Freedom of Information Act
Vexatious or repeated requests
The Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA) gives rights of public access to
information held by public authorities. This is part of a series of guidance notes to
help public authorities understand their obligations and to promote good practice.
This guidance will help public authorities understand when a request can be
considered vexatious or repeated under section 14 of the FOIA, and how to
use that section. See also
Vexatious requests – a short guide.
It first explains when requests may be vexatious (page 2) or repeated (page
8). It will then cover how to refuse these requests (page 10) and other
procedural and good practice issues (page 10).
This guidance replaces Awareness Guidance 22.
Overview • Under section 14(1), public authorities do not have to comply with
vexatious requests. There is no public interest test.
• Deciding whether a request is vexatious is a balancing exercise, taking
into account the context and history of the request. The key question is
whether the request is likely to cause unjustified distress, disruption or
irritation. In particular, you should consider the following questions:
Could the request fairly be seen as obsessive?
Is the request harassing the authority or causing distress to staff?
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?
• Under section 14(2), public authorities do not have to comply with
repeated requests for the same information from the same person. There
is no public interest test.
• If the cost of compliance is the only or main issue, you should consider
section 12 instead (exemption where cost of compliance exceeds
appropriate limit).
• Remember that you can also avoid unwanted requests by voluntarily
publishing any frequently requested information.
Version 4
1
3 December 2008
Vexatious or repeated requests
General principles of section 14
Section 14 of the FOIA is intended to protect public authorities from those who
might abuse the right to request information. It states:
14.—(1) Section 1(1) does not oblige a public authority to comply with a
request for information if the request is vexatious.
(2) Where a public authority has previously complied with a request for
information which was made by any person, it is not obliged to comply
with a subsequent identical or substantially similar request from that
person unless a reasonable interval has elapsed between compliance
with the previous request and the making of the current request.
The section is similar to an absolute exemption. If a request is vexatious or
repeated, you do not have to provide any information or confirm or deny
whether you hold it. There is no need to consider a public interest test.
However, you must in most cases issue a refusal notice.
We recognise that having to deal with clearly unreasonable requests can
strain your organisation’s resources, damage the credibility of the FOIA and
get in the way of answering other requests. We would encourage you to
consider section 14 where there are genuine grounds for considering a
request to be vexatious or repeated.
Is the request vexatious?
The term “vexatious” is intended to have its ordinary meaning and there is no
link with legal definitions from other contexts (eg vexatious litigants).
Deciding whether a request is vexatious is a flexible balancing exercise,
taking into account all the circumstances of the case. There is no rigid test or
definition, and it will often be easy to recognise. The key question is whether
the request is likely to cause distress, disruption or irritation, without any
proper or justified cause.
To help you identify a vexatious request, we recommend that you consider the
following questions, taking into account the context and history of the request:
• Can the request fairly be seen as obsessive?
• Is the request harassing the authority or causing distress to staff?
• Would complying with the request impose a significant burden?
• Is the request designed to cause disruption or annoyance?
• Does the request lack any serious purpose or value?
To judge a request vexatious, you should usually be able to make relatively
strong arguments under more than one of these headings.
Version 4
2
3 December 2008
Vexatious or repeated requests
The questions are likely to overlap, and the weight you can place on each will
depend on the circumstances. You do not need to be able to answer yes to
every question, and may also consider other case-specific factors. However, if
you consider each of the questions in turn, you should be able to more easily
and consistently assess the overall balance of the case.
•
Context and history
You should take account of the wider context and history of the request when
considering the questions. A request may not be vexatious in isolation, but
when considered in context (for example if it is the latest in a long series of
overlapping requests or other correspondence) it may form part of a wider
pattern of behaviour that makes it vexatious.
Example In Betts v Information Commissioner EA/2007/0109 (19
May 2008), the request concerned health and safety
policies and risk assessments. There was nothing
vexatious in the content of the request itself. However,
there had been a dispute between the council and the
requester which had resulted in ongoing FOIA requests
and persistent correspondence over two years. These
continued despite the council’s disclosures and
explanations. Although the latest request was not
vexatious in isolation, the Tribunal considered that it was
vexatious when viewed in context. It was a continuation of
a pattern of behaviour and part of an ongoing campaign to
pressure the council. The request on its own may have
been simple, but experience showed it was very likely to
lead to further correspondence, requests and complaints.
Given the wider context and history, the request was
harassing, likely to impose a significant burden, and
obsessive.
The context of the request may also occasionally indicate that it should not be
considered vexatious. For example, your previous dealings with a requester
may show that they have a good reason for making persistent requests.
Your knowledge of the requester’s circumstances may also affect your
obligations as a service provider under the Disability Discrimination Acts.
Many previous cases of vexatious requests have been in the context of a
longstanding grievance or dispute. However, a request will not automatically
be vexatious simply because it is made in the context of a dispute or forms
part of a series of requests. There may be genuine reasons for this. For
example, a series of successive linked requests may be necessary where
disclosures are unclear or raise further questions that the requester could not
have foreseen. Similarly, in the context of a dispute, a request may be a
reasonable way to obtain new information not otherwise available to the
individual.
You should not use section 14 as an excuse to avoid awkward
Version 4
3
3 December 2008
Vexatious or repeated requests
questions that have not yet been resolved satisfactorily. You must always look
at the effect of the particular request and consider the questions set out
below.
An important point to note here is that it is the request – not the requester –
that must be vexatious. You cannot judge a request to be vexatious just
because the individual concerned has caused problems in the past.
Nonetheless, the past behaviour of the requester will be relevant if the request
continues that behaviour.
•
Can the request fairly be seen as obsessive?
Obsessive requests are usually a very strong indication of vexatiousness. An
obsessive request will typically fall into several other categories as well.
The wider context and history of a request will be particularly important here,
as it is unlikely that a one-off request could ever be obsessive. Relevant
factors could include the volume and frequency of correspondence, requests
for information the requester has already seen, or a clear intention to use the
request to reopen issues that have already been debated and considered.
Example In Ahilathirunayagam v Information Commissioner and
London Metropolitan University EA/2006/0070 (20 June
2007) the requester had been arguing with the university
for 13 years over the award of his degree. He had already
exhausted the university’s appeal procedure, instructed
two firms of solicitors, tried to pursue a court case, and
complained to the ICO, his MP and the Lord Chancellor’s
Department. In finding his latest FOI request vexatious, the
Tribunal took into account the fact that he was requesting
information he already possessed and seemed to want
simply to reopen issues that had already been disputed
several times before.
Example In Hossack v Information Commissioner and DWP
EA/2007/0024 (18 December 2007) the requester had
complained after a jobcentre revealed benefit details in
breach of the Data Protection Act 1998. The complaint had
been investigated and compensation had been paid, and
an independent ombudsman’s recommendations had been
accepted. However, the requester continued a four-year
public campaign against the authority, alleging corruption
and fraud, threatening legal action and “naming and
shaming” individuals. The Tribunal found that the latest
FOI requests were obsessive and vexatious. The request
was for information the requester already possessed, and
was part of a wider campaign which was lengthy and
aggressive and showed an endless wish to debate the
Version 4
4
3 December 2008
Vexatious or repeated requests
original issue, each time trying to escalate its importance
and gravity, despite the apology and compensation already
provided.
It will be easiest to identify an obsessive request where an individual
continues with a lengthy series of linked requests even though they already
have independent evidence on the issue (eg reports from an independent
investigation). The more independent evidence available, the stronger this
argument will be.
Example In Welsh v Information Commissioner EA/2007/0088 (16
April 2008), the requester had made a complaint against
his GP. The GP’s practice, the GMC, the primary care trust
and the Healthcare Commission had all investigated the
complaint and rejected it. He continued to write to the GP’s
practice reiterating the complaint and requesting details of
the GP’s training. The Tribunal found that the request was
vexatious: “Mr Welsh simply ignores the results of three
separate clinical investigations into his allegation… that
unwillingness to accept or engage with contrary evidence
is an indicator of someone obsessed with his particular
viewpoint, to the exclusion of any other… it is the
persistence of [the] complaints, in the teeth of the findings
of independent and external investigations, that makes this
request, against that background and context, vexatious.”
Example In Coggins v Information Commissioner EA/2007/0130 (13
May 2008), the requester suspected that the council had
fraudulently charged an elderly lady for care services not
provided. Despite a council investigation, a Committee for
Social Care investigation and the police all finding no
evidence of dishonesty, the requester persisted with the
allegations and submitted 20 requests in 73 letters and 17
postcards over a two-year period. The Tribunal found the
request obsessive and vexatious.
If an individual repeatedly submits requests for information already provided
(or refused), you should consider whether you could refuse these requests as
repeated requests under section 14(2) instead (see page 8 below).
•
Is the request harassing the authority or causing distress to staff?
The focus should be on the likely effect of the request (seen in context), not
on the requester’s intention. It is an objective test – a reasonable person must
be likely to regard the request as harassing or distressing.
Relevant factors under this heading could include the volume and frequency
of correspondence, the use of hostile, abusive or offensive language, an
Version 4
5
3 December 2008
Vexatious or repeated requests
unreasonable fixation on an individual member of staff, or mingling requests
with accusations and complaints.
Example In Gowers v Information Commissioner and LB Camden
EA/2007/0114 (13 May 2008) the requester made various
requests and complaints about the alleged incompetence
of the council in ongoing correspondence. He made
personal accusations against a particular member of staff
and attempted to identify their spouse through FOI
requests and other means. In finding the latest request
vexatious, one factor the Tribunal took into account was
that the correspondence “would likely have been seen by
any reasonable recipient as hostile, provocative and often
personal” and that “the requests are likely to have been
very upsetting to the staff and that they… are likely to have
felt deliberately targeted and victimised”.
The relevant issue here is the request itself, not the information that might be
disclosed in response. The question is whether having to deal with the request
would be distressing or harassing, regardless of what the request is about.
The fact that disclosure of certain information would be embarrassing or
distressing cannot make a request vexatious. The Tribunal confirmed in
Betts that: “distress, annoyance, irritation or worry arising from the possible
consequences of disclosure cannot turn an otherwise proper request into a
vexatious one; indeed that would defeat the purpose of FOIA”.
•
Would complying with the request impose a significant burden in
terms of expense and distraction?
You need to consider more than just the cost of compliance. You will also
need to consider whether responding would divert or distract staff from their
usual work.
Example In Coggins, the requester had sent 20 requests, 73 letters
and 17 postcards over a two-year period. The letters were
to several different employees and overlapped with each
other. Requests were repeated before any response could
be issued. The Tribunal decided that dealing with this
correspondence would have been a significant distraction
from the public authority’s core functions and imposed a
significant administrative burden.
The wider context of a request is likely to be relevant here. You may be able
to conclude that responding to a relatively simple request would still impose a
significant burden because any response would be very likely to lead to a
significant number of further requests and complaints. However, you would
need to be able to support this argument with evidence from extensive
previous experience with the individual concerned.
Version 4
6
3 December 2008
Vexatious or repeated requests
This factor will not be enough on its own to show vexatiousness. If your only
or main concern is the cost of compliance, you should consider section 12
rather than section 14. Under section 12, you can refuse a request if finding
and extracting the relevant information would cost more than a set limit
(currently £450, or £600 for central government). You can also combine the
total cost for all requests received from one person (or from several people
acting together) during a period of 60 working days – roughly three months –
as long as the requests relate to similar information.
For more information on using section 12, see our guidance on
Using the
Fees Regulations and
Redacting and extracting information.
•
Is the request designed to cause disruption or annoyance?
As this factor relates to the requester’s intention, it can be difficult to prove.
Cases where this is a strong argument are therefore likely to be rare.
However, if a requester explicitly states that they want to cause maximum
inconvenience, the request will almost certainly be vexatious.
Example In ICO decision notice
FS50151851 the request included
the statement: “I am insincere and my purpose is
mischievous subversion.” Taking this statement with the
volume, length and unfocussed nature of the
correspondence, it was fair to conclude that the request
was designed to cause disruption or annoyance.
Alternatively, if you have independent evidence that the requester wants to
disrupt or deliberately annoy the authority by making requests, this may be
relevant. For example, a requester may have threatened to disrupt the
authority during a previous complaint or dispute, or may be involved with a
campaign group that has publicly stated it intends to disrupt an authority as
part of its campaign.
•
Does the request lack any serious purpose or value?
If a request clearly lacks any serious purpose or value, it may help an
argument that the request is vexatious when taken together with other factors
(eg if the request is also obsessive, harassing or burdensome).
However, an apparent lack of serious purpose or value is not enough on its
own to make a request vexatious. The FOIA is not generally concerned with
the motives of the applicant, but with transparency for its own sake. You
should therefore not dismiss a request solely for this reason, and should be
aware that even a request that seems spurious or tedious to you may have
genuine value to the individual.
It is not appropriate to use lack of value as an argument simply because you
cannot imagine what the value might be. You must demonstrate that a
Version 4
7
3 December 2008
Vexatious or repeated requests
request has no purpose or value, rather than simply suggest that because the
requester did not provide a reason there cannot be one.
On the other hand, if a request does have a serious purpose or value, this
may be enough to prevent it being vexatious, even if it imposes a significant
burden and is harassing or distressing your staff. If the request forms part of a
wider campaign or pattern of requests, the serious and proper purpose must
justify both the request itself and the lengths to which the campaign or pattern
of behaviour has been taken.
Example In Coggins, the Tribunal found that the requester had a
reasonable and genuine desire to uncover a fraud, and this
amounted to a serious and proper purpose that could
potentially override the harassing and burdensome nature
of the request, so that it ought not to be considered
vexatious. However, despite the original serious and
proper purpose, the requests had now become obsessive
after three independent enquiries into the issue and there
came a time when the requester should have let the matter
drop. Continuing his campaign was no longer justifiable
and, on balance, the latest request was vexatious.
The question of whether a serious and proper purpose can continue to justify
an ongoing campaign or series of requests will overlap with the question of
whether the latest request can fairly be seen as obsessive. If a request is
obsessive (eg if the issue has already been fully considered and debated with
the applicant) then it is unlikely that there can be any continuing justification
for that request.
Is the request repeated?
There is also a separate provision relating to repeated requests. Under
section 14(2), a request can be refused as repeated if:
• it is made by the same person as a previous request;
• it is identical or substantially similar to the previous request; and
• no reasonable interval has elapsed since the previous request.
To be repeated, the requests must have been submitted by the same person.
You cannot refuse similar requests as repeated if they are submitted by
different requesters. However, you may be able instead to refuse them as
vexatious (if part of a campaign to cause disruption or distress) or under
section 12 (if the requesters are acting together and compliance would exceed
the cost limit).
Version 4
8
3 December 2008
Vexatious or repeated requests
•
Identical or substantially similar
Both the wording of the request itself and the information that would be
provided in response will be relevant here.
Where the wording of the request is identical to a previous request and it is
asking for the same information (ie information already provided or refused),
you can regard the request as repeated. However, if the wording is identical
but the request is actually asking for different information (eg a recurring
request asking for “any new or amended information” on a particular subject,
or for “last month’s figures”), you cannot refuse the request as repeated.
Similarly, a request will be substantially similar to a previous request only if
you would need to disclose substantially similar information to respond to both
requests (ie with no meaningful differences). You should not refuse a request
simply because it relates to the same subject or theme as a previous request,
unless you would have to give the same information in response.
If only some of the information you need to disclose is different, you should
comply with the request, but you may want to supply only the new information
and class the rest of the request as repeated.
If the request is for information recently refused, you should treat the request
as a request for internal review of your original decision.
•
Reasonable interval
Even if the request is the same as or substantially similar to a previous
request, you cannot refuse it as repeated if a reasonable interval has passed.
What is a reasonable interval will largely depend on the circumstances,
including:
• how likely the information is to change;
• how often records are updated; and
• any advice previously given to the requester (eg on when new
information is likely to be available).
For example, it may be reasonable for a requester to resubmit a request after
a relatively short time for statistics or other records that you would expect to
be updated often, but not for purely historical records. On the other hand, if
the requester has been told when information is due to change, it would not
generally be reasonable for them to resubmit a request before that time.
If you previously refused the requested information under a qualified
exemption, you should also consider whether the passage of time could
possibly affect the public interest test for that exemption. If there is any
possibility that previously exempt information may no longer be exempt, you
must not refuse the request as repeated. You should reconsider disclosure in
the usual way.
Version 4
9
3 December 2008
Vexatious or repeated requests
Refusing the request
If you decide that a request is vexatious or repeated, you must issue a refusal
notice to the requester within 20 working days. The refusal notice should state
that you are relying on section 14(1) or 14(2) and give details of your internal
review procedures and the right to appeal to the ICO.
However, section 17(6) says you will not need to issue a new refusal notice if:
• you have already given the same person a refusal notice for a previous
vexatious or repeated request; and
• it would be unreasonable to issue another one.
Refusing a request as vexatious or repeated is particularly likely to lead to an
internal review or an appeal to the ICO. Whether or not you issue a refusal
notice, you should therefore keep written records clearly setting out the
procedure you followed and your reasons for judging the request as vexatious
or repeated, so that you can justify your decision to us if necessary.
For more information on refusals, see our guidance on
Refusal notices.
Good practice
In some circumstances you may be able to deal with difficult requests in a less
contentious way. To help you avoid unnecessary disputes over vexatious
requests, you may want to consider the following alternatives:
• Is the request clear enough? If the request is unclear and you are unsure
what (if any) information has been requested, you can contact the
requester and ask them to clarify the request. Under section 1(3), you will
not then have to comply with the request until you have received that
clarification. This may be particularly helpful for lengthy correspondence
that contains a confusing mixture of questions, complaints and other
content, or is otherwise incoherent or illegible.
• In borderline cases, you may want to consider complying with the request
to prevent a more time-consuming dispute developing, but advising the
requester that a future request could be seen as vexatious if they continue
the same pattern of behaviour.
• If you are confident that the request is vexatious, you may choose to
refuse the request but spell out what the requester could do differently in
future to ensure you deal with their request.
For more information on clarification and the duty to provide advice and
assistance, see
Advice and assistance: Awareness guidance 23.
If you receive lots of requests for information on a particular subject or similar
theme, you should consider voluntarily publishing the information as part of
Version 4
10
3 December 2008
Vexatious or repeated requests
your publication scheme. This may reduce the number of unwanted or
repeated requests you receive.
You should be aware that you cannot use section 14 to refuse any request for
information that should be published under your publication scheme. You will
need to provide this information, or direct the requester to where it is
available. For more information on public
ation schemes, see our website.
Other considerations
You need to take care to distinguish between FOI requests and requests for
the individual’s own personal data. If a requester has asked for information
relating to themselves, you should deal with the request as a subject access
request under the Data Protection Act 1998. A subject access request cannot
be vexatious (although there is an exception for repeated requests).
For more information on subj
ect access requests, see our Checklist for
handling requests for personal information (subject access requests).
More information
This guidance will be reviewed and considered from time to time in line with
new decisions of the Information Commissioner, Tribunal and courts on
freedom of information cases. It is a guide to our general recommended
approach to this area, although individual cases will always be decided on the
basis of their particular circumstances.
If you need any more information about this or any other aspect of freedom of
information, please contact us.
Phone: 08456 30 60 60
01625 54 57 45
Email:
please use the online
enquiry form on our website
Website:
www.ico.gov.uk
Version 4
11
3 December 2008
Document Outline
