EAP86
Contractors are routinely paid by MoD to hold and maintain MoD-owned documents; primarily under Design Authority or Design Custodian arrangements. MoD have a long history of ignoring this in FOI requests, taking the simplistic view that if the document is not to hand in the project office, then it doesn't exist.
There is a perfectly simple, mandated process for obtaining any MoD-owned documents from DAs or DCs (and this IFF report clearly falls into that category). The only question one needs to ask is - Do I want a maintained copy or an unmaintained copy? (Different form to fill in, which takes all of a minute to complete and e-mail). If the DA isn't sufficiently organised that he can't lay his hands on any given document in an hour or so, then he's in breach of contract! (If there is no contract, MoD are in breach of their own regulations, which is more likely). An infinitely cheaper way of managing FOI requests than refusing requests > managing appeal > claiming it doesn't exist > another appeal > ICO involvement > etc.
During the Philip Review into the Mull of Kintyre crash, Lord Philip resorted to seeking official MoD documents from retired staffs and people who had never even been MoD employees! AP3207 being one example (source of the Beyond Any Doubt Whatsoever regulation). There is no more easily understood example of systemic airworthiness failings than MoD being unable to produce such basic source documents! Also, MoD completely denied the existence of a Release to Service, the Master Airworthiness Record. Again, supplied by an outsider. In that particular case, Minister for the Armed Forces was forced to issue an abject apology to a widow. Given the multitude of similar examples, I think DV has a right to be slightly cynical.