The complainant requested information concerning whether Dr Philip Rycroft sought or obtained approval for appointments with PricewaterhouseCoopers, (“PwC”) and the United Kingdom Accreditation Service, the circumstances surrounding the start date of the PwC appointment, and whether retrospective publication or findings were appropriate. The complaint made to the Commissioner relates solely to the PwC advice letter.The public authority’s original response confirmed that information relevant to the request was held. It said that advice had been given to Dr Philip Rycroft, and that the PwC advice had been published after it came to the authority’s attention that the appointment had been taken up in March 2020.The complainant disputes that the said information was held at the time of the request. During the Commissioner’s investigation, the Civil Service Commission, responding following the closure of ACOBA, explained that at the date of the request it held a record in the ACOBA inbox evidencing that final advice was sent on 19 February 2020, and also held the Google Document version of the final advice letter in Dr Philip Rycroft’s PwC case folder. It said that the source Google Document was created on 20 December 2019 and last modified on 22 September 2021, whereas the PDF version used for publication was created on 14 May 2025 and published on 16 May 2025.The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the public authority held relevant recorded information concerning the PwC advice at the time of the request. The Commissioner is not satisfied, on the evidence available in this case, that the later creation date of the publication PDF demonstrates that no relevant information was held at the date of the request.The Commissioner’s decision is also that the public authority breached section 10(1) of FOIA by failing to respond within 20 working days.
The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps.