Romiley Gazette Investigates the Role of Local Authority Information Governance and Complaints Officers
15 October 2025 — Information Governance and Complaints Officers are often described as the “gatekeepers” of transparency within local councils. Their roles — handling Freedom of Information (FOI) requests, data protection matters, and public complaints — place them at the very heart of public accountability.
But some campaigners and residents are questioning whether those same officers sometimes act as barriers rather than bridges to openness.
Across Greater Manchester and beyond, local authorities handle thousands of FOI and Subject Access Requests (SARs) every year. These requests are meant to allow residents to understand how councils make decisions, spend public money, and manage their data.
Yet critics argue that councils too often use exemptions, refusals, and procedural barriers to avoid scrutiny. Requests can be labelled “vexatious,” “manifestly unfounded,” or “disproportionate” under FOIA or UK GDPR provisions — decisions usually signed off by the very officers tasked with ensuring transparency.
One long-time transparency advocate told the Romiley Gazette, “The system is supposed to work for the public, not against them. When complaints officers and information teams prioritise protecting the council’s image over the truth, public trust is lost.”
However, council officials strongly reject suggestions of corruption or concealment. Many say that Information Governance Officers perform a vital balancing act — protecting sensitive personal data, managing limited resources, and complying with complex legislation.
Public law experts note that mismanagement or misuse of information laws does not necessarily amount to corruption but can indicate a “culture of defensiveness.” The Gazette’s review of recent tribunal cases shows that the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) has occasionally overturned council refusals, finding them overly restrictive or procedurally flawed.
As public services continue to digitalise and budget pressures mount, the tension between transparency and risk management is likely to grow.
Whether information governance officers are unsung protectors of privacy or reluctant custodians of openness remains an open question — one that goes to the heart of public trust in local democracy.
