Public Money, Public Interest

NECA and FOI: Missed deadlines, thin answers, and a trust problem

The North East Combined Authority was asked a simple set of FOI questions about public funding to The Recruitment Junction. What followed was a timing shuffle, a missed statutory deadline in our view, and a thin response that supplied two figures and almost no documents. That is not what taxpayers pay for. If a public body cannot meet basic transparency standards, how can the public trust that their money is being used appropriately?

What we asked

On 8 August 2025 we requested, in writing and under FOI, a breakdown of funding to The Recruitment Junction, copies of the underlying records, a confirmation that relevant records were preserved, and the name and rationale of the NECA officer who decided not to clarify a public claim. We asked for machine readable formats and clear exemptions if anything was withheld.

What NECA sent

NECA replied after what we consider to be the statutory deadline and provided two headline amounts paid to The Recruitment Junction as a named delivery partner on UKSPF small grants.

NECA then tried to distinguish between money paid “directly” and money paid as a delivery partner, while listing exact sums received by TRJ from NECA managed programmes. Readers can decide how that sounds to a taxpayer who just wants straight answers.

What is missing

• Award letters and grant agreements
• Decision papers, monitoring returns, and payment schedules
• Clear confirmation that all records have been preserved
• Recorded rationale for the communications decision, including any notes, diary entries, or action logs

The timeline problem

We say the FOI clock started the first working day after receipt on 8 August. NECA says the clock starts on the date they acknowledged it on 12 August. The law points to receipt, not acknowledgement. Either way, the public sees the same thing. Avoidable delay, fragile accountability, and a scramble that should never be needed.

Held on behalf means in scope

NECA states the VCSE Small Grants project was managed by Rocket Science on its behalf. When a contractor manages a grant on behalf of a public authority, those records are usually held on the authority’s behalf. They should be in scope for FOI or accessible through the authority. The public does not care about internal silos. The public cares that public money is traceable.

So what do we expect

• Full disclosure of the grant paperwork in machine readable formats
• A straight confirmation that a preservation hold is in place across email, Teams, SharePoint, and contractor portals
• A clear record of who decided not to clarify the “no public money” line and why that decision was not recorded in writing
• Future handling that treats taxpayers with respect, not hair splitting

Where we go next

We have requested an internal review. If NECA maintains its position or continues to delay, we will refer the matter to the Information Commissioner. We will also invite a response from the Mayor, because tone and standards flow from the top. We will publish the full paper trail in the public interest.

Right of reply. NECA and the Mayor’s Office are invited to provide a response or corrected information for publication in full. Send statements and documents to our usual contact address.