Manchester City Council

• Date 4 March 2026
• Sector Local government
• Decision(s) FOI 1: Not upheld, FOI 3: Upheld, FOI 38: Upheld, FOI 40: Upheld The complainant made a request for information relating to the cancellation and subsequent rescheduling by Home MCR of the Voices of Resilience event in April 2024 to Manchester City Council (“The Council”). The Council disclosed two emails titled ‘Email 1’ and ‘Email 2’ with redactions applied under section 40(2) of FOIA. The Council disclosed 13 emails and one attachment with some redactions also made under section 40(2) of FOIA. The Council provided a copy of a further attachment but stated that it had received this document already redacted and that it did not hold an unredacted version. The Council disclosed one email attachment in full, titled ‘Email 1 attachment 1’. The Council initially withheld five documents in full under section 24 and 38 of FOIA. During the course of the Commissioner’s investigation, the Council revised its position and disclosed one document titled ‘RESTRI1’ with some redaction applied under section 38(1)(b) and section 40(2) of FOIA. The Council stated that the remaining four documents were considered out of scope of the request. The Council disclosed a further email to the complainant titled ‘Out of scope 15 17.04.24’ with some redactions applied under section 40(2) of FOIA. The Council identified 15 emails but stated that these were not held for its own purposes and fell outside the definition of information held for the purposes of FOIA under section 3(2). The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council was entitled to rely on section 40(2) of FOIA to the redacted information contained within ‘Email 1’, the 13 emails, and the document titled ‘Email 1 attachment 3’. The Commissioner has determined that the Council was not entitled to rely on section 40(2) to redact the email sent to ticket holders contained in the document ‘Email 2’ but was entitled to rely on section 40(2) to the remaining redactions. The Commissioner has also determined that the Council was entitled to withhold some information contained within the document titled ‘RESTRI1’ under section 40(2) of FOIA. In regards to the remaining four documents which the Council stated were out of scope, the Commissioner considers that these documents were in scope of the request. However he has determined that the Council was entitled to rely on section 38(1)(b) of FOIA to withhold them. The Commissioner has determined that 15 emails were not held by the Council for the purposes of FOIA. The Commissioner finds a breach of section 1(1)(b) of FOIA, as the Council failed to disclose all the information in scope held at the time the request was made. The Commissioner has also found, based on the balance of probabilities, the Council has not conducted adequate searches for the requested information. The Commissioner therefore requires the Council to conduct fresh searches for the requested information and disclose the email sent to ticket holders contained in the document ‘Email 2'.