National regulator says it is ‘deeply disappointed’ with Croydon, which has broken the Freedom of Information laws at least 227 times in the past year and now faces possible High Court action. By STEVEN DOWNES
Cash-strapped Croydon Council could face legal sanctions from the Information Commissioner’s Office if it fails to abide by the law and starts to respond to Freedom of Information Requests promptly within the 20-day limit permitted.
The ICO slapped an enforcement notice on Croydon Council today for “repeated, systemic” failures on information law.
The public body issued Croydon Council with a warning last year, but has seen “no discernible improvement” in performance. In fact, the council’s response times to FoIs have got worse this year, despite promising to put an “improvement plan” in place.
“They are failing their residents, and we are now compelling them to do better,” a senior official at the ICO said today.
The consequence of failing to comply with an ICO enforcement notice is that the Commissioner may take the matter to the High Court, using Section 54 of Freedom of Information Act. “Upon consideration and inquiry by the High Court, the council may be dealt with as if it had committed a contempt of court,” the ICO said today.
Answers demanded: Croydon CEO Katherine Kerswell
Croydon Council has been a long-term offender in respect of delaying, failing and refusing to answer quite legitimate requests made under the Freedom of Information Act.
For at least two years, they used the covid lockdown as a routine excuse for failing to respond within the 20 days laid down by the law.
The reality now, however, is that council staffing has been cut back so deeply that there is often not the time nor the expertise to provide proper answers for FoIs. Which suggests that Croydon Council might struggle to meet the strict demands laid down by the ICO today.
In its enforcement notice delivered to Croydon Council’s chief executive, Katherine Kerswell, and the elected Mayor, piss-poor Jason Perry, the ICO found that the council has been sitting on 35 unanswered FoI requests for more than a year. In total, Croydon Council has failed to provide responses within one month for 227 FoI requests.
And it is not as if Kerswell and Perry had not been warned.
The Information Commissioner directed Croydon Council to improve its compliance with the FoI Act in September last year.
Today, the ICO said, “The Commissioner received an update from the council in June 2023. This showed that the council’s progress had not been maintained, with its performance having actually declined.
“The Commissioner was deeply disappointed that having highlighted the high volume of decision notices…”, ICO warnings, “…issued to the council prior to issuing the practice recommendation, there appears to have been no discernible improvement from the Council in this regard.”
The ICO has relied on information provided to it by the council, which may not be entirely reliable.
Repeat offenders: how Croydon Council keeps the public waiting for FoI responses
But according to the council’s own figures, in 2020-2021, only 74per cent of FoI requests received a response within 20 days.
By the following year, 2021-2022, that was down to 59per cent.
In January 2023, the council claimed that it was answering 77per cent of FoI requests within the time limit, promising the ICO what it called a “big push” to arrive at a more acceptable 90per cent – ie. only breaking the law in 1-in-10 cases – by Easter this year.
The Information Commissioner decided to wait until that Easter checkpoint before considering what further action, if any, to take.
Not listening: Mayor Jason Perry
From the ICO enforcement notice, it doesn’t take much reading between the lines to see that it is not only members of the public that Croydon Council keeps waiting for answers. Easter 2023 was on April 9.
It appears that Croydon took nearly two months to give the Information Commissioner the performance figures they were expecting.
“Having chased for finalised data regarding its FOIA compliance,” the enforcement notice states, “the Commissioner received an update from the council in June 2023.
“This showed that the council’s progress had not been maintained, with its performance having actually declined.
“Having responded to 72.41per cent of requests on-time for Q3 (October-December) of the financial year 2022-2023, it was only able to respond to 63.64per cent of requests on-time
for Q4 (Jan-March 2023).
“Of further concern, the council also explained that it had a number of open requests which were significantly over the 20 working day time limit for compliance.
“The Commissioner is also deeply disappointed that having highlighted the high volume of decision notices issued to the council prior to issuing the practice recommendation, there appears to have been no discernible improvement from the council in this regard.”
The ICO had issued a further 21 warnings to Croydon Council between September 2022 and April this year.
The enforcement notice issued today requires Croydon to respond to all the 227 outstanding requests no later than six months from the date of the notice. Kerswell’s council has a month to come up with an improvement plan that will work.
‘Deeply disappointed’: Phillip Angell of the ICO
Phillip Angell, the head of FOI casework at the ICO, said: “People have a legal right to be able to ask their council about its actions and receive an answer promptly. What we have seen with Croydon Council is repeated, systemic failures at complying with transparency legislation.
“They are failing their residents, and we are now compelling them to do better.
“Any public authority with poor Freedom of Information compliance levels may be subject to enforcement or practice recommendations as part of the ICO’s commitment to promoting openness, transparency and accountability.” Which would be nice.
The Croydon enforcement notice comes as part of the ICO’s new “no more Mr Nice Guy” approach to recalcitrant, foot-dragging public bodies announced last year.
- Read the ICO’s enforcement notice against Croydon Council in full here (you won’t find it published anywhere on the council website)
- Have you had problems getting answers from Croydon Council through FoI requests? To report a concern to the ICO, telephone their helpline on 0303 123 1113, or go to ico.org.uk/concerns.
- Inside Croydon – as seen on TV! – has been delivering local community news since 2010. 3million page views per year in 2020, 2021 and 2022.
- If you want real journalism, actually based in the borough, you should consider paying for it. Please sign up today. Click here for more details
- If you have a news story about life in or around Croydon, or want to publicise your residents’ association or business, or if you have a local event to promote, please email us with full details at inside.croydon@btinternet.com
As featured on Google News Showcase
- Our comments section on every report provides all readers with an immediate “right of reply” on all our content
Inside Croydon is a member of the Independent Community News Network
- Inside Croydon works together with the Bureau of Investigative Journalism, as well as BBC London News and ITV London
ROTTEN BOROUGH AWARDS: Croydon was named among the country’s rottenest boroughs for a SIXTH successive year in 2022 in the annual round-up of civic cock-ups in Private Eye magazine
I have not had any answered for 3 years and the last lot have not even been acknowledged. Perhaps from now on I will also copy them to the ICO.
I have had a similar experience. The ICO did serve formal Notice upon Croydon Council , which included a SAR and Freedom of Notice properly served upon the Council . The council accepted it had to respond after the ICO served Notice , but of course failed to do so. The Leader and CEO past and present are both fully aware.
So the ICO are slapping a persistent long term offender on the wrist again after all the previous slaps have only elicited a deterioration in performance. We don’t have to talk about the dire strait of Croydon Council as we all know it, but what is the point of a Regulatory if they cannot even start to put something right. This is all the same old story of the near anarchic governance that operates in this country after nearly a decade and a half of the worst Central Government in my lifetime.
Sadly a hefty fine by a public regulator of a Public Administrator would just add a bigger burden onto us all and cycle money back to the Exchequer from our taxes.
The Council will then say it is the Chancellor and ministry straightjacket on funding and budgets that has led to their inability and incapacity to comply and provide a wealth of evidence to support that.
Which is why the ICO should seek a high Court and supreme court decision. The out come of which wiill either bring one or the other into clear disrepute. Or could end up besmirching the Supreme Court if an indesivive decision that allows this Council to continue.
What that would do to the rule of Law in Great Britain?
I am sure the fudge will be passed around
The last one asking who borrowed what and and who we owe how much to has is still not been acknowledged either. Well past that deadline!
When standing for election, Jason Perry said he’d listen to Croydon and added that “to be listened to you first need the opportunity to speak! This can be almost impossible with Croydon Council these days”.
Over a year after becoming Mayor, he’s done nothing to make sure that our Freedom of Information questions are being answered. He’s not listening at all