Judge criticises arm’s length children’s social care company over FOI failures

Reading Borough Council has been urged by the First-tier Tribunal (General Regulatory Chamber) Information Rights to make sure its arm’s-length children’s service acts correctly in future freedom of information cases.

In AA v The Information Commissioner, Judge Anthony Snelson said Reading’s Brighter Futures for Children (BFC) withheld requested information for six months without citing any legal exemption for doing so.

Judge Snelson said: “We place on record that we entirely share the [Information] Commissioner’s critical view of the way in which BFC responded (or failed to respond) to AA’s proper attempts exercise his rights under the Freedom of Information Act.

“If it lacked the necessary skills or resources to fulfil its obligations directly, it should have called without delay upon the assistance of the council.

“Moreover, in light of the experience of this case, we would hope that the council has taken all necessary steps to ensure that BFC is fully equipped to meet its obligations in the future.”

The case arose from the acrimonious breakdown of AA’s marriage and in August 2023 BFC held a two-section child protection conference, one half attended by AA and the other by his wife.

BFC shared the former with him but not the latter. AA asked BFC for a copy of the second section, but it said that had been redacted because of his former partner’s participation. No FoI exemption was cited.

AA requested an internal review but BFC took no action and he then complained to the Information Commissioner who later told BFC its response had not been compliant with FoI legislation, and asked it to carry out an internal review and provide AA with the outcome within 20 working days.

BFfC failed to do this either and AA complained again to the Commissioner.

Only once the Commissioner investigated did Reading say BFC was withholding the requested information under FOIA, s40(2) (personal information).

“Up to that moment, no legal justification for refusing the request had been offered,” the tribunal noted.

The Commissioner concluded most of the information requested was exempt under FOIA, s40(2) and AA then challenged the Commissioner’s adjudication.

Judge Snelson said the information sought by AA was personal data of other relevant individuals and so was exempt under FOIA, s40(2).

He said: “In our judgment, there is no question of the processing of the personal data of third parties, and in particular the children and AA’s wife, being ‘necessary’ in this case.

“The statutory bias favouring privacy rights over information rights makes this a very clear case. The processing of personal data for which the AA contends would plainly be unlawful. Accordingly, the request is for information which is exempt and the commissioner was right to dismiss the complaint.”

Reading has been approached for comment.

Mark Smulian