Date: Sat, 04 Jul 2026 09:43:22 +0000 Subject: RE: Internal review of Freedom of Information request - 1988 Dispossession of Great House Farm, Llandough from the Williams/ Buckler Family From: "[email address]" <[email address]> To: "[email address]" <[email address]> Cc: "[email address]" <[email address]> Note that the requester has submitted this through whatdotheyknow.com which means all correspondence is public. I suspect he will need to be asked to re-submit his SAR through the formal process, or in via a private route? Many thanks, James Mr James Theobald (he/him) | MOD Information Rights Compliance Team | Defence Digital | NAD Group | 0G.D MOD Main Building | Whitehall | London SW1A 2HB | Teams no: [direct line redacted] | Email (Personal): [email address] | Group emails: [email address] for FOI/EIR handling; [email address] for FOI/EIR Appeals and Tribunals; [email address] for Data Protection matters -----Original Message----- From: CIO-FOI-IR (MULTIUSER) Sent: 04 July 2026 10:41 To: CIO-DPA (MULTIUSER) <[email address]> Cc: DBS KI-RR FOI (MULTIUSER) <[email address]> Subject: RE: Internal review of Freedom of Information request - 1988 Dispossession of Great House Farm, Llandough from the Williams/ Buckler Family Good afternoon, Apologies for the delay, however, we have received a request for internal review of an FOI request, but the requester has also submitted a SAR as part of it. This can be found at point1 and 5 in the email below. The original request that may help with the processing of the SAR can be found attached. Regards, James Mr James Theobald (he/him) | MOD Information Rights Compliance Team | Defence Digital | NAD Group | 0G.D MOD Main Building | Whitehall | London SW1A 2HB | Teams no: [direct line redacted] | Email (Personal): [email address] | Group emails: [email address] for FOI/EIR handling; [email address] for FOI/EIR Appeals and Tribunals; [email address] for Data Protection matters -----Original Message----- From: DBS KI-RR FOI (MULTIUSER) <[email address]> Sent: 21 June 2026 09:23 To: CIO-FOI-IR (MULTIUSER) <[email address]> Subject: FW: Internal review of Freedom of Information request - 1988 Dispossession of Great House Farm, Llandough from the Williams/ Buckler Family Hi team, PSB request for an internal review. We held no information, nor was there any relevant information held at Restore or by CT&UK or Army. It was on NSLG advice that s23(5) was cited for SF elements of this request. We searched our holdings against the following keywords: - Eviction - Dispossession - Ty Maur - Great House Farm - Lllandough - Penarth - Glamorgan - Military Support to the Civil Power/Authority - MACA - MACP - South Wales Police - Welsh - Exercises - Evacuation Kind regards, Matt. Matthew Taylor | MOD Sensitive Archive Manager Records Review Team | Defence Information Technology | Defence Business Services Building 2/003, PP34, HM Naval Base Portsmouth, PO1 3NH Phone: 02392 725252 Teams: [direct line redacted] MODNET email: [email address] -----Original Message----- From: Sion Buckler <[FOI #1440573 email]> Sent: 20 June 2026 21:27 To: DBS KI-RR FOI (MULTIUSER) <[email address]> Subject: Internal review of Freedom of Information request - 1988 Dispossession of Great House Farm, Llandough from the Williams/ Buckler Family Dear Information Rights Compliance Team, I am writing to request an internal review of FOI2026/09019, and to formally clarify that this correspondence should also be treated as a Subject Access Request under UK GDPR (Article 15) insofar as it relates to my personal data. 1. Dual legal basis (FOIA + UK GDPR) My original request concerns an incident in which I was a child directly present in the household at the time of the 1988 eviction/dispossession. This engages not only FOIA considerations but also my right of access to personal data under UK GDPR, including any information from or about me held within MOD systems, historical records, liaison files, or operational documentation. Accordingly, please ensure this review is handled with the correct distinction between: FOIA exemptions relating to third-party or operational sensitivity, and UK GDPR obligations regarding personal data concerning a data subject (myself) Where information is mixed personal and third-party data, I expect proper consideration of redaction rather than blanket refusal or “no information held” responses where records exist. 2. Anticipated issue: “No information held” Your response states that no information is held for the non–section 23 parts of my request. Given the nature of the event described (a coordinated enforcement operation involving multiple police officers), this conclusion requires clear evidential support. Please confirm whether the search performed included: MACA (Military Aid to the Civil Authorities) liaison records and requests Regional military headquarters or district command diaries (Wales / Western regions, circa 1988) Civil contingency planning files involving police support or cross-agency assistance Defence–Home Office / Welsh Office liaison correspondence streams Archived operational logs later transferred to The National Archives (including DEFE/WO series material) If these were not explicitly searched, please explain why they were considered out of scope. A conclusion of “no information held” is only reliable if searches were targeted, reasonably comprehensive, and capable of identifying transferred archival holdings, not limited to centrally indexed MOD FOI repositories. 3. Anticipated issue: “Section 23(5) neither confirm nor deny” I acknowledge the application of section 23(5) in relation to Special Forces information. However, I request that the internal review confirms: Whether the “NCND” position was applied narrowly to Special Forces only, or Whether it has been used in a manner that may have inadvertently limited wider searches across non-exempt MACA or civil support records It is important that section 23 is not treated as a proxy limitation on the scope of the entire request, as my request explicitly extends beyond Special Forces involvement. 4. Adequacy of search (core issue) The key issue for review is not exemption alone, but whether the search strategy was capable of identifying relevant historical operational liaison records at all. Given the passage of time (1988), I would expect a reasonable approach to include: Historical / archived command records Decommissioned or transferred MACA documentation Cross-referencing of police support operations involving military liaison Keyword and event-based archival searches rather than only current MOD holdings If none of these methods were used, please set out the reasoning for limiting the search methodology. 5. UK GDPR – personal data scope As I was a child present during the events described, I formally request confirmation of: Whether any MOD-held records contain personal data relating to me Whether any such data has been withheld under FOIA exemptions without assessment under UK GDPR Whether a separate Article 15 disclosure search has been conducted or will now be initiated If necessary, I request that this part of my request be processed independently as a SAR with appropriate identity verification steps. 6. Requested outcome of internal review For clarity, I am seeking a review that specifically determines: Whether the MOD’s search strategy was sufficiently wide to capture historical MACA / civil support records Whether “no information held” remains a supportable conclusion after inclusion of archived and transferred record series Whether FOIA and UK GDPR obligations have been correctly separated and applied Please confirm receipt of this request for internal review and confirm whether it will also be logged as a Subject Access Request under UK GDPR. Yours sincerely, Mr Sion Buckler (Ret'd Sgt) -----Original Message----- Dear Mr Sion Buckler, Please find attached our response to your recent FOI request. Kind regards, Defence Business Services Records Review – FOI Team ------------------------------------------------------------------- Please use this email address for all replies to this request: [FOI #1440573 email] Disclaimer: This message and any reply that you make will be published on the internet. Our privacy and copyright policies: https://gbr01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.whatdotheyknow.com%2Fhelp%2Fofficers&data=05%7C02%7CCIO-DPA%40mod.gov.uk%7C64001dc2988142105fc708ded9b0afdc%7Cbe7760ed5953484bae95d0a16dfa09e5%7C0%7C0%7C639187550038770025%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=Tu1TjBUu2vSBS%2BpQz3oRP6deXWxy4C83HqPF82KZPbs%3D&reserved=0 For more detailed guidance on safely disclosing information, read the latest advice from the ICO: https://gbr01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.whatdotheyknow.com%2Fhelp%2Fico-guidance-for-authorities&data=05%7C02%7CCIO-DPA%40mod.gov.uk%7C64001dc2988142105fc708ded9b0afdc%7Cbe7760ed5953484bae95d0a16dfa09e5%7C0%7C0%7C639187550038798472%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=IJr8zcy1LMvNgVs6DsYPjT7mIavOoDpQrWuU8AXYMKE%3D&reserved=0 https://gbr01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.whatdotheyknow.com%2Fhelp%2Fico-anonymisation-code&data=05%7C02%7CCIO-DPA%40mod.gov.uk%7C64001dc2988142105fc708ded9b0afdc%7Cbe7760ed5953484bae95d0a16dfa09e5%7C0%7C0%7C639187550038816846%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=P8qnLRCLQz1zwcAKNXQpLWD1SMB29LAJYBEYNG6NNSY%3D&reserved=0 Please note that in some cases publication of requests and responses will be delayed. If you find this service useful as an FOI officer, please ask your web manager to link to us from your organisation's FOI page. -------------------------------------------------------------------