4 Jun 2026Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from Nottinghamshire County Council (the council) with regards toabout child protection conference reports. The Commissioner finds, on the balance of probabilities, that the council has provided all the information it holds falling within the scope of the requestdid not hold the information specified by the complainant and therefore complied with section 1(1) of the FOIA. The Commissioner does not require any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
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)
3 Jun 2026Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to West Lindsey District Council (the council) for information about the publication of council tax arrears relating to individuals, including councillors. The council provided some information in response to the request. However, the complainant considers that, in response to part 4 of that request, the council should also have confirmed the number of councillors who were in arrears. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council obtained the correct objective reading of part 4 of the request and provided a response in accordance with that objective reading. The Commissioner therefore finds that the council complied with section 1 (general right of access) of FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View West Lindsey District Council
3 Jun 2026Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a three part request to West Lindsey District Council (the council) for information about councillors in council tax arrears of more than two months. The council provided information in response to part 1 of the request, but refused parts 2 and 3, citing the exemption at section 38 (health and safety) of FOIA. The Commissioner found that all of the withheld information is the personal data of an individual. He therefore considered whether disclosure would contravene any of the data protection principles. He is satisfied that the council is entitled to rely on section 40(2) (third party personal information) of FOIA to withhold the information falling within scope of parts 2 and 3 of the request. In light of that finding, the Commissioner did not consider it necessary to go on to determine whether section 38 is engaged in relation to any of the withheld information.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View West Lindsey District Council
3 Jun 2026Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information on physical altercations involving security staff and members of the public at a specified Job Centre. The Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) disclosed some information but refused to confirm or deny whether it held the remainder on the basis of section 41(2), information provided in confidence. The Commissioner’s decision is that DWP is not entitled to rely on section 41(2) to neither confirm nor deny whether it holds the majority of the disputed information. The Commissioner also finds that DWP breached section 10(1) as it disclosed the information outside of the statutory timeframe. The Commissioner requires DWP to confirm or deny whether it holds the requested information. If held, it should either disclose this information or issue a refusal notice confirming what exemption it is relying on to withhold it. The public authority must take these steps within 30 calendar days of the date of this decision notice. Failure to comply may resul
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 41
View Department for Work and Pensions
3 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 Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office
3 Jun 2026Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about monitoring of student electronic devices. Imperial College London (‘the university’) directed the complainant to a relevant published policy document, relying on section 21 of FOIA to refuse to communicate this information (information accessible to applicant by other means). Its position was that it didn’t hold any other relevant information. As a result of the Commissioner’s investigation, the university has identified a further published policy document that is relevant to the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that, other than the published information, on the balance of probabilities the university doesn’t hold any other information relevant to the request as expressed. The Commissioner finds that section 21 is engaged in respect of the published information but that the university’s response to the request didn’t comply with procedural sections 1(1), 10(1) and 17(1) of FOIA. It’s not necessary for the university to take any ste
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10; FOI 17; FOI 21
3 Jun 2026Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to the Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office (FCDO) seeking electronic communications relating to the visit of the (then) Prince Andrew to Egypt and UAE in January 2008. The FCDO disclosed information to the complainant with redactions on the basis of section 40(2) (personal data) of FOIA. The complainant challenged the application of this exemption and argued that the FCDO was likely to hold further information falling within the scope of his request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the redacted information is exempt from disclosure on the basis of section 40(2) of FOIA and that on the balance of probabilities the FCDO has located all of the information it holds falling within the scope of the request. However the FCDO breached section 17(3) of FOIA by failing to complete its public interest considerations within a reasonable time.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 17; FOI 40
View Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office
2 Jun 2026Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to the number of recorded drone incidents per prison, per year. The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) confirmed it held the requested information but refused to disclose it, citing section 31(1)(f) (law enforcement) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the MoJ was entitled to rely on section 31(1)(f) of FOIA to withhold the information. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: FOI 31
2 Jun 2026Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to the Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office (FCDO) seeking information about the then Duke of York’s visit to Kazakhstan in 2011. The FCDO disclosed some information in response to the request but withheld further information on the basis of sections 27(1)(a) (international relations), 40(2) (personal data) and 43(2) (commercial interests) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the information withheld under sections 27(1)(a) and 40(2) is exempt from disclosure on the basis of these exemptions. However, he has concluded that the information withheld on the basis of section 43(2) is not exempt on the basis of that exemption.
Exemptions cited: FOI 27; FOI 40; FOI 43
View Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office
2 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 North West Leicestershire District Council
2 Jun 2026Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
Summary wording for website: 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 Flintshire County Council
2 Jun 2026Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant made a multi-part request focussing on the costs relating to certain information rights First-tier Tribunals and any associated appeals, together with other requested information. The Judicial Appointments Commission (the ‘JAC’) said it did not hold some of the requested information, it provided some costs details with additional explanations and disclosed some information with redactions under section 40(2) (personal information) and section 42 (legal professional privilege) of FOIA. Ultimately, the complainant remained concerned only with the withholding of a monetary figure associated with a named individual under section 40(2) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the JAC was entitled to rely on section 40(2) of FOIA in relation to the withheld monetary figure, for the reasons set out in this notice. However, by failing to provide both its substantive response and refusal notice where exemptions were cited, within the statutory 20 working days’ time limit, th
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10; FOI 17; FOI 40
View Judicial Appointments Commission
2 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 Health and Safety Executive
2 Jun 2026Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from Ministry of Defence. The Commissioner’s decision is that the public authority failed to respond to the request within 20 working days and has therefore breached section 10 of FOIA. The public authority must provide a substantive response to the request in accordance with its obligations under FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Ministry of Defence
2 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 Swindon Borough Council
1 Jun 2026Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from the Metropolitan Police Service (the “MPS”) about one of its Commanders. The MPS disclosed some information but refused to disclose the remainder, citing section 40(2) (Personal information) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the exemption is properly engaged. No steps are required.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View Metropolitan Police Service
1 Jun 2026Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
1. The complainant has requested information from the Education Authority Northern Ireland (EA) in relation to funding for minor works projects for schools. The EA provided the complainant with information in response to their request, however the complainant stated that this should have been provided in a different format.
2. The Commissioner’s decision is that it would not have been reasonably practicable in the circumstances to expect the constabulary to provide the information in the preferred format and therefore it has complied with its obligations under section 11 (means of communicating information) of FOIA.
3. The Commissioner does not require further steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 11
1 Jun 2026Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information about new style inspection reports (a report card) for early years inspections. The Office for Standards in Education, Children’s Services and Skills (Ofsted) applied section 35(1)(a) of FOIA (formulation or development of government policy) to withhold the information. The Commissioner’s decision is that Ofsted was entitled to withhold the information under section 35(1)(a) of FOIA. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 35(1)(a)
View Office for Standards in Education, Children's Services and Skills (Ofsted)
1 Jun 2026Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from Epping Forest District Council. The Commissioner’s decision is that the public authority failed to respond to the request within 20 working days and has therefore breached section 10 of FOIA. The public authority must provide a substantive response to the request in accordance with its obligations under FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Essex Police
1 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 Home Office
29 May 2026Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information concerning land ownership verification, legal authority and supporting documentation associated with Section 106 agreements. Thanet District Council (the Council) stated that it does not hold further information within the scope of the request. This position was upheld at internal review.
In its submissions to the Commissioner, the Council also sought to rely on regulation 12(4)(b) (manifestly unreasonable) of the EIR.
The Commissioner’s decision is that:
• The Council has complied with regulation 5(1) (duty to make environmental information available) of the EIR.
• The Council breached regulation 14(2) (refusal notice) of the EIR.
The Commissioner does not require any steps as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: EIR 14(2); EIR 5(1)
View Thanet District Council
29 May 2026Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information about the history of residential parking permits issued in respect of a specified group of properties managed by their management company. Warwickshire County Council (the council) withheld the information under section 40(2) of FOIA on the basis that it was the personal data of third parties.
The Commissioner considers that section 40(2) of FOIA applies to the withheld information and that the council is entitled to rely on the exemption in this case.
The Commissioner does not require any steps as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40(2)
View Warwickshire County Council
29 May 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 Brighton and Hove City Council
29 May 2026Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information concerning a specific property subject to a HMO (House in Multiple Occupation) licence. London Borough of Waltham Forest (the Council) processed the request under FOIA and withheld most of the requested information under section 21 (information accessible to applicant by other means) and section 40(2)(third party personal data). The Council upheld the response and exemptions applied at internal review. The Commissioner has found that as the information requested is environmental information, the Council should have processed the request under the Environmental Information Regulations (EIR). The Commissioner’s decision is that regulation 6(1)(b) EIR is engaged to some of the information requested by the complainant and that the remaining information requested is exempt from disclosure under regulation 13 (third party personal data) of the EIR. The Commissioner requires the Council to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legisl
Exemptions cited: EIR 13; EIR 6(1)(b)
View Waltham Forest Council
29 May 2026Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information about parking bay dimensions in car parks managed by Telford and Wrekin Council (the council).
The council said that it did not hold the requested information. At internal review, it upheld that position and provided a link to its published design guide.
The Commissioner’s decision is that, he is not satisfied the council’s evidence is sufficient to establish that, on the balance of probabilities, it did not hold information falling within the scope of the request. He also finds that the council breached sections 1(1), 10(1) and 17(1) of FOIA because it did not respond within 20 working days of receiving the request.
The Commissioner requires the council to issue a fresh response to the request after carrying out appropriate searches reasonably designed to identify information falling within its scope.
The council must take this step within 30 calendar days of the date of this decision notice. Failure to comply may result in the Commissioner ce
Exemptions cited: FOI 1(1); FOI 10(1); FOI 17(1)
View Telford and Wrekin Council
29 May 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 Darlington Borough Council
29 May 2026Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested several pieces of information from Watford Borough Council (“the council”) relating to various addresses and permissions for access. The council disclosed information to the complainant but determined no further information was held. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council does not hold any further information falling within the scope of the request. No steps are required.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Watford Borough Council
29 May 2026Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information about how Commissioners assessed and excluded monopoly value in Round 4, in relation to Offshore Wind Leasing. The Crown Estate refused the request under regulation 12(4)(b) of the EIR, which concerns manifestly unreasonable requests, and section 12 of FOIA in the alternative (cost exceeds the appropriate limit). The Commissioner’s decision is that The Crown Estate was entitled to refuse the request under regulation 12(4)(b) of the EIR. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(b)
View The Crown Estate
29 May 2026Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted an information request to Liverpool University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust (the trust) for the invoices in relation to the latest transparency report.
The trust withheld the invoices under sections 31(1)(a) (law enforcement), 38(1)(b) (health and safety), 43(2) (commercial interests) and 40(2) (third-party personal data) of FOIA.
The Commissioner’s decision is that the trust was entitled to withhold the requested information under section 31(1)(a) of FOIA. However, in failing to issue an appropriate refusal notice confirming the exemptions it ultimately came to rely upon, within the statutory timescale, the trust breached section 17(1) of FOIA.
The Commissioner does not require further steps, as a result of this notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 31(1)(a); FOI 17(1)
View Liverpool University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust
29 May 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 Redbridge Council
28 May 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 Waltham Forest Council
28 May 2026Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested various information related to oversight of the benefit claim process. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) has identified all of the information falling within the scope of the request. The Commissioner does, however, find that DWP breached section 10(1) of FOIA as it failed to confirm that some of the information was held until the Commissioner’s investigation, outside of the statutory timeframe. The Commissioner does not require DWP to take any further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10
View Department for Work and Pensions
28 May 2026Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
1. The complainant has requested information regarding a human rights law training course. Department for Work and Pensions (‘DWP’) refused the request, citing sections 36(2)(b)(i), 36(2)(c) (Prejudice to effective conduct of public affairs) and 42 (legal professional privilege) of FOIA.
2. The Commissioner’s decision is that was entitled to rely on the exemption at section 36(2)(b)(i) above to refuse the request. The Commissioner considers that section 36(2)(b)(i) applies to the entirety of the withheld information.
3. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: FOI 36
View Department for Work and Pensions
28 May 2026Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about settlements; both specifically and more generally. Prestatyn Town Council (‘the council’) initially refused the entire request under several exemptions including sections 36, 40 and 43 of FOIA. These exemptions concern prejudice to effective conduct of public affairs, personal data, and commercial interests, respectively. During the Commissioner’s investigation the council clarified that it relied on section 40(5B) in respect of three parts of the request. It has also now confirmed that it doesn’t hold information within scope of the fourth and final part of the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council is entitled to neither confirm nor deny it holds the information requested in parts 1, 2 and 3.1 of the request under section 40(5B) of FOIA. Confirming or denying the information is held would unlawfully disclose personal data. The council’s response to part 3.2 of the request didn’t comply with sections 1(1)(a) and 10(1) o
Exemptions cited: FOI 1(1)(a); FOI 10(1); FOI 40(5)(b)
27 May 2026Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information about upheld councillor code of conduct complaints, including names and decision notices, for the period 11 December 2024 to 12 June 2025. The council disclosed summary details of three upheld complaints but withheld the councillors’ names under section 40(2) of FOIA. During the Commissioner’s investigation, the council indicated that it would disclose the name of one councillor, as the councillor’s identity and sanction were already effectively in the public domain. However, at the date of this notice, it had not disclosed that information and had not confirmed whether it would disclose the associated decision notice. The council maintained reliance on section 40(2) for the remaining information. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council is not entitled to rely on section 40(2) of FOIA to withhold the councillors’ names in any of the three cases, nor the identifying information contained in the corresponding decision notices, insofar as that
Exemptions cited: FOI 40(2)
View Mid Suffolk District Council
27 May 2026Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
1. The complainant requested information from Northamptonshire Police (“the Police) in relation to misconduct outcome hearings. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Police were entitled to refuse to comply with the request in accordance with section 12(1) (cost limit) of the FOIA.
2. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Police were entitled to rely on section 12(1) of FOIA to refuse to disclose the withheld information. He also finds that the Police have failed to comply with section 16 (Advice and assistance) of FOIA as they have not provided adequate advice and assistance to the complainant to enable them to narrow or refine their request.
3. The Commissioner requires the Police to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation:-
• Provide the complainant with detailed advice and assistance on how they may make a refined, less burdensome request. If no meaningful advie would be possible this must be explained.
4. The Police must take these steps within 30
Exemptions cited: FOI 12; FOI 16
View Northamptonshire Police
27 May 2026Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to the recruitment of a senior police officer who, at the time of the request, was the subject of misconduct investigations. Northamptonshire Police, Fire and Crime Commissioner (the OPFCC) would neither confirm nor deny (NCND) holding information, citing sections 30(3) (Investigations and proceedings), 31(3) (Law enforcement) and 40(5) (Personal information) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the OPFCC was entitled to rely on sections 40(5B)(a)(i) and 31(3) to issue an NCND response to the request.
Exemptions cited: FOI 31; FOI 40; FOI 45
27 May 2026Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to costs for elderly adult residential care. Warwickshire County Council, (the Council) relied on section 14(1) of FOIA (vexatious) to refuse the request.
The Commissioner’s decision is that the request was vexatious and therefore the Council was entitled to rely upon section 14(1) of FOIA to refuse it.
The Commissioner does not require any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14(1)
View Warwickshire County Council
27 May 2026Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to the University of Cambridge (the university) for a copy of the document titled ‘PhD under Special Regulations’ and information in relation to it.
The university withheld some information under section 40(2) (third-party personal data) with reliance on section 40(3)(a) of FOIA.
The Commissioner’s decision is that the university was correct to apply section 40(2), with reliance on section 40(3)(a) of FOIA, to the withheld information. However, he finds that the university failed to adequately ascertain whether or not it holds any further information falling within scope of the request. Furthermore, in treating some of the complainant’s correspondence as a second request, the university breached sections 1(1) and 10(1) of FOIA.
The Commissioner requires the university to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation.
• Disclose a copy of the rules which were adopted in August 2022 after the meeting of the Post Graduate Committee.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1(1); FOI 10(1); FOI 40(2)
View The University of Cambridge
27 May 2026Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
1. The complainant requested information from Merseyside Police (“the Police) in relation to misconduct outcome hearings. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Police were entitled to refuse to comply with the request in accordance with section 12(1) (cost limit) of the FOIA.
2. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Police were entitled to rely on section 12(1) of FOIA to refuse to disclose the withheld information. He also finds no failure to comply with section 16 (Advice and assistance) of FOIA and requires no steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12; FOI 16
View Merseyside Police
27 May 2026Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
1. The complainant requested information from Surrey Police (“the Police) in relation to misconduct outcome hearings. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Police were entitled to refuse to comply with the request in accordance with section 12(1) (cost limit) of the FOIA.
2. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Police were entitled to rely on section 12(1) of FOIA to refuse to disclose the withheld information. He also finds that the Police have failed to comply with section 16 (Advice and assistance) of FOIA as they have not provided adequate advice and assistance to the complainant to enable them to narrow or refine their request.
3. The Commissioner requires the Police to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation:-
• Provide the complainant with detailed advice and assistance on how they may make a refined, less burdensome request. If no meaningful advice would be possible this must be explained.
4. The Police must take these steps within 30 calendar
Exemptions cited: FOI 12; FOI 16
View Surrey Police
26 May 2026Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information from Amber Valley Borough Council (“the council”) relating to planning enforcement, internal guidance, highways consultation, complaints handling and legal risk associated with planning decisions. The council refused the request on the basis that Regulations 12(4)(a) (information not held), 12(4)(b) (manifestly unreasonable request) and 12(5)(b) (course of justice and legal professional privilege) of the EIR applied. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council was entitled to rely on Regulations 12(4)(b) and 12(5)(b) of the EIR to refuse to respond to the request further. He has, however, decided that the council failed to comply with Regulation 5(2) of the EIR and Regulation 11(4) of the EIR. The Commissioner does not require the council to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 11(4); EIR 12(4)(b); EIR 12(5)(b); EIR 5(2)
View Amber Valley Borough Council
26 May 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
26 May 2026Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information relating to planning decision making and environmental matters connected to a specified planning application from Amber Valley Borough Council (“the council”). The council responded that it did not hold the requested information. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the council does not hold information falling within the scope of the request. The Commissioner therefore finds that the council was correct to apply Regulation 12(4)(a) of the EIR. However the Commissioner has decided that the council did not comply with Regulation 11(4) of the EIR in that it did not complete its review of its decision within 40 working days. The Commissioner does not require the council to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 11(4); EIR 12(4)(a); EIR 5(1)
View Amber Valley Borough Council
26 May 2026Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested specified information associated with Facial Matching Checks in a two-part request. Ultimately, the Home Office relied on sections 21 (information reasonably accessible to the applicant by other means) and 31(1)(a) (prejudice to the prevention or detection of crime) of FOIA for part 1 of the request. For part 2, the Home Office relied on sections 31(1)(a) and 31(1)(e) (prejudice to the operation of the immigration controls). The complainant subsequently confirmed he was only concerned with the second part of his request, so the Commissioner has not considered the Home Office’s handling of part 1 of the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Home Office was entitled to rely on sections 31(1)(a) and (e) of FOIA to refuse to provide the requested information requested at part 2, for the reasons set out in this notice. No steps are required as a result of this notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 31(1)(a); FOI 31(1)(e)
View Home Office
26 May 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)
26 May 2026Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information relating to two planning applications. Amber Valley Borough Council (“the council") disclosed some information, said that it did not hold some information, and applied Regulation 12(4)(b) to refuse to comply with one part of the complainant's request (manifestly unreasonable request). The Commissioner’s decision is that the council failed to comply with Regulation 5(2) by not making environmental information available within 20 working days. In addition, the council failed to comply with Regulation 11(4) in its handling of the complainant’s request for an internal review, and Regulation 14 in that its refusal notice did not meet the required standards. However, the Commissioner has decided that, on the balance of probabilities, the council was entitled to rely on Regulation 12(4)(a) (information not held) for some elements of the request, and on Regulation 12(4)(b) (manifestly unreasonable) for the remainder. The Commissioner does not require f
Exemptions cited: EIR 11(4); EIR 12(4)(a); EIR 12(4)(b); EIR 5(2)
View Amber Valley Borough Council
26 May 2026Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested job evaluation scores for five roles. The London Borough of Havering (the Council) refused the request as repeated under section 14(2) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council was not entitled to refuse the request under section 14(2). The Commissioner requires the public authority to issue a fresh response to the request that does not cite section 14(2).
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 14
View London Borough of Havering
26 May 2026Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from Sherwood Forest Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust regarding a walk in service which was withdrawn.
The Commissioner’s decision is that the public authority failed to respond to the request within 20 working days and has therefore breached section 10 of FOIA. The public authority must provide a substantive response to the request in accordance with its obligations under FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Sherwood Forest Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust