FOIA Oversight: A System Under Strain?
The Freedom of Information Act is now over 20 years old. It was designed to ensure transparency, accountability, and public trust.
Yet in practice, a number of issues continue to arise.
A list of Documents ICO case officers use when they write to public authorities
ICO Delays
FOIA depends not just on compliance, but on timely and effective oversight. Where process, delay, and retention interact: outcomes may depend on timing rather than fact
As at March 2026, the ICO was advising of delays – up to 40 weeks!
Resource vs prioritisation
The ICO frequently cites limited resources. However, this raises a broader question:
- Which aspects of information rights enforcement are prioritised — and why?
Internal Reviews – an after thought?
Despite the Act being over 25 years old, there remains no fixed statutory deadline for internal reviews.
The ICO suggests 20 working days, extending to 40 in complex cases. In practice, 40 days has become routine.
- Is this still “exceptional”?
- How often is this tested?
Section 14 and process impact
Where section 14 is applied:
- authorities may not undertake searches
- requests may be delayed significantly
If reliance is later withdrawn, the position at the time of request may no longer be recoverable
Should this be examined more closely?
- Should authorities be required to establish whether information is held before applying section 14?
- Should retention be paused once a request is received?
- Should the ICO examine withdrawn exemptions where they affect outcomes?
An example of the issue:
01/04/2026 – ‘Not Held‘ – an abuse? Where s.14 is replaced after a complaint to the ICO, with ‘not held’. Staffordshire police, after many months, withdraw s,.14 (vexatious) and replace it with ‘not held’ – but cannot say if the information was held at the date of the original request.
The ICO’s Decision and our response can be read here.
s.22 FoIA – “information intended for future publication”
When is this to occur … ?
Section 77 – rarely enforced
The very conditions in which section 77 matters most are often the conditions in which it cannot be proved
Section 77 creates an offence for:
- destruction
- concealment
- or alteration of information
Yet enforcement is extremely rare.
- Is the provision effective in practice?
- Does it provide meaningful protection?
Just what is the level of proof the ICO requires to substantiate an offence – it appears to be above ‘the balance of probabilities’ and ‘reasonable doubt’ … is it other than ‘confession’ – an admission of guilt that requires no proof?