Response to my FOI regarding the the banning of Eva Vlaardingerbroek

On 14 January Dutch political commentator announced that she has been banned from travelling to the UK:

Technically it was not a ban, but the cancellation of her ETA.

Like many who know Eva, I was shocked by this decision and decided to submit the following Freedom of Information (FOI) request to the Home Office asking for the reasons for the ban:

Dear Home Office FOI Team,

Under the Freedom of Information Act 2000, I am requesting information related to the cancellation of the Electronic Travel Authorisation (ETA) for Eva Lotte Louise Vlaardingerbroek (a Dutch national), which was reportedly cancelled on or around 13 January 2026 on the grounds that her presence in the UK "is not considered to be conducive to the public good."

Please provide:

1. The specific reasons and criteria used to determine that her presence was not conducive to the public good, including any risk assessments, intelligence reports, or evidence considered (redacted as necessary to comply with exemptions).

2. Details of the decision-making process, including:

   • The internal procedures or guidelines followed (e.g., references to relevant Home Office policies, Immigration Rules, or statutory provisions).

   • The timeline of events leading to the cancellation, from initial review to final decision.

   • Any consultations or inputs from other government departments, agencies, or external bodies (e.g., security services).

3. The job titles, roles, or grades of the officials or teams involved in reviewing and approving the cancellation (without revealing personal identities if exempt).

4. Copies of any internal communications, memos, emails, or notes related to this decision (redacted where necessary), including discussions on the rationale or potential implications.

5. Whether the decision was influenced by her public statements, social media activity, associations (e.g., with individuals like Tommy Robinson), or prior visits to the UK, and if so, details of the specific factors considered.

6. Whether the decision was influenced by the possibility that she could be planning to speak at the next “Unite the Kingdom” rally on 16 May 2026 organised by Tommy Robinson.

7. Any records of similar ETA cancellations for other individuals on "non-conducive to the public good" grounds in the past 12 months, including aggregated statistics (e.g., number of cases, nationalities involved) to provide context, without identifying individuals.

If any part of this request is likely to exceed the cost limit under section 12 of the Act, please advise on how I can refine it to bring it within limits, or provide as much information as possible up to that limit. I would prefer the information in electronic format where available.

Thank you for your assistance.

Yours

Norman Fenton

I have today received the formal response:

FOI 2026 00837 Norman Fenton Response redacted.pdf

Download PDF • 131KB

Crucially, it states:

The information you have requested has been withheld under section 40(2) of the FOIA because it concerns the personal data of a third party, and the condition at section 40(3A)(a) is met.

The Home Office has obligations under data protection legislation and in law generally to protect personal data. This exempts personal data from release if disclosure would contravene any of the data protection principles in Article 5(1) of the UK General Data Protection Regulation and section 34(1) of the Data Protection Act 2018.

We believe disclosure in this case would breach the first data protection principle, as it would be unlawful and unfair to disclose information relating to an individual’s immigration matters, including whether an ETA has been cancelled, the reasons for any such decision, or any information connected with immigration control, without the individual’s consent.

Section 40 is an absolute exemption and does not require a public interest test.

It's interesting to note that they essentially blanked my FOI as it "concerns the personal data of a third party". That is curious given that their stated reason for the ban was that any visit by her was "not conducive to the public good". Surely the public therefore has a right to know why. Also, how does this reason justify their refusal to even answer Question 7, asking for the number of similar cases of ETA cancellations to provide context, without identifying individuals?

Eva can submit her won Subject Access Request to the Home Office according to grok:

Yes, a Dutch national (as an EU citizen) can submit a Subject Access Request (SAR) to the UK Home Office if their Electronic Travel Authorisation (ETA) has been cancelled, and this is a standard way to seek details about the reasons or related personal data held on you.Under the UK GDPR (which mirrors the EU GDPR post-Brexit) and the Data Protection Act 2018, any individual—including non-UK nationals—has the right to access their personal data held by the Home Office, particularly in immigration and borders systems. This includes records related to ETA applications, decisions, cancellations, and any underlying reasons or notes.The Home Office explicitly handles SARs for immigration-related information (e.g., via their borders, immigration, and citizenship system), and you can request copies of:

• Your ETA application and decision records.

• Reasons for cancellation (if documented in your personal data).

• Any associated notes, flags, or assessments.

There is no right of appeal or administrative review against an ETA cancellation or refusal (unlike some visa decisions), so an SAR is often the main route to uncover why it happened—such as suitability concerns, public good grounds, criminality, immigration history issues, or other factors.How to do it:

• Use the official GOV.UK online form for requesting personal information from UK Visas and Immigration / Home Office immigration systems (free, usually processed within one month after identity verification).

• Specify clearly that you're requesting details on your cancelled ETA, including any reasons, decision notes, or related personal data.

• Provide proof of identity (e.g., passport copy) and details like your ETA reference if known.

Note that some information might be redacted (e.g., for national security, third-party data, or under the immigration exemption if disclosure could prejudice immigration controls), but the right still applies broadly, and many people successfully obtain useful details this way.If the response is incomplete or unsatisfactory, you can complain to the Home Office or escalate to the Information Commissioner's Office (ICO). For complex cases, consulting an immigration lawyer could help interpret the disclosure.