ICO Decision Notices

ICO Upholds Complaint - Queen Mary University Failed to Respond to FOIA Request

The ICO has issued a Decision Notice finding Queen Mary University of London in breach of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 for failing to respond to a FOIA request within the statutory 20 working days. The university is now required to provide a complete response to the complainant within 30 calendar days or face further enforcement action.

Home Office FOI 17(3) Complaint Upheld for Unreasonable Delay

The ICO upheld a Freedom of Information Act complaint against the Home Office, finding that the public authority failed to complete its public interest test considerations within a reasonable time. The ICO requires the Home Office to provide a substantive response to the information request within 30 calendar days.

ICO Decision: London Borough of Redbridge FOI Inspection Dates Upheld Addresses Exempt

FOI Decision, Redbridge, Inspection Dates Upheld, Addresses Exempt

South Wonston Parish Council, FOI 14, Not upheld

The ICO has upheld South Wonston Parish Council's reliance on section 14(1) of FOIA, finding the complainant's financial information request was vexatious. The decision, dated 1 April 2026, concludes the council was entitled to refuse the request and is not required to take any steps. The complainant may appeal this decision to the First-tier Tribunal within 28 days.

University of York FOIA Complaint - Not Upheld

The Information Commissioner's Office issued a Decision Notice finding that the University of York correctly handled a Freedom of Information request for professional emails between four named staff members. The university disclosed responsive information while withholding some third-party personal data under section 40(2) FOIA. The Commissioner determined the university does not hold further information within scope and that the exemption was properly applied. No remedial steps are required.

London Borough of Redbridge selective landlord notices, FOI partly upheld

ICO issued Decision Notice IC-464099-P6J1 on 31 March 2026, partially upholding a Freedom of Information complaint against London Borough of Redbridge. The Council had withheld selective landlord licence notice names and contents under FOIA Section 40(2) (personal data), but the ICO determined only some information qualifies for exemption. The Council must now reconsider disclosure of certain withheld details.

Crown Estate FOIA Section 40(2) Personal Data Exemption Upheld

The ICO issued a Decision Notice finding that The Crown Estate properly relied on FOIA section 40(2) (personal information) to withhold the name of a staff member occupying premises at East Lodge, Sunninghill Park. The Crown Estate had provided a copy of the lease but refused to identify the staff member, citing sections 40(2), 38(1), 41, and 43(2) of FOIA. The ICO upheld only the section 40(2) exemption, finding it sufficient grounds for withholding the personal data without needing to consider the other exemptions.

DAERA Fish Kill Protocol Withheld - Internal Review Timeliness Breach

The ICO issued a decision finding that DAERA was entitled to withhold a fish kill protocol under EIR 12(5)(g) (environmental protection) and EIR 13 (personal data). However, the ICO found that DAERA breached EIR 11(4) by not completing its internal review within the required timeframe. No further steps were required.

Cabinet Office FOI Complaint Not Upheld - No Information Held

The Information Commissioner's Office investigated a Freedom of Information complaint against the Cabinet Office regarding a request for information about 'smashed gangs'. The Cabinet Office stated it did not hold information within scope of the request. The ICO upheld this position, finding no further steps required as the Cabinet Office's response complied with its obligations.

Met Police NCND Deceased Nazi, Security Exemption Upheld

The ICO issued a Decision Notice upholding the Metropolitan Police Service's refusal to confirm or deny holding information about a deceased Nazi sympathiser under FOIA section 23(5) (security bodies). The ICO found the MPS correctly applied the neither-confirm-nor-deny response, protecting sensitive national security and law enforcement information from disclosure.