05/04/2026 to the ICO
Subject: IC-405539-W4V9 – Decision Notice and outstanding procedural concerns
Thank you for the Decision Notice dated 1 April 2026.
I note and welcome the Commissioner’s finding that Staffordshire Police failed to conduct adequate searches in response to request 21573, and the requirement for the authority to issue a fresh response following appropriate searches.
However, I must respectfully raise a significant concern regarding the scope of the Commissioner’s consideration, specifically the decision not to examine the original application of section 14(1).
The Decision Notice confirms that:
- no searches were undertaken at the time of the request,
- the authority relied on section 14(1),
- that reliance was subsequently withdrawn following ICO involvement, and
- the authority then adopted a “not held” position without having established whether information was held at the date of the request.
In my view, these matters are not separate. The application and subsequent withdrawal of section 14(1) is directly relevant to the central question the Commissioner has considered:
- whether information was held at the time of the request.
By declining to consider the use of section 14(1), the Decision Notice does not address how it came to pass that:
- no enquiries were undertaken at the time of the request, and
- the authority is now unable to determine whether information was held.
This gives rise to a broader procedural concern.
The sequence in this case demonstrates a mechanism by which:
- a request is refused under section 14,
- no steps are taken to determine whether information is held,
- time passes (including internal review and ICO process),
- retention processes continue, and
- the authority later asserts “not held” in circumstances where the position at the date of the request cannot be established.
Even if each step is considered individually compliant, the combined effect raises a question as to whether the Act is being applied in a manner that reliably delivers the outcome required by section 1 — namely, establishing whether information is held at the time of the request.
I appreciate the Commissioner’s position that withdrawn exemptions are not routinely examined due to resource constraints. However, in cases such as this, where the application of an exemption appears to have directly affected whether the fundamental question of “information held” was ever addressed, I would respectfully suggest that this warrants consideration.
I would therefore be grateful if you could clarify:
- Whether there is any mechanism by which concerns regarding the application and withdrawal of section 14(1) in this case can be considered further;
- Whether the Commissioner has any published policy or guidance governing the approach taken where exemptions are withdrawn during an investigation;
- Whether the circumstances of this case — where no searches were undertaken at the time of the request — have been considered as part of the “intelligence” you have recorded; and
- Whether the Commissioner considers that the sequence identified above presents any systemic risk to the effective operation of the Act.
I am currently considering my position in relation to a potential appeal to the Tribunal and would be grateful for your clarification on the above points to inform that decision.
Thank you for your consideration.