The Council has defaulted on its FOI obligations, the Information Commissioner has stepped in, and the original lease arrangement has been reported to the police. Here is what Hillingdon Council still refuses to answer.
When we first exposed the Theo’s Café contradiction, the central question was straightforward: how did a Council lease that appeared to prohibit subletting lead to a private occupation arrangement worth £1,500 a month – and did the Council receive the income it had expected?
We revealed that Hillingdon Council granted an 80% rent discount (a public subsidy reported to be worth over £100,000 over five years) to the Hillingdon Foster Carers Association, despite the Council’s own records confirming the organisation had “ceased to operate” a full year before the lease was signed.
We also highlighted that while the tenant – former Conservative councillor Alan Deville – was collecting £18,000 a year from the café operator, he had fallen into arrears on his own heavily discounted council rent, prompting the Cabinet to secretly consider writing off his debt.
The records residents asked for
Because the Council’s legal department provided only narrow answers defending how the lease was signed, we submitted a comprehensive Freedom of Information (FOI) request.
We asked for the raw data: the current lease status, the schedule of rent payments and arrears, any official authorisations for the subletting, the amount of subletting income the Council actually collected, business rates valuations, and any internal reports considering the write-off of the debt.
These are not exotic questions. They are basic public-interest records about a public building, a discounted lease, a private occupation arrangement, and public money.
The Council defaults on its legal deadline
The Council formally acknowledged our request and set a statutory deadline of 27 April 2026.
That deadline came and went. The Council failed to provide the requested information and failed to issue a valid refusal notice under the FOI Act. Instead, it sent a short message referring to a “slight delay”. That was three weeks ago, and we’ve still heard nothing more.
That is not good enough. Residents followed the correct legal process. The Council missed the deadline. The records remain unreleased.
The Information Commissioner steps in
We will not accept being stonewalled. Because the Council failed to meet its statutory duty, the matter has now been escalated to the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO).
The ICO has formally acknowledged our complaint and will now investigate the Council’s failure to release the public records. The Council may yet provide the records, but it should not take an ICO complaint for residents to find out what happened to a public asset.
Escalation to the Police
The Council’s refusal to answer questions has caused the issue to move beyond ordinary committee scrutiny. At a public election hustings, Labour councillor Sital Punja confirmed that the opposition has formally referred the matter to the authorities.
Referring directly to the private Cabinet discussion about writing off the former councillor’s rent arrears, Cllr Punja stated:
“If that isn’t cronyism – and what could be called corruption – then I don’t know what is. Labour have asked for full reports from the Council. They have failed to provide them, citing GDPR and legal issues. Hillingdon Labour have now reported this to the police because we do not feel this is being taken seriously enough by the Council.”
That is Labour’s allegation. Our position is simpler: residents asked for records. The Council missed the FOI deadline. The questions remain unanswered.
What happens next?
This is not a technical dispute. It is about a public asset, a massive taxpayer subsidy, and an extremely lucrative private occupation. If the Council believes the Cowley Meeting Hall lease was handled properly, it should publish the records that prove it. Until they do, residents are entitled to keep asking.
While residents wait for those records, Hillingdon Council has already changed parts of its Constitution. It has changed how sealed contracts are executed. It has changed how debts can be written off. It has changed where financial scrutiny takes place. That is the subject of our next article.
Read More
- The illusion of engagement: Stolen credit, slashed scrutiny, and refused handshakes
- Theo’s Café Update: A missed deadline, an ICO investigation, and a Police report
- After Cowley Meeting Hall: Hillingdon rewrites the rulebook to move debt out of sight
- Fewer eyes on the money: Why residents should challenge Hillingdon’s new scrutiny system
Join our newsletter mailing list
Comments are closed.