Dear Cabinet Office,

What information do you hold on the facts relating to the redecoration of the No 11 Downing St flat we are told is used by Mr Johnson and his fiancée ?

What was the total cost, what was the breakdown of the costs and what were the funding arrangements? In particular what information do you hold about the funding arrangements, were there requests for donations and if so, by whom to whom? Precise sums please. Was there any discussion about this project being funded from public funds?

Who made the decisions on how the flat should be refurbished in regard to matters of style, colour, fabrics, furniture and so on? Who retains rights over any of the property concerned?

Should this not be a matter for your office, I would expect that you would promptly forward it to the appropriate authority and confirm such forwarding to me.

Thank you.

T Todd

Yours faithfully,

tim todd

Dear Cabinet Office,

Please pass this on to the person who conducts Freedom of Information reviews.

I am writing to request an internal review of Cabinet Office's handling of my FOI request 'What is the truth about Johnsons flat redecorations?'.
If the mutterings from government about transparency have any validity you should provide a full answer to this request.
Further, given that you are now out of the time required for a prompt response and an outside 20 day limit. you should explain why you have failed to comply. Otherwise it will form part of my complaints to ICO
A full history of my FOI request and all correspondence is available on the Internet at this address: https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/w...

Yours faithfully,

tim todd

Dear FOI Team Mailbox,

Please get on with answering this FOI request. The law requires that you answer it promptly, and in any case within 20 working days.
It does not exempt you because an election is coming up and the information will be an embarrassment to the government or Tory party.
The answer is known to you so please, live up to your promises and abide by the Nolan principles and the FOI

Yours sincerely,

tim todd

Dear FOI Team Mailbox,
It is very plain from media reports, and from statements by his former top SPAD and others, that the reasons for the delay in answering this FOI are both personal to Johnson and his girlfriend. It is also party political and nothing to do with anything but trying to keep the truth of the matter from the public.
None of the above are valid reasons in the Act preventing disclosure.
You can assure Johnson that this matter is of interest to the public and we will pursue any abuse/ breach of regulations by him or any of his people.
So, please get on with it and provide the fullest answer to my FOI and without further delay.

Yours sincerely,

Tim Todd

Dear FOI Team Mailbox,

Further to the above, please explain why, as the PM has said there is 'nothing dodgy' about this matter you have still failed to provide a proper answer to my FOI, and committing a breach of the Act by failing to do so?
If there was 'nothing dodgy', I, and I suggest a considerable number of the general public would like some evidence of that we shouldn't have to be content with the likes of the poor defence of the PM that Liz Truss turned in this morning on Sky.

Yours sincerely,

Tim Todd

Dear Cabinet Office,

Please pass this on to the person who conducts Freedom of Information reviews.

I am writing to request an internal review of Cabinet Office's handling of my FOI request 'What is the truth about Johnsons flat redecorations?'

Your response , I will not dignify it by calling it an answer to my questions, is a shocking attempt to abuse the provisions of the FOI. I find difficult to imagine the ICO will have any difficulty concluding that your attempt to use Section 22 as an exemption is anything other than improper and a delaying tactic.

In the first instance I invite you to provide an explanation for your failure to comply with the time limits set by the FOI for responding to this request. There is no exemption for saving the PM further embarrassment that I am aware of but which everyone will recognise as the reason behind the breach of the Act.

Secondly your claim that the public interest is not sufficient to disallow the Section 22 exemption is utterly incredible. One assumes that you read newspapers, that you watch and listen to TV and radio where the issue of these refurbishments has been in prime time slots time and time again. Your decision is as ill-founded as they get.The PM can claim ad infinitum that the public are not interested but your role, as I understand it is to be an honest arbiter.

There is simply no way that this can be honestly dismissed as not being of great public interest. It begs the question just what, in your opinion, needs to happen for something to be sufficiently in the public interest to disqualify your attempts to use Section 22? It was such obstinate stubbornness, in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary view, that got me thinking, when studying terrorism at Oxford, about the means available to fight such conduct, conduct that we used only to expect only from foreign dictators.

I am sure the ICO will have a view and I shall be making a formal complaint to them in due course about both your failure to observe the time limits and, if no timely and satisfactory response is forthcoming, about the refurb matters.

This FOI has been provided to the Electoral Commission for inclusion into their criminal investigation into the PM, and will be provided to others investigating your office and the PM. You will recognise that it has value as to what you have said, or not, and when, all of which is relevant to the sleaze investigations.

A full history of my FOI request and all correspondence is available on the Internet at this address: https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/w...

Yours faithfully,

Tim Todd

Dear Cabinet Office,

Further to my earlier reply, for your information and for the avoidance of doubt or any subsequent claims of ignorance, the destruction of any data, no matter in which form it may be held, physical or digital, voice or video, would be a criminal offence in this matter- just as it would in the case of the Electoral Commission Enquiry into Johnson.

Yours faithfully,

T Todd

Dear Cabinet Office,

Please pass this on to the person who conducts Freedom of Information reviews.

Further to my request for an internal Review, I would also wish that review to deal with a number of issues raised by your claimed exemption.
In the first instance Section 22 applies only to information which the authority is currently in possession of. Perhaps you can explain how that requirement stands against the information you provide that there are ongoing enquiries being made by various others at this time. You cannot use S 22 if you do not have the results of those enquiries, and thus the information, at this time. Section 22 should not be used as a delaying tactic.
If you intend publishing the information it seems reasonable to ask where and when. Details please.
A full history of my FOI request and all correspondence is available on the Internet at this address: https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/w...

Yours faithfully,

Tim Todd
Standard Note for all authorities. The FOI requires that all authorities deal with requests promptly. The 20 working day being the longest time you have to respond, not vice versa as some authorities appear to believe (S 10 FOI)

Dear Cabinet Office,

Now that your bosses pal has predictably cleared Johnson I expect a prompt answer- and full explanatuion for the delay.
Yours faithfully,

tim todd

Dear FOI Team Mailbox,

The contents of your response dated 1st June are noted.

I trust you will explain the reasons why you cannot abide by the FOI law and the ICO recommendations.

As I suggested in my terse previous response, there should be now no ongoing enquiry into the matter that prevents a proper response.

Please ensure that when you do respond, it is in the fullest terms and include reasons for the delay so that I can judge whether there might possibly be good reason.

Yours sincerely,

tim todd

Dear FOI Team Mailbox,

I think you have now had more than sufficient time for the FOI review. What are the results?

Yours sincerely,

tim todd

Dear FOI Team Mailbox,

(reference
IR2021/10131),

Yours sincerely,

tim todd