MOD RAF Flight FOI Complaint, Section 10 Breach
Summary
The ICO has issued a Decision Notice finding that the Ministry of Defence breached section 10(1) of the Freedom of Information Act by failing to inform the complainant within 20 working days that it did not hold information falling within the scope of the request. The complaint concerned information about a specific RAF flight alleged to have taken place in July 2025. The Commissioner determined that on the balance of probabilities the MOD does not hold any information within scope of the request.
“the MOD breached section 10(1) as it failed to inform the complainant within 20 working days that it did not hold the requested information”
What changed
The ICO determined that while the MOD does not hold information about the alleged RAF flight (meaning the substantive FOIA 1 complaint was not upheld due to the MOD's change of position), the MOD committed a procedural breach of section 10(1) by not informing the complainant within the statutory 20-working-day period that no information was held. This is a procedural timing violation rather than a substantive finding on disclosure obligations. For public authorities handling FOI requests, this serves as a reminder that even when changing position on whether information is held, the timing obligations under section 10(1) remain in force from the date of the original request.
Archived snapshot
Apr 21, 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.
Secretary of State for Defence (Ministry of Defence)
- Date 16 April 2026
- Sector Central government
- Decision(s) FOI 1: Not upheld, FOI 10: Upheld The complainant submitted a request to the Ministry of Defence seeking information about a specific RAF flight that was alleged to have taken place in July 2025. The MOD initially responded by saying that it held information in the scope of the request but this was exempt from disclosure on the basis of sections 24 (national security) and 26 (defence) of FOIA. The MOD subsequently amended its position to state that it did not hold any information in the scope of the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that on the balance of probabilities the MOD does not hold any information falling within the scope of this request. However, the MOD breached section 10(1) as it failed to inform the complainant within 20 working days that it did not hold the requested information.
Named provisions
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.