The Docket

What the record establishes

• The spreadsheet contains the requested joint breakdown of Year 7 pupils by school and ethnic group, with school URN, school name, local-authority fields and admissions policy for all four requested January censuses.
• The workbook contains 144,587 school-year-ethnicity records across 19 recorded ethnic groups, including Unclassified. There are 3,323 distinct schools in the January 2026 extract. These are counts of records and schools in the supplied file, not a new published national statistic.
• DfE states that the figures cover Year 7 pupils in state-funded secondary schools. For pupils registered at two schools, the main registration is included and the subsidiary registration excluded to avoid double counting.
• DfE says Unclassified combines Information not obtained and Refused. Its letter states that no rounding or suppression has been applied to the figures.
• The 2 and 5 October acknowledgements established receipt and the response timetable. The substantive spreadsheet and explanatory letter were received on 29 October, before the recorded 30 October target.

What the record establishes

• The request was submitted on 25 September 2026 and acknowledged on 29 September. A six-page substantive response is dated 23 October.
• The Home Office confirms that it holds the requested contract information but withholds more detailed information under section 43(2), concerning commercial interests. Annex C gives its public-interest reasoning.
• The letter says its CMAC Group UK Limited contract is a standalone transport arrangement, unrelated to the contract referred to in the cited Mitie litigation. It states that CMAC operates until 31 October 2026, after which IMMS Operator Services begins.
• That statement does not reconcile the standalone arrangement with the earlier judgment's description. We retain both attributed records and do not treat the later date as proof of an extension to the same contract.
• The Home Office uses section 21 for information it says is reasonably accessible in published contract notices. It identifies the Asylum Accommodation and Support Contract providers as responsible for transport from asylum claim to first accommodation, referring to CRH, Serco and Mears contracts.
• For April to August 2026, the Home Office says it does not hold the spending breakdown requested for transport from disembarkation to initial processing or from asylum claim to first accommodation. No monthly supplier-payment table is supplied.
• The letter offers an independent internal review within two months. No internal-review outcome is recorded here.

What the record establishes

• The request was submitted on 25 September 2026.
• On 29 September the Home Office confirmed assignment to a caseworker and a target response date of 23 October 2026.
• The acknowledgement contains no contracts, payment figures or standby rules. The complete request text remains available in the Channel transport contracts case file.
• The 23 October interim response cites section 43 (commercial interests) and section 31 (law enforcement) and extends the timetable to consider the balance of the public interest.
• The Home Office estimates a full response by 20 November 2026. The attachment reproduces the original request as Annex A, but supplies no requested standby commissioning, approval, audit or payment records and makes no final disclosure decision.

What the record establishes

• The request was submitted on 9 September 2026 for the blank 2025/26 RASASF monitoring template and accompanying guidance.
• In its letter dated 7 October, the Ministry of Justice confirms that it holds the requested information and says the RASASF 2025-26 end-year monitoring workbook was attached.
• The letter says the template was issued to all RASASF recipients for completion at the end of financial year 2025/26. It states that completing financial and monitoring returns twice yearly is a condition of the Grant Funding Agreement.
• According to the letter, guidance appears on a GUIDANCE tab and at the top of each worksheet. We have reviewed the two-page letter, but the correspondence service currently withholds access to the accompanying workbook while it reviews a problem.
• The anonymised letter is published below. No workbook fields, definitions or values are presented as independently verified.

What the record establishes

• The request was submitted on 9 September 2026 and acknowledged on 10 September.
• In an email dated 5 October, the College of Policing extended its response timetable to consider applying the public-interest test under section 31, concerning law enforcement.
• The College said it would aim to respond as soon as possible and within a further 20 working days. The email did not state a calendar response date.
• This email-only procedural notice does not provide the requested final evaluation report, approval records or publication status, and makes no final refusal decision.

What the record establishes

• On 23 September, the 24h London team stated that neither the Mayor nor the GLA was a partner in the St Paul's and fabric initiative. That reply did not address each requested records category.
• On 2 October, The Cartulary asked for an item-by-item held or not-held answer within the original scope. An automatic acknowledgement was received that day.
• The response dated 5 October says no briefings, meeting notes or decision records concerning the partnership or opening performance have been produced. It states that the Mayor, Deputy Mayors and GLA officers were not involved.
• For the requested correspondence between the named GLA offices or teams and St Paul's Cathedral, fabric or Cameron Leslie, the GLA says there has been no correspondence between the parties mentioned.
• The GLA says it has not provided funding, sponsorship, promotional support or other support for the partnership. No documents were disclosed in these categories.
• The substantive response was received on 5 October, before the original recorded response target of 8 October 2026.

What the record establishes

• The response dated 2 October says City of London Police holds no information within the request's scope and had no involvement in the licensing matter described.
• The Police says it is aware of the event scheduled for 29 October. It states that the event is covered by the venue's existing operation and premises licence and does not require a separate licence application.
• The response also cites Schedule 1, Part 2, paragraph 9 of the Licensing Act 2003, concerning entertainment for a religious meeting or service, or at a place of public religious worship.
• No licensing consultation documents, representations or conditions were disclosed. The Police says it maintains working relationships with the organisations and remains in contact as appropriate.

What the record establishes

• The 24 September response records 42 unique individuals completing the taught course between 1 April 2025 and 31 March 2026: 39 constables and 3 police staff. All completed the new SSAIDP 2024 programme.
• Five people achieved accreditation after completing a portfolio in the same financial year. All five had completed their taught course before 1 April 2025.
• The force says learners have time to complete their portfolio, so this usually occurs in a different financial year. Not all course attendees are required to complete a portfolio.
• The substantive response was supplied in the email body. Its eight image attachments are email-signature graphics, not a separate response PDF.

What the record establishes

• The request was submitted on 15 September and covers partnership-related records from 1 January to 15 September 2026.
• It seeks non-sensitive advice, conclusions and recorded action status, including any relevant audience-capacity, seating or temporary-staging conclusions.
• The 17 September acknowledgement confirms receipt on 15 September and assigns a case reference. It states a target of 13 October 2026, while warning that demand and staff absences may delay the reply.
• No event-specific fire-safety information was supplied in the acknowledgement.

What the record establishes

• In its 16 September reply, the City reported that no applications had been submitted or were in process. It said temporary event notices had been used for past events, including a fabric-produced Patti Smith concert in 2024, but none in 2026.
• The Cathedral had contacted the City about a variation application that might be submitted to extend the scope of the licensed area. A Licensing Officer had visited and advised on submitting that application.
• The City said there had been no referral to, or consideration by, its Safety Advisory Group. It explained that the group primarily advises on public-highway events and may not be aware of every event on private land.
• The reply noted that a licence application would be considered by many of the same responsible authorities that contribute to the Safety Advisory Group.

What the record establishes

• Historic England acknowledged the request on 11 September.
• Its substantive reply dated 15 September was handled under the Environmental Information Regulations 2004.
• It says it searched paper and electronic records and consulted relevant colleagues, but holds no information within scope, citing regulation 12(4)(a).
• The scope was partnership-related consultation proposals, heritage advice and application or decision notices created or received from 1 January to 10 September 2026.
• On 15 September, The Cartulary thanked the team and asked whether it could identify the appropriate holder or public register for cathedral-permissions records. This is an advice follow-up, not an internal-review request.
• Later on 15 September, Historic England said it had consulted colleagues and recommended the Church of England’s Cathedrals team as the next contact. It supplied the department’s public contact page.

What the record establishes

• The original response said identifying rape cases at referral would require manual review because monitoring flags are added afterwards.
• The 29 May review upheld section 12. The separately worded April request is recorded as CT-FOI-0003.

What the record establishes

• The initial request was refused on cost grounds. A revised funding-only request received a spreadsheet and explanatory letter on 18 May.
• The letter distinguishes allocations from local spending. Some PCC grants cover domestic abuse and sexual violence together.

What the record establishes

• After an initial clarification request, the Home Office confirmed some recorded information was held.
• The 15 May response withheld that material under section 35(1)(a) and included a public-interest explanation.

What the record establishes

• The request asks for referrals, charging decisions and time from first police submission to a charging decision, from January 2020 onwards.
• The CPS confirmed it held information and supplied a dataset with caveats.

What the record establishes

• The 21 April response relied on section 22 for information due for publication and signposted recorded-crime sources.
• The requester asked for a clearer account of which information was held, published or exempt. The review acknowledgement gave a target of 22 May.

What the record establishes

• The letter reports 70,526 completions of the online first-responder modules and 4,184 completions across versions of SSAIDP.
• NPCC could not provide a complete force-by-year breakdown. It withheld a March 2026 draft training evaluation under section 31.

What the record establishes

• Recording completeness and aggregated demographic information were requested.
• The lead response’s Annex A reproduces this request; the lead case records the response and subsequent internal review.

What the record establishes

• Victim withdrawal, recorded reasons and aggregate demographics were requested.
• The lead response’s Annex A reproduces this request; the lead case records the response and subsequent internal review.

What the record establishes

• Historical recorded crime, outcomes and changes in definitions were requested.
• The lead response’s Annex A reproduces this request; the lead case records the response and subsequent internal review.

What the record establishes

• The request asks for prosecution, conviction, acquittal, timeliness and sentencing aggregates.

What the record establishes

• The request covers cases awaiting trial, time to hearing and disposal, and cases postponed or collapsed because of delays.