First-tier Tribunal (General Regulatory Chamber)

FT/EA/2024/0464 - [2025] UKFTT 01131 (GRC)

Fecha: 29-Sep-2025

Decision notice

Decision notice

29.

The Commissioner’s decision was that the Council has made all relevant information available to the Appellant and has complied with regulation 5(1) of the EIR. He does not require any further steps to be taken.

30.

The Commissioner stated that the scope of his investigation was “whether the Council holds information falling within the scope of the 5 June 2023 request, which has not already been disclosed or made available to the complainant”.

31.

The Commissioner went on to state that, where there is some dispute between whether the public authority holds additional relevant information, the Commissioner “must decide whether, on the balance of probabilities, a public authority hold any information which falls within the scope of the request (or was held at the time of the request)".

32.

In summary, the reasons for the Commissioner’s decision were:

The Council had disclosed information in respect of the Appellant’s incident, both in respect of a Subject Access Request and other information following the latter EIR request. In addition, the Council notified the Appellant that he could inspect CCTV footage relating to the incident, and the Appellant did so on 05 July 2023;

The Appellant had acknowledged that he had received the footage of how the bin lid came to be in the road;

The Commissioner concluded that there was no evidence available to him that suggested that further recorded information was held by the Council which would fall within the scope of the request;

The Commissioner was therefore satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that all information had been provided to the Appellant, and that the Council had therefore complied with regulation 5(1) of the EIR in respect of this request;

Furthermore, the Commissioner did not find any evidence available to him to suggest that any further information was being deliberately withheld as was asserted by the Appellant, and therefore had not undertaken a criminal investigation pursuant to regulation 19 of the EIR in this case.