Jayne’s Baby Bank: FOI Handling Raises Transparency Concerns

In August 2025, Team Sherlock submitted a Freedom of Information (FOI) request to Torfaen County Borough Council regarding Jayne’s Baby Bank (JBB), a business operating from Pontypool — one of several sites across South Wales.The Council’s handling of the request — and JBB’s own public reaction — has since been escalated to the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) for independent review. In the process, documents disclosed under FOI have raised questions about how third-party consultation was conducted and how public claims should be verified against official and authoritative records.

At a Glance: What Happened

• 5 August 2025 — Team Sherlock filed an FOI about Jayne’s Baby Bank (JBB) with Torfaen Council.
• 22 August — The Council notified JBB of the request and its intention to release inspection reports.
• 27 August — JBB was sent draft attachments before the requester saw them. That same day, JBB posted on Facebook thanking the Council for “supporting us and giving them the bare minimum.”
• 2 September — The Council disclosed inspection reports, a land charges search, and complaint records to Team Sherlock. Business rates information was withheld (crime prevention and confidentiality exemptions).
• 2 September (evening) — Team Sherlock requested an internal review, challenging the advance disclosure.
• 8 September — The Council confirmed consultation with JBB, defended withholding business rates data, and stated no formal third-party consultation log exists.
• Escalation — Team Sherlock has referred the case to the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) for review.

Timeline of Events

5 August 2025 – FOI request filed

Team Sherlock requested records relating to Jayne’s Baby Bank, including inspection reports, licences or permits, contracts, council fees, and other operational documents.

22 August 2025 – Council contacts JBB

Torfaen Council emailed Jayne’s Baby Bank to notify them of the FOI. It said it intended to release inspection documentation from Trading Standards and Environmental Health, confirmed business rates information would be withheld, and invited JBB to comment by 29 August.

27 August 2025 – Draft attachments sent and Facebook post made

Council email: JBB was reassured that the requester’s identity would remain confidential and was sent attachments including inspection reports and complaint records. They were again invited to submit any comments before 29 August. This afforded JBB the opportunity to make representations about disclosure, including any objections or contextual explanations.
JBB Facebook post (27 August 2025): (publicly available at the time of writing)

“Info Sherlock is trying to post next about us. Thank you to Torfean Council for supporting us and giving them the bare minimum. All of which the council are satisfied with and have allowed us to carry on as normal and carry on trading.”

The post indicates that JBB had advance awareness of the FOI materials and took the opportunity to frame the outcome publicly before the requester received the same documents.

2 September 2025 – FOI response to Team Sherlock

Torfaen Council disclosed:

• Inspection reports:
  • 04.07.2025 — Trading Standards recorded that JBB displayed a sign claiming to be a charity; the officer instructed that it be removed and flagged health and safety concerns about stock levels.
  • 15.12.2023 — First inspection report described JBB as a “small charity shop, food bank” and noted: “Distributes food supplied by the Trussell Trust to people with food bank vouchers.”
  • 21.02.2024 — Intelligence check following a formula product recall; no unsafe stock was found, and advice was given.
• Other records:
  • 03.10.2023 complaint about possible trade waste.
  • 04.12.2023 land charges search.
  • 03.09.2024 allegation of trade waste dumping.

The Council confirmed it held no licences, permits, contracts, or council fee records.
Business rates information was withheld under FOIA sections 31(1)(a) (law enforcement) and 41 (information provided in confidence). To justify this, the Council pointed to risks of fraud and referenced instances of criminal misuse of disused commercial premises as an example of potential harm from disclosure. These examples were provided in general terms and were not specific to Jayne’s Baby Bank.

2 September 2025 (evening) – Internal review requested

Team Sherlock requested an internal review, raising concerns about advance disclosure to JBB and the lack of a detailed document schedule under FOIA section 17.

8 September 2025 – Internal review outcome

The Council’s Head of Legal Services confirmed consultation emails were sent to JBB, defended withholding business rates information, and stated that no third-party consultation log exists (only a general FOI tracking log). The Council relied on the Cabinet Office FOI Code of Practice (Part 3) to justify its approach to third-party consultation.

Trussell Trust Clarification (Why FOI Matters)

The 15 December 2023 inspection note recorded that JBB “distributes food supplied by the Trussell Trust to people with food bank vouchers”. Following publication planning, Team Sherlock sought direct confirmation from the Trussell Trust.
The Trussell Trust clarified to Team Sherlock:

“I can confirm that Jayne’s Baby Bank is not a Trussell foodbank and has never been. It does not fundraise or distribute food that has been donated to Trussell on behalf of any Trussell foodbanks in Wales, neither does it fundraise or distribute emergency food on behalf of Trussell.”

This clarification demonstrates the public value of FOI: it enables claims recorded in official notes to be tested against authoritative sources. Where a council record reports a purported affiliation, independent verification can confirm or correct the public understanding. The FOI materials, read alongside Trussell’s statement, therefore assist the public in distinguishing between a claim and the verified position.

Concerns Raised

• Advance access and representations — JBB received disclosure attachments before the requester and had an opportunity to make representations about release. This sequencing risks an imbalance in how the public first learns about the material, particularly when the subject publishes commentary ahead of disclosure to the requester.
• Public interest versus private interests — Business rates data was withheld under sections 31(1)(a) and 41 FOIA. In parallel, a recorded claim of Trussell affiliation in an inspection note was subsequently contradicted by the Trussell Trust. The contrast underscores the need to weigh the public interest in transparency carefully, especially where public claims or inferences may influence donors or service users.
• Inconsistency of practice — Other councils do not always notify third parties in advance in comparable circumstances. Divergent approaches can lead to inconsistent requester experience and outcomes across local authorities.
• Audit trail — No formal third-party consultation log was kept. Without a detailed record of any representations and how they were considered, it is harder to assess proportionality and fairness in the consultation process.

What Next?

Team Sherlock formally referred the matter to the ICO on 8 September 2025 for review. Key questions include whether the consultation was proportionate in the circumstances, whether the exemptions applied to business rates were justified on the evidence, and how councils should handle instances where claims captured in inspection notes are later contradicted by authoritative statements.

This article is based on documents disclosed by Torfaen County Borough Council under FOI Ref: 25/376, its internal review dated 8 September 2025, and a written clarification provided by the Trussell Trust. It is published by Team Sherlock in the public interest. This article does not constitute legal advice.

— Sherlock