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

He had correctly applied the civil standard in considering whether the Council held any further information falling within the scope of the request. He found that the representations provided by the Council, particularly in relation to the searches undertaken by the Council and the explanations provided by them, sufficiently explained why it did not hold any further recorded information within the scope of the request than that which had been provided to the Appellant;

He had not seen any evidence which suggested that the Council had dishonestly informed him about the searches that it had conducted;

The Commissioner considered that the Appellant’s belief that the Commissioner had made his decision based on the information held by the Council more latterly rather than at the date of the request to be incorrect. The Commissioner considered that “the Council has disclosed all the recorded information it holds that is within the scope at the time of the Appellant’s Request on 5 June 2023”.

The Commissioner asserted that it was outside the scope of his investigation to determine whether there had been a breach of regulation 19 EIR, and it was also outside of the scope of the Tribunal’s jurisdiction;

Whilst the Appellant referred to failings in the Commissioner’s investigation, this was not a valid ground of appeal;

The Commissioner concluded by stating “the Commissioner resists this appeal and would submit that he was correct to conclude, on the balance of probabilities, that no further information is held by the Council”.