ICO Upholds FOI Complaint Against Hackney Council

ICO Decision Notices

Filed February 27th, 2026

Detected March 6th, 2026

Summary

The UK's Information Commissioner's Office (ICO) has upheld a Freedom of Information (FOI) complaint against Hackney Council. The Council failed to correctly interpret and respond to a request for historical business rates data, breaching FOI obligations.

View original document View source feed page

What changed

The Information Commissioner's Office (ICO) has issued a decision notice upholding a complaint against the London Borough of Hackney concerning a Freedom of Information (FOI) request. The Council initially refused to provide historical business rates data, citing exemptions related to crime prevention, personal data, and confidential information, but later claimed the information was not held. The ICO found that the Council failed to interpret the request correctly and did not seek clarification as required by FOIA section 1(3), also breaching the duty to provide advice and assistance under section 16(1).

The ICO has directed Hackney Council to provide the complainant with a fresh response based on a specific interpretation of the request. This decision highlights the importance of proper request interpretation and the duty to assist requesters under FOIA for public authorities. While no penalties are mentioned, failure to comply with the ICO's directive could lead to further regulatory action.

What to do next

Review FOI request handling procedures to ensure proper interpretation and clarification are sought.
Ensure compliance with FOIA sections 1(3) and 16(1) regarding advice and assistance to requesters.

Source document (simplified)

London Borough of Hackney

Date 27 February 2026
Sector Local government
Decision(s) FOI 1: Upheld, FOI 16(1): Upheld The complainant has requested information about the historical disclosure of business rates data. The London Borough of Hackney (“the Council) initially refused the request with reliance on sections 31 (prevention of crime), 40(2)(personal data) and 41 (information provided in confidence) but amended its position at internal review, stating that the requested information was not held. During the course of the Commissioner’s investigation the complainant presented the Council with business rate data previously disclosed to them by the Council. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council did not interpret the request correctly and failed to seek clarification of the request under section 1(3)(information held/not held) of FOIA. He finds that the Council has also breached section 16(1)(advice and assistance) of FOIA. The Commissioner requires the Council to provide the complainant with a fresh response, based on the interpretation of the request given at paragraph 26 below.