39 of 59

Forensic Assessments

Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO)

Forensic assessment · v1.1.0 · updated 1 November 2026

Response status
Redirected
Last contact
27 October 2026
Next date on file
None on file
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, 6 emails are on file: 2 sent, 4 received (3 with content, 1 automatic acknowledgements). The response status is unchanged: “Redirected”. Most material: 27 October 2026, received, redirected elsewhere (ref IC-546505-W6P0): ICO casework answers four points: section 46 Code compliance cannot be considered within a section 50 complaint; deleting, altering or concealing requested information to prevent disclosure may be a section 77 FOIA / regulation 19 EIR offence, reported on the FOI complaint form; a late response (section 10) can be included in the section 50 complaint about that request, one complaint per request; case IC-546505-W6P0 is closed. Nothing here changes the earlier current finding unless stated above; this is a log of contact, not a finding about any person.

  1. Sentchase

    The requester follows up on 1188/26, FOI 1040/26, FOI 719/26.

  2. Sentregulator complaintref IR FOI 260813002

    Section 50 FOIA complaint about the Ministry of Justice / HMCTS handling of request 260813002 (1988–1989 court records), after the internal review of 9 Oct 2026.

  3. Receivedacknowledgement

    Automatic acknowledgement of the section 50 complaint.

  4. Receivedacknowledgementref IC-586450-N8N0

    Gives the complaint case reference IC-586450-N8N0.

  5. Receivedredirected elsewhereref IC-546505-W6P0

    ICO casework answers four points: section 46 Code compliance cannot be considered within a section 50 complaint; deleting, altering or concealing requested information to prevent disclosure may be a section 77 FOIA / regulation 19 EIR offence, reported on the FOI complaint form; a late response (section 10) can be included in the section 50 complaint about that request, one complaint per request; case IC-546505-W6P0 is closed.

1 automatic acknowledgement

  1. Automatic acknowledgement of the email to the ICO case.

The assessment as last published

Carried over unchanged from v1.0.0 (21 October 2026). Links point inside this site.

Page ID: 3105 · Title: Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) — Forensic Assessment · Evidence status: Not yet labelled — see the Editing Protocol · Version: 1.0.0 · Editing Protocol

Assessed 14 October 2026. Scope: modern regulatory correspondence only. The ICO has no historical role at the farm. Inclusion is not a finding of fault.

Documented appearances

DateAppearanceSource
21 July 2026Family correspondence to the ICO.Reply register, R28
10 August 2026ICO letter IC-546505-W6P0: referral to other bodies and preservation of records for a legal matter are outside its remit; FOIA and the EIR do not require authorities to create information or give explanations.GHF-E106-R28-A1

Current finding

As at 14 October 2026, the material reviewed does not establish wrongdoing by the ICO. The letter states the Commissioner’s position on that correspondence. It is not a decision on any individual public authority’s compliance, and it is not a finding about the underlying events. The catalogue page records that the operative wording still needs transcribing from the original.

Forensic control test and next step

Transcribe the letter, then note which specific refusals or non-responses the family may bring to the ICO as complaints under the correct statutory route (for example the Llandough Community Council section 12 refusal, see GHF-E170). Acceptance: the letter is transcribed and each authority-specific complaint route is logged with its date.

Related

FOI & Public-Authority Reply Register · Llandough Community Council review

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

7 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
DateDirectionReferenceTypeVerbatim
21 July 2026sent—escalation (ICO/ombudsman/MP)Subject: Buckler vs United Kingdom
10 August 2026receivedIC-546505-W6P0redirected elsewherePlease find a letter attached in response.
21 October 2026sent—chaseSubject: Re: ICO Case Reference: IC-546505-W6P0
22 October 2026sentIR FOI 260813002regulator complaintSubject: FOI complaint (s50) — Ministry of Justice / HMCTS, IR FOI 260813002, internal review of 9 October 2026
22 October 2026received—acknowledgementWe confirm that we have received your correspondence.
22 October 2026receivedIC-586450-N8N0acknowledgementPlease only send information that is directly relevant to the issue you’ve already raised.
27 October 2026receivedIC-546505-W6P0redirected elsewhereUnfortunately, the ICO is unable to consider complaints about public authority’s compliance with the section 46 as part of a section 50 complaint.

(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

Versions

1.1.02026-11-01Moved to the Forensic Assessments webapp; dated “Since last assessment” section added; response status re-read.
1.0.02026-10-21As published on the Legal Wiki.

Small print: dotted links explain a word (see the glossary); amber-shaded links list every name the records use for the same thing.