Kevin Isted v The Information Commissioner
Decision date: 15 September 2025
Neutral citation: [2025] UKFTT 1102 (TC)
Overall AI summary confidence: medium
Short overview
This short overview is intended to summarise the case, issues and outcome so far as they are supported by the judgment.
AI confidence in this short overview: medium
This appeal challenged the ICO’s Decision Notice that Tonbridge & Malling Borough Council had complied with a FOIA request for information about parking at Common Road/Blue Bell Hill and did not hold further responsive information. The Tribunal found on the balance of probabilities that the Council’s digital searches (emails, shared drives, network storage across relevant teams) were reasonable and sufficient, and that councillors’ material in their capacity as elected members was not information “held” by the Council for FOIA purposes. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal and upheld the ICO.
Ratio decidendi
This summary is intended to identify the ratio decidendi, meaning the legal reasons for deciding and the binding part of the decision.
AI confidence in this ratio decidendi summary: medium
The Tribunal’s principal reasoning is that, absent evidence of deception or obvious inadequacy, the ICO and the Tribunal may accept a public authority’s account that reasonable electronic searches across identified systems and teams were carried out; and that information held by elected councillors in the exercise of their independent functions (including personal emails/notes) is not necessarily information held by the authority for FOIA purposes.
Obiter dicta
This summary is intended to identify obiter dicta, meaning observations made by the way that were not necessary to deciding the case and are not binding.
AI confidence in this obiter dicta summary: medium
The judgment suggested that complaints about how information is presented on a council website or difficulties navigating signposted material concern the manner of compliance and may be matters for judicial review rather than for a section 58 FOIA appeal. It also observed that allegations of motive or concealment require evidence of actual state of mind to rebut the presumption that the authority’s account can be accepted.
Warning
The chunk contains substantial repetition and duplicated passages, making the text noisy and occasionally difficult to follow. The notes contain substantial repetition and duplicated passages and may be noisy; they may omit full procedural or evidential detail.