JUDGE STEPHEN ROPERMEMBER KERRY PEPPERELLMEMBER DAVE SIVERS
Between
JOHN MITCHELLAppellantTHE INFORMATION COMMISSIONERRespondentin person for Appellantdid not appear and was not represented for RespondentDecision: The appeal is DismissedREASONS
Preliminary matters
[1]In this decision, we use the following terms to denote the meanings shown: Appellant: John Mitchell. Audit Report: The audit report relating to the Site which was disclosed to the Appellant in response to the Request, as referred to in paragraph 6. Certificates: The accreditation certificates for the Sitewhich the Appellant had been directed to in response to the Request, as referred to in paragraph 6. Commissioner: The Information Commissioner (the Respondent). Company: MVV Environment Devonport Ltd (as referred to in the Request). Council: Plymouth City Council. Decision Notice: The Decision Notice of the Commissioner dated 17 October 2025, reference IC-376516-W1F3, relating to the Request. DEKRA: DEKRA Certification GmbH. EIRs: The Environmental Information Regulations 2004. FOIA: The Freedom of Information Act 2000. Parent Company: The relevant parent company of the Company, MVV Umwelt GmbH. Relevant Standards: The ISO standards referred to in the Request (ISO 9001, ISO 14001, ISO 45001 and ISO 50001). Request: The request for information made to the Council by the Appellant dated 30 January 2025, as set out in paragraph 5. Requested Information: The information which was requested by way of the Request. Review Correspondence: The Appellant’s email to the Council dated 5 March 2025, requesting an internal review in respect of the Council’s response to the Request. Site: The Company’s site referred to in the Request (see paragraph 4).[2]Unless the context otherwise requires (or as otherwise expressly stated), references in this decision:a. to numbered paragraphs are references to paragraphs of this decision so numbered;b. to a regulation are references to the applicable regulation of the EIRs;c. to a section are references to the applicable section of FOIA; andd. to the Commissioner’s “investigation” mean the Commissioner’s investigation of the Appellant’s complaint in respect of the Council’s response to the Request, for the purposes of section 50 (as applied pursuant to regulation 18).
Introduction
[3]This was an appeal against the Decision Notice, which concluded that (on the balance of probabilities) the Council does not hold any further information within the scope of the Request and was entitled to rely upon regulation 12(4)(a) in relation to information which was not held.
Background to the appeal
[4]The background to the appeal is as follows. It may be helpful to first explain that the Requested Information relates to the Company’s ‘Energy from Waste’ plant in Devonport, Plymouth (this being the ‘site’ referred to in the Request), and that DEKRA is a company which provides testing, inspection and certification services. The Request[5]On 30 January 2025, the Appellant contacted the Council via email and requested information in the following terms: “Please supply pdf copies or access to the current site accreditation certificates to ISO 9001,14001,45001,50001 for MVV Environment Devonport Ltd as they do not appear to be available on line. Please also provide the site specific associated audits to each standard in English (pdf copies or site access) Please provide the APR for 2024 in a pdf format.”.[6]The Council responded on 4 March 2025 and disclosed an audit report and the Annual Performance Report (APR) for 2024. The audit report was dated 17 June 2024, with report number A22091518. In relation to accreditation certificates for the Site, it directed the Appellant to this information on a website. https://www.mvv.de/en/about-us/group-of-companies/mvvumwelt/certificates-documents[7]On 5 March 2025, the Appellant contacted the Council requesting an internal review in respect of the Council’s response to the Request. The Appellant identified a range of information which he considered to be within the scope of the Request but which had not been provided.[8]On 17 March 2025, the Council provided the Appellant with the outcome of its internal review. The Council stated that some of the information identified by the Appellant in his request for an internal review (a “location overview”; see paragraphs 79 and 85) was not held by it and that the other information identified by the Appellant fell outside of the scope of the Request.[9]On 4 April 2025, the Appellant complained to the Commissioner about the Council’s response to the Request.[10]The Commissioner subsequently issued the Decision Notice.
The Decision Notice
[11]The Commissioner considered that the scope of his investigation was to determine whether the Council holds any further recorded information within the scope of the Request.[12]The Commissioner determined that his investigation should be dealt with under the EIRs, on the basis that the Requested Information related to accreditation certificates and audits for the Site, being a waste management site (and accordingly that the Requested Information was likely to be information on measures affecting the environment).[13]In summary, the Commissioner concluded in the Decision Notice that:a. the Council had provided all information which it holds falling within the scope of the Request;b. the Council did not hold any audit documentation specific to the Site of the type sought by the Appellant;c. any further audit documentation, appendices or “location overview” were outside of the scope of the Request.[14]The Commissioner accordingly determined in the Decision Notice that (on the balance of probabilities) the Council had disclosed all of the information which it holds within the scope of the Request.[15]The Commissioner therefore concluded that the Council had complied with regulation 5 and that, in relation to the requested “site specific” information, it was entitled to confirm that this information was not held pursuant to regulation 12(4)(a).[16]The Decision Notice did not require the Council to take any steps.
The appeal
[17]Regulation 18 provides that the enforcement and appeals provisions of FOIA (namely Part IV, including Schedule 3, of FOIA and Part V of FOIA) apply for the purposes of the EIRs, subject to certain modifications.[18]For the reasons we have given below, this was an appeal against the Decision Notice pursuant to the EIRs, in accordance with section 57 as applied by regulation 18.
The grounds of appeal
[19]The Appellant’s position was, in essence, that the Commissioner erred in concluding in the Decision Notice that no further information was held by the Council within the scope of the Request.[20]In his grounds of appeal, the Appellant accepted that the Annual Performance Report (APR) for 2024 had been provided, but he asserted that the Council was withholding “parts 1 and 2” of the Request - namely:a. the ‘current’ ISO 9001, ISO 14001, ISO 45001 and ISO 50001 accreditation certificates for the Company covering the Site; andb. the Site-specific associated audits for each of the Relevant Standards.[21]The Appellant stated in his grounds of appeal that:a. DEKRA auditors visited the Site in April 2024, in order to conduct “pre ISO recertification accreditation audits” and accordingly Site-specific audit records must exist;b. the audit information which was provided by the Council in response to the Request was not Site-specific;c. the inspecting surveillance and internal audit information form part of the recertification process, pursuant to the Relevant Standards;d. surveillance and internal audits are reviewed annually (in contrast to the recertification process which is conducted every three years); ande. the Certificates quote a surveillance audit reference number which was six months prior to the due date of the actual recertification accreditation audits – and do not refer to each section, paragraph and clause of the Relevant Standards – and accordingly that the Certificates were clearly invalid.
The Tribunal’s powers and role
[22]The powers of the Tribunal in determining the appeal are set out in section 58 (as applied by regulation 18), as follows: “(1) If on an appeal under section 57 the Tribunal considers—(a) that the notice against which the appeal is brought is not in accordance with the law, or(b) to the extent that the notice involved an exercise of discretion by the Commissioner, that he ought to have exercised his discretion differently, the Tribunal shall allow the appeal or substitute such other notice as could have been served by the Commissioner; and in any other case the Tribunal shall dismiss the appeal. (2) On such an appeal, the Tribunal may review any finding of fact on which the notice in question was based.”.[23]In summary, therefore, the Tribunal’s remit for the purposes of the appeal was to consider whether the Decision Notice was in accordance with the law. In reaching its decision, the Tribunal may review any findings of fact on which the Decision Notice was based, and the Tribunal may come to a different decision regarding those facts. Essentially, the Tribunal is empowered to undertake a ‘full merits review’ of the appeal before it (so far as the Decision Notice is concerned).
Mode of hearing
[24]The proceedings were held by the cloud video platform. The Tribunal Panel and the Appellant joined remotely. The Tribunal was satisfied that it was fair and just to conduct the hearing in this way.[25]The Commissioner did not attend the hearing and was not represented, having previously indicated that he was content for matters to be dealt with on the papers.[26]There were no interruptions of note during the hearing.
The evidence and submissions
[27]The Tribunal read and took account of an open bundle of evidence and pleadings.[28]All of the contents of the bundle, including all of the submissions of the parties (as well as the Appellant’s submissions during the hearing) were taken into account, even if not directly referred to in this decision. The relevant statutory framework General principles
The relevant statutory framework
[29]The EIRs provide individuals with a general right of access to environmental information held by public authorities, subject to some exceptions. Regulation 5(1) provides: “…a public authority that holds environmental information shall make it available on request.”.[30]The term ‘environmental information’ is defined in regulation 2(1) which, so far as is material, states: “…any information in written, visual, aural, electronic or any other material form on—(a) the state of the elements of the environment, such as air and atmosphere, water, soil, land, landscape and natural sites including wetlands, coastal and marine areas, biological diversity and its components, including genetically modified organisms, and the interaction among these elements;(b) factors, such as substances, energy, noise, radiation or waste, including radioactive waste, emissions, discharges and other releases into the environment, affecting or likely to affect the elements of the environment referred to in (a);(c) measures (including administrative measures), such as policies, legislation, plans, programmes, environmental agreements, and activities affecting or likely to affect the elements and factors referred to in (a) and (b) as well as measures or activities designed to protect those elements…”.[31]The definition of ‘environmental information’ is to be given a broad meaning in accordance with the purpose of the underlying European Council Directive which the EIRs implement (Directive 2003/4/EC). See the Court of Justice of the European Union in Case C-316/01 Glawischnig v Bundesminister fur soziale Sicherheit und Generationen [2003] All ER (D) 145 and the case of Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy v Information Commissioner & Henney [2017] EWCA Civ 844.[32]Therefore, pursuant to regulation 5(1), a person who has made a request to a public authority for ‘environmental information’ is entitled to have that information made available to them, if it is held by the public authority. However, that entitlement is subject to the other provisions of the EIRs, including some exceptions and qualifications which may apply even if the requested environmental information is held by the public authority.[33]Requests for ‘environmental information’ are normally dealt with under the EIRs rather than FOIA, pursuant to section 39(1) (which contains an exemption to disclosure of environmental information under FOIA). Discussion and findings Scope of the appeal
Discussion and findings
[34]Some of the Appellant’s grounds of appeal and subsequent submissions addressed matters relating to the conduct of the Commissioner’s investigation, including allegations that the Commissioner had failed to follow his own documented procedures and had not taken action regarding the Appellant’s allegation that the Council had committed an offence under section 77. During the hearing, the Appellant expressed his opinion that DEKRA undertook their audits incorrectly and that he had reported them for this. He also considered that the Environment Agency was not regulating the Site properly.[35]The scope of the Tribunal’s jurisdiction is as set out in paragraph 22 (and summarised in paragraph 23) and, in essence, relates to the lawfulness of the Decision Notice. Accordingly, other issues are beyond the Tribunal’s powers to determine and fall outside of the scope of the appeal.[36]Therefore the Tribunal’s jurisdiction (and consequently the scope of the appeal) does not extend to matters regarding the conduct of the Commissioner’s investigation, or the other matters we have referred to in paragraph 34. It is therefore outside of our remit to consider, or make any finding in respect of, such matters - and accordingly we have not addressed below any of the Appellant’s grounds of appeal or other submissions insofar as they relate to those matters.[37]However, as we have noted, the Tribunal may review any relevant findings of fact in the Decision Notice and may come to a different decision regarding those facts. Essentially, the Tribunal is empowered to undertake a ‘full merits review’ of the appeal before it (so far as the Decision Notice is concerned). That is what we have done.[38]Some of the Appellant’s grounds of appeal and subsequent submissions also referred to another decision of the First-tier Tribunal regarding a previous request for information made by the Appellant to the Council. A copy of that decision, as well as other material relating to it, were included in the bundle in the present appeal.[39]It is important to note that the Tribunal must look independently at each case before it, based on the specific facts and issues in that case, regardless of the view reached by the First-tier Tribunal in other cases. Whilst we have taken account of the Appellant’s arguments regarding the other decision of the First-tier Tribunal, we have also been mindful that other First-tier Tribunal decisions are not binding on us and, more importantly, that each such decision turns on its own facts and the particular issues which are relevant in that case.[40]We should perhaps also comment that the Tribunal’s role is not to determine whether information should exist or should be held by the Council, but whether or not (on the balance of probabilities; see paragraph 48) it is held by the Council for the purposes of the EIRs.[41]Equally, it is not for the Tribunal to determine whether or not any audit process for the Company was undertaken or was undertaken adequately, or whether or not the information disclosed by the Council demonstrates compliance with the Relevant Standards.[42]The central issue before us was whether (on the balance of probabilities) the Council holds further information falling within the scope of the Request.
Application of the EIRs
[43]We start by addressing whether the EIRs applied to the Request. This is because it is important to ensure that the correct regime (FOIA or the EIRs) is identified for the purposes of our decision.[44]As we have noted, theCommissioner determined that the EIRs applied, on the basis that the Requested Information related to accreditation certificates and audits for the Site, being a waste management site (and accordingly that the Requested Information was likely to be information on measures affecting the environment).[45]We find that the Request sought ‘environmental information’ for the purposes of the definition of ‘environmental information’ in regulation 2(1). We agree with the Commissioner’s view that Requested Information sought accreditation certificates and audits (as well as an Annual Performance Report) for a waste management site. This is based on our understanding of the documentation (as well as information provided in the Commissioner’s response to the appeal) that the activities at the Site involve generating electricity and heat from waste which is not recycled or composted. We therefore consider that the Requested Information relates to measures or activities designed to protect the elements of the environment (as referred to in regulation 2(1), set out in paragraph 30). Also, as we noted in paragraph 31, the definition of ‘environmental information’ is to be given a broad meaning.[46]Consequently, we find that the EIRs apply to the Request and that the Commissioner was correct to issue the Decision Notice under the EIRs.[47]For convenience, we use the term “information” below to refer (where the context permits) to environmental information within the scope of the EIRs. Whether the Council had disclosed all of the information within the scope of
The Request
[48]We should note that, notwithstanding regulation 5(1), it is not the role of either the Commissioner or the Tribunal to determine conclusively (or, in other words, with certainty) whether or not information is actually held by a public authority for the purposes of that regulation. The Decision Notice referred to the Commissioner reaching his conclusion “on the balance of probabilities”. The ‘balance of probabilities’ is the correct legal test to be applied - in simple terms, this means that something is more likely than not to be the case. Accordingly, in determining whether or not information is held on the balance of probabilities, a decision is often reached based on an assessment of the adequacy of the public authority’s searches for the information (where relevant) and any other reasons explaining why the information is not held.[49]It may be helpful to set out what aspects of the Requested Information were in issue in the appeal. As referred to in paragraph 20, the information in dispute was:a. the ‘current’ ISO 9001, ISO 14001, ISO 45001 and ISO 50001 accreditation certificates for the Company covering the Site; andb. the Site-specific associated audits for each such ISO standard.[50]In considering whether or not, on the balance of probabilities, any further information is held by the Council within the scope of the Request, we have taken into account the various specific points stated by the Appellant in his grounds of appeal. We address these below (but not in the same order these were set out above), using summary subheadings reflecting those points for ease of reference. Annual reviews[51]The Appellant stated that surveillance and internal audits are reviewed annually (in contrast to the recertification process which is conducted every three years).[52]The Council informed the Commissioner that once an organisation obtains certification under any one of the Relevant Standards then such certification lasts for three years. The Commissioner referred to the Certificates in this regard.[53]Having examined the Certificates, we find that they indicate the Parent Company’s compliance with the Relevant Standards and that the certification period covered June 2023 to June 2026. By way of example, one of the Certificates (also contained in the bundle) in relation to ISO 9001:2015 was in the name of the Parent Company. That certificate contained the following details:
“Certificate registration no.: 120623324 Validity of previous certificate: 2023-06-26 Certificate valid from: 2023-06-27 Certificate valid to: 2026-06-26”
. Validity of previous certificate: 2023-06-26
Certificate valid from: 2023-06-27
[54]The Commissioner also submitted that, in the interim years between certification, there are annual surveillance audits (which the Commissioner stated are, in effect, less thorough interim audits). The Commissioner stated that the Appellant was now in possession of the Audit Report and that it would have been the most up-to-date audit at the time of the Request.[55]We understand that the Audit Report is a surveillance audit report which assessed the operations at the Site to be managed in conformity with the Relevant Standards. The Appellant disputed this, but there was no evidence before us to suggest otherwise and it appeared to us that that was indeed the purpose of the Audit Report.[56]The Appellant asserted that there was a different surveillance report which must be held by the Council. When asked during the hearing why he thought that the Council held another surveillance report, the Appellant responded that he did not think, but rather knew, that the Council held it. He stated that this was because of relevant statutory requirements, including those necessary for the Site to function and in respect of the process for recertification of the Relevant Standards. We consider that this view was therefore based on the Appellant’s belief, rather than any actual knowledge, of the Council holding any other report.[57]We also observe, incidentally (and linked to our comments in paragraph 40), that a legal requirement to hold any particular document does not necessarily mean that a document is actually held by a public authority for the purposes of the EIRs or FOIA (because a public authority may not be in compliance with that requirement). Consequently, even if the Appellant is correct about the statutory requirements he referred to (which we make no finding on), it does not follow that the Council must actually hold the documents he considered should be held pursuant to a statutory duty.[58]Each of the Certificates had text which stated “The conformity was adduced with audit report no. A22091518”. Audit report number A22091518 is a reference to the Audit Report, as we noted in paragraph 6 (see also our comments at paragraph 73).[59]Also, as the Audit Report was dated 17 June 2024, we consider that it would have been the most up-to-date audit at the time of the Request (on 30 January 2025).[60]In our view, the disclosed information we have referred to above is therefore consistent with the Appellant’s assertions that the recertification process is conducted every three years but that there are annual surveillance/audits. Invalid accreditation certificates[61]The Appellant asserted that the Certificates quote a surveillance audit reference number which was six months prior to the due date of the actual recertification accreditation audits – and do not refer to each section, paragraph and clause of the Relevant Standards – and accordingly that the Certificates were clearly invalid.[62]We are not persuaded by the Appellant’s arguments that the Certificates are invalid because they do not refer to each section, paragraph and clause of the Relevant Standards. As we have noted, the Certificates indicate the Parent Company’s compliance with the Relevant Standards, but it is not the role of the Tribunal to verify whether or not the information disclosed by the Council actually demonstrates compliance with the Relevant Standards. We consider that there is no reason to suspect that further information may be held by the Council based on the Appellant’s view that the Certificates should quote sections, paragraphs and clauses of the Relevant Standards.[63]The Appellant made another point regarding the Audit Report, which was that it is dated 17 June 2024 and related to a surveillance audit conducted between 9 and 19 April 2024 and accordingly that it appeared to post-date the Certificates (which covered the period commencing in June 2023).[64]The Council’s explanation of this was that it is a practice of DEKRA’s to use the same audit report number on successive audit reports relating to a particular certificate. In support of this, the Council stated that it had reviewed previous audit reports from DEKRA. In our view, this is a plausible explanation and we reiterate that it is not the role of the Tribunal to verify whether or not the information disclosed by the Council actually demonstrates compliance with the Relevant Standards, or whether audits were correctly conducted, and there was no evidence before us which would give reason to doubt that explanation.[65]We also note that the Certificates (whilst stating the Parent Company’s name on the first page) have a second page annex which refers to the sites covered. The first page of each of the Certificates refers to this by stating “(sites see annex)”. The annex to each of the Certificates specifies the Company’s name and the Site.[66]The Appellant also referred to copies of accreditation certificates for the Site which he had received following a previous request for information, which covered the period of 26 November 2021 to 25 November 2024. The Appellant asserted that this was another reason why the Certificates were invalid, as they were inconsistent with those dates.[67]However, our examination of those other accreditation certificates showed that they covered different activities to those covered by the Certificates. The former related to ISO certification for (amongst other things) “Services for companies in the sectors of waste management, energy supplies and renewable energy”, whereas in contrast the Certificates additionally covered: “Operation and maintenance of a waste incineration plant for the generation and supply of electrical energy and steam” and “Acquisition and processing of waste wood and biomass, operation and maintenance of a biomass power plant for the generation and supply of electrical energy, and marketing of residual materials”.[68]Accordingly, we do not accept the Appellant’s assertion that the alleged inconsistencies in those other accreditation certificates indicate that the Certificates were invalid. Audit information not Site-specific[69]The Appellant contended that the audit information which was provided by the Council in response to the Request (the Audit Report) was not Site-specific. A related point made by the Appellant was that DEKRA auditors visited the Site in April 2024, in order to conduct “pre ISO recertification accreditation audits” and accordingly Site-specific audit records must exist.[70]Regarding the Appellant’s second point, about auditors visiting the Site in April 2024, the Commissioner stated in his response to the appeal that he understood the Appellant to be referring to the Council’s email communication of 3 April 2025 where it was said that “…auditors did visit the Devonport facility for the purposes of the April 2024 surveillance audit…”.[71]We agree that that would appear to be the basis on which the Appellant was referring to auditors visiting the Site in April 2024 for the purposes of conducting an audit ahead of the recertification for the Relevant Standards. We also agree with the Commissioner that the audit in question is plainly the ‘surveillance audit’ which resulted in the Audit Report (which stated, as we have noted, that the audit took place in April 2024). The Audit Report indicated that the Company’s operations were included in the audit.[72]In respect of the Appellant’s contention that the Audit Report was not Site-specific, the Council stated that “the Company’s accreditation forms part of a “matrix certification system” managed by the Parent Company and that the auditor selects different sites to audit (and hence not necessarily the Site) but that the recertification applies to all sites which are part of the matrix.[73]The first page of the Audit Report specified the name of the Parent Company and it referred to each of the Relevant Standards. As we have noted, the Audit Report had the reference number A22091518, which was in turn referred to in the Certificates, signifying that the conformity with the Relevant Standards was adduced with the Audit Report.[74]We find the above to be consistent with the Council’s explanation regarding the “matrix certification system”. Accordingly, we find that the Audit Report comprises the relevant information held by the Council within the scope of the part of the Request seeking “the site specific associated audits” for the Relevant Standards. Likewise, we conclude (on the balance of probabilities) that there is no further information falling within the scope of that part of the Request. Information forming part of the recertification process[75]The Appellant’s point in his grounds of appeal, regarding the inspecting surveillance and internal audit information forming part of the recertification process, related to issues he raised in the Review Correspondence.[76]In the Review Correspondence, the Appellant stated that, during the audit, random samples were taken to check how the requirements of the management system documentation and the corresponding regulations were implemented in practice and whether they are effective. He stated that deviations and recommendations were described in the appendices to the Audit Report. He went on to state that no such appendices were provided which were specific to the Site and the Company.[77]The Appellant also stated in the Review Correspondence that the audit documentation forms the basis for the audit assessment which had been performed and that this documentation had not been provided which was specific to the Site and the Company. The documentation he referred to was: “audit report, checklists, project checklist, audit plan, list of participants, location overview, changes in locations, ordering certificates, conformity verifications, major nonconformity / minor nonconformity”.[78]In effect, the Appellant’s position was that the Council’s response to the Request had not disclosed the information set out above (the appendices referred to in paragraph 76 and the documentation referred to in paragraph 77).[79]The documentation referred to in paragraph 77 was actually specified in the introduction at section 1 of the Audit Report. That stated: “The audit documentation (audit report, checklists, project checklist, audit plan, list of participants, location overview, changes in locations, ordering certificates, conformity verifications, major nonconformity/minor nonconformity) forms the basis for the audit assessment which has been performed”.[80]As noted in paragraphs 29 and 31 of the Decision Notice, the Council’s position was (in essence) that the Request only sought the Audit Report and it considered that seeking the additional documentation referred to was a new, separate request for information.[81]We consider that it is evident from the wording we have quoted from section 1 of the Audit Report that the audit which was undertaken, which resulted in the Audit Report, was based on such documentation. However, we find that the Audit Report itself is clearly separate to and distinct from such documentation.[82]Accordingly, we agree with the Council’s position that such additional documentation was not part of the Request. The Council also stated (as recorded in paragraph 34 of the Decision Notice) that it does not hold such additional documentation. However, we have not found it necessary to consider whether or not the Council does hold such additional documentation. In our view, the Request was clear and unequivocal in seeking a copy of the “audits” applicable to the Relevant Standards. As we have noted, we find that the Audit Report is the relevant information which was sought by way of the relevant part of the Request. The Request did not ask for copies of additional documentation referred to within any audit report, or documentation upon which the audit was based.[83]In our view, the Appellant’s expression of dissatisfaction (in the Review Correspondence) arose from a misunderstanding of the scope of the Request, which sought copies of the audits and not such additional documents.[84]For the above reasons, we therefore find that such additional documentation was not within the scope of the Request. Accordingly, we agree with the Commissioner’s conclusion in the Decision Notice that the Council was under no obligation to provide such additional documentation.[85]In respect of the appendices which the Appellant referred to, the Audit Report did contain a section entitled “Appendix”. That section, however, merely stated: “Location overview” and no further information was set out there.[86]The Decision Notice recorded the Council’s explanation regarding enquiries it had made about the appendix and the Council’s position that it was not provided with an appendix (but only the Audit Report) and accordingly that this was not held by it for the purposes of the Request.[87]We accept that the wording in the section “Appendix” in the Audit Report appears to be inconsistent with the reference to the “appendices” in section 1 of the Audit Report, which states:
“Main deviation, minor deviation and recommendations are described in the appendices.”
. However, as we have noted, it was not for the Tribunal to consider any inaccuracies or deficiencies in the Requested Information and there was no other evidence before us to suggest that there was any additional documentation comprising the appendices. In our view, the section with the heading “Appendix” was the appendices referred to, even if that appeared to be erroneous.[88]In summary, on the balance of probabilities, we conclude that the Council does not hold any further information regarding the ‘appendices’ referred to in the Audit Report. Summary[89]For all of the above reasons, we conclude that the Council does not (on the balance of probabilities) hold any further information within the scope of the Request.
Final conclusions
[90]For all of the reasons we have given, we find that the Commissioner was correct to conclude, in the Decision Notice, that (on the balance of probabilities) the Council has provided all the information which it holds within the scope of the Request.[91]We therefore dismiss the appeal. Signed: Stephen Roper Date: 16 July 2026 92. Judge of the First-tier Tribunal