The Statutory Body That Won't Show Its Accounts

Executive Summary

Request: Copies of the Hair and Barber Council's three most recent sets of accounts, and a copy of the membership register — both provided for under the Hairdressers (Registration) Act 1964
Response: Refused on four simultaneous grounds — FOIA doesn't apply, request is vexatious, commercial interests exemption applies, and the Registrar's discretionary powers override the 1964 Act
The contradiction: A statutory body invoked commercial competition law to protect its statutory register from a perceived competitor
The implication: A body that claims statutory authority over 50,000 professionals will not disclose its accounts or demonstrate who is actually on its register
The BHC connection: The Hair and Barber Council sits inside the British Hair Consortium, lending it statutory credibility, while refusing basic financial transparency

Background

The Hairdressers (Registration) Act 1964 establishes a body corporate called the Hairdressing Council. That is the legal entity created by statute — it cannot be renamed by resolution or preference. The name "Hair and Barber Council" does not appear anywhere in the 1964 Act. Whether the Council has adopted this as a trading name or informal rebrand is unclear; what is clear is that the statutory body remains the Hairdressing Council in law, and any divergence between the legal name and the operating name raises its own questions about whether the body operating as the "Hair and Barber Council" is in fact the same legal entity the Act created — and whether it is acting within the powers that Act confers.

As documented in a separate analysis on this site, the 1964 Act creates only a voluntary register — it confers no regulatory powers, no powers over pricing or services, and Section 14 explicitly prohibits the Council from exercising powers beyond its defined functions.

The Council presents itself as the statutory authority for the hairdressing sector. The British Hair Consortium — which claims to represent 50,000 professionals and lobbies government for VAT reform and mandatory registration — includes the Hair and Barber Council as a constituent member, giving the BHC's lobbying activity a veneer of statutory legitimacy.

In February 2024 I submitted a formal information request for two items, both provided for under the 1964 Act itself:

The three most recent sets of accounts — referenced under s13(3) of the 1964 Act
A copy of the membership register — referenced under s7(2) of the 1964 Act

The request and the refusal are published in full below, with analysis.

The Request — 17 February 2024

From: Andrew Clelland
To: Gareth Penn, Registrar, Hair and Barber Council
Date: 17 February 2024

Dear Gareth,

As a government service the Freedom of Information act 2000 will apply to The Hair and Barber Council.

Please treat this email as a formal Freedom of Information request for copies of the Hair and Barber Councils' three most recent sets of accounts. I would refer you to section 13(3) of the Hairdressers (Registration) Act 1964 in this regard.

Further as per section 7(2) of the Hairdressers (Registration) Act 1964 please provide a copy of the register in its most recent form.

I look forward to receipt by email of the requested information at your earliest convenience.

The Refusal — 2 April 2024 — Annotated

From: Gareth Penn, Registrar, Hair and Barber Council
To: Andrew Clelland
Date: 2 April 2024

Dear Andrew

I write further to previous correspondence. As advised previously, we did not receive your request until 18 March 2024.

The request was sent on 17 February 2024. The Council claims not to have received it until 18 March 2024 — five weeks later. No explanation is offered for the delay. The effect of this dating is to reset the compliance deadline by five weeks.

In that email you purport to make a Freedom of Information request for copies of the Hairdressing Council's (HC's) accounts and a copy of the register. This is not the first time you have contacted the HC for such information and as such we have taken legal advice. Following that advice and after careful consideration of your request along with reference to the Freedom of Information Act (2000) (FOIA) which is defined in section 3(1)(a)(i) as "any body, person or holder of office which is listed in Schedule 1 or (a)(ii) designated by order from the Secretary of State under section 5." The HC is not listed under the aforementioned Schedule. As a result, the Freedom of Information Act does not apply to the HC and hence there is no requirement or basis for this information to be provided to you.

Ground 1: FOIA doesn't apply. This may be technically correct — the Council is not listed in Schedule 1. However, this ground alone is sufficient to refuse the request. The Council then proceeds to apply FOIA exemptions anyway, which is self-contradictory: you cannot both claim FOIA doesn't apply and then invoke FOIA exemptions as additional grounds for refusal.

In regard to your email, you make reference to s13(3) of the Hairdressers (Registration) Act 1964 which specifies that 'copies of the accounts of the Council shall be furnished to any person on application and on payment of such reasonable sum as the Council may determine.' However, in Part II of the Act, s10(1) states that "the Hairdressing Council shall have power to do anything in which in their opinion is calculated to facilitate the proper discharge of their functions." I believe that providing this information to you would prevent me from upholding my duties as the Registrar of the Council and this legislation permits me to decline your request.

Ground 2: s10(1) discretionary powers override s13(3). This is a remarkable argument. Section 13(3) of the 1964 Act is explicit: accounts "shall be furnished to any person on application." The word "shall" is mandatory, not discretionary. The Council is arguing that its general power to "do anything calculated to facilitate its functions" overrides a specific statutory obligation to provide accounts on request. No legal authority is cited for this interpretation. The argument that providing accounts would "prevent the Registrar from upholding his duties" is not explained.

I note you also reference Section 7(2) of the Hairdressers (Registration) Act 1964, which refers to the publishing of any alterations of the register which have occurred since the last publication. A list of all members of the Council appear on the HC website, which is updated regularly and hence complies with the aforementioned legislation.

On the register: the Council conflates "members of the Council" (its governance board) with "the register" of hairdressers. The register under the 1964 Act is the list of registered hairdressers and barbers — not the Council's own board members. Pointing to a website list of board members does not satisfy a request for the practitioner register. A separate analysis on this site documents that the register, where accessible, contains businesses that closed years ago — suggesting it is not in fact "updated regularly."

According to section 14 FOIA (2000) a 'public authority', which again, we are not, can refuse a freedom of information request which is vexatious or repeated. Guidance on what is considered vexatious has been provided in judgments included in the case of Information Commissioner and Devon City Council & Dransfield [2012]. This involves making a request which has "no reasonable foundation for thinking that the information would be of value to the requester, or to the public or any section of the public". I believe that your request for information is both vexatious and repeated.

Ground 3: vexatious. The Council explicitly states it is not a public authority under FOIA — then immediately invokes a FOIA vexatious request provision as an additional ground for refusal. The two positions are mutually exclusive. Either FOIA applies (in which case vexatious provisions are relevant) or it doesn't (in which case they aren't). The Council is attempting to have it both ways.

In addition, s43(2) of the FOIA (2000) exempts a public authority from disclosure of information which would be "likely to prejudice the commercial interest of any person (including the public authority itself)."

Currently, registration for hairdressers and barbers is not mandatory. Provision of the register would enable information held to be supplied to any competitor of the HC. This includes the Salon Logic Directory, which you run.

I question the basis for which you have requested information. I see no reason for you to require a copy of the register, other than to target customers of the HC with a view to inducing them to be a part of the Salon Logic Directory instead. This will only further your own business interests, at the detriment of ours.

Ground 4: commercial interests. This is the most revealing passage in the letter. The Council, established by Act of Parliament, is arguing that its statutory register is a commercial asset requiring protection from market competition. This is a fundamental admission: the register is being operated as a commercial product, not a public service. A body that lobbies for mandatory registration of all UK hairdressers is simultaneously arguing that its voluntary register must be protected from competition. These positions are incompatible. If registration were mandatory, the register would be a public record. The Council's resistance to disclosure reveals why it may prefer the register to remain voluntary and opaque.

The Core Contradictions

Position A, Claimed

"The HC is not a public authority under FOIA"

Position B, Also Claimed

Invokes s14 FOIA (vexatious requests) and s43(2) FOIA (commercial interests) as additional grounds for refusal

Position A, Claimed

"We are a statutory body representing the hairdressing sector"

Position B, Also Claimed

"The register is a commercial asset that must be protected from competitors"

Position A, Claimed

s13(3) of the 1964 Act: accounts "shall be furnished to any person on application"

Position B, Also Claimed

s10(1) discretionary powers allow the Registrar to override the mandatory "shall" obligation

What The Refusal Reveals

A body that genuinely serves the public interest in its sector would have no difficulty providing its accounts. Accounts demonstrate financial health, appropriate use of member fees, and accountability to the professionals whose registration fees fund the organisation.

A body that genuinely maintains a register of practitioners as a public service would have no difficulty providing that register. Transparency about who is and isn't registered is the entire point of a registration system.

The Central Problem

The Hair and Barber Council sits inside the British Hair Consortium, lending its statutory identity to a lobbying organisation that claims to represent 50,000 professionals. It lobbies for mandatory registration, which would make every UK hairdresser a compelled customer of its register. It simultaneously refuses to disclose that register or its accounts on the grounds that doing so would harm its commercial interests.

The request for mandatory registration, viewed through this lens, is not a consumer protection measure. It is a proposal to convert a voluntary commercial product into a compelled statutory monopoly, funded by the registration fees of every hairdresser in the UK, with no accountability obligation to those hairdressers or the public.

The BHC Credibility Question

The British Hair Consortium presents itself to government, to Parliament, and to the press as a unified, credible, data-driven voice for the sector. One of its constituent members,the only one with any statutory foundation,refuses to disclose its accounts or demonstrate who is on its register. If the BHC's own statutory constituent cannot meet basic transparency standards, on what basis should government treat the BHC's data claims as reliable?

What Happens Next

The 1964 Act is clear. Section 13(3) states accounts "shall be furnished to any person on application." That language is unambiguous. The Information Commissioner's Office has jurisdiction over bodies that handle personal data regardless of FOIA status, and the Council's register constitutes personal data under UK GDPR.

The refusal to provide accounts under a mandatory statutory provision, while simultaneously lobbying government for expanded statutory powers, is a matter of legitimate public interest. It has been reported to the relevant authorities and is documented here as part of the permanent public record.

Right of Reply

The Hair and Barber Council and its Registrar Gareth Penn are invited to respond to the analysis on this page. Any response will be published in full and unedited. Contact: analysis@salonlogicpro.co.uk

Conclusion

A body established by Act of Parliament to maintain a register of hairdressers has refused to provide that register or its accounts, citing commercial competition as justification.

It invoked FOIA exemptions while simultaneously asserting FOIA does not apply to it.

It argued its general discretionary power overrides a specific mandatory obligation in its founding statute.

It accused a member of the public of vexatiousness for asking to see its accounts.

And it sits at the heart of a lobbying organisation that presents itself to government as the credible, unified, data-driven voice of the UK hair and beauty sector.

Transparency is not optional for bodies that claim statutory authority. It is the price of that authority.

Source Documents

All documents referenced in this analysis are available for independent verification:

Original FOI request — 17 February 2024 (published above)
Refusal letter from Gareth Penn, Registrar — 2 April 2024 (published above)
Hairdressers (Registration) Act 1964 — legislation.gov.uk
Related analysis: The Statutory Authority That Isn't
Related analysis: Formal Complaint to This Is Money
Full data archive: data.salonlogicpro.co.uk

If you find an error in our analysis, we want to know. We correct mistakes immediately and publicly.