Bracknell Forest Borough Council FOI Complaint Not Upheld
Summary
The Information Commissioner's Office has issued a decision notice in respect of a Freedom of Information complaint against Bracknell Forest Borough Council. The Council had refused part 4 of the request under section 40 (third party personal information) and an element of part 1 under section 12 (cost limits). The Commissioner found the council entitled to rely on section 40(2) to withhold personal data and, on the balance of probabilities, does not hold the information sought in the disputed element of part 1. No further action is required.
“The Commissioner's decision is that the council is entitled to rely on section 40(2) to withhold information falling within scope of part 4 of the request.”
What changed
The Information Commissioner's Office determined that Bracknell Forest Borough Council correctly applied section 40(2) of the Freedom of Information Act to withhold personal information relating to named senior officers. The Council was also found not to hold information previously sought under a cost-limit refusal. The complaint was not upheld in either respect and no compliance steps are required.
For public authorities handling FOI requests, this decision reinforces the accepted use of section 40(2) to protect third-party personal data where disclosure would breach data protection principles. Bodies relying on section 12 cost-limit refusals should be prepared to evidence, if challenged, that the information is genuinely not held rather than simply exempt.
Archived snapshot
Apr 22, 2026GovPing captured this document from the original source. If the source has since changed or been removed, this is the text as it existed at that time.
Bracknell Forest Borough Council
- Date 15 April 2026
- Sector Local government
- Decision(s) FOI 1: Not upheld, FOI 40: Not upheld The complainant submitted a four part request for information about named senior officers within Bracknell Forest Council (the council). The council provided some of the requested information, but refused part 4 of the request under section 40 (third party personal information) and an element of part 1 of the request under section 12 (cost limits) of FOIA. During the Commissioner’s investigation the council said that where it had previously relied on section 12 to refuse an element of part 1 of the request, it now found that it did not hold that information. The complainant disputes that the council does not hold this information, and also its reliance on section 40 to refuse part 4 of their request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council is entitled to rely on section 40(2) to withhold information falling within scope of part 4 of the request.The Commissioner is also satisfied that, on the balance of probabilities, the council does not hold information falling within the relevant element of part 1 of the request.The Commissioner does not require any steps.
Named provisions
Mentioned entities
Parties
Related changes
Get daily alerts for ICO Decision Notices
Daily digest delivered to your inbox.
Free. Unsubscribe anytime.
Source
About this page
Every important government, regulator, and court update from around the world. One place. Real-time. Free. Our mission
Source document text, dates, docket IDs, and authority are extracted directly from ICO.
The summary, classification, recommended actions, deadlines, and penalty information are AI-generated from the original text and may contain errors. Always verify against the source document.
Classification
Who this affects
Taxonomy
Browse Categories
Get alerts for this source
We'll email you when ICO Decision Notices publishes new changes.
Subscribed!
Optional. Filters your digest to exactly the updates that matter to you.