Department for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS)
Forensic assessment · v1.1.0 · updated 1 November 2026
Translation pending: the assessment text below is in English, the authoritative record.
- Response status
- Not held / refused
- Last contact
- 29 October 2026
- Next date on file
- 18 November 2026 (gs the request as received on 21 Oct 2026 under the FOI Act and gives 18 Nov 2026 as t)
- Earlier version
- v1.0.0, published 21 October 2026 on the Legal Wiki
Since last assessment
14 October 2026 to 1 November 2026
Our reading: Since 14 October 2026, 3 emails are on file: 2 sent, 1 received (0 with content, 1 automatic acknowledgements). The response status is unchanged: “Not held / refused”. Most material: 29 October 2026, sent, clarification given: Further search terms for the 2 Jul 2026 Cardiff Castle furniture request: historical and descriptive names for the farm. Next date on file: 18 November 2026. Nothing here changes the earlier current finding unless stated above; this is a log of contact, not a finding about any person.
- Sentchase
The requester follows up on FOI2026/06174, IR2026/06711.
- Sentclarification given
Further search terms for the 2 Jul 2026 Cardiff Castle furniture request: historical and descriptive names for the farm.
The assessment as last published
Carried over unchanged from v1.0.0 (21 October 2026). Links point inside this site.
Assessed 14 October 2026. Scope: modern records-access involvement only. DCMS appears in the record as a respondent to the family’s information request about furniture, furnishings, heirlooms and other movable property. No historical role at the farm is asserted. Inclusion is not a finding of fault.
Documented appearances
| Date | Appearance | Source |
|---|---|---|
| 22 July 2026 | FOI2026/06174: DCMS reports that no information is held. The family replied the same day that it was surprised. | GHF-E106-R29-A1 |
| 19 August 2026 | Internal review IR2026/06711 upholds the nil return. | GHF-E106-R29-A2 |
Current finding
As at 14 October 2026, the material reviewed does not establish wrongdoing by DCMS. A nil return is a statement about what the department holds on the question asked. It does not show that no relevant record ever existed elsewhere, and it is not a finding about the 1988 events.
Forensic control test and next step
Check the exact scope of each request and the search described in each response against the museum-side responses (Amgueddfa Cymru, National Library of Wales). Acceptance: the question of who holds, or held, the movable property is routed to a named custodian or closed with a dated result.
Related
FOI & Public-Authority Reply Register · Forensic Assessments index
Created 14 October 2026. Prepared with AI assistance from the wiki’s existing records, on the family’s instruction. Corrections are welcome and will be dated here.
Change history is maintained on the Master Change Log; no separate page-local version footer is maintained.
Case file
This file is built for a future reparations claim. Facts are as the records show them; interpretation is labelled “our reading”. Items marked “not checked” have not been compared with the original record.
(a) Conduct timeline
4 dated interactions, oldest first; 1 automatic acknowledgements are left out. Quotations are verbatim from the institution’s email; where the reply’s substance was an attachment, the email subject is quoted instead.
Show the timeline
| Date | Direction | Reference | Type | Verbatim |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 22 July 2026 | received | FOI2026/06174 | correspondence (no disclosure) | Our Ref: FOI2026/06174 Please see the attached letter from the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. |
| 19 August 2026 | received | IR2026/06711 | not held (review upheld) | Our Ref: IR2026/06711 Please see the attached letter from the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. |
| 21 October 2026 | sent | — | chase | Subject: Re: IR2026/06711 - Department for Culture, Media and Sport - Response Letter |
| 29 October 2026 | sent | — | clarification given | Subject: Great House Farm, Llandough | Cardiff Castle Furniture |
(b) Inconsistencies and gaps
None found in the correspondence on file.
(c) Quarantined-name links
Records on the quarantine register (Kissed Frogs) that sit in, or came from, this institution’s holdings. None is treated as settled.
No quarantined-name record on the register is linked to this institution’s holdings.
(d) Duty and liability — our reading
Liability indicators (our reading): none
- Duty
- Freedom of Information Act 2000 s.1 and s.10 (confirm or deny, and supply held information within 20 working days); Environmental Information Regulations 2004 for land and environmental records; records management under the s.46 Code of Practice; Public Records Act 1958 selection and transfer for central government records.
- Indicators the duty was not met
- none found in the correspondence on file.
- Evidence still needed to confirm
- the institution’s retention schedule and disposal record for the series in question; the catalogue or file list it searched; any internal review or complaint outcome.
- Likely extent of exposure if confirmed
- An ICO decision notice or a records-management finding; any reparations claim would also need a link between a records failure and the loss.
(e) Evidence still needed
- Inspect the files it names, or their transferred copies at the archive. for paid visit list
Versions
| 1.1.0 | 2026-11-01 | Moved to the Forensic Assessments webapp; dated “Since last assessment” section added; response status re-read. |
| 1.0.0 | 2026-10-21 | As published on the Legal Wiki. |