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 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 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 partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from Brighton and Hove City Council (“the Council”) relating to a secondary school admissions consultation. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council is entitled to rely on section 36(2)(b)(ii) (prejudice to the effective conduct of public affairs) of FOIA to withhold some information within the scope of the request. The Commissioner also finds that the Council is entitled to rely on section 42(1) (legal professional privilege) to withhold some information within the scope of the request. However, he finds that the Council is not entitled to rely on section 42(1) to withhold some information. The Commissioner finds that the Council has breached section 17(3) of FOIA by failing to complete its public interest test deliberations within a reasonable timeframe. The Commissioner requires the Council to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. In respect of the information which the Commissioner finds does not engage sect
Exemptions cited: FOI 17(3); FOI 36; FOI 42
View Brighton and Hove City Council
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
15 Jun 2026Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to the death of an individual. Hertfordshire Constabulary said that it did not hold the requested information. The Commissioner’s decision is that Hertfordshire Constabulary complied with section 1 (General right of access) of FOIA, having conducted reasonable and proportionate searches, based on the information available to it at the time of the request.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
15 Jun 2026Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested a copy of a specified letter in which she is named, together with the names of any councillors whom had received a copy. Initially, Swaffham Bulbeck Parish Council (the ‘Council’) refused to provide the requested letter, relying on section 36 of FOIA – the exemption for prejudice to the effective conduct of public affairs. It confirmed that the letter had been shared only with the Chairperson. Following an internal review, the Council disclosed the two parts of the letter which included the complainant’s name and maintained section 36 applied to the remainder. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has properly relied on section 36(2)(c) of FOIA to withhold the remainder of the requested letter, for the reasons set out in this notice. No steps are required as a result of this notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 36
15 Jun 2026Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested email correspondence between the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) - including specific individuals - and both Sex Matters and Maya Forstater. The EHRC relied on sections 21, 31, 32 and 40 of FOIA to refuse to disclose the information. These exemptions concern information accessible to applicant by other means, law enforcement, court records, and personal data, respectively. In respect of the information to which the EHRC applied sections 31, 32 and 40, the Commissioner’s decision is that section 31(1)(g) and section 32(1) of FOIA are engaged and no steps are necessary.
Exemptions cited: FOI 31(1)(g); FOI 32(1)
View Equality and Human Rights Commission
15 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 17(3)
View Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office
15 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 Wyre Borough Council
15 Jun 2026Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to non-domestic business rates from Bristol City Council (“the council”). The council refused the request, applying the exemptions in sections 31(1)(a) (prejudice to prevention and detection of crime), 41 (information provided in confidence), and section 21 (information accessible by other means) of FOIA to withhold the information. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council was correct to apply section 31(1)(a) to withhold the information from disclosure. As such, he has not found it necessary to consider the application of section 21 and section 41 further in this notice. The Commissioner does not require the council to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 31
View Bristol City Council
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 partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested correspondence between London Legacy Development Corporation (LLDC) and Reading Agricultural Consultants about Pudding Mill Allotments and land known as Bridgewater Triangle. LLDC’s position is that it doesn’t hold the information. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, LLDC doesn’t hold the requested information. Regulation 12(4)(a) of the EIR is therefore engaged but LLDC’s refusal of the request didn’t comply with the requirements of regulation 14. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(a); EIR 14
View London Thames Gateway Development Corporation
12 Jun 2026Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information about judges and judicial oaths. The Ministry of Justice (MOJ) applied section 14(1) of FOIA (vexatious requests) and refused the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the request was vexatious and the MOJ was entitled to rely on section 14(1) of FOIA to refuse it. The Commissioner does not require any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14(1)
View Ministry of Justice
12 Jun 2026Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested the contracts between the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) and the suppliers of “Functional Assessment Services” (FAS). DWP originally relied on section 22(1), information intended for future publication, but amended its position during the Commissioner’s investigation. It disclosed a significant amount of information but withheld some information on the basis of section 40(2), personal data, section 41(1), information provided in confidence, and section 43(2), commercial interests. The complainant confirmed that they did not dispute the redactions made on the basis of sections 40(2) and 41(1), and only disputed a portion of the redactions made on the basis of section 43(2). The Commissioner’s decision is that DWP is entitled to rely on section 43(2) to withhold the disputed information. He does however find that DWP breached section 10(1) as it disclosed information outside of the statutory timeframe. The Commissioner does not require DWP to take an
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 43
View Department for Work and Pensions
12 Jun 2026Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has made a number of requests relating to the Government Chemist. He is concerned that LGC Limited (LGC) is purporting to act as a public authority under section 3 of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Government Chemist is a public authority under Schedule 1 of FOIA. LGC is not a public authority, but it provides supporting infrastructure for the Government Chemist. The Government Chemist remains responsible for responding to requests made under FOIA, albeit via LGC’s infrastructure. No steps are required.
Exemptions cited: FOI 3
12 Jun 2026Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant wrote to Hampshire & Isle of Wight Constabulary (“HIWC”) and requested information about asylum seekers and protests at specific premises. HIWC neither confirmed nor denied holding the requested information. During the investigation, it clarified that this was on the grounds of likely endangerment to the health and safety of individuals (section 38(2) of FOIA). The Commissioner’s decision is that HIWC has correctly neither confirmed nor denied holding the requested information, by virtue of section 38(2) of FOIA. The Commissioner does not require HIWC to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 38(2)
View Hampshire and Isle of Wight Constabulary
11 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 Bridgend County Borough Council
11 Jun 2026Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about training undertaken by staff members working on Operation Magnolia. Cleveland Police relied on section 40(2) (third party personal information) of FOIA to withhold the information. The Commissioner’s decision is that Cleveland Police correctly relied on section 40(2) of FOIA to withhold the requested information. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40(2)
View Cleveland Police
11 Jun 2026Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information regarding passed and failed driving tests for pseudonymised individual examiners at a particular driving test centre. The DVSA relied on section 40(2) of FOIA (personal information) to withhold the information. The Commissioner’s decision is that the DVSA has correctly relied on section 40(2) of FOIA to withhold the information. No steps are required.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency
11 Jun 2026Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information about a planning application. Buckinghamshire Council withheld the information under the exception provided by regulation 12(4)(b) (manifestly unreasonable requests) on the grounds that the request was vexatious. The Commissioner’s decision is that regulation 12(4)(b) is engaged and that the balance of the public interest favours maintaining the exception. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(b)
View Buckinghamshire Council
11 Jun 2026Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested, from the Chief Constable of Northamptonshire Police (NP), information about complaints and staffing levels. NP refused the request, on the basis of section 12 of FOIA (‘exemption where cost of compliance exceeds appropriate limit’). The Commissioner’s decision is that NP was correct to refuse the request on the basis of section 12(1) of FOIA; and that NP complied with section 16 of FOIA (‘duty to provide advice and assistance’). However he also finds that NP breached sections 1(1)(a) (‘general right of access to information’) and 10(1) (‘time for compliance with request’) of FOIA, as it failed to confirm that information was held in writing within 20 working days; and that NP breached section 17(1) of FOIA (‘refusal of request’), as it failed to issue its refusal notice within 20 working days. The Commissioner doesn’t require any steps in response to this decision notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1(1)(a); FOI 10(1); FOI 12(1); FOI 16; FOI 17(1)
View Northamptonshire Police
11 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 Environment Agency
10 Jun 2026Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information held by Welwyn Hatfield Borough Council (the council) about why it had not taken enforcement action in relation to a particular planning matter. The council responded, providing information to the complainant about why such action was not taken. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council has complied with its obligations under regulation 5(1) of the EIR.
Exemptions cited: EIR 5(1)
View Welwyn Hatfield Borough Council
10 Jun 2026Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information about parking fine revenue, including totals, breakdowns and location-based data. Hartlepool Borough Council (the “council”) initially relied on sections 21 and 22 of FOIA. At internal review it also relied on section 12. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council: did not correctly apply section 21; has not demonstrated that section 22 is engaged; did not comply with section 17 of FOIA; has not demonstrated that section 12 applies; and failed to comply with section 1(1) of FOIA because it did not issue a response which properly addressed whether the requested information was held and, if held, either disclosed it or relied on a valid refusal notice. The Commissioner requires the council to issue a fresh response to the request under FOIA which addresses each part of the request and either discloses the information held or issues a refusal notice which complies with section 17.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 12; FOI 17; FOI 21; FOI 22
View Hartlepool Council
10 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 Department for Energy Security and Net Zero
10 Jun 2026Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested a copy of minutes of a particular meeting and any associated documents concerning protection of the title 'chiropractor' and / or the treatment of animals. The General Chiropractic Council (‘the GCC’) relied on section 22 of FOIA (intended for future publication) to withhold the requested information. The Commissioner’s decision is that the GCC was not entitled to rely on section 22 of FOIA to withhold the requested information. The Commissioner requires the GCC to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: Disclose the requested information, following redaction to remove personal data, as applicable.
Exemptions cited: FOI 22
View General Chiropractic Council
10 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 Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office
10 Jun 2026Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information about the Home Office’s procedures and compliance in procuring a specific premises for asylum seekers. The Home Office refused to confirm or deny holding the requested information under section 38(2) of FOIA: health and safety. The Commissioner has determined that the Home Office breached section 17 of FOIA because it responded outside the statutory time limit for compliance. However, he finds that the Home Office has correctly neither confirmed nor denied holding the requested information by virtue of section 38(2) of FOIA. The Commissioner does not require the Home Office to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 17(1); FOI 38(2)
View Home Office
9 Jun 2026Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information relating to the installation of a pedestrian refuge island, including the job specification and details of who proposed and approved the project. Cornwall Council (the “council”) provided information on governance and approvals but withheld the job specification under regulation 12(5)(e) of the Environmental Information Regulations 2004 (“the EIR”). The Commissioner’s decision is that the request was correctly handled under the EIR and that regulation 12(5)(e) is correctly applied to parts of the information, particularly granular pricing and cost structures; however, it has been applied too broadly. The Commissioner requires the council to disclose the information identified in paragraphs 52-53 of this notice.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(e)
View Cornwall Council
9 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 17(3)
View Home Office
9 Jun 2026Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information about A&E waiting times, details about the Same Day Emergency Care Unit, and related policies at the John Radcliffe Hospital. The public authority did not respond within 20 working days as required under FOIA. The Commissioner requires the public authority to provide the complainant with a response to the request within 30 calendar days in accordance with its obligations under FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Oxford University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust
9 Jun 2026Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information about antisocial behaviour and litter at the corner of Senrab Street and Aylward Street. The public authority did not respond within 20 working days as required under FOIA. The Commissioner requires the public authority to provide the complainant with a response to the request within 30 calendar days in accordance with its obligations under FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View London Borough of Tower Hamlets
9 Jun 2026Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about the Independent Inquiry into Grooming Gangs. The Cabinet Office refused the request on the basis that it was not a valid request within the meaning given at section 8(1)(c)(requests for information) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Cabinet Office was not entitled to refuse question 3 as it meets the requirements of a valid request as described at section 8(1)(c). However, the Cabinet Office was entitled to rely on section 8(1)(c) to refuse questions 4 to 10 of the request as they do not meet the requirements of a valid request as described as section 8(1)(c). The Commissioner requires the Cabinet Office to issue a fresh response to question 3 of the request. 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
Exemptions cited: FOI 8(1)(c)
View Cabinet Office
8 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 Department for Science, Innovation and Technology
8 Jun 2026Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about the evaluation of pilot testing of AI tools used for asylum application processing. The Home Office refused the request, citing sections 35(1)(a) (Formulation of government policy, etc), 40(2) (Personal information) and 41(1) (Information provided in confidence) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Home Office was entitled to rely on sections 35(1)(a) and 41(1) to withhold the requested information.
Exemptions cited: FOI 35; FOI 41
View Home Office
8 Jun 2026Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information on the number of times two named solicitors had contacted the Home Office to “get in touch” with a specified individual, (including dates if possible). The Home Office refused to confirm or deny whether the requested information was held, relying on the ‘neither confirm nor deny’ provision in section 43(3) of FOIA – commercial interests. The Commissioner’s decision is that section 43(3) of FOIA is not engaged for the reasons set out in this notice. The Commissioner requires the Home Office to take the following steps within 30 calendar days of the date of this decision notice to ensure compliance with the legislation:
• Confirm or deny whether the requested information is held.
• To the extent that the requested information is held, either disclose it to the complainant or, in respect of any information the Home Office wishes to withhold, issue a refusal notice that meets the requirements of section 17 of FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 43(3)
View Home Office
8 Jun 2026Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information about the public authority’s Official Definitive Map and Statement. Rhonnda Cynon Taf County Borough Council (“the Council”) relied on regulation 12(4)(b) to refuse the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has not sufficiently demonstrated that regulation 12(4)(b) is engaged. The Commissioner requires the Council to issue a fresh response to the request that does not rely on regulation 12(4)(b).
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(b)
View Rhondda Cynon Taf County Borough Council
8 Jun 2026Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from the Grooming Gangs Independent Inquiry (the ‘Inquiry’). The Inquiry refused to provide the information as it stated that it was not subject to FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Inquiry is not a public authority for the purposes of FOIA and was therefore not obliged to respond to the request. As the Inquiry is not a public authority, the Commissioner has no remit to order any remedial steps, even if any were necessary.
Keywords: Public inquiry
Exemptions cited: FOI 3
8 Jun 2026Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about an alleged member of staff, referenced by a number, and two legal Forms from the Metropolitan Police Service (the “MPS”). The MPS disclosed information about the Forms but would neither confirm nor deny (NCND) any details about the alleged member of staff, ultimately relying on section (40)(5B)(a)(i) (Personal information) of FOIA. The complainant was dissatisfied with the explanation given about the two Forms, did not accept that the number she had provided was personal information and was unhappy with the timeliness of the internal review.
The Commissioner’s decision is that section (40)(5B)(a)(i) is properly engaged. He also finds no breach of section 16(1) (Advice and assistance) and considers that the MPS responded appropriately under FOIA regarding the Forms, albeit he has included further information in this notice. The Commissioner does not require further step.
Exemptions cited: FOI 16; FOI 40
View Metropolitan Police Service
8 Jun 2026Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested various information regarding the Disability Confident Scheme (DCS) from Imperial College London (the College). The College refused the request, citing section 14(1) (vexatious request) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the College was not entitled to refuse the request on the basis of section 14(1) of the FOIA. The Commissioner requires the College to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. Issue a fresh response to the request which does not rely on section 14(1) of the FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14(1)
8 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 BEACON EDUCATION MAT LTD
8 Jun 2026Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested a full list of contractors engaged by Berkhamsted Town Council (BTC) from 1 January 2022 which included business names, services, addresses, and total payments made. BTC relied on section 12 of FOIA (cost of compliance) to refuse the request.
The Commissioner’s decision is that the public authority was entitled to rely on section 12(1) of FOIA to refuse the request. The Commissioner also finds that the public authority complied with its section 16 obligation to offer advice and assistance.
The Commissioner does not require further steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12(1)
5 Jun 2026Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant submitted a request to the Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office (FCDO) seeking information about McKinsey & Company's work with department on climate change during 2007 to 2010. The FCDO disclosed some information in response to the request but sought to withhold further information on the basis of regulations 12(4)(d) (draft documents), 12(5)(a) (international relations) 12(5)(e) (confidentiality of commercial or industrial information), 12(5)(f) (interests of the person who provided the information) and 13 (personal data). The Commissioner’s decision is that the majority of the information withheld by the FCDO is exempt from disclosure on the basis of the provisions cited. The exceptions are some information withheld on the basis of 12(5)(e) and 12(5)(f), and all of the information withheld on the basis regulation 12(4)(d). The FCDO also breached regulations 11(2) (internal reviews) and 14(2) (refusal notices) in handling this request.
Exemptions cited: EIR 11(2); EIR 12(4)(d); EIR 12(5)(a); EIR 12(5)(e); EIR 12(5)(f); EIR 13; EIR 14(2)
View Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office
5 Jun 2026Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from the Home Office about immigration raids, visits and enforcement activity. 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
5 Jun 2026Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information relating to alleged anti‑competitive practices in the end‑of‑life vehicle sector, including agreements, communications and regulatory decisions about strategies affecting vehicle treatment costs. The Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) advised it doesn’t hold some of the requested information. It applied regulations 12(4)(b), 12(4)(d), 12(5)(b) and 12(5)(d) of the EIR to the information it does hold. These exceptions concern manifestly unreasonable requests, material which is still in the course of completion, the course of justice and the confidentiality of proceedings. The complainant disputes the CMA’s application of regulations 12(5)(b) and 12(5)(d) to part a. of their request. The Commissioner’s decision is that part a of the request engages regulation 12(5)(b) of the EIR and the public interest favours maintaining this exception. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(b)
View Competition and Markets Authority
5 Jun 2026Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information explaining the reasoning underpinning the Utility Regulator’s (“UR’s”) decision relating to small-scale generators, including internal communications, analysis, and the consideration of evidence. The UR disclosed some information but withheld a number of documents comprising of internal communications, contracts and analytical material under section 31 (law enforcement), section 36 (prejudice to public affairs), sections 42 (legal professional privilege) and section 43 (commercial information). The Commissioner considers the UR has correctly withheld the information it has applied sections 42 and 31 to but has incorrectly relied on section 43(2) to withhold the contracts and Power Purchase Agreements (PPAs). The Commissioner requires the UR to disclose the information it has withheld under section 43(2).
Exemptions cited: FOI 31; FOI 42; FOI 43
4 Jun 2026Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about changes to the
planning committee. Bracknell Forest Borough Council disclosed information relevant to the request and stated that no further information was held. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the Council does not hold any further recorded information falling within the scope of the request. The Commissioner does not require any steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Bracknell Forest Council
4 Jun 2026Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant made a request to Hertford Heath Parish Council (the council) in relation to its Neighbourhood Plan. They asked for a copy of the recommendations and advice issued by AECOM and Locality for revising the Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) to assess impacts other than heritage impacts and re-running the Regulation 14 consultation, as referenced in the email exchange with East Herts District Council. The council confirmed that it does not hold the requested information. The Commissioner’s decision is that on the balance of probabilities, the council does not hold the requested information and therefore regulation 12(4)(a) of the EIR applies. The Commissioner does not require further steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(a)
4 Jun 2026Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant asked the Department for Transport (DfT) where a specific document was stored on its systems and, if it was in SharePoint, what other documents were stored in the same area. The DfT relied on section 14(1) of FOIA (vexatious requests) to refuse the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the request was vexatious and the DfT was entitled to rely on section 14(1) of FOIA to refuse it. The Commissioner does not require any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14(1)