30 Jun 2026Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The Commissioner’s decision is that Northumbrian Water Limited (NWL) is entitled to withhold the requested site investigation report under regulation 12(5)(b) of the EIR. This exception concerns the course of justice. NWL’s refusal notice didn’t fully comply with the requirements of regulation 14, however. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(b); EIR 14
View Northumbrian Water
30 Jun 2026Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from Derby City Council about job descriptions and organisational charts for key decision-makers. The public authority has failed to respond to this request within 20 working days. 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 Derby City Council
30 Jun 2026Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The public authority has failed to respond to this request within 20 working days, as specified in the EIR. The Commissioner requires it to provide the complainant with a response to this request within 30 calendar days in accordance with its obligations under the EIR.
Exemptions cited: EIR 5(2)
View Manchester City Council
30 Jun 2026Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from Derby City Council about mandatory training records and competency frameworks. The public authority has failed to respond to this request within 20 working days. 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 Derby City Council
30 Jun 2026Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to the Financial Conduct Authority’s (FCA) email retention policy. The FCA relied on section 12 of FOIA (cost of compliance) to refuse the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the FCA was entitled to rely on section 12(1) of FOIA to refuse the request. The Commissioner also finds that the FCA complied with its obligation under section 16 to offer advice and assistance. However, the Commissioner has recorded a procedural breach of section 10 of FOIA. The Commissioner does not require further steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 12; FOI 16
View Financial Conduct Authority
30 Jun 2026Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested figures relating to complaint handling. Lancashire Constabulary (the Constabulary) relied on section 12(1) (cost of compliance) of FOIA to refuse the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Constabulary was entitled to rely on section 12(1) of FOIA to refuse the request. However, the Commissioner also finds that the Constabulary did not comply with its section 16 obligation to offer advice and assistance. Finally, he finds that the Constabulary breached section 10(1) and 17(5) of FOIA by failing to provide its refusal notice within the statutory timeframe. The Commissioner requires the Constabulary to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation - provide the complainant with appropriate advice and assistance to help them submit a request that falls potentially within the appropriate limit. The public authority must take these steps within 30 calendar days of the date of this decision notice. Failure to comply may result in t
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 12; FOI 16; FOI 17
View Lancashire Constabulary
30 Jun 2026Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested any communications and meeting minutes that concerned the Equality and Human Rights Commission’s interim guidance following the Supreme Court judgement For Women Scotland Ltd v The Scottish Ministers, released on 25 April 2025. The Equality and Human Rights Commission (the EHRC) relied on section 36 of FOIA (prejudice to effective conduct) to withhold the requested communications, and section 22 of FOIA (information intended for future publication) to withhold the requested meeting minutes. The Commissioner’s decision is that the EHRC was entitled to rely on sections 36(2)(b)(i), 36(2)(b)(ii) and 36(2)(c) of FOIA to withhold the requested communications. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 36
View Equality and Human Rights Commission
30 Jun 2026Complaint 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
30 Jun 2026Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has made a request to Derbyshire County Council (the council) for information relating to a school transport appeal considered by the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO). The council relied on section 40(2) of FOIA to withhold the information, as it considered that disclosing it would contravene data protection law. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council has correctly relied on section 40(2) of FOIA to withhold the requested information. The Commissioner does not require the council to take any further steps as a result of this decision notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40(2)
View Derbyshire County Council
30 Jun 2026Complaint 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 NEW VISION TRUST
30 Jun 2026Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about complaint handling timeframes. Lancashire Constabulary (the Constabulary) relied on section 12(1) (cost of compliance) of FOIA to refuse the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Constabulary was entitled to rely on section 12(1) of FOIA to refuse the request. However, the Commissioner also finds that the Constabulary did not comply with its section 16 obligation to offer advice and assistance. Finally, he finds that the Constabulary breached section 10(1) and 17(5) of FOIA by failing to provide its refusal notice within the statutory timeframe. The Commissioner requires the Constabulary to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation - provide the complainant with appropriate advice and assistance to help them submit a request that falls potentially within the appropriate limit. The public authority must take these steps within 30 calendar days of the date of this decision notice. Failure to comply may re
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 12; FOI 16; FOI 17
View Lancashire Constabulary
30 Jun 2026Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information about Bath & North East Somerset Council’s (the council) Active Travel proposals, including data and correspondence relating to the Ralph Allen Active Travel Link scheme. The council disclosed the information it holds, with some third party personal data redacted. The Commissioner’s decision is that no further information is held and regulation 12(4)(a) applies. However, the council breached regulations 5(1), 5(2), 14(1) and 14(3) of the EIR. No steps are required.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(a); EIR 14(1); EIR 14(3); EIR 5(1); EIR 5(2)
View Bath and North East Somerset Council
30 Jun 2026Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from Derby City Council about expenditure, placement costs, and contractual terms. The public authority has failed to respond to this request within 20 working days. 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 Derby City Council
30 Jun 2026Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information from Cornwall Council about a particular piece of land. The public authority failed to respond to this request within 20 working days. The Commissioner requires the Council to provide the complainant with a substantive response to this request within 30 calendar days of the date of this decision notice, in accordance with its obligations under the EIR.
Exemptions cited: EIR 5(2)
View Cornwall Council
29 Jun 2026Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The public authority has failed to complete its public interest test considerations within a reasonable time in accordance with its obligations under FOIA. The Commissioner does not consider there to be any exceptional circumstances and finds that, by failing to respond to the request within a reasonable time frame, the public authority has breached section 17(3) of FOIA. The Commissioner requires it to provide a substantive response to the request within 30 calendar days in accordance with its obligations under FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 17
View Ministry of Justice
29 Jun 2026Complaint 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(1)
View North Somerset Council
29 Jun 2026Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The Commissioner’s decision is first that the Department for Transport (DfT) was correct to handle the request for reviews associated with the HS2 project under the EIR. His decision is also that DfT was entitled to refuse to disclose this information under regulation 12(4)(e) of the EIR. The reviews are internal communications and the public interest favoured maintaining the exception. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(e)
View Department for Transport
29 Jun 2026Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information about an estimate of the cost of damage caused by protestors to aircraft at RAF Brize Norton.
Thames Valley Police (the “public authority”) withheld the requested information on the basis of sections 30(1)(a) and (b) (Investigations and proceedings) of FOIA.
The Commissioner’s decision is that all of the requested information is exempt from disclosure on the basis of section 30(1)(a) and that the public interest favours maintaining this exemption.
The Commissioner does not require any further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 30(1)(a)
29 Jun 2026Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested specified information relating to a former Chair of the Phytocannabinoid Working Group of the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs between 2014 and 2017. The Home Office said it did not hold this information. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, no recorded information is held by the Home Office in relation to this request, for the reasons set out in this notice. No steps are required as a result of this notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Home Office
29 Jun 2026Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The public authority has failed to respond to this request within 20 working days, as specified in the EIR. The Commissioner requires it to provide the complainant with a response to this request within 30 calendar days in accordance with its obligations under the EIR.
Exemptions cited: EIR 5(2)
View London Borough of Tower Hamlets
29 Jun 2026Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The Commissioner’s decision is that the council has not demonstrated, on the balance of probabilities, that the requested information is not held due to insufficient evidence about the searches undertaken. The Commissioner has also recorded a breach of regulation 14(3) for the reasons set out in the procedural matters section of this decision notice. The Commissioner requires the council to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the EIR:
• Carry out fresh searches for information falling within scope of part three of the request, in accordance with paragraph 47 of this notice, and issue a fresh response in accordance with the EIR.
• Following those searches, disclose any information identified or issue a refusal notice in accordance with paragraphs 48 and 49 of this notice and which complies with regulation 14 of the EIR.
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 wr
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(a); EIR 14(3)
View Hillingdon Council
29 Jun 2026Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested from the Home Office various information relating to its handling of Subject Access Requests. 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 Home Office has not issued a substantive response to this request. Therefore, the Commissioner finds a breach of section 10. The Home Office must provide a substantive response to the request in accordance with its obligations under FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Home Office
26 Jun 2026Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested, from London Borough of Hammersmith & Fulham (the council), information about the number of officers awaiting vetting clearance. The council refused to provide the requested breakdown on the basis of section 40(2) of FOIA (personal information). The Commissioner’s decision is that the council was correct to rely on section 40(2) of FOIA to refuse to disclose the withheld information. The Commissioner doesn’t require any steps in response to this decision notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40(2)
View Hammersmith and Fulham Council
26 Jun 2026Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The Commissioner’s decision is that the College of Policing (‘the college’) is entitled to neither confirm nor deny it holds the requested information about training courses under section 31(3) of FOIA. This exemption concerns law enforcement. The timeliness of the college’s refusal notice didn’t comply with section 17(1), however. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 31(3); FOI 17(1)
View College of Policing
26 Jun 2026Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from Department for Energy Security and Net Zero on 30 March 2026 regarding meetings held between Ed Miliband and Michael Shanks with CEO's of major corporations between October and December 2025.
Department for Energy Security and Net Zero acknowledged the request on 9 April 2026 but failed to provide information in scope of the request or a refusal notice in line with FOIA, despite chasers from the requester, and the Commissioners intervention.
A public authority will breach section 10 of FOIA if it fails to respond to a request within 20 working days. 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.
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
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Department for Energy Security and Net Zero
26 Jun 2026Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested the Innovate2Educate Partnership (‘the public authority’) to disclose the minutes of progress board meetings in the 12 months preceding the request. The public authority refused to comply with the request, citing section 14(1) of FOIA (vexatious request). The Commissioner’s decision is that the request is vexatious and the public authority is entitled to rely on section 14(1) of FOIA. The Commissioner does not require further steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14(1)
View INNOVATE2EDUCATE PARTNERSHIP LIMITED
26 Jun 2026Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about changes to a Trans Inclusion Code of Practice. The University of Warwick (‘the university’) has disclosed some information and withheld the remainder under sections 36(2)(b)(i), 36(2)(b)(ii), 40(2) and 42(1) of FOIA. These exemptions concern the effective conduct of public affairs, personal data, and legal professional privilege respectively. The Commissioner’s decision is as follows: The information that the university is withholding under sections 36(2)(b)(i) and 36(2)(b)(ii) engages these exemptions but in both cases, the public interest favours disclosure. The information that the university is withholding under section 40(2) engages this exemption.The information that the university is withholding under section 42(1) engages this exemption and the public interest favours withholding the information. The Commissioner also finds, on the balance of probabilities, that the university holds no further information falling within scope of t
Exemptions cited: FOI 1(1); FOI 10(1); FOI 36(2)(b)(i); FOI 36(2)(b)(ii); FOI 40(2); FOI 42(1)
View The University of Warwick
26 Jun 2026Complaint 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 London Borough of Lambeth
26 Jun 2026Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from the Council regarding school census data, catchment areas, feasibility studies, planning forecasts and planning data.
A public authority will breach section 10 of FOIA if it fails to respond to a request within 20 working days. Based on the evidence available and the Commissioner’s intervention, 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 Derby City Council
25 Jun 2026Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The public authority has failed to respond to this request within 20 working days, as specified in the EIR. The Commissioner requires it to provide the complainant with a response to this request within 30 calendar days in accordance with its obligations under the EIR.
Exemptions cited: EIR 5(2)
View Kingston upon Hull City Council
25 Jun 2026Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested various information in respect of a named property covering the period from January 2018 to June 2025. Broxbourne Borough Council (the Council) provided some information, but informed the complainant that it does not hold other information. The Commissioner’s decision is that he cannot be certain that information relevant to some items of the request is not held, and accordingly, that the Council has failed to demonstrate that it has complied with its obligations under regulation 12(4)(a) of the EIR. The Commissioner has also concluded that the Council has failed to demonstrate that it holds no additional information in respect of other items of the request. He therefore has no option but to conclude that the Council has not complied with its obligations under regulation 5(1) of the EIR in respect of this information. The Commissioner requires the Council to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. Conduct further searches for infor
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(a); EIR 5(1)
25 Jun 2026Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to the Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office (FCDO) seeking documents it had identified when processing a previous request he had submitted which had sought communications relating to the then Duke of York’s visit to Azerbaijan in November 2008. The FCDO refused the present request on the basis of section 14(1) (vexatious) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the FCDO is entitled to rely on section 14(1) to refuse this request.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14
View Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office
25 Jun 2026Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The Commissioner’s decision is that the public authority has breached regulation 11 of the EIR by failing to provide a reconsideration (internal review) of a response within 40 working days.
Exemptions cited: EIR 11
View Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea
25 Jun 2026Complaint 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 Jun 2026Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
In a four-part request, the complainant requested information from the Insolvency Service (IS) relating to three named companies. During the course of the Commissioner’s investigation, the IS changed its position to rely on sections 40(5B) and 31(3) to refuse to confirm or deny holding information falling within the scope of parts 2, 3 and 4 of the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the IS is entitled to refuse to confirm or deny holding the disputed information in accordance with section 31(3) (law enforcement) of FOIA. The Commissioner does not require further steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 31(3)
25 Jun 2026Complaint 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 East Lancashire Hospitals NHS Trust
25 Jun 2026Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested London Borough of Islington (‘the council’) to disclose the schedule of rates and costings of a contract with Mears Ltd; a contract for the provision of major works and maintenance to a property the complainant leases. The council refused to disclose the information, citing regulations 12(5)(c) and 12(5)(e) of the EIR. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council is entitled to rely on regulations 12(5)(c) and 12(5)(e) of the EIR. However, the council breached regulations 5(2) and 14 of the EIR. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(c); EIR 12(5)(e); EIR 14; EIR 5(2)
View Islington Council
25 Jun 2026Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information in relation to figures and measures of ‘volatility’ pertaining to sources of tax revenue from 2010 onwards. HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) advised that information within the scope of the request was publicly available and directed the complainant to the relevant published information. HMRC said it did not hold further information.
The Commissioner’s decision is that section 21(1) of FOIA was engaged at the time of the request.
The Commissioner also considers that, on the balance of probabilities, HMRC doesn’t hold any other relevant information that isn’t already published and has complied with section 1(1) of FOIA in that respect.
The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1(1); FOI 21(1)
View HM Revenue & Customs
25 Jun 2026Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The public authority has failed to complete its public interest test considerations within a reasonable time in accordance with its obligations under FOIA. The Commissioner requires it to provide a substantive response to the request within 30 calendar days in accordance with its obligations under FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Home Office
24 Jun 2026Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information from London Borough of Croydon in relation to building control records. The Commissioner’s decision is that the public authority failed to respond to the request within 20 working days and has therefore breached regulation 5(2) of the EIR. The public authority must provide a substantive response to the request in accordance with its obligations under the EIR.
Exemptions cited: EIR 5(2)
View London Borough of Croydon
24 Jun 2026Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted an information request to Channel Four Television Corporation (Channel 4) regarding promotional gifts purchased and distributed over a three-year period.
Channel 4 refused to comply with the request citing section 12 (cost of compliance exceeds appropriate limit) of FOIA.
The Commissioner’s decision is that Channel 4 was entitled to rely on section 12(1) of FOIA to refuse to comply with the request. The Commissioner is also satisfied that Channel 4 complied with its duty to provide advice and assistance under section 16 of FOIA.
The Commissioner does not require further steps, as a result of this notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12; FOI 16
View Channel 4
24 Jun 2026Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information held by Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council (the council) relating to the Wirral Transport Museum report and communications connected to the Simplification Path Finder Pilot Board. The council provided information in response to Part 1 of the complainant’s request and refused Part 2, citing section 12 (cost of compliance exceeds the appropriate limit) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council breached section 16(1) of FOIA. This is because Part 2 of the request did not have a single objective reading, and the council failed to seek clarification before refusing that part under section 12 of FOIA. The Commissioner requires the council to seek clarification from the complainant as to the scope of Part 2 of the request and then issue a fresh response to that part in accordance with FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 16
View Wirral Council
24 Jun 2026Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested various information from Leeds City Council (the Council) about the movement and restructuring of its paralegal team. The Council refused the request as vexatious under section 14(1) of FOIA.
The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council breached section 10(1) of FOIA by failing to respond to the request within 20 working days. He also finds that the request was not vexatious and therefore the Council was not entitled to rely on section 14(1) of FOIA to refuse it. The Commissioner requires the Council to issue a fresh response to the request that does not rely on section 14(1) of FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10(1); FOI 14(1)
View Leeds City Council
24 Jun 2026Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to anti-social behaviour at a specific location. Cramlington Town Council (the Council) provided some information and advised that other information is not held.
The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the Council does not hold further information falling within the scope of the request.
However, in failing to provide all the information it held within 20 working days, the Council breached section 10(1) of FOIA.
The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1(1); FOI 10(1)
24 Jun 2026Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from London Borough of Camden (the council) relating to a deceased person. The council stated that it held information in scope of questions one, two and three of the request, but that it was withholding it, variously, under sections 40(2) and 41 of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the council did not hold information within scope of part one of question three of the request. The council therefore failed to comply with section 1(1)(a) of FOIA by incorrectly confirming that it held the information. As it did not inform the complainant that the information was not held within the statutory timeframe, the Commissioner also finds a breach of section 10(1). The Commissioner finds that the council was entitled to rely on section 41(1) of FOIA to withhold information within the scope of questions one and two, and the second part of question three. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10(1); FOI 41
View Camden Council
24 Jun 2026Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about payments made by the UK to France, for the purpose of deterring irregular migration to the UK. The Home Office refused the request, citing sections 27(1)(a) and (c) (International relations) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Home Office was entitled to rely on sections 27(1)(a) and (c) to withhold the requested information.
Exemptions cited: FOI 27; FOI 45
View Home Office
23 Jun 2026Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to the Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office (FCDO) seeking legal advice it had received as to whether Israel's treatment of Palestinians in Gaza constituted genocide. The FCDO withheld information in response to this request on the basis of sections 27(1)(a) and (b) (international relations), 35(1)(a) (formulation or development of government policy), 42(1) (legal professional privilege) and section 40(2) (personal data). The Commissioner’s decision is that the information falling within the scope of the request is exempt from disclosure on the basis of section 42(1) of FOIA and that the public interest favours maintaining the exemption. However, the Commissioner has also concluded that the FCDO breached section 17(1) by failing to respond to the request within 20 working days.
Exemptions cited: FOI 17; FOI 42
View Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office
23 Jun 2026Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The public authority has failed to respond to this request within 20 working days, as specified in the EIR. The Commissioner requires it to provide the complainant with a response to this request within 30 calendar days in accordance with its obligations under the EIR.
Exemptions cited: EIR 5(2)
View Health and Safety Executive
23 Jun 2026Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to the Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office (FCDO) seeking legal advice on the subject of sales of military material to Israel and the legality of this under both British and international law. The FCDO confirmed that it held some information in scope of the request but withheld this under section 42(1) (legal professional privilege). It also relied on section 35(3) by virtue section 35(1)(c) (Law Officers’ advice) to refuse to confirm or deny whether any further information was held. The Commissioner’s decision is that the FCDO can rely on sections 42(1) and 35(3) in the manner in which it has to refuse this request.
Exemptions cited: FOI 35; FOI 42
View Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office
23 Jun 2026Complaint 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 UK Health Security Agency