23 Jun 2026Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from Essex Police. 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 Essex Police
23 Jun 2026Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information from North Lincolnshire Council (“the Council”) relating to funds owed to the Council and the steps taken by the Council to recover those funds. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council is entitled to rely on regulation 12(5)(e) (commercial or industrial information) of the EIR to withhold a report that falls within the scope of the request. However, he finds that the Council is not entitled to rely on regulation 12(5)(e) of the EIR to withhold a form. The Council must disclose the withheld form to the complainant. 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: EIR 12(5)(e)
View North Lincolnshire Council
23 Jun 2026Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information with regards to a specific type of breach being reported to the Financial Conduct Authority (the FCA). The FCA stated that the requested information was not held. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the requested information is not held by the FCA. The Commissioner does not require any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Financial Conduct Authority
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
22 Jun 2026Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information about the cost floor in relation to his Right to Buy scheme application from the London Borough of Redbridge (the ‘Council’). Following the Council’s compliance with a related decision notice in IC-383985-Y2P3 (in which the Commissioner ordered the Council to conduct further searches for information falling within the scope of the request), the complainant did not accept that the Council had disclosed all of the information to which he was entitled. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the Council has disclosed all of the information it holds and does not hold any further requested information falling within the scope of the request and is therefore entitled to rely on regulation 12(4)(a) of the EIR (Information not held). However, the Council breached regulations 5(2) and 14 of the EIR. The Commissioner does not require the Council to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(a); EIR 14; EIR 5(2)
View Redbridge Council
22 Jun 2026Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information related to a planning application for a wastewater pumping station. Lisburn & Castlereagh City Council (the Council) provided some information falling within the scope of the request and advised that other information was not held.
The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the Council does not hold any additional information relevant to the request.
However, he has found that the Council breached regulation 11(4) of the EIR because it failed to comply with the requirement to provide the outcome of its re-consideration within 40 working days.
The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 11(4); EIR 5(1); FOI 39
22 Jun 2026Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested various information regarding convictions including the total number of convictions broken down by nationality and headline offence groups. The Ministry of Justice (the MoJ) refused to provide the requested information citing section 40(2) (personal information) of the FOIA. However, during the course of the Commissioner’s investigation, the MoJ also relied on section 12 (cost of compliance exceeds the appropriate limit) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the MoJ has failed to demonstrate that section 12 is engaged, and that section 40(2) applies to information where the numbers are less than five but does not apply to any numbers of five or above.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12; FOI 40(2)
View Ministry of Justice
19 Jun 2026Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information from London Borough of Croydon in relation to enforcement action. 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
19 Jun 2026Complaint 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.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Manchester City Council
19 Jun 2026Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested various information relating to private jet operators, pilots, and passengers using private aviation facilities at UK airports from the Home Office on 18 February 2026. A public authority will breach section 10 of FOIA if it fails to respond to a request within 20 working days.The Commissioner notes that the Home Office extended the time for responding to the request on three separate occasions, issuing holding responses in March, April and May 2026 in order to consider the public interest test. The Home Office subsequently provided its response on 22 May 2026. While section 10(3) of FOIA allows for additional time to consider the public interest test where necessary, the Commissioner is not satisfied that the cumulative delay in this case was reasonable. As the Home Office did not provide its response within the required timeframe for compliance, the Commissioner finds that it breached section 10(1) of FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Home Office
19 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 Ministry of Justice
19 Jun 2026Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from Ceredigion County Council relating to a proposed wellbeing centre. 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, the public authority did not provide a valid response within the statutory time frame. Therefore the Commissioner finds a breach of section 10.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Ceredigion County Council
19 Jun 2026Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about a named individual and the number of complaints against them to the London Borough of Richmond (the Council). The Council withheld the information citing section 40(2) (personal information of third parties) of FOIA.
The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council was correct to refuse to provide the requested information based on the cited exemption.
The Commissioner does not require further steps from the Council in relation to this case.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View Richmond upon Thames Council
19 Jun 2026Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested from Department for Education (DfE) information regarding errors identified during the “data cleanse” process when teachers apply for pensions. DfE provided the complainant with some information relating to the request (number of cases processed). However, it stated the remaining information at question one is not held by or on behalf of the Department. With regard to the second question, DfE estimated that to comply with the request would exceed the cost limit, and therefore applied section 12(1) (cost of compliance) of FOIA to question two.
The Commissioner’s decision is that on the balance of probabilities, DfE does not hold any further information falling within scope of question one of the request. With regard to DfE’s reliance on section 12(1) of FOIA to question two of the request, the Commissioner finds that this exemption is not engaged.
The Commissioner requires DfE to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation.
• Issue a fr
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 12(1)
View Department for Education
19 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 Ministry of Justice
19 Jun 2026Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about a named individual and the number of complaints against them to the Wandsworth Borough Council (the Council). The Council withheld the information citing section 40(2) (personal information of third parties) of FOIA.
The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council was correct to refuse to provide the requested information based on the cited exemption.
The Commissioner does not require further steps from the Council in relation to this case.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40(2)
View London Borough of Wandsworth
19 Jun 2026Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information about gas works in Whitstable from Kent County Council (“the Council”). The Council provided some information. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council, after correctly redacting some third party personal data under regulation 13(2A) of the EIR, has provided all the information falling within the scope of the request. However, the Council breached regulation 5(2) of the EIR since it failed to provide all of the information within 20 working days. It also failed to comply with the requirements of regulation 14 of the EIR (refusal to disclose) since it did not explain, within the same statutory timeframe, why it had redacted some information. The Commissioner does not require any steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 13; EIR 14; EIR 5
View Kent County Council
19 Jun 2026Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The Commissioner’s decision is that the public authority breached regulation 5(2) of the EIR by failing to provide a response within 20 working days.
Exemptions cited: EIR 5(2)
View Huntingdonshire District Council
18 Jun 2026Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted an information request to the Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames (the council) regarding complaints received about repairs to its housing stock.
The council withheld the requested information under sections 40(2) (third-party personal data) and 41(1)(a) and (b) (information provided in confidence) of FOIA.
The Commissioner’s decision is that the council was correct to withhold the requested information under section 40(2) of FOIA.
The Commissioner does not require further steps, as a result of this notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40(2)
View Kingston upon Thames Council
18 Jun 2026Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to the number of employment tribunals brought against Nuclear Waste Services (NWS), and the costs incurred, between specified dates. NWS refused the request under section 43(2) of FOIA (commercial interests).
During the Commissioner’s investigation, NWS withdrew its reliance on section 43(2) and sought to rely instead on section 36(2)(c) of FOIA (prejudice to the effective conduct of public affairs).
The Commissioner’s decision is that NWS was entitled to rely on section 36(2)(c) to refuse the request and that the public interest lies in maintaining the exemption.
The Commissioner does not require any steps as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: FOI 36(2)(c)
18 Jun 2026Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
1. The complainant has requested information regarding fines issued as a result of cameras capturing motorists at a specified location since October 2024. The Council relied on regulation 12(4)(d) of the EIR (material in the course of completion) to withhold the requested information.
2. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council was entitled to rely on regulation 12(4)(d) of the EIR to withhold the requested information. The Commissioner’s decision is also that the Council breached regulation 14(3) of the EIR as it incorrectly issued its refusal notice under FOIA and not the EIR.
3. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(d); EIR 14(3)
View Hammersmith and Fulham Council
18 Jun 2026Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information about a named councillor and a fund for a website. Teignbridge District Council (the council) disclosed information falling within the scope of the request, but withheld the part concerning the website fund under section 43(2) (commercial interests) of FOIA.
The Commissioner’s decision is that the council was entitled to rely on section 43(2) of FOIA to withhold the requested information relating to the website fund. The public interest favours maintaining the exemption.
The Commissioner does not require any steps as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: FOI 43(2)
View Teignbridge District Council
18 Jun 2026Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information about reported communications on 28 February 2025 between the Prime Minister and President Donald Trump and President Volodymyr Zelenskyy. He asked for any notes, briefings, readouts, minutes (or similar) and any audio or audio‑visual record of each communication. The Cabinet Office initially refused to confirm or deny whether it held information within scope, relying on sections 26(3) (defence) and 27(4) (international relations) of FOIA. During the Commissioner’s investigation, the Cabinet Office withdrew its reliance on those “neither confirm nor deny” provisions and confirmed that it holds a very small amount of information within scope. It said it was withholding that information under sections 27(1)(a), (c) and (d) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the Cabinet Office holds a readout of the Prime Minister’s call with President Donald Trump but does not hold briefing documents (or similar) for either
Exemptions cited: FOI 27
View Cabinet Office
18 Jun 2026Complaint 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 Basingstoke and Deane Borough Council
18 Jun 2026Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested Sefton Council (‘the council’) to disclose information relating to the housing of migrants, asylum seekers and refugees in the area. The council provided some information, applied section 12 of FOIA to one question, advised that other information is not held and that some information is exempt under sections 21 and 38 of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council is correct to rely on sections 12, 21 and 38 of FOIA. He has also decided that on the balance of probabilities the council does not hold the information it said it did not hold. However, he has found a breach of sections 1(1)(a) and 10 of FOIA, as the council failed to confirm that it did not hold some of the requested information within 20 working days following receipt of the request. He has also found a breach of section 16 of FOIA, as the council did not provide reasonable advice and assistance. The Commissioner requires the council to provide advice and assistance to the complainan
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10; FOI 12; FOI 16; FOI 21; FOI 38
18 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
18 Jun 2026Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The Commissioner’s decision is that the University of Oxford is entitled to rely on section 12(1) of FOIA (cost of compliance) in respect of the part of the complainant’s request seeking information about payments to legal professionals. There was no breach of section 16(1), which concerns advice and assistance. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12(1); FOI 16(1)
View The University of Oxford
18 Jun 2026Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about Council Tax. New Forest District Council refused the request under section 14(1) (vexatious requests) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council is entitled to refuse to comply with the request under section 14(1). The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14(1)
View New Forest District Council
18 Jun 2026Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant made a request to the Trust for information relating to legal costs and Non-Disclosure Agreements (NDAs). The Commissioner finds that the Trust adopted an unduly narrow interpretation of the request and, as a result, failed to take reasonable and proportionate steps to identify information falling within its scope. In particular, the Trust did not revisit its interpretation after the complainant expressly clarified that the request was intended to include broader confidentiality arrangements. The Commissioner therefore finds that the Trust did not comply with section 1(1) of the FOIA. The Commissioner requires the Trust to conduct fresh searches for information falling within the scope of the request, applying a reasonable interpretation of “NDAs” which includes confidentiality agreements and arrangements and confirm whether it holds information. It should then either provide the information or issue a fresh refusal notice compliant with section 17 FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View LEARNING ACADEMY PARTNERSHIP (SOUTH WEST)
17 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 Bridgend County Borough Council
17 Jun 2026Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The request in this case was addressed to Medway Maritime Hospital. However, as the hospital isn’t a separate public authority under FOIA, this notice refers to Medway NHS Foundation Trust (‘the trust’) as the relevant public authority. The Commissioner’s decision is that the trust is entitled to refuse the complainant’s request for information about instances of an infection on specific hospital wards under section 41 of FOIA. This exemption concerns information provided in confidence. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 41
View Medway NHS Foundation Trust
17 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
View Stoke-on-Trent City Council
17 Jun 2026Complaint 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, the public authority did not provide a valid response within the statutory time frame. Therefore the Commissioner finds a breach of section 10.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Cardiff Council
17 Jun 2026Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from Kent County Council (“the council”) relating to the reasons for specified meetings being cancelled. The council said that it did not hold any information falling within the scope of the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the council has not demonstrated that it does not hold any information falling within the scope of the request. The Commissioner has therefore decided that the council has not complied with section 1(1) of FOIA. The Commissioner requires the council to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: Carry out adequate and proportionate searches for recorded information falling within the scope of the request, including (but not limited to) emails, calendar records, and other electronic communications relating to the cancellation of the specified meetings; Confirm to the complainant whether it holds information falling within the scope of the request following
Exemptions cited: FOI 1(1)
View Kent County Council
17 Jun 2026Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested planning and complaint information about a particular site. Hampshire County Council (the Council) provided some information and applied section 21 (information accessible to applicant by other means) to other information. However, the complainant believed that further information was held by the Council. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the Council holds additional information which falls within the scope of the request. The Commissioner requires the Council to conduct new searches for any additional information falling within scope of the request and issue a fresh response to the request in which any additional information is either disclosed, or a valid refusal notice issued for any exception it intends to rely on.
Exemptions cited: EIR 5(1)
View Hampshire County Council
17 Jun 2026Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information about the proposed Universal Studios development. Bedford Borough Council (the Council) refused the request citing section 12 (cost of compliance exceeds appropriate limit) of the FOIA. During the Commissioner’s investigation the Council reconsidered the request under the EIR and confirmed that it was relying on the exception in regulation 12(4)(b) (manifestly unreasonable) of the EIR to refuse the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council was entitled to rely on regulation 12(4)(b) to refuse to comply with the request. However, the Commissioner also finds that the Council did not fully comply with its obligations under regulation 9 of the EIR to offer advice and assistance. The Commissioner requires the Council provide the complainant with advice and assistance on how the request might be refined, so that it may not engage regulation 12(4)(b) of the EIR.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(b); EIR 9
View Bedford Borough Council
17 Jun 2026Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested planning and complaint information about a particular site. Hampshire County Council (the Council) provided some information and applied section 21 (information accessible to applicant by other means) to other information. However, the complainant believed that further information was held by the Council. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the Council holds additional information which falls within the scope of the request. The Commissioner requires the Council to conduct new searches for any additional information falling within scope of the request and issue a fresh response to the request in which any additional information is either disclosed, or a valid refusal notice issued for any exception it intends to rely on.
Exemptions cited: EIR 5(1)
View Hampshire County Council
16 Jun 2026Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to school improvement plans and meetings relating to Longhill School from Brighton & Hove City Council (“the Council”). The council refused the request on the basis that section 14 of FOIA applied (vexatious request). The Commissioner’s decision is that the council was not entitled to rely upon section 14(1) of FOIA to refuse to comply with the request. The Commissioner requires the council to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: issue a fresh response to the request dated 17 March 2025 in accordance with section 1(1) of FOIA, either by disclosing the requested information or issuing a refusal notice compliant with section 17 of FOIA (relying on any exemptions it considers applicable).
Exemptions cited: FOI 14(1)
View Brighton and Hove City Council
16 Jun 2026Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
In a five question request, the complainant has requested a breakdown of how the BBC spent its financial year 2024 to 2025 licence fee income - specifically amounts, proportions, and contracts relating to independent production companies, BBC staff, and BBC Commercial, including counts and details of the largest contracts. The BBC responded to one question and its position is that the information requested in the remaining four questions is derogated and so it isn’t obliged to respond to these questions under FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the information requested in questions 1, 2, 4 and 5 is not derogated from FOIA. The Commissioner requires the BBC to take the following step to ensure compliance with the legislation: Issue the complainant with a fresh response to questions 1, 2, 4 and 5 under FOIA, either disclosing the requested information or issuing a refusal notice that complies with section 17 of FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 3
View BBC
16 Jun 2026Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to a vulnerable road user warning letter.
Cheshire Constabulary (the “public authority”) relied on section 40(5B) (third party personal information) of FOIA to refuse to confirm or deny that the information was held.
The Commissioner’s decision is that the public authority was entitled to rely on section 40(5B) (personal information) of FOIA to refuse to confirm or deny holding the requested information.
The public authority informed the complainant that the information was not held.
The Commissioner’s decision is that the information requested was not held.
The Commissioner does not require further steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 40(5)(b)
View Cheshire Constabulary
16 Jun 2026Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to the basis upon which Land and Property Services (LPS) included a lane way in the registration of Folio DN107109. The Department of Finance (Northern Ireland) (DOF) refused to provide the information citing section 14(2) (repeat requests) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that DOF was correct to refuse to comply with the complainant’s requests under section 14(2) of FOIA. He does not require further steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14(2)
View Department of Finance
16 Jun 2026Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information about all London Cycleway schemes. Transport for London refused the request under regulation 12(4)(b) of the EIR, which concerns manifestly unreasonable requests. The Commissioner’s decision is that regulation 12(4)(b) is engaged and Transport for London complied with its duty under regulation 9(1) to offer advice and assistance. No steps are necessary.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(b); EIR 9(1)
View Transport for London
16 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. The Commissioner requires it to provide the complainant with the internal review within 30 calendar days in accordance with its obligations under the EIR.
Exemptions cited: EIR 11
View Harrow Council
16 Jun 2026Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information relating to the working group established to examine the issue of compensation for electricity customers cut off by Storm Éowyn. The Department for the Economy provided some information and refused the remainder under the exceptions at regulations 12(4)(d) (material in the course of completion), 12(4)(e) (internal communications) and 13 (third party personal data) of the EIR. The complainant did not challenge the application of regulation 13. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Department was not entitled to rely on regulation 12(4)(d) or regulation 12(4)(e). The Commissioner requires the Department to disclose the information withheld under regulation 12(4)(d) and regulation 12(4)(e) to the complainant. The information withheld under regulation 13 should be redacted from the information to be disclosed.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(d); EIR 12(4)(e)
15 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 Home Office
15 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 Liverpool City Council
15 Jun 2026Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from Wiltshire Council (“the Council”) relating to food safety complaints, specifically complaints about food being sold after its use by date and food poisoning complaints. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council is entitled to rely on section 12(1) (cost limit) of FOIA to refuse to provide the requested information. However, he finds that the Council failed to provide reasonable advice and assistance and therefore, did not meet its obligations under section 16(1) of FOIA. The Commissioner requires the Council to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. The Council must provide the complainant with advice and assistance to help them submit a request falling within the appropriate limit. 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
Exemptions cited: FOI 12; FOI 16
View Wiltshire Council
15 Jun 2026Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from the BBC about viewing figures for coverage of general elections held between 1997 to 2024. The Commissioner’s decision is that this information, if held at all, is held by the BBC for the purposes of journalism, art or literature and so is not covered by FOIA. He therefore upholds the BBC’s position and requires no steps to be taken in this case.
Exemptions cited: FOI 3
View BBC
15 Jun 2026Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to the number of offenders eligible for release following changes to automatic release dates. The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) confirmed it held the requested information, but refused to disclose it, citing sections 21(1) (information accessible to applicant by other means) and 35(1)(a) (formulation of government policy) of FOIA. The Commissioner investigated the MoJ’s application of section 35 to the information withheld by virtue of that exemption. The Commissioner’s decision is that the MoJ was entitled to rely on section 35(1)(a) to withhold the requested information. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: FOI 35
View Ministry of Justice
15 Jun 2026Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to the death of an individual. The Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC) neither confirmed nor denied (NCND) whether it held the information, citing section 40(5B)(a)(i) (Personal information of third parties) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that, if held, the information would comprise the complainant’s own personal data. The IOPC was therefore entitled to rely on section 40(5A) (Personal data of the applicant) of FOIA to NCND whether it holds the requested information.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View Independent Office for Police Conduct