The complainant requested information relating to “DOGE-like” activities at Kent County Council. Kent County Council (the “council”) informed the complainant that some information was not held and initially relied on section 36 of FOIA to withhold other information. During the Commissioner’s investigation, the council withdrew its reliance on section 36, conducted further searches and issued a fresh response to the complainant. The Commissioner is not satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that the council has identified and considered all information falling within the scope of the request. In particular, the Commissioner is not satisfied that the council has adequately considered whether communications relating to its Department of Local Government Efficiency (“DOLGE”) initiative fall within the final limb of the request. The Commissioner finds that the council has not complied with section 1(1)(a) of FOIA. The Commissioner requires the council to issue a fresh response to the request. In doing so, the council must conduct a fresh consideration of the request, including whether communications relating to the development, consideration, implementation and governance of the DOLGE initiative fall within scope. The council must either disclose any information held or issue a refusal notice compliant with section 17 of FOIA.