Scope
Your request received under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA) is being refused under section 14(1) of FOIA. Section 14 provides as follows:
(1) Section 1(1) does not oblige a public authority to comply with a request for information if the request is vexatious.
Where section 14 applies, the public authority does not have to provide the information requested, nor indeed is it required to inform the requester if it holds the information.
Context
Suffolk County Council (SCC) would like to confirm the exemption covers the subject of fostering, including carers and homes in Suffolk,encompassing but not limited to, CRB/DBS checks of those involved with foster homes/children, care applications and statistical information around children in care. It is not believed that this information is being obtained for any reasonable purpose other than fuelling accusations of wrong doing in Suffolk’s care system and therefore we must now consider thistopic as vexatious.
For a request to be vexatious it is not only the request itself that must be examined, but also its context and history.A single request may appear to be quite benign, and only show its vexatious quality when viewed in context.The Information Commissioner’s guidance mentions ‘context may include other requests made by the applicant to the authority, the number and subject matter of the requests, as well as the history of other dealings between the applicant and the public authority.The effect a request will have may be determined as much, or indeed more, by that context as by the request itself.’ It is clear reviewing the evidence available to us that all attributing points referenced are relevant and in context can be read as patently vexatious.
To iterate, a request which would not normally be regarded as vexatious in isolation may assume that quality once considered in context. An example of this would be where an individual is placing a significant strain on an authority’s resources by submitting a long and frequent series of requests, and the most recent request, although not obviously vexatious in itself, is contributing to that aggregated burden.
Balancing the rights
The key question to consider is whether the purpose and value of the request provides sufficient grounds to justify the distress, disruption or irritation that would be incurred by complying with that request. To judge this point as objectively as possible, it is appropriate to consider, would a reasonable person think that the purpose and value are enough to justify the impact on the authority?
The judgement that section 14(1) calls for is balancing the need to protect public authorities from genuinely vexatious requests on the one hand, without unfairly impairing the rights of individuals to access information under FOIA.
Providing more information on this subject isencouragingthe requester to submit further requests. Therefore the application of section 14(1) relates to the subject in its totality as it feeds beck into one single campaign. To continue responding ‘is likely to cause a disproportionate or unjustified level of disruption, irritation or distress’[1].
Rigby v Information Commissioner and Blackpool, Flyde and Wyre Hospitals NHS Trust EA/2009/0103 - Decision here.
Every case turns on its own facts,but in Rigby v Information Commissioner and Blackpool, Flyde and Wyre Hospitals NHSTrust EA/2009/0103the following considerations,which apply here (not exhaustive),were considered to finding that a request is vexatious:
- Where the request forms part of an extended campaign to expose alleged improper or illegal behaviour in the context of evidence tending to indicate that the campaign is not well founded or has no reasonable prospect of success;
- Where providing the information requested previously has tended to trigger further requests and correspondence, making it unlikely that a response ending the exchange of correspondence could realistically be provided.
To elaborate onpoint 1, if there is a cause for concern with how the authority is conducting itself or any of its responsibilities, you have the right to complain through our complaints procedure here, or to the Local Government Ombudsman. We understand that FOI is an avenue to obtain information for greater public participation in the decisions we make and the actions of an authorityand so this has been considered.However, with no cogent basis to support your campaigns accusations [2], we are unable to balance the rights in favour of disclosure.
Point 2, responding to one request is likelyto lead to further requests. For example one response to a request has led to five further requests which have multiple questions contained in them.
In Information Commissioner vs Devon County Council & Dransfield [2012] -Decision here
‘Section 14…is concerned with the nature of the request and has the effect of disapplying the citizen’s right under Section 1(1)…The purpose of Section 14…must be to protect the resources (in the broadest sense of that word) of the public authority from being squandered on disproportionate use of FOIA…’ (paragraph 10).
The Upper Tribunal (UT) held that it was wrong to impose a prescriptive, all encompassing, definition, but advised that vexatious cases may be identified by
(1) the burden (on the public authority and its staff);
(2) the motive (of the requester);
(3) the value or serious purpose (of the request) and
(4) any harassment or distress (of and to staff).
The Tribunal concluded that ‘vexatious’ could be defined as the “…manifestly unjustified, inappropriate or improper use of a formal procedure.’ (paragraph 27). This being the case, it is suggested that the key question the public authority must ask itself is whether the request is likely to cause a disproportionate or unjustified level of disruption, irritation or distress.
Vexatious Guidance (ICO Guidance Section 14)
The Information Commissioner, who monitors compliance with FOIA nationally, suggests a general approach to determining whether a request is vexatious. It focuses on five questions:
(To judge a request vexatious, you should usually be able to make relatively strong arguments under more than one of these headings.)
- Could the request fairly be seen as obsessive?
Due to the volume of requests received in an isolated period, it appears that the matter is of personal interest and providing responses are fuelling the issue.
I would make reference to statements published on ‘What do they know’ where by the requester annotatesagainst our response to a historic request and more recently the first of our responses.
Unbelievable that 'professionals' working with children are still able to just up and go work elsewhere - to abuse children further.
This kind of practice seems to be quite acceptable to SCC and Suffolk Police.
We believe it is likely this will continue if we respond to further requests on this subject. The campaign seems to have an interest in Suffolk’s Children’s Services and the allegations are madeon a public website by the requester and another individual who has had numerous vexatious notices made against them by SCC, aftermaking similar accusations against the same department.
- Is the request harassing the authority or causing distress to staff?
It is harassing towards both the individuals targeted in those requests and the staff who are tasked with responding to each request, follow on request and internal review.
More than one request made to the authority on this subject has asked foremployment details of a group of individuals.
- Would complying with the request impose a significant burden?
Complying with the campaigns questions, has led to a continuance of requests for information through the FOI route. We would mention that dealing with the campaigns requests in the first few weeks took the authority over the appropriate limit (18 hours to respond to these requests) however since then we have received more requests including an internal review.
- Is the request designed to cause disruption or annoyance?
We are unsure of the purpose behind these requests other than a phishing exercise to attempt to uncover wrongdoing. With no grounds to base these accusations on, it is purely disruptive and not of interest to the public for staff time to be spent dealing with these requests.
- Does the request lack any serious purpose or value?
Yes. These claims are not of substance.
The authority does not need to be able to answer yes to every question for the request to be deemed as vexatious. However, once each question has been considered, we are able to more easily and consistently assess the overall balance of the case.
Below we have used two of the ICO’s section 14 guidance indicators as a point of reference from their experience of dealing with vexatious complaints.Although once again, this is not conclusive, it should be viewed in context of the full refusal.
Burden on the authority
The effort required to meet the continued pursuit of this subject will be oppressiveon time and resources, that the authority cannot reasonably be expected to comply with.
Personal grudges with unfounded accusations
For whatever reason, the requester is targeting their correspondence towards a particular group of individuals and department whom they seem to have a personal enmity against. The requester’s public annotations make unsubstantiated accusations against the public authority.
Conclusion
The public authority is, quite properly, committed to openness and transparency. However, it must also judge requests against the above factors. As a result, we have concluded that the request is, indeed, vexatious.