professional. Under section 40(5), the Department for Work and Pensions (“the DWP”) refused to confirm or deny if it held information. The Commissioner’s decision is that the DWP are entitled to rely on section 40(5) of the FOIA to neither confirm or deny whether it holds information. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40(5)
View Department for Work and Pensions
7 Mar 2025Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, London Borough of Bromley Council (‘the Council’) holds no further information within scope of the complainant’s request for information about the status of particular roads. The timeliness of the Council’s response didn’t comply with regulations 5(1) and 5(2) of the EIR, however. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 5(1); EIR 5(2)
View Bromley Council
7 Mar 2025Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information previously provided on FOI-241123003 but for June 2011 and whatever the earliest possible year that can be provided from Ministry of Justice on 22 December 2024 .
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 Ministry of Justice
7 Mar 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested from the Information Commissioner copies of any documents, policies, or internal guidelines that specifically authorised it to refuse to conduct a service review or an assurance review. Other related procedures and supporting information were also requested. The public authority refused the request, citing section 14(1) of FOIA – vexatious request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the request was vexatious and therefore the public authority was entitled to rely on section 14(1) to refuse it. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14(1)
View Information Commissioner
7 Mar 2025Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information about a specific site. Birmingham City Council (the “Council”) initially responded to the request under the FOIA but subsequently confirmed under the EIR that the information was not held. The complainant disputes this. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council should have considered the request under the EIR rather than FOIA and that it failed to issue a refusal notice under the EIR in time and breached regulation 14(2). However, he is satisfied that, on the balance of probabilities, the Council holds no recorded information relevant to the complainant’s request and that it correctly applied regulation 12(4)(a). The Commissioner does not require the Council to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(a); EIR 14(2)(1)
View Birmingham City Council
7 Mar 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested the number of pieces of correspondence that parents or guardians of current or former pupils at Pensby High School (the school) have received in which the school refers to the behaviour of the parent or guardian as bullying, harassing, threatening or intimidating. The school has relied on section 12(1) of FOIA (cost of compliance) to refuse the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the school was entitled to rely on section 12(1) of FOIA to refuse the request. The Commissioner also finds that the school complied with its obligation under section 16 to offer advice and assistance. The Commissioner does not require the school to take any further steps as a result of this decision notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12; FOI 16
View AYLESBURY HIGH SCHOOL
6 Mar 2025Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested a copy of a Renewable Energy Study. Cotswold District Council (the “Council”) withheld the information under the exemption for information intended for future publication (section 22
of the FOIA). During the Commissioner’s investigation the Council reconsidered the request under the EIR and withheld the information under the exceptions for Material in the course of completion (regulation
12(4)(d)). The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council correctly withheld the information under regulation 12(4)(d) but that it failed to issue a refusal notice in time and breached regulation 14(2). The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(d); EIR 14(2)(1)
View Cotswold District Council
6 Mar 2025Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from South East Coast Ambulance Service NHS Foundation Trust about job description standards, role profiling and staff consultation process. 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 South East Coast Ambulance Service NHS Foundation Trust
6 Mar 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested copies of any correspondence between the Chair of the Commission on Human Medicines (CHM) and the NHS or Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC) about CYP2D6 deficiency. The CHM stated that it did not hold the requested information. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the CHM does not hold the requested information. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Commission on Human Medicines
6 Mar 2025Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information regarding an Information Governance Improvement Plan from the London Borough of Haringey (LBH).
The Commissioner’s decision is that LBH was not entitled to rely on section 36(2)(c) (prejudice to the effective conduct of public affairs) to refuse the requested information.
The Commissioner therefore requires LBH to disclose the requested information, i.e. the Information Governance Improvement Plan. To the extent that LBH wishes to withhold any personal data, it should issue a refusal notice explaining this and citing the relevant exemption.
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 36(2)(c)
View Haringey Council
6 Mar 2025Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested copies of a board paper on co-regulation. The above public authority relied on section 35 of FOIA (formulation or development of government policy) to withhold the information. The Commissioner’s decision is that the public authority is not entitled to rely on section 35, as it is not a government department. It has not demonstrated that section 36 is engaged either. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. Disclose the information it has relied on section 35 of FOIA to withhold. The public authority may make appropriate redactions to comply with its data protection obligations.
Exemptions cited: FOI 35; FOI 36
View Health and Safety Executive
5 Mar 2025Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information about a number of related matters in four separate requests.
The public authority (the “public authority”) relied on section 14(1) of FOIA (vexatious) to refuse the requests.
The Commissioner’s decision is that the requests were vexatious and therefore the public authority was entitled to rely upon section 14(1) of FOIA to refuse them.
The Commissioner also finds that the public authority did not provide a refusal notice in respect of the third request within the statutory deadline as required.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14(1); FOI 17(1)
View Humberside Police
5 Mar 2025Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about training of some of its staff from Cleveland Police. Cleveland Police provided some information but refused to provide the remainder citing section 40(2)(Personal information) of FOIA.
The Commissioner’s decision is that section 40 is properly engaged. However, he finds that Cleveland Police breached section 10(1) by failing to comply with section 1(1)(a) within the statutory time period. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 40
View Cleveland Police
5 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.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Rhondda Cynon Taf County Borough Council
5 Mar 2025Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from the Chief Constable of Warwickshire Police about its spending via G-Cloud Network. 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 Warwickshire Police
5 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.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Leeds City Council
5 Mar 2025Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about Section 106 payments. Liverpool City Council stated that the information was already published by it in a range of documents on its website and was therefore exempt under section 21 (Information accessible to the applicant by other means) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has not demonstrated that the information is accessible to the complainant and so the exemption provided section 21 does not apply. The Commissioner requires the Council to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: Disclose the requested information.
Exemptions cited: FOI 21
View Liverpool City Council
5 Mar 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant asked for information provided to Birmingham City Council (the “Council”) by developers St Joseph/Berkeley Homes in relation to the proposed redevelopment of Ladywood. The Council withheld the requested information under the exception for commercial confidentiality (regulation 12(5)(e)). The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council was entitled to rely on regulation 12(5)(e) to withhold the requested information. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(e)
View Birmingham City Council
5 Mar 2025Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about an outbreak of E. coli in 2022 and a copy of a related report. UK Health Security Agency (‘UKHSA’) relied on section 22 of FOIA (information intended for future publication) to withhold some of the requested information. It also stated that it did not hold the information requested in points two and four of the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that UKHSA was not entitled to rely on section 22 of FOIA to withhold the requested report and the information requested in points one, three, five, six and seven of the request. The Commissioner also found that, on the balance of probabilities, UKHSA does not hold recorded information for points two and four. UKHSA breached section 10(1) of FOIA by failing to inform the complainant that it did not hold the information for these parts of the request. UKHSA also breached section 17(1) of FOIA by failing to provide a refusal notice for withholding the requested information within 20 working day
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 17; FOI 22
View UK Health Security Agency
5 Mar 2025Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested from the University of Warwick (the University) information regarding the University’s disciplinary actions and polices related to a specific incident involving student expression. The University subsequently provided the information requested, but confirmed it does not hold some of the information falling within scope of question 2 of the request. The University cited section 42 (Legal professional privilege) of FOIA to information which it later identified during the Commissioner’s investigation.
The Commissioner finds that the University does hold information within question 2 of the request which relates to Regulation 23 (Student Disciplinary Offences). However, all such information is exempt from disclosure under section 42 of FOIA, and the balance of the public interest favours maintaining the exemption. The University was therefore entitled to rely on section 42 of FOIA to withhold information relating to Regulation 23.
The Commissioner does not requir
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 42
View The University of Warwick
5 Mar 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information regarding correspondence between Lord Waheed Alli and the Deputy Prime Minister Angela Rayner. Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG) stated that no information was held in scope of the request.
The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the MHCLG did not hold any 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)
View Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government
5 Mar 2025Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The Commissioner’s decision is that the British Library is entitled to refuse the complainant’s request for information about loans of a named author under section 12(1) of FOIA as the cost of complying with the request exceeds the appropriate limit. The British Library complied the duty to offer advice and assistance under section 16(1), however the timeliness of its refusal didn’t comply with section 17(5) of FOIA. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12(1); FOI 16(1); FOI 17(5)
View British Library
5 Mar 2025Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about the vetting status of officers working on a police operation from Cleveland Police. Cleveland Police provided some information but refused to provide the remainder citing section 40(2)(Personal information) of FOIA.
The complainant raised various matters for consideration. The Commissioner finds no breach of section 16(1) (Advice and assistance). However, he finds that Cleveland Police breached section 10(1) (Time for compliance) by failing to comply with section 1(1)(a) within the statutory time period and section 17(1)(b) (Refusal of request) by issuing an inadequate refusal notice. The Commissioner also finds that section 40(2)(personal information) is not engaged and he requires Cleveland Police to disclose the most recent approved vetting date of those working on Operation Magnolia at the time of the request.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 16; FOI 17; FOI 40
View Cleveland Police
4 Mar 2025Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about the deployment of Live Facial Recognition (LFR) technology during a particular policing operation. North Wales Police (NWP) referred the complainant to information about the results of the deployment on its website. It said that other information it held was exempt from disclosure under sections 31(1)(a) and (b) (Law enforcement) of FOIA. It said it did not hold the remaining information specified in the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that NWP was entitled to rely on sections 31(1)(a) and (b) to withhold a small amount of operational information about the deployment of LFR. He found that these exemptions were not engaged in respect of the remaining information it held. He was also satisfied that, on the balance of probabilities, NWP did not hold further information falling within scope of the request. The Commissioner requires NWP to disclose the information which the Commissioner has determined does not engage the exemptions at
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 31
View North Wales Police
4 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 Norfolk and Norwich University Hospitals
4 Mar 2025Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information about a panel decision relating to Clair Hall. Mid Sussex District Council (“the council”) refused the request on the basis that section 14(1) of FOIA applied (vexatious requests). The Commissioner considers that the request was for environmental information, and that the EIR, and not FOIA, is the correct access regime. The Commissioner’s decision is therefore that the council was not correct to apply section 14(1) of FOIA to refuse the request. He has also determined that the council is not entitled to rely on Regulation 12(4)(b) of the EIR (manifestly unreasonable) as a basis for withholding the requested information. The Commissioner requires the council to take the following step to ensure compliance with the legislation. to respond to the request again, without relying upon section 14(1) of FOIA or Regulation 12(4)(b) of the EIR.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(b)
View Mid Sussex District Council
4 Mar 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to their Employment Tribunal. DBT, the public authority, explained that some points of the request comprised the applicant’s personal data, some points were not valid requests, one point exceeded the cost of compliance, one point was not held and the remaining point was withheld under FOIA section 40(2) – third party personal data. The Commissioner’s decision is that DBT is entitled to withhold the name requested at point 4 of the request in reliance on FOIA section 40(2). He also finds, on the balance of probabilities, that the information requested in the first part of question 5 is not held by DBT. The Commissioner does not require further steps. Information Tribunal appeal UA-2025-000888-GIA PTA refused.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 40(2)
View Department for Business and Trade
4 Mar 2025Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
1. The complainant has requested information relating to an FCA investigation into Collateral UK and whether certain companies were involved in the investigation. The FCA relied on section 30(3) FOIA to neither confirm nor deny whether it held the requested information. The Commissioner’s decision is that the FCA is entitled to rely on section 30(3) to neither confirm nor deny if the information at parts 1-3 is held. For part 4 of the request the Commissioner does not consider that the FCA was entitled to neither confirm nor deny whether it held the requested information. The Commissioner therefore requires the FCA to issue a fresh response to part 4 of the request which confirms or denies if the requested information is held. If the requested information is held, it should either be disclosed or the FCA should issue a fresh refusal notice explaining why it is exempt from disclosure.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 30
View Financial Conduct Authority
4 Mar 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested a copy of a specific update. The General Medical Council (“the public authority”) refused the request, citing section 36(2)(b)(ii) and 36(2)(c) (prejudice to the effective conduct of public affairs). The Commissioner’s decision is that the GMC was correct to withhold the requested information under section 36(2)(b)(ii) and 36(2)(c). The Commissioner does not require further steps
Exemptions cited: FOI 36(2)
View GMC
4 Mar 2025Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information held by North Yorkshire Council (the council) about an application submitted for a definitive map modification order (DMMO) to remove part of a particular footpath. Whilst the council provided the complainant with some information in response to their request, it advised that it had withheld the remaining information under the exception at regulation 13 (third party personal information) of the EIR. During the Commissioner’s investigation, the council revised its position, releasing further information to the complainant. The council has continued to withhold a small amount of third party personal information under regulation 13 of the EIR, which the complainant has not contested. As the council failed to provide any information in response to the complainant’s request, and also failed to issue a refusal notice in respect of the information it considered to be exempt from disclosure, within the required 20 working days, the Commissioner has recorde
Exemptions cited: EIR 14(2)(1); EIR 5(2)
View North Yorkshire County Council
4 Mar 2025Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information on all arrests and charges under the Public Order Act 2023 from 3 May 2023 to the present day from Essex Police on 5 November 2024.
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 Essex Police
4 Mar 2025Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from Durham University (“the University”) relating to the income and outgoings of theatre companies and theatres. The Commissioner’s decision is that the University is not entitled to rely on section 12(1) (cost limit) of FOIA to refuse to provide information within the scope of the request. The Commissioner requires the University to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. The University must issue a fresh response to the request which does not rely on section 12 of FOIA. The University 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
View University of Durham
4 Mar 2025Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The Commissioner’s decision is that the public authority was not entitled to rely on section 12(1) of FOIA to refuse the request.
The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation:
• issue a fresh response that does not rely on section 12 of FOIA.
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 12(1)
View Queen Mary University of London
4 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
28 Feb 2025Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to transgender Shared Care Agreements and Bridging Prescriptions. The public authority has failed to respond to this request within 20 working days, as specified under FOIA. The Commissioner requires it to provide the complainant with a response to this request within 30 calendar days in accordance with its obligations under FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
28 Feb 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted two requests to the Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office (FCDO) concerning The Centre for Information Resilience. The FCDO aggregated the cost of complying with the requests under section 12(4) of FOIA and refused both of them on the basis of section 12(1) (cost limit) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the FCDO is entitled to aggregate the cost of complying with the requests and that cost of complying with them would exceed the appropriate cost limit. It can therefore rely on section 12(1) to refuse the requests. Information Tribunal FT/EA/2025/0122 under appeal.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12
28 Feb 2025Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from Fleetwood Town Council (the Council) seeking Fleetwood Museum trustees’ meeting minutes and the governing document for Fleetwood Museum. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the Council does not hold the requested information. The Commissioner also find that the Council breached section 10(1) by failing to respond to the request within 20 working days. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10
28 Feb 2025Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to transgender Shared Care Agreements and Bridging Prescriptions. The public authority has failed to respond to this request within 20 working days, as specified under FOIA. The Commissioner requires it to provide the complainant with a response to this request within 30 calendar days in accordance with its obligations under FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
28 Feb 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 Surrey Police
28 Feb 2025Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The Commissioner’s decision is that the information that the complainant has requested about the National Investigation Service is exempt from disclosure under sections 31(1)(a), 31(1)(b), 31(1)(g) and 43(2) of FOIA. These exemptions concern law enforcement and commercial interests. The Commissioner does not require further steps. Information Tribunal FT/EA/2025/0108 under appeal.
Exemptions cited: FOI 31(1)(a); FOI 31(1)(b); FOI 31(1)(g); FOI 43(2)
View Cabinet Office
28 Feb 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
27 Feb 2025Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about an investigation. The above public authority refused the request as vexatious. The Commissioner’s decision is that the request was vexatious and the public authority was entitled to refuse it. The public authority breached section 17 of FOIA as it failed to issue its refusal notice within 20 working days. The Commissioner does not require further steps to be taken. Information Tribunal FT/EA/2025/0135 under appeal.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14; FOI 17
View BOSCO CATHOLIC EDUCATION TRUST
27 Feb 2025Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information on company cars used by Liverpool Street Scene Ltd. Liverpool City Council (the “Council”) confirmed that it did not hold the requested information. The complainant disputes this. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council correctly confirmed that it does not hold the information and complied with section 1(1) but that it failed to do this in time and breached section 10(1). The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1(1); FOI 10(1)
View Liverpool City Council
27 Feb 2025Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested copies of notes from meetings between Sir Amyas Morse (now Lord Morse) and Mel Stride MP, and Sir Amyas Morse and Ray McCann. The public authority, HMT, provided some information whilst withholding information regarding the meeting with Mel Stride in reliance of FOIA section 41(1), information provided in confidence. The Commissioner’s decision is that HMT is entitled to rely on the exemption at FOIA section 41(1) to withhold the information. Under FOIA section 17(3) HMT extended the time for compliance to consider the public interest test with regard to FOIA section 35, however it failed to provide information which the applicant was entitled to within the (newly set) time for the compliance. In respect of the further delay, beyond 40 working days, the Commissioner finds a breach of FOIA section 10(3). In the circumstances of this case HMT also breached FOIA sections 17(1)(b) by failing to identify its reliance on the exemption at FOIA section 41 within 2
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 17; FOI 41
View HM Treasury
27 Feb 2025Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
A public authority will breach section 10 of FOIA if it fails to respond to a request within 20 working days. Based on evidence available to the Commissioner, by the date of this notice the public authority has not issued a substantive response to this request. Therefore the Commissioner finds a breach of section 10. The public authority must provide a substantive response to the request in accordance with its obligations under FOIA. The public authority must take this step within 30 calendar days of the date of this decision notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Home Office
27 Feb 2025Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
A public authority will breach section 10 of FOIA if it fails to respond to a request within 20 working days. Based on evidence available to the Commissioner, by the date of this notice the public authority has not issued a substantive response to this request. Therefore the Commissioner finds a breach of section 10. The public authority must provide a substantive response to the request in accordance with its obligations under FOIA. The public authority must take this step within 30 calendar days of the date of this decision notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Ministry of Justice
27 Feb 2025Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information about a meeting. Doncaster Metropolitan Borough Council relied on section 14(1) of FOIA (vexatious requests) to refuse the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the request was vexatious and therefore the Council was entitled to rely upon section 14(1) of FOIA to refuse it, and that where the requests seek environmental information, the Council is entitled to rely upon regulation 12(4)(b) (manifestly unreasonable requests) of the EIR. The Commissioner does not require any steps. Information Tribunal FT/EA/2025/0126 appeal allowed.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(b); EIR 5(2); FOI 10(1); FOI 14(1)
View Doncaster Council
27 Feb 2025Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
A public authority will breach section 10 of FOIA if it fails to respond to a request within 20 working days. Based on evidence available to the Commissioner, by the date of this notice the public authority has not issued a substantive response to this request. Therefore the Commissioner finds a breach of section 10. The public authority must provide a substantive response to the request in accordance with its obligations under FOIA. The public authority must take this step within 30 calendar days of the date of this decision notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Ministry of Justice