ICO Decision Notice: Greater Manchester Combined Authority FOI Failure
Summary
The UK's Information Commissioner's Office (ICO) found that the Greater Manchester Combined Authority failed to comply with section 10(1) of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) regarding a request for information about the Voices of Resilience event. While all held information has now been disclosed, the authority admitted its initial searches were inadequate.
What changed
The Information Commissioner's Office (ICO) has issued a decision notice finding that the Greater Manchester Combined Authority (GMCA) failed to comply with section 10(1) of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). This failure stemmed from inadequate initial searches for information related to the Voices of Resilience event, leading to a delayed disclosure of some requested data. Although the ICO determined that no further information is held by the authority and no further steps are required, the finding of non-compliance highlights a procedural failing.
While this decision does not impose new penalties or require further action from the GMCA as all relevant information has been disclosed, it serves as a reminder for public authorities to ensure their information retrieval processes are robust and compliant with FOIA requirements. Compliance officers in similar government agencies should review their internal FOI handling procedures to prevent similar findings of non-compliance, particularly concerning the adequacy of initial searches.
What to do next
- Review internal Freedom of Information request handling procedures to ensure adequacy of initial searches.
- Verify that all disclosed information aligns with the scope of the original request.
Source document (simplified)
Greater Manchester Combined Authority
- Date 13 February 2026
- Sector Local government
- Decision(s) FOI 1: Not upheld, FOI 10(1): Upheld The complainant has requested information relating to the Voices of Resilience event, which was held in Manchester. Greater Manchester Combined Authority (“the authority”) responded that it did not hold the requested information. Following a second request for the information the authority subsequently disclosed information falling within the scope of the first request. It confirmed its error, and admitted that its initial searches had proved to be inadequate. The complainant therefore considered that further information may be held by the authority. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the authority does not hold any further information falling within the scope of the request. However, he has also decided that the authority failed to comply with section 10(1) of FOIA. As all of the information which is held has now been disclosed, the Commissioner does not require the authority to take any further steps.
Related changes
Source
Classification
Who this affects
Taxonomy
Browse Categories
Get Data Protection alerts
Weekly digest. AI-summarized, no noise.
Free. Unsubscribe anytime.
Get alerts for this source
We'll email you when ICO Decision Notices publishes new changes.