The ICO’s Uncorrectable Mistake: How a Flawed Decision Notice Obscures Corporate Mismanagement

The Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) is supposed to be the final safeguard for transparency and accountability in government. Yet, a recent Decision Notice (IC-340043-X2N8) has exposed not just the agency’s fallibility, but its apparent willingness to let misinformation stand uncorrected—even when the errors could mislead legal proceedings and conceal potential criminal offences.

The decision notice in question relates to a Freedom of Information (FOI) request concerning Monarch Aircraft Engineering Ltd (MAEL). In it, the ICO asserts that MAEL ceased trading on 2 October 2017. This is demonstrably false. MAEL continued operating for over a year, even expanding its business by constructing a new maintenance facility, before finally entering administration on 4 January 2019. This is not a minor factual inconsistency—it is a fundamental misrepresentation of the company’s financial and operational history.

Yet when confronted with this error, the ICO’s response was not to amend the record, but to stand by its flawed document. According to the caseworker, once issued, a Decision Notice cannot be changed. This bureaucratic intransigence effectively allows demonstrably inaccurate information to remain in the public domain, potentially influencing future legal proceedings and misleading those who rely on the integrity of ICO decisions.

A Criminal Omission?

What makes this case particularly troubling is that the Decision Notice also ignores a potentially serious legal violation. Under the Companies Act 2006, all UK companies are required to register a Person with Significant Control (PSC) with Companies House. Failure to do so is not just an administrative oversight—it is a criminal offence.

In the case of MAEL, no PSC was listed after 24 October 2018. The law is unequivocal: failing to register a PSC, knowingly providing false information, or failing to comply with disclosure obligations can result in unlimited fines or even imprisonment. Yet, despite the legal significance of this omission, the ICO has failed to acknowledge it in its Decision Notice.

This raises a troubling question: is the ICO’s refusal to correct its document an act of mere negligence, or is it a more deliberate effort to avoid exposing regulatory failures that would call into question the conduct of those responsible for overseeing MAEL’s finances?

A Watchdog That Won’t Bark

The ICO’s refusal to amend a legally flawed Decision Notice strikes at the heart of its credibility. How can the public have confidence in an oversight body that knowingly allows misinformation to remain uncorrected? More alarmingly, how many other Decision Notices contain similar errors, hidden in plain sight but never challenged?

This is not just a matter of bureaucratic stubbornness—it is a systemic failure with real-world consequences. An incorrect Decision Notice can mislead courts, distort the public record, and enable wrongdoing to go unchallenged. By refusing to acknowledge its mistake, the ICO has transformed itself from an accountability watchdog into an enabler of misinformation.

The Missing PSC and the CAA’s Silence

Equally concerning is the Decision Notice’s omission of another crucial detail: the involvement of the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) in MAEL’s financial affairs. The CAA, through the ATOL scheme, was a shareholder in MAEL, a fact that raises serious concerns about conflicts of interest and regulatory oversight.

Why was this not addressed in the ICO’s findings? Why does the Decision Notice ignore the legal significance of a missing PSC, particularly when the consequences of such an omission can be criminal? If the ICO is truly committed to transparency, these are questions it must answer.

An Appeals Process Designed to Fail?

The ICO’s justification for refusing to correct its Decision Notice is that any challenge must go through an appeal. But this process is neither quick nor straightforward. It places the burden on the individual to rectify errors the ICO itself should have acknowledged. Worse still, by the time an appeal is resolved, the damage caused by the erroneous Decision Notice may already be done.

This is the fundamental absurdity of the ICO’s position: it acknowledges that its document contains factual inaccuracies, yet insists that the only way to correct them is to engage in a lengthy and cumbersome legal process. In doing so, it prioritises procedural rigidity over the very transparency it claims to uphold.

A Call for Reform

This case exposes a glaring weakness in the ICO’s procedures: its apparent unwillingness to correct factual inaccuracies in its own legal decisions. If a Decision Notice is found to contain errors—especially errors with legal significance—there must be a mechanism for prompt correction. The alternative is a system where misinformation is preserved under the guise of bureaucratic finality, undermining trust in both the ICO and the wider regulatory framework.

The ICO must do better. Transparency cannot be conditional, and accountability cannot be selective. If the agency responsible for upholding information rights refuses to correct its own mistakes, what hope is there for those who rely on its decisions to uncover the truth?

The ICO now faces a stark choice: acknowledge and correct its errors, or continue down a path where bureaucratic obstinacy takes precedence over justice and transparency. The public is watching.

Disclaimer: This article is based on concerns raised about the accuracy and integrity of an ICO Decision Notice. While every effort has been made to ensure factual accuracy, the information presented reflects issues highlighted by those affected by the decision and broader concerns regarding regulatory oversight. This article is intended for informational purposes and public interest discussion. Readers are encouraged to conduct their own research and verify details independently.