Twenty Days and Counting: Kingston’s Uneven Record on Freedom of Information

Under the Freedom of Information Act 2000, Kingston Council is expected to answer most requests within 20 working days. The law allows limited extensions, but the clock is not optional. For residents seeking records about road repairs, school admissions, housing allocations or council contracts, the response time is often the first test of whether the authority takes transparency seriously.

Kingston Press has examined a sample of requests made to the council between January and September 2026, together with published FOI logs and internal review outcomes. The sample is not a complete census. It is, however, indicative of a pattern: performance varies sharply by department, and the variation is not explained by the complexity of the subject alone.

The statutory clock and the local reality

The 20-working-day deadline is a maximum, not a target. In our sample of 120 requests, 62 per cent received a substantive response within the statutory period. A further 23 per cent were answered late but within 40 working days. The remaining 15 per cent took longer — in several cases, much longer. The median response time across the sample was 27 working days.

That median conceals wide differences. Highways and environment requests were typically answered in 19 working days. Adult social care requests had a median of 46 working days. Planning and regeneration sat in the middle at 31 working days. The pattern is consistent with the council’s own published logs, which show a long tail of overdue cases in departments that handle sensitive personal information or commercially confidential material.

A departmental scorecard

The table below summarises our sample. Figures are rounded and should be read as indicative rather than definitive.

Two conclusions stand out. First, the council is capable of meeting the deadline: finance and highways teams do so in most cases. Second, the departments with the weakest performance are not necessarily those with the most requests. Adult social care received fewer requests in our sample than finance, yet took nearly three times as long to respond on average.

Where refusals cluster

Late responses are only part of the story. In our sample, 31 per cent of responses contained at least one refusal or partial refusal. The most frequently cited exemption was section 40, which protects personal data. Section 43, covering commercial interests, appeared most often in procurement and planning requests. Section 12, the cost limit, was used in nine cases.

Some refusals were clearly justified. Requests for individual case files or live contract negotiations often engage legitimate exemptions. But the use of section 43 in particular can be difficult for requesters to challenge, because the council is not required to disclose the information it is withholding while explaining why. In several cases, requesters told Kingston Press they received a refusal without a clear public interest test. That is not necessarily unlawful, but it is poor transparency practice.

Staffing, exemptions and the cost limit

The council says staffing pressures have affected performance. Its information governance team handles requests across all directorates, and the council confirmed that a backlog developed in the first half of 2026. A spokesperson said the authority has recruited additional staff and is reviewing its case management system. The council also points out that request volumes have risen and that some requests are broad or repeat inquiries.

Those explanations are plausible. They do not, however, account for the full variation. A well-resourced department can still miss deadlines if it does not prioritise FOI work. Conversely, a small team can perform well with clear systems. The difference often comes down to whether senior managers treat FOI as a legal obligation or an administrative nuisance.

What the council says

The council said it remains committed to openness and is working to improve response times. It acknowledged that some requests had taken too long and said it is reviewing workflows, training and escalation arrangements. It also said it would welcome feedback from requesters who have experienced delays.

That is a welcome statement. The test will be whether the next set of published figures shows improvement. Kingston Press will continue to monitor the council’s FOI performance and will update this analysis when new data is available.

How to challenge a delay

If you have made a request and the council has not responded within 20 working days, you have options. First, check your reference number and the date the request was acknowledged. Second, write to the council asking for an internal review. You should do this within 40 working days of the response — or, if there has been no response, once the deadline has passed. Keep the request narrow and specific.

If the internal review is late or unsatisfactory, you can complain to the Information Commissioner’s Office. The ICO will usually expect you to have completed the council’s internal review process first. You can also ask the council for advice and assistance under section 16 of the Act, particularly if it has refused your request on cost grounds.

The transparency test

Freedom of Information is not a niche concern. It is how residents hold public bodies to account on spending, contracts, planning and social care. A council that answers slowly, or refuses vaguely, makes scrutiny harder for everyone.

Kingston’s FOI performance is not a single story of failure. Some teams do well. But the unevenness matters. When access to public records depends on which department holds them, transparency becomes a postcode lottery — and that is not what the law promised.