Scrutiny of Cleveland Fire Brigade's Ties to Failed CIC Began Over a Year Before its Collapse...

teessidetoday
Aug 19
4 min read

Updated: Aug 20

Documents unearthed in an Information Commissioners decision notice appears to show Cleveland Fire Authority was attempting to keep crucial financial information out of the public spotlight, as the mystery of CFA's Community Interest Company collapse deepens...

19th August 2025

In a development that underscores the long-standing concerns over the financial entanglements between the embattled public institution Cleveland Fire Authority and its now-defunct community interest company, Cleveland Fire Brigade Risk Management Services C.I.C., documents unearthed from the Information Commissioner's Office (ICO) reveal that a member of the public was probing these relationships as early as January 2024—well before the CIC's dramatic collapse in August 2025.

The ICO's decision notice, dated September 4, 2024 (Reference: IC-303041-D9M2), ordered Cleveland Fire Brigade (CFB) to disclose previously withheld details about financial arrangements with CFBRM, following a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request. This ruling not only highlights early public interest in the now failed CIC's operations, but also raises fresh questions about transparency and potential conflicts of interest of its directors, especially in light of the £71,000 loan write-off recommended by CFA legal officer Peter Devlin just months before the company's liquidation.

Probing Financial Ties

It seems a member of the public was concerned over possible conflict's of interest at CFBRM

The request, submitted on January 1, 2024, comprised 19 detailed questions about the business relationship between CFB and CFBRM. Key among them were inquiries into payments for the use of facilities like Billingham Fire Station and training centres, vehicle maintenance costs since 2020, and any financial support provided by CFB to the CIC, including loans or donations.

CFB initially disclosed some of the information but withheld specifics on four points, citing section 43(2) of FOIA, which protects commercial interests.

For instance:

On the cost of using Billingham Fire Station and training facilities, CFB vaguely stated that "appropriate commercial charges are made."
Regarding vehicle maintenance, it provided no figures.
For financial support, it noted that "any loans are charged at market rates and approved by Cleveland Fire Authority" but refused to detail occasions, reasons, or values.

The complainant challenged this, leading to an internal review and eventual appeal to the ICO.

ICO Ruling: No Justification for Withholding

The ICO investigated and concluded that CFB failed to demonstrate how disclosure would prejudice CFBRM's commercial interests. Commissioner Samantha Bracegirdle noted that while CFBRM operates in a competitive market, CFB could not explain a "clear causal link" between releasing the information and any harm. The withheld details pertained to payments from CFBRM to CFB, not sensitive pricing strategies that competitors could exploit.

As a result, CFB was ordered to disclose the full information for the four withheld points within 30 days—by October 4, 2024.

This included:

Payments for Billingham Fire Station usage.
Costs for training facilities.
Vehicle maintenance and repair payments since 2020.
Details of any financial support from CFB to CFBRM, including dates, reasons, and monetary values.

The ruling emphasised that it is not the ICO's role to invent arguments for withholding information, placing the burden squarely on public authorities like CFB.

Conflict of Interest Concerns in the Internal Review

The complainant also alleged a conflict of interest in CFB's internal review process. The review was conducted by CFB's Legal Adviser and statutory Monitoring Officer—a role held by former Chief Solicitor to Hartlepool Borough Council Peter Devlin —who also served as a director of CFBRM.

Devlin defended his involvement, stating he had no prior role in the initial response and that company governance allowed for declarations of conflict. The ICO acknowledged CFB's small size limited review options but found no breach of the FOIA code of practice, as Devlin was not involved in the original decision. However, this dual role echoes criticisms in our previous reporting, where Devlin recently resigned from CFBRM's board just weeks before its bankruptcy petition in April 2025, where in August 2025 Devlin than advised CFA officials to 'write off' a £71,000 'loan' owed by the CIC. Critics argue this highlights systemic issues in oversight, with public officials wearing multiple hats in entities meant to serve community interests.

Linking to the 2025 Collapse

The FOIA saga predates CFBRM's insolvency by over a year, suggesting early warnings about its financial health were ignored.

By 2025, the CIC had amassed £2 million in debts—far exceeding the £1.2 million initially reported—including £680,000 reportedly owed to HMRC, leading to the CIC's liquidation in August 2025.

The requested disclosures could have shed light on loans and support that contributed to the taxpayer burden, including the £71,000 write-off which was to be absorbed by CFA's reserves. Sources familiar with the matter suggest the FOIA request may have uncovered arrangements like the very loan which was later deemed unrecoverable leading to potentially a whistle-blower effectively 'lifting the lid' & going public on the firms operations before it was to collapse.

Moreover, the ICO background notes CFBRM's formation in 2011 with directors from CFA's senior management, including non-executive private sector appointees. Despite claims of reinvesting 65% of profits into community initiatives like volunteering and youth engagement, however evidence on the CIC's verifiable community benefits has, so far been scarce to say the least...

This case illustrates the power of public FOIA requests in holding public authorities accountable, especially amid allegations of mismanagement.

With CFBRM's directors, including Devlin and former Chief Fire Officer Ian Hayton, establishing a new entity (CFB Risk Management Group Ltd.) in February 2025—only to see it wound up by the court—questions persist about directors of the failed firm attempting to evade paying their debts.

Liquidators are yet to confirm investigations into directors' conduct, but the ICO decision adds weight to demands for probes by the Insolvency Service and Solicitors Regulation Authority. Taxpayers, left to cover the fallout, deserve full transparency on how public resources were funnelled into a failing enterprise.

As more details emerge from the liquidation process, our investigation continues.

Were you involved or have insights?