From: Susie Colley, Director, Save Torbay Hospital Ltd (chair@savetorbayhospital.co.uk)
To: Freedom of Information Team, Royal Devon University Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust
CC: John Govett, Mark Hackett, NHS Devon ICB Involve, James Murray MP, Dr Phil Keeling, Sally Allen-Gerard, and campaign committee members
Reference: RDF3784-25

Dear Freedom of Information Team,

I am writing about request RDF3784-25, which Save Torbay Hospital submitted on 20 October 2025. We have still not received a substantive response.

The request seeks the full recommendations arising from the Royal College of Physicians' 2020 review, which identified 29 concerns; the action plans developed in response; the evidence used to monitor their implementation; and any subsequent internal reviews.

The chronology is as follows: the request was submitted on 20 October 2025; on 14 November 2025 the Trust invoked Section 10(3) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 to consider the public interest in relation to Sections 40(2) and 43(2), and extended the deadline to 15 December 2025; on 19 November 2025 we wrote to the Trust setting out in detail why neither exemption justifies withholding this information; and since then there has been no substantive response, no further update and no revised timescale.

The extended deadline expired almost ten months ago. Section 10(3) permits an extension only for as long as is reasonable in the circumstances, and the Information Commissioner's guidance is that this should normally be no more than a further 20 working days. The Trust is plainly in breach of its statutory obligations.

There is also a significant public interest at stake. The Trust has stated publicly that 25 cardiology recommendations have been completed. Patients and the wider Torbay community cannot test that claim without seeing the recommendations, the action plans and the monitoring evidence. That information goes directly to the safety and standard of cardiology care, at a time when the future configuration of these services is under active consideration.

Even if the Trust maintains that some material is exempt, it must still disclose everything that is not. Where staff names or commercially sensitive details are a genuine concern, redaction is the appropriate remedy, not withholding the information in full.

I therefore require a full response to request RDF3784-25 within 10 working days of the date of this email. Should any information be withheld, the response must include a refusal notice that complies with Section 17, explaining the public interest balance for each exemption relied on.

If we do not receive a response within that time, we will refer the matter to the Information Commissioner's Office under Section 50 of the Act without further notice. We also reserve the right to make the Trust's handling of this request public.

Please acknowledge receipt of this email.

Yours faithfully,

Susie Colley
Director, Save Torbay Hospital Ltd

From: Susie Colley (chair@tqcc.co.uk)
To: FOI (Royal Devon University Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust) rduh.foi@nhs.net
Subject: FOI Request - Pre-emptive Challenge to Proposed Use of Sections 40(2) and 43(2)

Good evening, Mr Pethick

Thank you for your update of 14 November advising that you require further time under Section 10(3) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA) to consider the balance of public interest in relation to Sections 40(2) and 43(2).

I wish to register the following points before a final decision is made, as it appears highly unlikely that either exemption can lawfully justify withholding the information I have requested.

1. Section 40(2) - Limited and specific application only

Section 40(2) may be relevant only to the extent that disclosure would identify named individuals, such as junior staff or patients.

However, the full text of the Royal College of Physicians' recommendations, action plans, evidence of monitoring, and any subsequent internal reviews are organisational documents, not personal data.

ICO guidance (e.g., FS50625792, FS50647482) confirms that redaction, not withholding, must be used where only small passages contain personal data. Therefore, any reliance on Section 40(2) must be confined strictly to names or clearly identifiable personal information, not the substance of the recommendations or actions.

2. Section 43(2) - Highly unlikely to apply to clinical governance material

Section 43(2) requires the authority to demonstrate that disclosure would be likely to prejudice commercial interests. For the type of information requested, clinical quality recommendations and governance action plans, this test is very rarely met.

ICO decision notices consistently hold that clinical reviews, quality assessments, Royal College visits, and governance action plans do not constitute commercially sensitive material, and that the public interest in transparency about patient safety and quality of care far outweighs organisational sensitivities (examples: FS50739389, FS50608069, FS50833947).

Any assertion that disclosure would prejudice commercial interests must be supported by clear, specific, and evidenced harm, not vague or speculative concerns, and not general reputational issues, which are not grounds for Section 43(2). Unless the Trust can identify real, specific commercial harm, which is highly unlikely in this context, Section 43(2) cannot be sustained.

3. The public interest strongly favours disclosure

The public interest in the requested information is significant: it concerns clinical quality, patient safety, and service performance; the Royal College of Physicians is a statutory professional authority whose recommendations relate directly to care standards; the Trust is reportedly preparing a "case for change," increasing the need for transparency, not reducing it; and previous ICO rulings establish that public confidence in NHS decision-making outweighs internal sensitivities. Under Section 2(2)(b), unless the public interest in withholding is clearly stronger (which is highly unlikely), the information must be disclosed.

4. Request for a proportionate and lawful response

Given the above, I request that the final response releases the full recommendations, the action plans and monitoring evidence, and any subsequent internal reviews, using minimal and properly justified redaction only where Section 40(2) genuinely applies.

If the Trust intends to rely on Section 43(2), I request a detailed explanation of the specific commercial harm, who it affects, how disclosure would cause that harm, and why the public interest favours withholding. This will assist me in determining whether an internal review or an ICO complaint is required.

I look forward to your full response.

Kindest regards

Susie Colley
Chair of the Torquay Chamber of Commerce and the Heart Campaign