Freedom of Information Act 2000: Refusal Notice – Vexatious request

Under the provisions of Section 14 (1) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 the following request has been refused:

1) How many schools on toxic land has NPS been involved with?
2) Has this area of your business been fully discussed with your
insurers? Please let me see documentary evidence if it has.

Section 14(1) provides that Section 1(1) of the Act (General right of access to information held by public authorities) does not oblige a public authority to comply with a request for information if the request is vexatious.

In concluding that the provision in of S.14(1) is engaged, the guidance issued by the Information Commissioner’s Office in December 2008 has been taken into account (Vexatious requests – a short guide and When can a request be considered vexatious or repeated?)

Reasons why the provision applies

The request has been considered against the following criteria

  • Can the request fairly be seen as obsessive?
  • Is the request harassing the authority?
  • Would complying with the request impose a significant burden in terms of expense and distraction?
  • Is the request designed to cause disruption or annoyance?
  • Does the request lack any serious purpose or value?

The wider context has also been taken into account.

Can the request fairly be seen as obsessive?

The requester has, so far, made 5 requests to NPS Property Consultants Ltd in the space of 3 working days (4 to 9 May 2011). These requests are in a context of a sizeable series of requests to other public authorities substantively on the same subject, the siting of a school in Stockport.

The content of the request lacks focus and its tone (the inference in Question 2 is that the siting of schools on ‘toxic land’ is an area of NPS Property Consultants Ltd’s business) suggests a degree of irrationality.

Taking together the context of the request, its content and its tone, the request appears obsessive.

Is the request harassing the authority?

The request was received in short order after its predecessors on the same topic and before the responses to them could reasonably be expected.

Would complying with the request impose a significant burden in terms of expense and distraction?

To establish whether or not it is feasible answer either question would unreasonably divert staff from their day-to-day work even before an assessment of the time and cost of locating and retrieving information could be made.

Is the request designed to cause disruption or annoyance?

While the requester has not expressed this intention, the evidence of the rapid despatch of request after request without pause for response indicates otherwise.

Does the request lack any serious purpose or value?

In general the purpose behind a request is disregarded, but this instance purpose is relevant. Taking the purpose to be the suitability of the site of a particular school and where liability lies in respect of the consequences, the test is whether or not the request actually addresses the purpose or has any value in relation to it. The purpose is serious, but the request itself, in relation to it, has neither point nor value.