link to page 1 link to page 1 link to page 1
Information Rights Team
Post Office Limited
Ground Floor
Finsbury Dials
20 Finsbury Street
London EC2Y 9AQ
Your reference:
Our reference: FOI2021/00256
Mr John O’Sullivan
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx.xxx
-
12 April 2021
Dear
Mr O’Sullivan,
Freedom of Information Request – FOI2021/00256
I am writing in response to your requests to Post Office Limited (“Post Office”) under
the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (“FOIA”) received on 10, 11 and 17, 19, 26 and
30 March 2021.
Appendix 1 to this letter reproduces each of those requests.
Appendix 2 sets out the other requests that you have made so far this year.
We have considered your requests and consider them to be vexatious. Post Office is
not required to comply with vexatious requests under section 14 of FOIA and as such,
your requests have been refused.
The reasons for this decision are set out below.
Section 14 of FOIA
Section 14(1) (Vexatious requests) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 states:
“(1) Section 1(1) does not oblige a public authority to comply with a request
for information if the request is vexatious.”
The Information Commissioner’s Guidance (“
ICO Guidance”) on “Dealing with
vexatious requests” explains that dealing with unreasonable requests can place a
strain on the resources of a public authority and get in the way of delivering
mainstream services or answering legitimate requests.
1 The ICO Guidance further
states:
“Section 14(1) is designed to protect public authorities by allowing them to
refuse any requests which have the potential to cause a disproportionate or
unjustified level of disruption, irritation or distress.”2
To assist with identifying potentially vexatious requests, the ICO’s Guidance sets out a
number of indicators which includes the following:
3
1
https://ico.org.uk/media/for-organisations/documents/1198/dealing-with-vexatious-requests.pdf at
paragraph 8.
2 https://ico.org.uk/media/for-organisations/documents/1198/dealing-with-vexatious-requests.pdf at
paragraph 9.
3 https://ico.org.uk/media/for-organisations/documents/1198/dealing-with-vexatious-requests.pdf at
paragraph 25.
1
link to page 2 link to page 2 link to page 2 link to page 2
“Burden on the authority
The effort required to meet the request will be so grossly oppressive in terms
of the strain on time and resources, that the authority cannot reasonably be
expected to comply, no matter how legitimate the subject matter or valid the
intentions of the requester.”
“Frequent or overlapping requests
The requester submits frequent correspondence about the same issue or sends
in new requests before the public authority has had an opportunity to address
their earlier enquiries.”
Finally, the Code of Practice issued under section 45 of the Freedom of Information
Act 2000 states that public authorities should
“note that the public interest in
obtaining the material does not act as a ‘trump card’, overriding the vexatious
elements of the request requiring the public authority to respond to the request”.4
This point has also been reiterated by the Upper Tribunal
5 and First-Tier Tribunal
6.
Your requests
For the purposes of section 14, we are entitled to take into account the number of
requests made by an applicant, the amount of work that would be involved, and any
other matters that we consider would demonstrate that the request imposes an
unjustified burden on Post Office. We are entitled to do so in certain circumstances
even where there is a serious purpose behind the request. The ICO’s Guidance also
recognises that a request “which would not normally be regarded as vexatious in
isolation may assume that quality once considered in context”. The example given by
the ICO in its Guidance is “
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”.7
Since the beginning of 2021, you have made 22 FOIA requests to Post Office
containing in total 79 questions or individual requests. This response relates to six of
those FOIA requests (comprised of 20 questions or individual requests) which we
received from you within a 15 working day period in March 2021 (as set out in
Appendix 1).
Your requests are detailed, frequent and a number of them relate to the same issue or
issues in circumstances where we have not yet had the opportunity to address
previous requests on the same topic. This is placing significant strain on Post Office’s
resources. This is also at a time where Post Office’s capacity in its Information Rights
Team has been affected by Covid-19, of which you have been informed on multiple
occasions.
Post Office recognises that, in the wake of the recent High Court proceedings and
press coverage regarding the Horizon system, there is likely to be an increased
4 https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/744
071/CoP_FOI_Code_of_Practice_-_Minor_Amendments_20180926_.pdf at paragraph 7.11.
5 https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5b57139a40f0b6339963e8cf/GIA_2782_2017-00.pdf at
paragraph 25.
6 http://informationrights.decisions.tribunals.gov.uk/DBFiles/Decision/i2653/Boyce%20M%20(EA-2019-
0334)%2028.05.20.pdf at paragraph 6(6).
7 https://ico.org.uk/media/for-organisations/documents/1198/dealing-with-vexatious-requests.pdf at
paragraph 58.
2
link to page 3
volume of requests. However, in the circumstances, we consider that the aggregated
burden imposed by your most recent requests is disproportionate and oppressive and
would cause an unjustified burden on our resources and unjustified level of disruption.
As a result, we consider the requests set out in
Appendix 1 to be vexatious under
section 14 of FOIA and so we are not obliged to respond.
You may wish to consider the guidance on the Information Commissioner’s webpage
titled “How to access information from a public body”.
8 This webpage includes a list of
‘Dos and Don’ts’ to assist members of the public with making effective requests under
FOIA. In particular, we note that this section advises giving the public authority
”ample opportunity to address any previous requests you have made before
submitting new ones” as well as advocating against
“disrupt[ing] a public authority by
the sheer weight of requests or the volume of information requested”.
The guidance on the Information Commissioner’s webpage also advises that
requesters,
“Use straightforward, polite language; avoid basing your request or
question on assumptions or opinions, or mixing requests with complaints or
comments.” At times, we consider that some of your requests and the language used
have not reflected this guidance. For example, your request with reference number
FOI2021/00178 stated:
“My question was does POL always refuse a request under
cost grounds or do you think hey that's a good question Sir Wynn or JF might be
interested in that - lets answer it?” and your requests with reference numbers
FOI2021/00223 and FOI2021/00237 (set out in Appendix 1) are lengthy and
convoluted, mixing requests for information with comment. It can be confusing for
public authorities where questions are mixed with complaints and other content so we
would request that you bear in mind the Information Commissioner’s guidance on this
point.
Any future requests will be considered on a case by case basis.
If you are dissatisfied with the handling of this response, you do have a right to
request an internal review. You can do this by writing to the address below stating
your reasons for your internal review request.
Information Rights Manager
Post Office Limited
Information Rights Team
Ground Floor
Finsbury Dials
20 Finsbury Street
London
EC2Y 9AQ
xxxxxxxxxxx.xxxxxx@xxxxxxxxxx.xx.xx
8 https://ico.org.uk/your-data-matters/official-information/
3
If, having requested an internal review by Post Office, you are still not satisfied with
our response you also have a right of appeal to the Information Commissioner at:
Information Commissioner's Office
Wycliffe House
Water Lane
Wilmslow
Cheshire
SK9 5AF
Telephone: 0303 123 1113
https://ico.org.uk
Yours sincerely,
Jackie Lawrence
Information Rights Team
xxxxxxxxxxx.xxxxxx@xxxxxxxxxx.xx.xx
http://corporate.postoffice.co.uk/secure-corporate/about-us/access-to-information/
@postofficenews
Post Office Limited is committed to protecting your privacy, information about
how we do this can be found on our website at www.postoffice.co.uk/privacy
4
Appendix 1
No. Date received,
Request
reference and title
1
10 March 2021
Can you list the names of the 6 unsuccessful candidates please?Do
you have a record of the voting?For the two seats on the Board is it
FOI2021/00184
simply first and second past the post or is there a minimum turn-
out and will the candidates need a minimum % difference?
Seat on the Board
Vote
2
11 March 2021
Can you please say what % of SPM are female?How many applied
for a seat on the board?How many SPM operate 2 or fewer
FOI2021/00185
branches as a %?How many operate 6 or more as a %?We vote on
these matters starting March 22nd so if you could give the answer
Seat on the Board
before then it would be great.Im sure we all want paradigmatic
vote
representation on the Board,
3
17 March 2021
Please can you say how much the seat on the board campaign has
cost?Do you have details of how much Green Park were paid?Civica
FOI2021/00199
Election Services?The cost of the hustings?Any other fees
involved?Thank you
Seat on the Board
Cost
4
19 March 2021
Thank you for your reply and answers to some of the points
raised.I notice today 19th March some SPM who wrongfully had
FOI2021/00223
money taken from them for "Horizon losses"have received offers of
settlement.Is it the case that this money is from the Government
Horizon Historic
rather than POL?in that case surely a spend of the public purse
Shortfall Scheme
needs some detail?.Sir Wynn through the Horizon Inquiry is
desperate for proof that POL has learned and moved on from the
dark days of accusing a High Court Judge of bias.These are some
things he is looking into B: Build upon the findings of Mr Justice
Fraser, by obtaining all available relevant evidence from Post Office
Ltd, Fujitsu and BEIS to establish a clear account of the
implementation and failings of Horizon over its lifecycle;
C: Assess whether Post Office Ltd has learned the lessons from the
criticisms made by Mr Justice Fraser in the “Common Issues” and
“Horizon Issues” trials and those identified by affected postmasters
and has delivered or made good progress on the organisational and
cultural changes necessary to ensure a similar case does not
happen in the future;
D: Assess whether the commitments made by Post Office Ltd within
the mediation settlement – including the historical shortfall scheme
– have been properly delivered;
Surely publishing as much information as possible can only help
POL demonstrate to wronged SPM,individuals conducting
Inquiries,the media etc that you have changed?
5
26 March 2021
When all the appellants' barristers had finished, Brian Altman, the
Post Office QC, said he wished to make a brief response. He said:
FOI2021/00237
- the Post Office accepted both Mr Justice Fraser's judgments
NFSP independence
- it was not disputing any element of Mr Justice Fraser's judgments
5
No. Date received,
Request
reference and title - the CCRC have conducted the investigations in these cases
leading to the referrals the CCRC has made
- the Post Office has not sought to go behind those investigations
to do its own (this could undermine Fraser J which PO has no desire
to do)
- the Post Office has embarked on a post-conviction disclosure
exercise almost unprecedented in size which has allowed the
appellants to make the arguments they are making.
- we as counsel have placed before the court points which we
believe are relevant to the issue of second category abuse, but
given the very clear public interest, the determination whether or
not these prosecutions amount to an affront to the public
conscience is a matter for this court to judge.
Justice Fraser found "The NFSP is not an organisation independent
of the Post Office, in the sense that the word “independent” is
usually understood in the English language. It is not only
dependent upon the Post Office for its funding, but that funding is
subject to stringent and detailed conditions that enable the Post
Office to restrict the activities of the NFSP. The Post Office
effectively controls the NFSP."
Is the QC saying POL accept the NFSP is not independent?
6
30 March 2021
What year was this scheme implemented? What was the total
money that could have been earned in bonuses and how much
FOI2021/00256
actually was paid out?For each year the scheme ran,what was the
target%,what was the actual figure reached and what was the
Mails segregation
amount paid out each year?
Bonus scheme
6
Appendix 2
No. Date received and
Request
reference
1.
4 January 2021
Please can you say:
FOI2021/00003
How many branches have a VOC score of 82% or more?
How many have a score under 82%?
How many branches have no data?
Is one reply as a VOC enough to generate a score?
2.
6 January 2021
How many Subpostmasters or counter staff (multis and
independants) have tested positive for Covid?
FOI2021/00007
How many branches have had to temporarily close because
of this?
How many days of Covid caused closure has the network
experienced?
Is the rate of positive test and closure increasing?
3.
12 January 2021
What % of serving SPM are prevented from applying for a
Board seat due to not meeting the 82% VOC requirement?
FOI2021/00016
Who proposed this figure?
Do you have evidence that particularly since Covid customer
feedback forums have become a whingers paradise?
To that end what is the satisfaction rating as an average
prior to March 2019 and afterwards?
4.
22 January 2021
What date was the first payment made under this scheme?
FOI2021/00034
How many payments have been made under this scheme?
How many claims have been rejected under this scheme?
How many claims are yet to be decided under this scheme?
What are the cash values of individual payments made
under the scheme?
Have SPM who have been deemed to be owed money under
the scheme been asked to sign NDA?
Can SPM who have been unsuccessful in the scheme appeal
against the decision or ask for the reasons behind the
decision?
5.
26 January 2021
“I need to regain the trust and confidence of the
postmasters,” Read says. “We are putting a serving
FOI2021/00047
postmaster on to the board. Symbolically and practically I
recognise the need to engage with postmasters. We are
doing this through a consultation.” Following a six-month
7
No. Date received and
Request
reference
review, £37m is also being set aside to make postmaster
remuneration “fairer”. Read can now push forward with his
strategic plans. He cites the Post Office’s franchise operation
as a crucial part of his goal to transform it from a
“historically very arms-length government-owned operation
to a different model”.
Can you explain what £37 million being set aside means
please?
Is it money that will be earned, can be earned or might be
earned?
Has this figure been used an evidence of a relationship
reset?
How much of this £37 million has been paid out?
Is this the £37 million the NFSP mentioned in 4 Nov 2019
interview?
Does this information need updating?
6.
1 February 2021
Please can you say how many SPM's have applied for the
position of Board Member?
FOI2021/00060
How much is this as a % of the SPM population?
How many subpostmasters are there?
How much is the number of applicants of the modified
(82%) VOC requirement as a % of the SPM pool?
If the figure was 75% how many would be eligible?
If the figure was 84% how many would be eligible?
7.
3 February 2021
In the ten month period March 2020 to January 2021 how
much did SPM's receive in payments for these transactions
FOI2021/00066
either ordered in branch or on-line?
What was the same figure for the period March 2019 to
January 2020?
8.
5 February 2021
Please can you supply the SPM pay for Jan 2021 and also
Jan 2020.
FOI2021/00074
Can you give a running total for SPM pay in both these years
up to end of Jan.
9.
11 February 2021
Please can you supply the average VOC score for branches
in WHS locations.
FOI2021/00094
What is the highest score and what is the lowest score
please?
8
No. Date received and
Request
reference
10.
21 February 2021
How many POL branches are there and what is the
breakdown by type, Mains, local, Independant, old POL
FOI2021/00119
contract, Outreach etc?
11.
22 February 2021
What was SubPostmaster pay for Feb 2021?
FOI2021/00118
What was SubPostmaster pay for Feb 2020 and
What was SubPostmaster pay for Feb 2013?
12.
22 February 2021
What percentage of POL income comes from providing
services for third parties, RM, DVLA, Passport Office,
FOI2021/00117
Moneygramme, POCA etc?
How much of this income as a percentage is paid to SPM's?
13.
24 February 2021
Please can you say what SPM income was as a percentage of
POL revenue for 2020-2021?
FOI2021/00124
Can you also supply the figures for 2011 through to 2020
14.
4 March 2021
The ICO guidance says "You can refuse an entire request
under the following circumstances: etc".
FOI2021/00178
My question was does POL always refuse a request under
cost grounds or do you think hey that's a good question Sir
Wynn or JF might be interested in that - lets answer it? You
are not a Hospital, School, Council etc who may put front
line jobs at risk in order to find the money to answer
questions.
How many people work in your Information Rights dept.?
What is your budget?
Do you refuse requests from the CWU or the NFSP for
information on grounds of cost?
15.
9 March 2021
For the year ending March 2020 could you please supply the
following information:
FOI2021/00169
How many branches received pay of:
less than £1000,
less than £5000,
less than £10000,
less than £150000,
less than £200000,
less than £50000,
less than £60000,
less than £70000.
less than £100000.
How many branches received more than £100000?
9
No. Date received and
Request
reference
16.
25 March 2021
All the PO products are a matter of public record, you have
no share price to maintain and the Government is your sole
FOI2021/00258
shareholder. SPM earn you all your income.
Do they not have a right to know if they are being treated as
partners or "cash cows?
"Nick Read talks of resetting the relationship but he appears
to be just installing more One Way Street signs.
10
