Merthyr Tydfil Council EIR FOIA Complaint Partly Upheld
Summary
The ICO has partially upheld a complaint against Merthyr Tydfil County Borough Council regarding its handling of a two-part environmental information request about an escrow account for restoration works at the Ffos-y-fran former opencast coal mine site. The Commissioner confirmed that the Environmental Information Regulations (EIR) is the correct access regime and that the council adequately answered part 2 of the request. However, the Commissioner found that the council holds additional information within the scope of part 1 and has therefore found the council has not complied with regulation 5(1) of the EIR. The council is required to issue a fresh response to part 1 of the request based on the correct scope.
“The Commissioner requires the council to take issue a fresh response to part 1 of the request, based on the correct scope of that part.”
About this source
The Information Commissioner's Office is the UK's data protection and freedom of information authority. Decision notices are the formal written outcomes of ICO investigations into complaints against public authorities for Freedom of Information Act compliance. Around 230 decisions a month, each naming the authority, request details, whether the request was upheld, partially upheld, or rejected, and any remedial action ordered. Decision notices are a rich vein of information about UK government transparency and often reveal what specific requests ICO considers legitimate. Watch this if you file FOI requests in the UK, advise public authorities on disclosure obligations, or research information rights case law.
What changed
The ICO's investigation determined that Merthyr Tydfil County Borough Council failed to provide all information it holds within the scope of part 1 of a two-part environmental information request. While the council correctly adopted the Environmental Information Regulations as the applicable access regime and adequately responded to part 2, it breached regulation 5(1) by withholding responsive information on part 1. The council had initially refused the request under FOIA section 43(2) (commercial interests) and section 41 (information provided in confidence), but revised its position during the investigation.
Public authorities subject to EIR obligations should ensure their information requests handling identifies and discloses all information within scope, even where commercial or confidentiality exemptions are initially considered. The ICO has jurisdiction to enforce EIR compliance and requires the council to cure its breach by issuing a compliant response to part 1.
What to do next
- The Commissioner requires the council to take issue a fresh response to part 1 of the request, based on the correct scope of that part.
Archived snapshot
Apr 28, 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.
Merthyr Tydfil County Borough Council
- Date 23 April 2026
- Sector Local government
- Decision(s) EIR 5(1): Partly upheld The complainant submitted a two-part request for information held by Merthyr Tydfil County Borough Council (the council) about the escrow account set up to help fund the restoration works at the Ffos-y-fran former opencast coal mine site. The council initially refused the request under section 43(2) (commercial interests) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA). At internal review, the council said it also considered that it could rely on section 41 (information provided in confidence) to refuse the request. During the Commissioner’s investigation, the council revised its position. It said it now considered the EIR to be the correct access regime, and it provided the complainant with some information. The Commissioner’s decision is that the EIR is the correct access regime. He is also satisfied that the council has provided the information it held at the relevant time which answers part 2 of the request. However, the Commissioner considers that the council holds additional information within the scope of part 1 of the request. He has therefore found that the council has not complied with regulation 5(1) of the EIR in its handling of part 1. The Commissioner requires the council to take issue a fresh response to part 1 of the request, based on the correct scope of that part.
Named provisions
Mentioned entities
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.