Tribunal dismisses Mitchell v Information Commissioner appeal over waste site audit records

The First-tier Tribunal has dismissed an appeal against the Information Commissioner's decision that a local authority had disclosed all environmental information it held concerning accreditation certificates and audits for a waste management site.

In John Mitchell v The Information Commissioner [2026] UKFTT 1072 (GRC), the appellant had requested from Plymouth City Council copies of current ISO 9001, 14001, 45001 and 50001 accreditation certificates for MVV Environment Devonport Ltd's Energy from Waste plant, together with site specific audits and the 2024 Annual Performance Report. The council disclosed an audit report and the APR, and directed the appellant to a website for the certificates. Following an unsuccessful internal review, the appellant complained to the Information Commissioner, who concluded in a decision notice dated 17 October 2025 that the council held no further information within scope and was entitled to rely on regulation 12(4)(a) of the Environmental Information Regulations 2004.

The tribunal, chaired by Judge Stephen Roper sitting with members Kerry Pepperell and Dave Sivers, first confirmed that the EIRs rather than the Freedom of Information Act applied, given the broad definition of environmental information and the connection between the requested material and measures protecting the environment.

On the substance, the appellant argued that DEKRA auditors had visited the site in April 2024 to conduct pre recertification audits, meaning site specific audit records must exist separately from the disclosed audit report. He also contended that the certificates were invalid because they referenced a surveillance audit number predating the recertification due date and did not cite specific clauses of the relevant standards. The tribunal found these arguments unpersuasive. It accepted the council's explanation that certification operates through a "matrix certification system" managed by the parent company, MVV Umwelt GmbH, under which DEKRA audits selected sites on a rotating basis while recertification applies across the matrix. The disclosed audit report's reference number matched that cited on the certificates, supporting the council's account.

The tribunal also rejected the appellant's assertion that additional documentation referenced within the audit report, including checklists, audit plans and conformity verifications, fell within the scope of the original request. It found the request had sought only the audits themselves, not the underlying working papers on which those audits were based, and that the appellant's dissatisfaction stemmed from a misreading of what had actually been requested. A discrepancy between references to "appendices" and a section headed "Appendix" containing no substantive content was noted but held not to indicate that further information existed.

The tribunal emphasised that its role was confined to determining, on the balance of probabilities, whether the council held further recorded information within scope, rather than assessing the adequacy of the audit process itself or verifying compliance with the ISO standards in question. It declined to consider submissions relating to the Commissioner's investigatory conduct or unrelated regulatory concerns raised by the appellant about DEKRA and the Environment Agency, finding these fell outside its jurisdiction under section 58 of FOIA as applied by regulation 18 of the EIRs.

Concluding that the Commissioner had correctly determined the council had disclosed all information it held within scope of the request, the tribunal dismissed the appeal in a decision handed down on 23 July 2026.