ICO Decision Notice: Mid Sussex District Council - EIR Request

ICO Decision Notices

Filed March 10th, 2026

Detected March 17th, 2026

Summary

The ICO found that Mid Sussex District Council correctly applied exemptions to an EIR request regarding a poisoning allegation investigation. However, the council breached the 20-working-day response time. No further steps are required from the council.

View original document View source feed page

What changed

The Information Commissioner's Office (ICO) issued a decision notice regarding a request made to Mid Sussex District Council under the Environmental Information Regulations (EIR). The ICO determined that the council was correct in withholding certain information using exemptions under EIR 12(4)(e) and FOIA 12(5)(b), and that it did not hold further relevant information. However, the council was found to have breached EIR 5(2) by failing to provide its initial response within the stipulated 20 working days.

While the ICO did not require the council to take further action beyond the decision itself, this case highlights the importance of adhering to statutory response times for information requests, even when exemptions are correctly applied. Regulated entities, particularly local government bodies, should ensure their internal processes are robust enough to meet these deadlines to avoid breaches.

What to do next

Review internal processes for responding to EIR/FOIA requests to ensure compliance with statutory time limits.

Source document (simplified)

Mid Sussex District Council

Date 10 March 2026
Sector Local government
Decision(s) EIR 12(4)(a): Not upheld, EIR 12(5)(b): Not upheld, EIR 5(1): Not upheld, EIR 5(2): Upheld The complainant has requested information regarding an investigation carried out by the council relating to a poisoning allegation. Mid Sussex District Council (“the council”), said that some information is not held, and applied the exemptions in Regulations 12(4)(e) (internal communications), and Regulation 12(5)(b) of FOIA to withhold other information. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council was correct to apply the exceptions cited, and that, on a balance of probabilities, it does not hold any further information falling within the scope of the complainant's request. He has however, found that the council did not comply with Regulation 5(2) in that it did not provide its initial response within 20 working days of receiving the request. The Commissioner does not require the council to take any further steps.