Dear Maidstone Intermediate,

Under the Official Information Act 1982, I request the following information from Maidstone Intermediate School:

Copies of all emails exchanged between the Principal and the Chair of the Board during April 2026.

Copies of all text messages and other electronic messages (including but not limited to SMS, WhatsApp, Messenger, Signal, or similar platforms) exchanged between the Chair of the Board and the Acting Principal during April 2026.

Copies of any records of conversations between the Chair of the Board and the Acting Principal during April 2026, including notes, meeting records, diary entries, file notes, summaries, or other recorded information relating to those conversations.

If any part of this request is refused or withheld, please specify the grounds relied upon under the Official Information Act.

Yours faithfully,

Claire

Dear Georgia Francis,

Thank you for your reply.

I note your statement that Maidstone Intermediate is “keen to comply with their obligations under the Official Information Act 1982”. Compliance with the Act is, of course, a statutory obligation.

In your letter dated 4 June 2026, Maidstone advised that, pursuant to section 15A of the Official Information Act 1982, the time for making a decision and responding to my request was extended until 3 July 2026. That statutory timeframe has now passed, yet I have not been notified of Maidstone’s decision on my request. I have also not received the information requested.

I also note the Ombudsman’s published case note, OIA request extension notified outside time limit, which states:
“…failed to notify the requester of its decision within the specified timeframes in the Act, section 28(4) of the OIA provides that this failure shall be deemed to be a refusal to make the information available.”

The extended timeframe in this matter expires on 3 July 2026. As no decision has been notified, section 28(4) now applies. I therefore regard Maidstone as having failed to comply with its statutory obligation to notify a decision within the prescribed timeframe. Accordingly, the statutory timeframe for notifying a decision has now expired and the request is deemed to have been refused.

Your correspondence further states:
“As soon as we receive your confirmation that you will pay the proposed charge, our client will begin preparing their response.”

However, the Ombudsman’s Charging Guide – Charging for Official Information under the OIA and LGOIMA states:

“In order to charge, an agency must have already decided to release at least some of the information at issue.”

Your correspondence does not advise that Maidstone has made any decision to release any information. Rather, it advises only that the school is “keen to comply” and that it will begin preparing its response once I agree to the proposed charge. Those statements do not indicate that any release decision has been made, particularly as the response could equally be a refusal or only a partial release.

The Ombudsman’s guidance also states:
“…the purpose of engaging with the requester is to clarify the request and to help them change or refine it in a way that reduces or removes the need to charge.”
It further states:

“The earlier engagement takes place the better.”

The guidance recommends that agencies work with requesters to reduce or remove the need for a charge by considering options such as identifying information that can readily be supplied free of charge, refining the timeframe or document types requested, providing a list of documents within scope, limiting search terms by agreement, or discussing alternative ways of providing the requested information.

I have been waiting patiently for you to correspond in accordance with the Ombudsman’s guidelines.

None of these steps were taken. At no stage did Maidstone engage with me to discuss refining or narrowing the request, explore options to reduce or remove the proposed charge, or otherwise provide the assistance contemplated by the Ombudsman’s guidance before proposing a charge.

And at no stage have you communicated a decision on the actual request.

The Ombudsman’s guidance also recommends identifying information that is readily retrievable and able to be supplied free of charge.

My request expressly sought records such as emails, electronic messages, meeting records, diary entries and file notes. Some categories of information, such as formal meeting records and minutes, would ordinarily be expected to be maintained as part of the school’s normal record-keeping processes and should therefore be readily retrievable.

Your correspondence does not explain why no attempt was made to identify and release any readily available information before proposing a charge for the request as a whole. Instead, the proposed charge appears to include work associated with Maidstone’s own record management and administrative processes, rather than being limited to work properly chargeable under the Official Information Act.

The Ombudsman’s guidance also states that, where only part of a request is being granted:

“the information to be released should be described in sufficient detail to enable the requester to decide whether it is worth paying the charge”

and that agencies should provide the contact details of a subject matter expert to assist the requester in refining the request.

None of these steps occurred. Maidstone did not identify any information that it had decided to release, did not describe any information in sufficient detail to enable me to assess whether the proposed charge was worthwhile, and did not provide a contact person to assist me in refining my request.

I also note that your estimate includes activities such as:
“Editing (excising or redacting information to be withheld)”; and
“Reasonably required peer review to ensure that these tasks have been carried out correctly.”

The Ombudsman’s guidance makes clear that agencies cannot charge for making decisions on whether information should be released or withheld. It is therefore unclear how the proposed charge has been calculated, whether it includes non-chargeable decision-making activities, or whether it includes work arising from Maidstone’s own information management and internal administrative processes rather than the work of making information available under the Official Information Act.

In light of the above, I do not accept that the proposed charge has been demonstrated to be consistent with either the Official Information Act or the Ombudsman’s published guidance.

The statutory timeframe for notifying a decision on my request has now expired, and the request is deemed to have been refused under section 28(4) of the Official Information Act.

As the statutory deadline for notifying a decision has passed without any decision having been communicated, I do not consider it open to Maidstone Intermediate to seek agreement to a proposed charge before first making the decision that the Act required to be notified by 3 July 2026.

I therefore expect Maidstone Intermediate to now either:

* release all information that it has decided should be made available, subject only to any lawful redactions or withholding grounds under the Official Information Act; or
* provide a formal decision identifying any information withheld, the statutory grounds relied upon for withholding that information, and advising me of my right to complain to the Ombudsman.

Yours sincerely,

Claire