Hearing Heard on: 17 February 2026Date 5 August 2026
Information Rights
Heard by Cloud Video Platform
Before
JUDGE STEPHEN ROPERMEMBER KATE GRIMLEY-EVANSMEMBER DR. PHEBE MANN
Between
BOREHAM PARISH COUNCILAppellantTHE INFORMATION COMMISSIONERRespondentLisa Miller (Chair), Gill Dickson (Vice Chair) and Cllr James Raven for Appellantdid not appear and was not represented for RespondentDecision: The appeal is Allowed in partSubstituted Decision Notice:The Tribunal’s Decision Notice in case reference FT/EA/2025/0116, set out below, is substituted for Information Commissioner’s Decision Notice, reference IC-323744-H0S6, dated 31 January 2025, with regard to the request for information made to Boreham Parish Council dated 15 July 2 024.Substituted Decision Notice
[1]On the balance of probabilities, Boreham Parish Council (the “Council”) has disclosed all of the information it holds within the scope of parts 4 and 5 of the request for information made to it dated 15 July 2024 (the Request”).[2]On the balance of probabilities, the Council has not disclosed all of the information it holds within the scope of part 6 of the Request.[3]The Council must make a fresh response to part 6 of the Request.[4]The fresh response must disclose the information which the Council holds within the scope of part 6 of the Request, or claim any relevant exemptions to disclosure pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the “Act”).[5]The Council must issue the fresh response within 35 days of this decision being sent to it, or (if there is an application to appeal this decision) within 28 days after being notified of an unsuccessful outcome to such application or any resulting appeal.[6]The fresh response will be subject to the rights given under section 50 of the Act to make a new complaint to the Information Commissioner.[7]Failure to comply with this decision may result in the Tribunal making written certification of this fact pursuant to section 61 of the Act and may be dealt with as a contempt of court. REASONS
Preliminary matters
[1]In this decision, we use the following terms to denote the meanings shown: Commissioner: The Information Commissioner (the Respondent). Council: Boreham Parish Council (the Appellant). Decision Notice: The Decision Notice of the Commissioner dated 31 January 2025, reference IC-323744-H0S6, relating to the Request. Dog Show: The dog show event held on the Recreation Ground on 1 April 2024 (referred to in paragraph 11.c). Dog Trainer: The owner or operator of the Dog Training Business. Dog Training Business: The dog training business which was referred to in the Request. FOIA: The Freedom of Information Act 2000. Minutes: The Council minutes of 8 April 2024 (referred to in paragraph 11.c). Part 4: Part 4 of the Request. Part 5: Part 5 of the Request. Part 6: Part 6 of the Request. Recreation Ground: The recreation ground referred to in the Request. Request: The request for information made to the Council by the Requestor dated 15 July 2024, as set out in paragraph 5. Requestor: The individual who made the Request.[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 section are references to the applicable section of FOIA; andc. to the Commissioner’s “investigation” mean the Commissioner’s investigation of the Requestor’s complaint in respect of the Council’s response to the Request, for the purposes of section 50.
Introduction
[3]This was an appeal against the Decision Notice, which concluded that (on the balance of probabilities) the Council had not disclosed all of the information it holds within the scope of Part 4, Part 5 and Part 6.
Background to the appeal
[4]The background to the appeal is as follows.
The Request
[5]On 15 July 2024, the Requestor contacted the Council via email and requested information in the following terms: “1. Could you please tell me who and by what means my letter dated 29 February 2024 to Boreham Parish Council was disclosed to [name redacted]. 2. Could you please provide me with a copy of the terms and conditions pertaining to the current Annual Licence between yourselves and users of the Recreation Ground that are charged a fee, including Registered Charities, Clubs and Businesses. 3. Could you please confirm the dates of the Annual Licences pertaining to [dog training business – name redacted] since the commencement of their business activities on the Recreation Ground. 4. Could you please tell me what provision has Boreham Parish Council made to ensure that the public using the Recreation Ground are aware of [dog training business – name redacted] activities at varying times. 5. Could you please provide me with copies of all Risk Assessments held by Boreham Council in relation to [dog training business – name redacted]. This is to include all events organised by them or that they have been in attendance at, that have taken place on the Recreation Ground from July 2023 to date. 6. Could you please let me know how many complaints Boreham Parish Council have received pertaining to [dog training business – name redacted] since the commencement of its business on the Recreation Ground.”.[6]The Council responded on 18 July 2024. It refused to provide the information requested in part one of the Request, stating that it was unable to confirm who disclosed the letter to the person named in the Request “due to the Data Protection Act”.[7]The Council provided some information in respect of parts two, three and four of the Request.[8]Regarding the information requested in Part 5, the Council stated: “The Risk Assessments are documents provided by the Licensee, contain personal data and therefore this request should be directed to [the Dog Training Business].”.[9]In response to Part 6, the Council stated: “The Parish Council has received one other formal complaint since March 2022.”.[10]On 27 July 2024, the Requestor contacted the Council requesting an internal review in respect of the Council’s response to the Request. The Requestor stated that they were unhappy with the Council's response to parts one, four, five and six of the Request. Regarding Part 6, the Requestor stated that they believed more complaints had been received, on the basis that some Council Minutes had referred to a few complaints having been received.[11]On 30 July 2024, the Council provided the Requestor with the outcome of its internal review, maintaining its previous position. The Council stated:a. that it was satisfied that it had provided all information held within the scope of Part 4;b. regarding Part 5: “The risk assessments that you have asked for contain personal information. They are documents received from a third party that the Parish Council has no authority to share with another third party or indeed authority to alter in any way to redact personal information. The Parish Council are therefore exempt under Section 40 of the FOIA - personal information.”;c. that it was satisfied that it had provided all information held within the scope of Part 6. It further stated: “The Minute item you are referring to in the Minutes dated 8th April 2024 whereby it states "a few complaints had been received" was concerning the parking problems around the village caused by attendees at a Dog Show Event held on the Recreation Ground on 1s April 2024 and were not complaints regarding the [Dog Training Business] conducting [its] business on the Recreation Ground.”.[12]On 3 August 2024, the Requestor complained to the Commissioner about the Council’s response to the Request.[13]During the course of the Commissioner’s investigation, following some guidance given to the Council by the Commissioner, the Council disclosed some further information to the Requestor (on 28 November 2024) within the scope of the Request – namely, an appendix to the terms of conditions of use for users of the Recreation Ground (relating to Part 4) and a partially redacted copy of risk assessments for the Dog Training Business (relating to Part 5).[14]The Commissioner subsequently issued the Decision Notice.
The Decision Notice
[15]Following the further disclosure of some of the requested information as referred to in paragraph 13, the Requestor advised the Commissioner that they considered that the Council held further information within the scope of Part 4, Part 5 and Part 6.[16]The Commissioner accordingly considered that the scope of his investigation was to determine whether, on the balance of probabilities, the Council holds any further information within the scope of Part 4, Part 5 or Part 6 (beyond that which it had already disclosed). The Decision Notice therefore set out the Commissioner’s findings in that regard. The Commissioner commented that the Requestor had not complained about the partial redaction of the risk assessments disclosed in respect of Part 5 and therefore that the Decision Notice did not address whether the Council was entitled to withhold that redacted information.[17]The Decision Notice recorded that the Requestor had provided the following explanation regarding what further information they believed the Council holds: “1. The response given by way of providing a copy of their current standard non-specific Terms Conditions does not answer point 4 of my original FOI request. There has been no response provided as to what provision, if any, Boreham Parish Council has made to ensure members of the public using the Recreation Ground are aware of [name of dog training business redacted] at varying times. The reference to this in the Terms Conditions in relation to using high visibility clothing, cones and signage which is encouraged but not enforced does not answer my question specifically and in full. What have Boreham Parish Council put in place so the public are aware what is taking place and on what days and times is the detail I am seeking clarification on from Boreham Parish Council. 2. Boreham Parish Council have provided one Risk Assessment (being one of the 2 recent disclosures) carried out the month before commencement of any dog training activities by [name of dog training business redacted] nearly 3 years ago. They have failed to provide or confirm whether there have been any further risk assessments since that time and to provide or confirm whether risk assessments have been carried out for any separate dog shows/ event days which have taken place since February 2022. This being point 5 of my original FOI request. 3. Boreham Parish Council responded to say they had received one formal complaint. This does not fully answer point 6 of my original FOI request, where I have asked how many complaints. They have referenced in their Minutes of the Boreham Parish Council Meeting held on 8th April 2024, section 24/160, Councillors Reports, under h), third point down, they have received a few complaints. So they are aware of more than one complaint and have failed to disclose this to me.”.[18]The Decision Notice also recorded that, in respect of the Commissioner’s investigation:a. the Commissioner asked the Council to provide details of the searches it has carried out to identify information held within Part 4, Part 5 and Part 6 and to comment on the Requestor’s grounds (set out above) for believing that further information is held;b. the Commissioner also requested further information from the Council regarding the additional complaints referred to within the scope of Part 6, in order to determine whether the Council had correctly identified all of the information falling within that scope;c. the Council declined to provide any meaningful information about the searches it has carried out and did not comment on the Requestor’s reasons for believing further information is held within the scope of Part 4 and Part 5;d. the Council did provide some responses to the Commissioner’s questions regarding Part 6 (see below).[19]The Commissioner determined that, in the absence of any relevant submissions from the Council, the Commissioner was not satisfied that (on the balance of probabilities) the Council had disclosed all of the information which it holds within the scope of Part 4 and Part 5.[20]Regarding Part 6, the Decision Notice recorded that:a. the Commissioner had explained to the Council that his view was that if the Dog Show was organised by the Dog Training Business, then complaints about parking relating to the Dog Show would be likely to be within the scope of Part 6;b. the Council first stated to the Commissioner that the Council had received two formal complaints about the Dog Training Business conducting its business on the Recreation Ground;c. the Council had also stated to the Commissioner that other complaints which the Requestor had referred to were not complaints about the Dog Training Business but instead were complaints about the parking of cars by the general public on the public highway and that there was no evidence that the cars were attending the Dog Show;d. the Commissioner considered that the above contradicted the position given by the Council in the outcome of its internal review dated 30 July 2024 (set out in paragraph 11.c), which had referred to the parking complaints being linked to the Dog Show;e. the Commissioner therefore asked the Council to confirm whether the Dog Show was organised by the Dog Training Business and whether the complaints relating to parking on that date mentioned the Dog Show; andf. the Council confirmed both of those points.[21]The Decision Notice further recorded, in respect of Part 6, that:a. the Council provided the following extract from the Minutes: “Public Participation Session There were members of the public present raising their concerns about the Dog Show that took place on Monday 1st April, where parking of vehicles caused huge disruptions around the village. Those residents have emailed their complaints, which the parish council will respond back to in due course.”.b. the Council also provided a copy of the email, referred to in the Minutes, which was sent in response to the parking complaints, which the Commissioner stated specifically names the Dog Show as the cause of the parking issue and also names the Dog Training Business as the organiser of the Dog Show.[22]The Commissioner considered that the Council had changed its position (in its response referred to in paragraph 20.b) from that in its internal review (referred to in paragraph 11.c). Whilst the Council stated that it had not changed its position, the Commissioner’s view remained that those two positions contradicted each other and he concluded that the complaints related to the Dog Show.[23]The Commissioner considered that complaints about the Dog Show fell within the definition of complaints “pertaining to” the Dog Training Business, as it was the organiser of the Dog Show (and the Commissioner noted that the email response to the parking complaintsalso specifically mentioned the Dog Training Business).[24]The Commissioner therefore decided that complaints which the Council had previously acknowledged were in relation to parking issues caused by the Dog Show organised by the Dog Training Business were within the scope of Part 6.[25]The Decision Notice required the Council to:a. carry out further searches designed to identify any further information held within Part 4 and Part 5 and issue a fresh response to the Requestor; andb. disclose the total number of complaints it had received within the scope of Part 6, including those in relation parking issues caused by the Dog Show. The appeal The grounds of appeal[26]So far as relevant for the purposes of the appeal, the Council’s grounds of appeal simply stated that it genuinely believed that it had supplied as much information as it could.
The Commissioner’s response
[27]The material aspects of the Commissioner’s response to the appeal were that the Council’s grounds of appeal did not challenge the material findings in the Decision Notice and did not identify any error of law or incorrect exercise of the Commissioner’s discretion.
The Tribunal’s powers and role
[28]The powers of the Tribunal in determining the appeal are set out in section 58, 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.”.[29]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’s role is to undertake a ‘full merits review’ of the appeal before it (so far as the Decision Notice is concerned).
Mode of hearing
[30]The proceedings were held by the cloud video platform. The Tribunal Panel and the Council’s representatives joined remotely. The Tribunal was satisfied that it was fair and just to conduct the hearing in this way. There were no interruptions of note during the hearing.[31]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.
The evidence and submissions
[32]The Tribunal read and took account of an open bundle of evidence and pleadings.[33]All of the contents of the bundle, including all of the submissions of the parties (as well as the Council’s evidence and 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
[34]Section 1(1) provides individuals with a general right of access to information held by public authorities. It provides: “Any person making a request for information to a public authority is entitled—(a) to be informed in writing by the public authority whether it holds information of the description specified in the request, and(b) if that is the case, to have that information communicated to him.”.[35]In essence, under section 1(1), a person who has requested information from a public authority is entitled to be informed in writing whether it holds that information. If the public authority does hold the requested information, that person is entitled to have that information communicated to them. However, those entitlements are subject to the other provisions of FOIA, including some exemptions and qualifications which may apply even if the requested information is held by the public authority (but those are not relevant for current purposes). Discussion and findings The issues in
The appeal
[36]Given the Tribunal’s remit we have referred to, the issues before us were whether the Commissioner was correct to conclude, in the Decision Notice that (in essence):a. on the balance of probabilities, the Council had not disclosed all of the information which it holds within the scope of Part 4 and Part 5;b. the Council had not disclosed the total number of complaints it had received within the scope of Part 6.[37]We should note that, notwithstanding section 1(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 section. 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.[38]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. Equally, it is not for the Tribunal to determine whether or not any of the Council’s record keeping or risk assessments are complete, adequate or in compliance with any legal requirements. Rather, our role is to determine whether or not (on the balance of probabilities) any further information is held by the Council within the scope of Part 4, Part 5 or Part 6 (or whether the Council correctly responded to Part 6).
Whether the Council had disclosed all of the information within the scope of Part 4
[39]The information which was disclosed by the Council in response to Part 4 comprised a copy of its current standard ‘terms and conditions’ and a ‘licence’.[40]The Council confirmed during the hearing that the ‘terms and conditions’ document was relevant specifically to the Dog Show and that the ‘licence’ was applicable to the operation of the Dog Training Business generally. Both covered operation on the Recreation Ground, but the ‘licence’ related to only a part of the Recreation Ground whereas the ‘terms and conditions’ applicable to the Dog Show covered the whole site.[41]The Requestor’s position was that the information disclosed by the Council in respect of Part 4 did not answer the question they posed in Part 4. The Requestor noted that there were references in the documents about using high visibility clothing, cones and signage. However, the Requestor considered that this information did not answer Part 4 specifically and in full, and that there must be further information regarding arrangements made to ensure that members of the public are given notice of the presence of the Dog Training Business using the Recreation Ground at relevant times.[42]In correspondence with the Commissioner, the Requestor stated as follows: “The documentation they have disclosed to me thus far only sets out advisory notes to the licence holder. I am trying to ascertain from BPC what is actually in place when the wearing of a high vis vest is not adopted by [the Dog Training Business] and also the use of cones alone does not provide a physical enclosure around an area of use to prevent people and/or animals from entering.”.[43]Therefore the Requestor considered that the Council had not responded fully to Part 4 on the basis that the Council had not given them the information they were seeking as outlined above.[44]The Council’s position was that all information held by it relevant to Part 4 had been disclosed and that the applicable information was contained within the ‘licence’ and the ‘terms and conditions’ documentation which were disclosed in response to Part 4.[45]We questioned the Council during the hearing about the searches which it had undertaken. The Council stated that searches had not been done on computers using relevant search terms etc but it considered that this was not necessary, based on its staff’s knowledge that the only relevant documentation was that which had been disclosed. Essentially, the Council’s evidence was that there were no other records held anywhere which were relevant to the Dog Training Business.[46]We accept that the disclosed documentation contained the provisions referred to above regarding visibility measures, signage, cones and related arrangements. Whilst the Requestor remained dissatisfied with the adequacy of those arrangements, that of itself does not indicate that further recorded information must be held by the Council.[47]The Council confirmed during the hearing that the measures referred to in the documentation which had been disclosed were all of the relevant measures applicable to the questions raised in Part 4.[48]In short, therefore, the Council’s position was simply that, in answer to Part 4, the relevant terms within the disclosed documentation were the only provision it made and no other relevant measures were put in place by it.[49]We consider that the Council could have made that position clearer to the Requestor in responding to the Request. However, for the reasons given, we conclude that (on the balance of probabilities) the Council has disclosed all the information which it holds within the scope of Part 4.
Whether the Council had disclosed all of the information within the scope of Part 5
[50]The information which was disclosed by the Council in response to Part 5 comprised two risk assessments relating to the Dog Training Business. One was dated February 2022 and one was dated July 2024.[51]The Requestor contended that additional risk assessments should exist and ought to have been held by the Council. They argued that the Council had not confirmed whether there have been any subsequent risk assessments or whether risk assessments had been carried out for any separate dog shows or event days which had taken place since February 2022.[52]As we have noted, one risk assessment dated July 2024 was disclosed. An email sent from the Council to the Requestor dated 4 February 2025 (after the Decision Notice) stated as follows: “Any business, club or individual wishing to hold an event on the Recreation Ground are required to produce a detailed risk assessment in advance of the event taking place. The Parish Council arranged a meeting with the event organizer of the Dog Show in early March at which the Risk Assessment for the event was viewed and the council were satisfied with its content. However, as the Dog Show was a one-off event and took place on 1st April 2024, the Parish Council are not obliged to retain a copy of this document once the event has taken place. Therefore, we cannot provide you with a copy.”.[53]During the hearing, the Council confirmed its position as outlined in that email. It gave evidence to the effect that the risk assessment for the Dog Show had been viewed in person at the meeting referred to and that a copy of it had not been retained by the Council. When we asked whether it was an insurance requirement to retain a copy, the Council stated that its insurance said nothing about needing to keep a copy.[54]The bundle contained an undated email which was described as an “email sent in response to complaints received following Dog Show Event”. It stated that the Dog Training Business “provided a risk assessment for the event which we are happy to make available for you to read at the parish office”. When we asked about this during the hearing, the Council explained that this was a copy which the Dog Trainer had taken away after the meeting referred to above. The Council stated again that this was not held by the Council but explained that the email had meant that they would be able to arrange for the Dog Trainer to provide their copy if needed for inspection.[55]In summary, therefore, we find that the Council has disclosed risk assessments in response to Part 5 and has subsequently explained the circumstances regarding why it does not hold further relevant documentation.[56]We reiterate that it was not the role of the Tribunal to ascertain whether or not the Council should hold further copies of any risk assessments. However, it has given plausible explanations as to why no further information is held by it for the purposes of Part 5.[57]Therefore, based on the information and evidence available to us, we conclude that, on the balance of probabilities, the Council does not hold further information within the scope of Part 5. Whether the Council had disclosed the total number of complaints falling within the scope of Part 6[58]Part 6 sought information regarding the number of complaints received by the Council pertaining to the Dog Training Business since the commencement of its business on the Recreation Ground.[59]The Council initially informed the Requestor that it had received one formal complaint. It later told the Commissioner that there were two complaints. The Council confirmed in the hearing that they had treated the Request as a further complaint, which is why it told the Commissioner that there were two complaints in total.[60]The documentation within the bundle included:a. documents showing that the Dog Show was connected with the Dog Training Business;b. the Minutes, which referred to complaints received regarding the Dog Show; andc. correspondence sent by the Council in response to those complaints.[61]We note in particular that:a. part of the name of the Dog Training Business was used in describing the Dog Show in various documentation (including in the ‘terms and conditions’ referred to above);b. the Minutes recorded public concerns relating to the Dog Show and complaints sent to the Council concerning disruption caused by parking associated with that event;c. the email referred to in paragraph 54 stated: “[The Dog Training Business] have sent an apology, which we have attached below and we, in addition, would like to apologise for the inconsiderate parking caused by visitors to the village.”; andd. the apology from the Dog Training Business included in that email stated the following: “Following the …Dog show held… on Bank Holiday Monday, 1st April 2024. [the Dog Training Business] would like to apologise to the residents of Boreham for the problems caused by the number of visitors to the show and parking issues as a result.”.[62]In essence, the Council sought to distinguish between the Dog Training Business and the individual organiser of the Dog Show (the Dog Trainer). It also sought to distinguish the complaints received regarding parking on the date of the Dog Show and complaints relating to the Dog Show itself or the Dog Training Business. During the hearing, the Council maintained its position regarding those distinctions. It stated, in particular, that the complaints in question concerned parking, not the Dog Training Business.[63]In our view, the Council was wrong to seek to make those distinctions.[64]We find that the evidence before us demonstrated a sufficient nexus between the Dog Show, the Dog Training Business and the complaints arising from parking in relation to the Dog Show in order for those complaints to fall within the ordinary meaning of complaints “pertaining to” the Dog Training Business for the purposes of Part 6.[65]We acknowledge that the ‘terms and conditions’ referred to above included the individual name of the Dog Trainer and appeared to have been signed by them in that capacity. However, we consider that there is nevertheless a clear and relevant connection between the Dog Trainer and the Dog Training Business, particularly taking into account the other information we have referred to.[66]The wording of Part 6 was broad. It was not confined to complaints about training sessions themselves, nor to complaints regarding the conduct of the core business activities of the Dog Training Business.[67]In our view, the complaints arising from the Dog Show fall within the scope of Part 6, for the reasons given above and for the same reasons given by the Commissioner in the Decision Notice. We therefore agree with the Commissioner that the Council had not disclosed the total number of complaints it had received within the scope of Part 6.[68]Consequently, we conclude that the Council had not disclosed all the information it holds within the scope of Part 6. Summary[69]For all of the above reasons, we conclude that:a. the Council does not (on the balance of probabilities) hold any further information within the scope of Part 4 or Part 5;b. the Council holds further information within the scope of Part 6.
Final conclusions
[70]For all of the reasons we have given, we find that: c. the Commissioner was wrong to conclude, in the Decision Notice, that on the balance of probabilities the Council holds further information within the scope of Part 4 and Part 5; and d. the Commissioner was correct to conclude, in the Decision Notice, that the Council holds further information within the scope of Part 6.[71]We therefore allow the appeal in part and we make the Substituted Decision Notice as set out above. Signed: Stephen Roper Date: 5 August 2026 72. Judge of the First-tier Tribunal