National Flags on Berneslai Homes Vehicles

Organisation: Berneslai Homes / Barnsley Metropolitan Borough Council
FOI Reference: REQ739612
Date Submitted: 8 October 2025
Response Outcome: No information held

🔹 Why This FOI Was Submitted

This FOI was submitted after a long-serving agency driver working for Berneslai Homes reported that a toolbox talk instructed staff that national flags or stickers, including the Union Flag and St George’s Cross, must not be displayed on work vehicles.

The reason reportedly given was that such symbols could be perceived as “intimidating” to foreign tenants, and that the instruction had “come from the top”. No written policy was shown to staff.

🔹 What We Asked

We asked for:

• Copies of any internal communications, toolbox talks, guidance, or instructions issued since January 2024 relating to national flags or symbols on:

  • Company vehicles

  • Staff equipment

  • Uniforms

• Confirmation of:

  • Who authorised any such instruction

  • Why was it introduced

  • Whether Equality, Diversity, and Inclusion (EDI) advisers were involved

🔹 What We Were Told

Berneslai Homes and Barnsley Council responded that:

• No recorded information is held

• There are no written policies, guidance notes, toolbox talk records, or instructions relating to a ban or restriction on national flags or symbols

No author, policy rationale, or advisory involvement was identified.

🔹 What This Tells Us

This response raises a clear governance concern.

If staff were instructed verbally during a toolbox talk, but no record exists, then:

• Operational guidance may be issued without formal documentation, or

• The organisation is relying on the absence of written records to deny accountability

Either scenario undermines transparency in a publicly funded body.

🔹 Why This Matters to Residents

Public trust depends on:

• Clear policies

• Proper record-keeping

• Decisions are open to scrutiny

When instructions are allegedly given verbally but not recorded, residents are left unable to verify who made decisions or why.

That is not acceptable in public service.

🔹 Next Steps

• The issue remains under monitoring

• Further clarification may be sought regarding verbal instructions and governance procedures

🔹 Status

🟡 Ongoing

£65 Million South Yorkshire Police Funding Shortfall – Independent Review

Organisation: South Yorkshire Mayoral Combined Authority
FOI Reference: FOI2025/107
Date Submitted: 19 August 2025
Internal Review Requested: 29 August 2025
Status: Ongoing – Internal Review Delayed

Why This FOI Was Submitted

In September 2024, the South Yorkshire Mayoral Combined Authority and the Office of the Police and Crime Commissioner confirmed that an “accounting error” had resulted in a £65 million shortfall in South Yorkshire Police funding.

The Mayor publicly stated that an independent review would be commissioned to establish how such a significant error went undetected for more than five years.

Given the scale of the deficit and its direct implications for frontline policing and public safety, this FOI was submitted in the public interest to establish transparency, accountability, and oversight.

What Was Asked

The request sought non-personal, governance-level information, including:

• Whether the independent review had been completed

• A copy of the review or any interim findings

• Who was conducting the review and expected completion dates

• When the review was commissioned and when work began

• What oversight arrangements were in place

• Whether any accountability measures, governance changes, or disciplinary actions had been taken

What We Were Told

SYMCA confirmed that:

• The review is being conducted by Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy.

• The review was commissioned on 27 September 2024 but did not begin until December 2024.

• The work is described as “substantially complete”, with the final report expected in early autumn 2025.

• Updates have been provided during the review to:

  • the Police and Crime Panel

  • the Joint Independent Audit Committee

  • the Audit Standards and Risk Committee

However, SYMCA refused to release:

• Any interim findings

• Any recommendations

• Any information on accountability, governance changes, or staffing consequences

00 FOI Response SYMCAFOI 2025 1…

What Happened Next

An internal review was formally requested on 29 August 2025.

Since then:

• Statutory deadlines have been exceeded

• Multiple deadline extensions have been issued

• Repeated holding responses have been provided

• No internal review outcome has yet been released

Despite assurances that responses were prepared and awaiting approval, disclosure has not occurred.

Current Position

This case remains ongoing.

The authority has confirmed that information exists and has been shared internally with oversight committees, yet continues to withhold all substantive information from the public.

Further escalation, including referral to the Information Commissioner, is now being considered.

Equality Hub, Staff Networks and Associated Costs

Organisation: South Yorkshire Police
FOI Reference: FOI-971-26-1400-000
Date Submitted: 11/01/2026
Response Outcome: Awaiting response

Why This FOI Was Submitted

This Freedom of Information request was submitted following the disclosure of extensive internal documentation confirming the existence of a centrally coordinated Equality Hub within South Yorkshire Police, supported by multiple structured staff networks.

The request is made in the context of:

• A publicly acknowledged major accounting failure within South Yorkshire Police finances

• A significant multi million pound budget shortfall

• Ongoing reductions in frontline visibility and policing capacity

• Public concern regarding priorities, value for money, and governance

While staff welfare and support are important, the scale, structure and apparent resourcing of the Equality Hub raised legitimate questions about cost, staffing, operational impact and accountability, particularly during a period of acute financial pressure.

The purpose of this FOI is to establish transparency around public expenditure, staffing commitments, governance arrangements, and whether Equality Hub activity is proportionate and appropriately balanced against frontline policing demands.

No personal or sensitive personal data is sought.

What We Asked

We requested the following information for the South Yorkshire Police Equality Hub and all associated staff networks, for each financial year:

• 2021–22

• 2022–23

• 2023–24

• 2024–25

• Year to date 2025–26

Specifically, we asked for:

• The total cost of the Equality Hub, including staffing, overheads, training, events, communications, printing, venues, travel, and any external consultancy or contractor spend

• The number of staff who support or administer the Hub and networks, including role titles, full time equivalent (FTE), and whether roles are paid, seconded, or volunteer only

• The total staff time recorded or allocated to Hub and network activity, including meetings, training, events, communications, and governance activity (totals and breakdowns if held)

• Any budgets held for the Hub or networks, including cost centre codes, budget allocations, and actual spend

• A list of external suppliers used for Hub or network activity (including printing, design, training providers, consultants, facilitators and venues), with total spend per supplier per year

• The cost of producing printed materials and brochures relating to the Equality Hub and staff networks, including design, print, and distribution

• Governance documents, including terms of reference, decision making structures, reporting lines, and any performance measures or KPIs

• Any evaluations, outcome reports, impact assessments or internal reviews demonstrating benefits, outcomes or operational improvements linked to the Hub and networks

• Any internal communications, guidance or policies explaining how Equality Hub and network activity is prioritised alongside operational policing demands

We also requested that, if any part of the request exceeded the cost limit, South Yorkshire Police provide advice and assistance under Section 16 of the Freedom of Information Act, and release any information that could be provided within the limit.

Why This Matters

This FOI seeks factual, policy level and financial information only.
It does not request personal data or information about individual officers.

The public has a legitimate interest in understanding:

• how public money is being spent

• how staff time is allocated

• and how internal initiatives are governed

particularly at a time when frontline policing capacity is under pressure.

Transparency is essential to accountability and public trust.

Placement of Tenants in Elderly and Sheltered Housing Areas

Organisation: Berneslai Homes / Barnsley Metropolitan Borough Council
FOI Reference: 856
Internal Review Reference: 874
Date Submitted: 29 October 2025
Internal Review Requested: 27 November 2025
Response Outcome: Refused – Section 40(5B) upheld. Additional review points deemed vexatious under Section 14(1).

🔹 Why This FOI Was Submitted

This FOI was submitted following concerns raised by residents and community groups regarding the placement of high risk or complex needs tenants within, or adjacent to, housing schemes intended for older residents, including sheltered housing.

Reports suggested that some elderly tenants, including those who are frail, disabled, or living alone, were experiencing distress, intimidation, or a loss of peace in what had previously been quiet residential environments.

The purpose of this request was to understand the policies, safeguarding measures, risk assessments, and accountability arrangements governing such placements. No personal or identifiable tenant data was sought.

🔹 What We Asked

We asked for non personal, policy level information relating to:

• Who authorised or approved the policy or practice of placing high risk or complex needs tenants within or adjacent to elderly or sheltered housing schemes

• Whether any risk or community impact assessments were undertaken prior to such placements, and if so, for a copy or summary

• What safeguarding measures are in place to protect elderly residents and ensure peaceful enjoyment of their homes

• What consultation, oversight, or accountability mechanisms exist between Berneslai Homes and Barnsley Council in relation to these decisions

🔹 What We Were Told

Berneslai Homes refused to confirm or deny whether the requested information was held, relying on Section 40(5B)(a)(i) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000.

The organisation stated that confirming or denying the existence of such information would, in itself, disclose personal data about identifiable individuals, either directly or indirectly, and would therefore breach UK GDPR and the Data Protection Act 2018.

The refusal made clear that this position should not be taken as an indication that the information does or does not exist.

🔹 Internal Review

An internal review was requested to clarify that:

• No personal data was being requested

• The request related solely to policies, procedures, safeguarding frameworks, and governance arrangements

• Redaction or summary disclosure could be used where appropriate

The review also asked Berneslai Homes to explain why confirming the existence of non personal policy documents would itself disclose personal data.

🔹 Review Outcome

Berneslai Homes upheld its original refusal under Section 40(5B)(a)(i).

In addition, the organisation determined that the further clarification points raised within the review were vexatious under Section 14(1) of the Freedom of Information Act, citing:

• The volume and repetitive nature of previous requests

• Allegations regarding the use of disinformation on public social media platforms

• A view that further engagement would impose a disproportionate burden on resources

A warning was issued stating that future requests considered vexatious may not be acknowledged or responded to.

🔹 Current Position

The internal review confirmed the right to escalate the matter to the Information Commissioner’s Office for independent consideration.

No confirmation has been provided as to whether any safeguarding policies, risk assessments, or oversight documents exist in relation to this issue.

Hospitality, Events and Related Spend

Organisation: Berneslai Homes
FOI Reference: 849
Internal Review Reference: 870
Date Received: 17 October 2025
Internal Review Response Issued: 16 December 2025
Response Outcome: Review upheld in part. Additional financial data disclosed following challenge.

Why This FOI Was Submitted

This Freedom of Information request was submitted to obtain transparency around Berneslai Homes’ expenditure on hospitality, refreshments, events, conferences, awards and related activities over multiple financial years.

The purpose was to understand how public money was being spent in these areas, how such costs were categorised within the organisation’s finance system, and whether appropriate oversight and accountability arrangements were in place.

What We Asked

We requested:

• Itemised expenditure covering hospitality, entertainment, refreshments and functions

• A breakdown by financial year

• Identification of relevant cost codes

• Supporting ledger data underpinning any totals provided

The request was framed to avoid personal or identifying information and focused solely on financial transparency.

Initial Response

Berneslai Homes initially stated that fully itemising the requested information would exceed the statutory cost limit under Section 12 of the Freedom of Information Act.

Partial information was provided, with some figures described as estimates, and it was stated that compliance would require extensive manual review across multiple general ledger codes and years.

Internal Review and Challenge

An internal review was requested, challenging:

• The lack of a clear, itemised justification for the claimed time spent

• The reliance on estimates while simultaneously citing excessive workload

• The assertion that modern digital finance systems required extensive manual searching

• Errors in the stated date of receipt of the FOI

• The refusal to provide supporting ledger lines alongside annual totals

• The absence of clear Section 16 advice and assistance during refinement

What Changed Following Review

As a result of the internal review (Ref 870), Berneslai Homes:

• Provided a detailed breakdown of the claimed 15 hours of work involved

• Confirmed that approximately 13 general ledger codes were reviewed

• Acknowledged an administrative error in the original FOI receipt date

• Accepted that the requester was not kept informed when scope refinements were applied and issued an apology for this oversight

• Confirmed that estimates may be used when applying the cost limit, in line with FOI guidance

Crucially, and in the interests of transparency, Berneslai Homes also agreed to disclose the ledger line data that had been manually extracted to calculate the annual totals. This data was anonymised to remove third party personal information.

Extracted Figures (As Disclosed)

Based on the financial schedules released following Internal Review 870, the following annual totals were disclosed by Berneslai Homes:

Financial Year Total Spend

2019–2020

The figures above are taken directly from Berneslai Homes’ own ledger extracts and reflect spending coded under categories including:

• Hospitality and refreshments

• Catering and beverages

• Conferences and events

• Awards and presentations

• External venue hire

  Staff subscriptions and associated event costs

• Miscellaneous event related services

Important Context

These figures were not volunteered at the outset.

They were disclosed only after:

• The application of the cost limit was challenged

• An internal review was conducted

• Berneslai Homes accepted that additional transparency could be provided

All figures published here are aggregated, anonymised, and derived from Berneslai Homes’ own finance systems. No personal or identifiable information has been included.

Notes on 2022–2023 Data

The 2022–23 financial year data was disclosed across multiple tables and schedules. The full year total can be derived by summing the disclosed figures within the released ledger extracts. This page will be updated once the consolidated total is confirmed.

Outcome

• The cost limit was upheld in principle

• Errors and communication shortcomings were acknowledged

• Additional financial data was released following scrutiny

• The case demonstrates the value of challenge in achieving greater transparency over the use of public funds

Supporting financial schedules disclosed as part of Internal Review 870 are available on request.