Neil Wilby Media

The right to information under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 is intended to operate in real time. When decisions are delayed, that right can begin to lose its practical value.

Whilst much attention is often focused on the initial response of public authorities — with the familiar 20 working day statutory timeframe — far less scrutiny is directed at what happens when disputes arise and require regulatory oversight.

It is at this stage that delay can become most acute.

A system under strain

The Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) plays a central role in the FOIA framework, acting as the independent regulator responsible for determining complaints and issuing Decision Notices. Those decisions are intended to provide clarity, resolve disputes, and, where appropriate, compel disclosure.

However, in practice, the time taken to reach those decisions can extend well beyond the timelines envisaged by the Act.

It is not uncommon for complainants to wait many months — and in some cases considerably longer — for a determination, even where the issues in dispute are relatively narrow and clearly defined.

The problem of time-sensitive information

The consequences of delay are not merely procedural. They go to the heart of the purpose of FOIA.

Information is often sought in a particular context:

• while a public debate is live

• during ongoing policy development

• or in the aftermath of a significant event

In such circumstances, the value of information is closely linked to its timeliness.

A Decision Notice issued many months after a request was made may still resolve a legal question, but it cannot restore the immediacy — or, in some cases, the relevance — of the information sought.

Incentives and unintended consequences

Extended delays also risk creating unintended incentives within the system.

Where responses are challenged, public authorities may find that the passage of time reduces the practical impact of disclosure. Even where a refusal is ultimately overturned, the delay itself may have achieved much of what the refusal sought to accomplish.

This is not to suggest bad faith. Rather, it reflects a structural reality: that delay, in itself, can alter outcomes.

For requesters — whether journalists, researchers or members of the public — prolonged uncertainty can discourage further engagement and undermine confidence in the effectiveness of the regime.

A question of balance

It would be wrong to ignore the pressures facing the regulator. The ICO deals with a substantial volume of complaints across a wide range of public authorities, often involving complex factual and legal issues.

Resource constraints, competing priorities, and the increasing sophistication of FOIA disputes all may play a role in extending decision-making timelines.

But these realities must be balanced against the statutory purpose of the Act.

FOIA was not designed as a mechanism for retrospective transparency. Its value lies in enabling informed scrutiny in real time, or as close to it as practicable.

The broader implications

If delays in regulatory oversight become routine, there is a risk that the effectiveness of the Act is gradually diminished.

• Information may be disclosed too late to inform public debate

• Accountability may be weakened

• And public confidence in the system may erode

These are not dramatic failures, but incremental ones — the kind that accumulate over time.

Looking ahead

There is no simple solution to the challenge of delay. It is likely to require a combination of:

• adequate resourcing

• procedural efficiency

• and continued scrutiny of how the Act operates in practice

What is clear, however, is that timeliness is not a peripheral concern. It is central to the functioning of FOIA.

Without it, the right to information risks becoming less a tool of accountability and more an exercise in historical reconstruction.

The practical effect of these delays can be seen in individual cases, where procedural timelines extend well beyond those envisaged by the Act.

Case study: NPCC “Six myths” request and extended delays

A Freedom of Information request submitted to the National Police Chiefs’ Council (NPCC) on 26th May 2025 illustrates how delay can arise at multiple stages of the FOIA process, even where the subject matter is discrete and clearly defined.

The request sought material underpinning a public-facing NPCC article titled “Six myths about police media briefings busted”, including evidence, internal communications, and details of authorship and approval. It can be read in full at this WhatDoTheyKnow weblink.

The NPCC acknowledged the request and confirmed that a response would be provided within the statutory 20 working day timeframe. Ignoring the specific terms of section 10(1) of the act which requires a public authority to respond “promptly”, with the 20 working days operating as a backstop rather than a target date.

However, on the final day of that period, the NPCC notified the requester that it was relying on section 31 (law enforcement) and extending the deadline in order to conduct a public interest test. A revised date of 21st July 2025 was given — effectively adding a further four weeks to the process. 

Attempts to challenge both the application of section 31 and the timing of the extension through an internal review were initially rejected on the basis that no substantive response had yet been issued. The requester maintained that the engagement of an exemption and the extension of time were themselves reviewable decisions under FOIA guidance.

The substantive response was ultimately provided on 21st July 2025, nearly eight weeks after the original request and again resisting the statutory obligation to act promptly. It relied on section 31(1)(a) and (b), asserting that disclosure could have a “chilling effect” on internal and external discussions concerning police media handling.

Additional reliance was placed on section 40(2) (personal data), and key material — including internal communications and details of consultation with other bodies — was withheld.

A further internal review was then sought, challenging both the legal basis for the exemptions and the adequacy of the public interest test. That review process extended into August 2025.

A complaint was subsequently submitted to the Information Commissioner’s Office on 19th August 2025. At the time of writing, no substantive determination has been issued by the statutory regulator, some eight months after the complaint was lodged.

This sequence demonstrates how, even in a case concerning a published article and its evidential basis, the combined effect of late-stage extensions, contested exemptions, and protracted review processes can significantly delay access to information.

By the time regulatory oversight is engaged, the original context in which the information was sought may have materially changed.

Additional case study: Metropolitan Police Service — delay and reversal

A further example involving the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) illustrates how delay within the FOIA process can be compounded by initial misdirection and only resolved following sustained challenge.

The request, submitted in 2018, sought information relating to a peer review conducted by the MPS into the Professional Standards Board of Greater Manchester Police. The subject matter was discrete and fact-specific, focusing on dates, roles and the existence of a report.

Despite this, the process extended over a period of approximately two years before the requested information was ultimately disclosed. The full request and MPS responses can be read at thi WhatDoTheyKnow weblink.

The MPS initially indicated that relevant information was not held, directing the requester instead to Greater Manchester Police. That position was subsequently challenged, including through an internal review request which raised concerns about delay, the application of exemptions, and the accuracy of the MPS’s response.

During the course of that review, the MPS acknowledged shortcomings in its handling of the request. It ultimately located the requested information and disclosed it in full. 

In doing so, the MPS accepted that its earlier position had been incorrect, confirming that the information “was held” and apologising for the delay in providing it.

The sequence of events highlights a recurring feature of FOIA practice: that information initially said not to exist — or said to be held elsewhere — may in fact be disclosed only after persistence by the requester and further scrutiny within the public authority.

While the eventual outcome was one of disclosure, the time taken to reach that point — in this case, around two years — illustrates how delay can operate not simply as a matter of timing, but as part of a wider pattern of procedural friction.

Timeliness is not an adjunct to the right of access under FOIA. It is an integral part of that right.

Neil Wilby is a journalist, court reporter and transparency campaigner who has reported on police misconduct, regulatory failures, and criminal and civil justice since 2009. He is the founder and editor of Neil Wilby Media, launched in 2015.

Page last updated: Saturday 4th April 2026 at 10h55

Corrections: Please let me know if there is a mistake in this article. I will endeavour to correct it as soon as possible.

Right of reply: If you are mentioned in this article and disagree with it, please let me have your comments. Provided your response is not defamatory, it will be added to the article.

Image credits: NWM

© Neil Wilby 2015–2026. Unauthorised use, or reproduction, of the material contained in this article, without permission from the author, is strictly prohibited. Extracts from, and links to the article may be used, provided that credit is given to Neil Wilby, with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.