NECA says its FOI process is impartial. Its own guidance says otherwise.

By Kieron JH, Founder, The Reasonable Adjustment

Short version: A new internal review response from the North East Combined Authority confirms that every FOI request is circulated to the Mayor’s team and Communications, requests can be “flagged” for their attention, and none of this is governed by any written policy, recorded in any log, or subject to any documented safeguard. We have the proof in writing. This advances what we reported in November: from an appearance of bias to a confirmed structural gap.

In November 2025 we published evidence of an apparent conflict of interest in how NECA handled FOI requests about The Recruitment Junction. A senior NECA Communications officer was publicly credited on TRJ’s website. The decision to refuse clarification about TRJ’s public funding was taken inside the same Communications department. NECA said there were no internal records because the discussion was verbal.

We asked NECA, formally and on the record, what safeguards existed to prevent exactly that kind of situation. We now have their answer.

There are none.

What we asked

In January 2026 we submitted a Freedom of Information request to NECA, viewable in full on WhatDoTheyKnow, asking for documented processes covering: how conflicts of interest are identified when handling FOI requests; what happens when one is found; how Communications and the Mayor’s team interact with the FOI function; and what records are kept. We also asked for anonymised statistics on any cases where a conflict had been identified and the case reassigned.

What NECA’s own guidance confirms

NECA’s FOI Guidance and Checklist, a document they initially described as not existing as a separate policy and then disclosed when we pointed out they had already attached it, confirms the following: all FOI requests are circulated weekly to senior leadership, the Mayor’s team, and the Communications department. Requests can also be “flagged” for the attention of SLT, the Mayor, or Comms.

That is not in dispute. NECA confirmed it in their own guidance.

What the internal review confirms

Following our challenge, NECA conducted an internal review, published in full on WhatDoTheyKnow. It was signed off by the Director of Operations. The response addressed each of our specific questions in turn.

On the weekly circulation process: no recorded information governs it. It is a regular part of an individual officer’s role.

On what flagging means in practice, who can request it, and whether it is recorded: that information is not documented. It is, in NECA’s words, “an agreed way of working.”

On the criteria for deciding when an FOI is flagged: not documented. Agreed way of working.

On what safeguards exist to ensure impartiality when a request is flagged or when Comms is engaged: not documented. Agreed way of working.

Four times. The same answer. Nothing is written down.

The FOI log

NECA told us that conflicts of interest would be recorded if they had been identified, and offered their FOI log as evidence. They disclosed a blank copy of the log to support that claim.

We examined it. The log has fourteen columns: request reference, requester name, directorate, assigned officer, summary of information requested, date received, acknowledgement sent, internal deadline, response due date, date response sent, resolved, internal review request date, response due, and comments and issues raised.

There is no column for a conflict of interest. No column for flagging. No column for Communications involvement. No column for SLT or Mayor’s team involvement. No column for sensitivity. No column for reassignment.

The only free-text field is Comments and Issues Raised. There is no documented requirement for any officer to record anything in it. NECA’s assertion that no conflicts of interest have been identified across four years rests entirely on the absence of entries in a column nobody is required to fill in.

Why this matters

In November we raised a specific concern. A named senior NECA Communications officer was publicly credited on TRJ’s website. The decision to refuse clarification about TRJ’s public funding was taken by the Assistant Director for Communications, the same department. NECA said the discussion was verbal and no records existed.

We now know that even if someone in Communications had recognised that conflict and wanted to flag it, there was no documented process telling them what to do. No written criteria. No reassignment route. No record either way.

NECA’s position is that its Code of Conduct covers all of this. When we asked them to identify the specific passages that constitute a documented FOI conflict-checking process, they listed sections on hospitality, gifts, corruption, and financial regulations. None of those passages describe what an FOI officer should do when they discover that a colleague in their department has a visible link to the subject of a live request.

The comparison

In August 2025 we compared NECA’s handling of public funding questions about TRJ with Newcastle City Council’s response to the same issue. Newcastle provided itemised payments, monitoring material, and transparent exemption reasoning. NECA confirmed funding existed but resisted clarification at every stage.

The internal review response does not change that comparison. It confirms it. Newcastle City Council’s FOI function operates with disclosure as the default. NECA’s operates with Communications in the loop, no written rules about what that means, and no record of what happens when it matters.

The Mayor-centric communications problem

This is not just an FOI process issue. It sits inside a broader pattern worth naming directly.

NECA’s public communications have become increasingly personality-driven. Metro fare changes are announced as the Mayor’s fares. Station upgrades are the Mayor’s upgrades. Investment announcements, infrastructure decisions, regional deals: all routed through a single political identity. The Mayor’s team and the Communications function are, in practice, the same operation pointed at the same goal.

That matters here because the FOI process is supposed to be independent of political considerations. When every sensitive request is circulated to the Mayor’s team as a matter of routine, and requests about politically sensitive subjects can be flagged for their attention, the line between FOI handling and communications management becomes very thin. NECA has no documented safeguard to maintain that line. They confirmed it themselves.

We saw the same dynamic play out in our investigation into the Mayor’s trip to Japan, where a multi-organisation corporate roadshow was presented publicly as a single-purpose green transport mission, and where NECA held no recorded business case, no climate assessment, and no written value for money reasoning for a £16,000 spend of devolved public money. The communications framing and the documentary record told entirely different stories. That is the same gap we are seeing here.

What does the law say?

The Freedom of Information Act 2000 and the ICO’s Section 16 guidance require public authorities to advise and assist requesters and handle requests impartially. The Section 45 Code of Practice expects internal reviews to be fair, thorough, and where possible conducted by someone not involved in the original decision. The Section 46 Code of Practice requires authorities to keep adequate records of significant decisions. Verbal-only decisions on sensitive matters do not meet that standard.

The apparent bias test asks whether a fair-minded and informed observer would see a real possibility of bias. On the facts as now documented, not alleged but documented, that question answers itself.

What NECA should do

This is the same list we published in November. It has not changed because nothing has changed.

Register the link between NECA Communications and TRJ and recuse Communications from any matter involving TRJ.
Appoint a neutral decision-maker from FOI, Information Governance, or Legal.
Record significant decisions in writing, including dates, names, and evidence considered.
Update the FOI log to include fields for conflicts of interest, flags, Comms involvement, and reassignment.
Document the flagging process: who can request it, who acts on it, and what safeguard applies.
Clarify the “no public money” statement made by TRJ’s CEO in plain language, or explain the exact basis for any alternative position.

Verbal-only decisions on sensitive matters are not acceptable. NECA’s own internal review has now confirmed, in writing, that no documented alternative exists.