recognising a request made under the foia.pdf

link to page 3 link to page 3 link to page 4 link to page 5 link to page 6 link to page 7 link to page 8 link to page 9 link to page 9 link to page 10 link to page 11 link to page 12 link to page 14 link to page 15 link to page 16 link to page 16 link to page 16 link to page 18 link to page 18 link to page 19 link to page 19 link to page 19 link to page 20 link to page 20 link to page 21 link to page 21 link to page 21 link to page 22 link to page 22

Introduction
1.  The Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA) gives rights of
public access to information held by public authorities.
2.  An overview of the main provisions of FOIA can be found in The
Guide to Freedom of Information.
3.  This is part of a series of guidance, which goes into more detail
than the Guide, to help public authorities to fully understand
their obligations and promote good practice.
4.  This guidance provides advice on how to recognise a valid FOI
request.
Overview

  To be valid under Section 8 a request must:

o  be in writing;

o  include the requester’s name and an address for
correspondence; and,

o  describe the information being requested.

  The requester can be an individual, a company or an
organisation but in each case they must provide their real name.
A request made under a pseudonym will be invalid.

  There is a low threshold for meeting the requirement to describe
the information. A description will be valid if it contains sufficient
detail for the requested information to be distinguished from
other information held by the authority.

  If the description of the information is unclear or ambiguous, the
authority must ask the requester for further clarification in
accordance with Section 1(3) of the Act.

  A request defined solely by keywords will be valid. If the
keywords are so common that the scope of the request is
unreasonably broad, then the authority should consider whether
Section 12 (cost limits) or Section 14 (vexatious requests) apply.

3
Recognising a Request made under the Freedom of Information Act (Section
8)
20140226

Version: 1

  A request that is conditional on circumstances remaining the
same (for example, ‘Unless x happens, please give me
information on y …’) should be treated as valid.

  However, a request that is conditional on a change in
circumstances (for example, ‘In the event of x, please send me
information on y…’) will be invalid.

  FOIA requests made via online forums and social media will be
valid provided they meet the criteria in Section 8(1). If it is not
reasonably practicable for the authority to provide a response
through the website concerned, it should ask the requester for
an alternative address for correspondence.

  If the request does not meet the requirements of Section 8(1),
then the authority should issue the requester with a timely
response explaining why their request is not valid, and provide
advice and assistance to help them submit a new request.

What FOIA says
5.  To be valid under the FOIA, a request must fulfil the criteria set
out in Section 8 of the Act.

8.—(1) In this Act any reference to a “request for information”
is a reference to such a request which—

(a) is in writing,
(b) states the name of the applicant and an address for
correspondence, and
(c) describes the information requested.

(2) For the purposes of subsection (1)(a), a request is to be
treated as made in writing where the text of the request—
(a) is transmitted by electronic means,
(b) is received in legible form, and
(c) is capable of being used for subsequent reference.

6.  Section 8 stipulates that a request for information must:

be in writing;

4
Recognising a Request made under the Freedom of Information Act (Section
8)
20140226

Version: 1

    state the name of the requester and provide an address
for correspondence; and,
    describe the information being requested.
7.  Each of the above criteria are considered in more detail later in
this guidance, but public authorities should note that this is not
a hard test to satisfy; the vast majority of written requests for
information will be valid. The Act contains other provisions to
deal with requests which are too broad, unclear or
unreasonable.
8.  However, there are some circumstances where, despite the
validity of a request, it may be more appropriate to deal with it
outside of the Act.

If the requested information can be quickly and easily sent
to the requester then it may be better dealt with in ‘the
normal course of business’; for example, a request for a
current leaflet.
    If the request is for the requester’s own personal data
then it should be dealt with as a subject access request
under the Data Protection Act (see our Guide to Data
Protection).
    If the request is for environmental information then it
should be dealt with under the Environmental Information
Regulations (see our Guide to the Environmental
Information Regulations for further details), although the
guidance provided here on pseudonyms and describing
information may still be helpful.
Requirement to submit requests in writing
9.  The term ‘in writing’ covers requests submitted by letter and
electronic form, including those sent via the internet through
WhatDoTheyKnow.com and social networking sites such as
Twitter and Facebook.
10.  The request does not have to make any direct reference to the
Act, or be the sole or main theme of the requester’s
correspondence. In fact, a request buried within the text of a
long piece of correspondence will be as valid as a stand-alone
request, so long as it also fulfils the other criteria outlined in
Section 8.

5
Recognising a Request made under the Freedom of Information Act (Section
8)
20140226

Version: 1

11.  The tone and language of the request are not relevant factors
in determining whether a request is valid under Section 8,
although where the authority objects to these, it can take this
into account as evidence the request is vexatious. Advice on
how to identify and respond to vexatious requests can be found
in our guidance Dealing with vexatious requests.
12.  If the request is illegible then it will be invalid. However, we
would expect the authority to offer the requester help in
submitting a legible version in accordance with its duty to
provide reasonable advice and assistance under Section 16 of
the Act to those seeking to make a request.
13.  Further information about the provision of advice and
assistance can be found later in this guidance.
Name of the applicant
14.  A requester can be an individual, a company or an
organisation, but in each case Section 8(1)(b) requires that a
request for information must include the name of the
requester.
15.  In our view, the intention of the legislation is for the requester
to provide their real name so their request could be processed
in accordance with the requirements of the FOIA.
16.  This is supported by the fact that there are circumstances
under the FOIA where a requester’s true identity can be
relevant, for example, where an authority is considering
aggregating the cost of requests or refusing a request as
vexatious or repeated.
17.  However, if the public authority is not considering one of the
above issues, and there is no obvious indication that the
requester has not used their real name, then we don’t suggest
that the authority takes steps to check the requester’s identity.
In most cases it will be appropriate to accept the name that
has been provided at face value and respond to the request in
the normal way.
18.  Even if a public authority suspects that the requester isn’t using
their real name, this doesn’t mean that it can’t answer the
request.

6
Recognising a Request made under the Freedom of Information Act (Section
8)
20140226

Version: 1

19.  However, where an authority does elect to comply with an
invalid request, the requester will have no recourse to make a
complaint to the Commissioner if they are dissatisfied with the
response. This is because the Commissioner’s powers only
extend to requests for information as defined under Section 8
of the Act.
20.  We would therefore recommend any authority complying with a
request that it suspects is invalid to inform the requester of this
and advise them to provide their full real name when
submitting requests in future.
The definition of a ‘real name’
21.  For a request to be valid, the requester must provide enough of
their real name to give anyone reading that request a
reasonable indication of their identity.
22.  This means that if the staff processing the request cannot
identify the requester from the name provided, that request
will be invalid.
23.  Authorities do not have to take into account the possibility that
there may be staff elsewhere within the organisation who have
dealt with the requester before and might be capable of
working out their identity from the contents of their request
alone.
24.  Even if this were the case, the authority could still refuse the
request, as the absence of a real name would make it
technically invalid under Section 8(1)(b).
25.  Any variation of the requester’s title or first name combined
with their surname (e.g. Mr Smith or John Smith) will be
sufficient to meet this requirement. However, a first name or
surname provided in isolation, or a set of initials, will not.
Example

A requester named Robert Jones could call themselves ‘Rob
Jones’, ‘Bobby Jones’, ‘R Jones’, ‘Bob Jones’ or ‘Mr Jones’.

However, they could not just use ‘Robert’, ‘Bob’, ‘Bobby’ or
‘R.J’.

7
Recognising a Request made under the Freedom of Information Act (Section
8)
20140226

Version: 1

26.  A combination of the requester’s middle names and surname
will also be acceptable as this is simply another way of
expressing their real name.
Example
A requester called Sarah Anne Elizabeth Spencer could make a
request in the name of ‘Anne Spencer’ or ‘Liz Spencer’.

27.  If the requester has a name they sometimes reverse or write in
several different ways, then the authority should accept all of
the possible variations.
Example
A requester called Mohammed Ali could use ‘Mr Ali’, ‘Mr
Mohammed’, ‘Muhammed Ali’, or ‘Ali Muhammad’.
However, ‘A.M’, ‘M.A’, ‘Ali’ or ‘Mohammad’ would not be
acceptable.

Pseudonyms
28.  If the requester has used a pseudonym then their request will
be invalid.
29.  In some cases it will be immediately obvious that a pseudonym
is being used, for example where the request has been signed
in the name of a famous fictional character, such as ‘Mickey
Mouse’, an inanimate object, like ‘Mirrorball’, or by location, for
instance as ‘disgruntled of Stockport’. Pun names such as Sue
D Nym may also fall into this category.
30.  However, if the name provided is not an obvious pseudonym
and the public authority has no reason to believe that a
pseudonym is being used, the authority should just accept the
name provided at face value.
31.  Whilst this may mean that some pseudonymous requests will
slip through the net, we would not want to see a situation
where authorities routinely carry out checks on requesters’
identities. The Act provides a public right to information, not a
right limited to certain individuals.

8
Recognising a Request made under the Freedom of Information Act (Section
8)
20140226

Version: 1

Requesters who are commonly known by another name
32.  If the requester is commonly known by another name then the
authority should accept this as valid for the purposes of Section
8(1)(b). Examples might be:

a married woman who uses her maiden name for
professional reasons but is known by her married name
outside work;

an individual child who has assumed the surname of a step
parent without formally changing their name, and has
gone by that title for a number of years; or,
    an author who publishes work under a pen name.
33.  The examples given above are not exhaustive and we
recognise that in some instances it may difficult for the
requester to provide the authority with evidence that they are
commonly known by a particular name.
34.  In any case where this is an issue, the authority should aim to
use a relatively informal means of confirming the requester’s
identity rather than seeking formal evidence of identification.
Requests submitted by organisations
35.  If the request is from a company, then the authority should
accept either its full registered name or a name that exists as a
legal entity (such as a trading name) as valid.
36.  Where the request is from a sole trader, the authority should
accept either the proprietor’s name or the company name.
37.  Again, companies’ names should generally be accepted at face
value, but in any case where the authority has reason to verify
the authenticity of the company, it should check Companies
House or the Charity Commission Register to clarify whether it
is a genuine organisation.
38.  Requests from unincorporated bodies such as campaign groups
or clubs are also valid and in most cases should be accepted at
face value. However, if the authority has reason to check
whether the organisation is authentic, it may need to take a
more pragmatic approach to validating its identity because
these bodies are often relatively informal associations of people
with no ‘official’ status.

9
Recognising a Request made under the Freedom of Information Act (Section
8)
20140226

Version: 1

39.  We therefore recommend that authorities adopt a lower and
more informal test for determining whether a name provided
by an unincorporated body is genuine.
Requests made ‘on behalf of’ another person
40.  These are requests submitted by an ‘agent’ acting on behalf of
another party. Examples of this would be:

A private individual making a request on behalf of a friend;

an employee making a request on behalf of a
company/employer;

a journalist making a request on behalf of a newspaper;
or,
    a professional (such as a solicitor or accountant) making a
request on behalf of a client.
41.  For the purposes of this type of request, authorities should
interpret ‘the requester’ to mean the party on whose behalf the
request has been made (in these examples, the friend,
company, newspaper and client) not the person or organisation
acting as their agent (the private individual, employee,
journalist or professional in the above examples).
42.  This means that to be valid under Section 8(1)(a), the request
must state the real name of the party on whose behalf the
agent is acting.
43.  A request which only includes the real name of the agent will
be invalid.
Example
A journalist called Jane Davies wants to make a request for
information about the cost of a new housing project on behalf
of her newspaper, The Morning Herald.
In this scenario, the following request would be valid under
Section 8(1)(a);
‘On behalf of “The Morning Herald” I would like a detailed
breakdown of the cost estimate for the new housing project.’
Signed
Jane Davies’

10
Recognising a Request made under the Freedom of Information Act (Section
8)
20140226

Version: 1

This is because it includes the real name of the party on
whose behalf a request is being made (The Morning Herald).
However, if the journalist was to submit a request which made
no reference to The Morning Herald, as in the example below,
then it would be invalid;
‘On behalf of my newspaper, I would like a detailed breakdown
of the cost estimate for the new housing project.’
Signed
Jane Davies’
This is because the request only states the identity of the
agent; it does not name the party on whose behalf she is
acting.

44.  It also follows that when someone who is acting as an agent for
an organisation leaves its employment, the request doesn’t go
with them but instead stays with that organisation.
Example
Returning to the previous example when the request was
made as follows
‘On behalf of “The Morning Herald” I would like a detailed
breakdown of the cost estimate for the new housing project.’
Signed
Jane Davies’
If Jane Davies left the employment of the Morning Herald then
it would be The Morning Herald who would remain entitled to a
response to this request under FOIA, and not the former
employee Jane Davies.

Valid Address for correspondence
45.  Section 8(1)(b) also requires the requester to provide a valid
address for correspondence.

11
Recognising a Request made under the Freedom of Information Act (Section
8)
20140226

Version: 1

46.  This can be any address where the requester may be contacted
(including postal or email addresses) and does not have to be
their normal residential or business address.
47.  It follows that a requester can use a “care of” or PO Box
address, or even provide another individual’s email account as
their contact address.
48.  If the request has been posted on a social media website such
as Twitter, then as long as that site offers a means for the
authority to respond, such as a hyperlink to the requester’s
email address or a ‘reply’ button, that request will fulfil the
requirement to provide a valid address.
49.  However, we recognise that in some cases it may be technically
difficult for an authority to provide an FOIA response via a
social media site, especially if a large volume of material is
involved. This issue is addressed later in the guidance in the
section entitled ‘Requests made through What Do They
Know.com or Social Media’.
Description of the information
50.  Section 8(1)(c) provides that a request can only be valid if it
‘describes the information requested’.
51.  It is important to recognise that most requesters are unlikely to
know what exact information is held by the authority, or have
an appreciation of how its records are stored.
52.  This means that they cannot always reasonably be expected to
be specific about details such as the titles, contents and
location of documents.
53.  It also follows that they will not always provide enough detail
to enable the authority to identify the information from the
description provided.
54.  For these reasons, we are of the view that there has to be a
low test for a description to meet the requirements of Section
8(1)(c).
55.  Authorities should therefore treat any description that allows
the requested information to be distinguished from other
information held by the authority as valid under Section
8(1)(c).

12
Recognising a Request made under the Freedom of Information Act (Section
8)
20140226

Version: 1

56.  There are many distinguishing characteristics that can help to
set the information apart from any other material held by the
authority when referenced in a request.
57.  One of the most obvious of these is the subject matter of the
information, as illustrated in the example below.
Example
A police authority launches an initiative to crackdown on anti-
social behaviour in town centres. Once the crackdown has
concluded the authority receives the following request;
‘Please provide me with all the information you hold
concerning the effectiveness of your recent initiative to reduce
anti-social behaviour’.
Although this request does not reference any particular
documents, the subject matter tells the authority that the
information:
  is on the subject anti-social behaviour;
  relates specifically to the recent police crackdown; and
  concerns any assessment of the impact of that
crackdown.
These distinguishing characteristics will be sufficient to
differentiate the requested information from the other
information the authority holds on record.

58.  Other potentially distinguishing characteristics could be the
date of publication, the name of the author, the origins of the
information, the recipients of documents or types of documents
- although this should by no means be considered an
exhaustive list.

Example

On 12 July 2013 a Council published a report on its local care
homes entitled ‘Providing residential care in the 21st Century’.
The report’s author was John Smith. The Council distributed
copies of the report to every residential home in the borough.

13
Recognising a Request made under the Freedom of Information Act (Section
8)
20140226

Version: 1

The following descriptions of this report would all be valid as
each reveals something about the distinguishing
characteristics of the information.

‘I would like a copy of the report that you sent out to local
care homes’

The distinguishing characteristics described here are the type
of document and its recipients.

‘Please send me a copy of John’s Smith’s report’

The characteristics described in this request are the type of
document and author.

‘Please provide me with a copy of the report you published on
12 July 2013’

The distinguishing characteristics in this request are the date
of publication and type of document.

59.  The example above also illustrates that it is possible to describe
the distinguishing characteristics of information without
reference to its subject matter or content.
Requests framed by physical location
60.  Requests that define the information solely by its physical
location, such as,

‘Please provide me with a copy of all the information on your
desk’

are not valid because they reveal nothing about the recorded
characteristics of the information. They simply define its
physical whereabouts at a particular point in time.
61.  However, if the request links that location to a recorded
characteristic of the information then the description may still
be valid.

14
Recognising a Request made under the Freedom of Information Act (Section
8)
20140226

Version: 1

62.  For example, a request phrased, ‘I would like a copy of the
contents of your private secretary’s notebook for September 8
2009’ describes the location (a notebook) but also ties this to
recorded characteristics such as the date and author, so that it
is still possible to differentiate that information from other
information held by the authority.
Requests framed by electronic locations
63.  There will often be a direct link between an electronic location
(such as an email inbox) and the nature of the information
recorded there.
64.  This means that it is sometimes possible to infer the recorded
characteristics of electronically held information from its
location alone.
65.  It follows, therefore, that there will be instances where a
request defined solely by an electronic location will reveal
enough about the distinguishing characteristics of the
information to be valid.
Example
A public authority receives a request for;
‘all the information in your chief executive’s email account’.
By nature, an email account contains copies of electronic
correspondence sent and received by the account holder,
which effectively makes this a request for all email
correspondence sent and received by the chief executive.
The request does, therefore, reveal distinguishing
characteristics about the information, such as the identity of
the sender of the correspondence and the type of
communication, despite only being defined in terms of an
electronic location.

66.  By their nature, requests based on an electronic location can
often be very broad in scope. If an authority is concerned that
a request is unreasonably broad then it should consider
refusing the request under Section 12 of the Act (cost limits)
and offer the requester advice and assistance to help them

15
Recognising a Request made under the Freedom of Information Act (Section
8)
20140226

Version: 1

refine their request. More details about the cost limits can be
found in our guidance Requests where the cost of compliance
with a request exceeds the appropriate limit.
Requests defined by the cost limit
67.  These are characterised by requests such as;
‘Beginning this year and going back each previous year until
the cost limit is reached, I would like copies of all expenses
claims submitted by the chief executive’
OR
‘I would like as much information about the new retail
development as you can provide within the cost limits’.
68.  Requests defined by the Section 12 cost limits are invalid under
Section 8(1)(c) because their scope is determined by the
extent of the record search the authority can carry out within
those limits, rather than the distinguishing characteristics of
the information itself.
69.  Nonetheless, although authorities are not obliged to process
such requests, we consider they still have a Section 16 duty to
provide the requester with reasonable advice and assistance to
allow them to submit a properly defined request.
70.  This advice might take the form of advising the requester what
information could be provided within the cost limits and asking
if they would like to make a request for that information.
Alternatively the authority could offer to help the requester to
define their description so it focuses more narrowly on the
distinguishing characteristics of the information rather than the
parameters of the search.
Requests which are valid but not clear enough to enable
the authority to locate and identify the information
71.  Section 1(3) states:

1.—(3) Where a public authority—

(a) reasonably requires further information in order to identify

16
Recognising a Request made under the Freedom of Information Act (Section
8)
20140226

Version: 1

and locate the information requested, and

(b) has informed the applicant of that requirement,

the authority is not obliged to comply with subsection (1)
unless it is supplied with that further information.

72.  Section 8(1)(c) is only concerned with the validity of the
description; it cannot be used to refuse requests that are
unclear.
73.  If a request is not sufficiently clear to enable the authority to
locate or identify the information without further details, then
the Section 16 duty to provide advice and assistance will be
triggered, and the authority must ask the requester to provide
further clarification in accordance with Section 1(3) of the Act.

Example

A requester asks a parish council for;

‘A copy of the minutes of the parish meeting chaired by
Councillor Jones.’

The authority accepts that the request is valid under Section
8(1)(c) because it describes distinguishing characteristics of
the information, such as the type of document and the name
of the chairman of the meeting.

However, Councillor Jones has chaired several council
meetings and the authority is unclear which meeting the
requester is referring to.

As the authority cannot locate and identify the minutes
without further information, its duty to provide advice and
assistance will be engaged, and it must contact the requester
to ask them to clarify which meeting minutes theywould like.

74.  Once an authority asks for further details under Section 1(3) it
will not be obliged to progress the request further until it
receives the required clarification from the requester, at which
point the time for compliance with the request will reset to 20
working days.

17
Recognising a Request made under the Freedom of Information Act (Section
8)
20140226

Version: 1

Requests framed as questions
75.  A request in the form of a question will be valid under Section
8(1)(c), provided it still describes distinguishing characteristics
of the information, as in the examples below where the
information is differentiated by its subject matter. (sickness
absence policy, overseas aid spending, and measures to tackle
vandalism respectively);
76.  ‘Why has the Council changed its policy on sickness absence?’
77.  ‘How much money did the department spend on overseas aid
last year?’
‘What is being done to tackle vandalism in the local park?’

78.  If the question fulfils the above criteria but is ambiguous or
unclear then it will still be a valid request under 8(1)(c),
although the authority will have to go back to the requester to
ask them for clarification in accordance with its duty to provide
advice and assistance under Section 16.
Requests which are unreasonably broad
79.  If the authority can identify and locate the information but
regards the request as unreasonably broad, then it should
consider refusing it under Section 12 (cost limits) and offering
advice and assistance to help the requester narrow down the
scope of their request.
80.  In some circumstances it may be appropriate to refuse an
unreasonably broad request under section 14(1) (vexatious
requests). However we recommend that public authorities
consider if section 12 is appropriate first.
81.  For further information on the Section 12 cost limits and
handling of vexatious requests please see our guidance;
Requests where the cost of compliance with a request exceeds
the appropriate limit
Dealing with vexatious requests (section 14)

18
Recognising a Request made under the Freedom of Information Act (Section
8)
20140226

Version: 1

Requests made using keywords
82.  Sometimes a request may describe the information using one
or more keywords, as in the example below;
‘I would like copies of all the documents you hold containing
the words ‘inquiry’ or ‘investigation’’

83.  These types of requests will be valid under Section 8(1)(c)
because they make a distinction between information that does
and does not contain those keywords.
84.  However, we recognise that there is a possibility a requester
may cite a keyword so common that it makes the scope of the
request unreasonably broad. Where this is the case the
authority should consider refusing the request under Section 12
of the Act and contact the requester to ask them to narrow
down their request (see our guidance Requests where the cost
of compliance with a request exceeds the appropriate limit).
85.  There might also be circumstances where the framing of a
request using a very common keyword may be an indication
that the request is vexatious. (see our guidance Dealing with
vexatious requests)
Conditional requests
86.  These are requests that can be objectively read as only
becoming active when certain conditions are met. These fall
into two categories;
Requests that are conditional on a change in the status
quo
87.  These are requests that only become active when
circumstances change, for example:
88.  ‘If you do decide to close the local hospital, please provide me
with the reasons for your decision.’
89.  ‘Should you amend your admissions policy, I would like
information about why you have changed it.’

19
Recognising a Request made under the Freedom of Information Act (Section
8)
20140226

Version: 1

90.  A request that is conditional on a change in the status quo will
not be valid. This is because the requester does not want any
information ‘as things stand’. They are only expressing an
intention to ask for information in the future, which is not a
‘request for information’ in the ordinary meaning of those
words as they appear in Section 8.
91.  Nevertheless, the authority’s duty to provide assistance to a
requester who wishes to make a request is likely to be
triggered.
92.  The authority should therefore go back to the requester to
advise them to resubmit the request once the change in
circumstances they are anticipating has occurred.
93.  For instance, when applied to the example given above this
would mean advising the requester to wait for a decision to
close the hospital to be made before making their request.
Requests which are conditional on the continuation of
the status quo
94.  These are requests that are dependent upon circumstances
remaining the same, for example:
95.  ‘Unless the decision to impose parking restrictions in the town
centre is reversed, I would like a copy of the minutes of the
meeting at which this policy was approved’.
96.  ‘Assuming my appeal fails, please provide me with a copy of
the school’s anti-bullying policy’.

97.  A request that depends on the continuation of the status quo
will be valid because it is a clear statement that the requester
wants the information ‘as things stand’, rather than at some
future time. Authorities should therefore deal with these types
of requests upon receipt in the usual manner.
98.  Because the request is valid, the duty to respond under Section
1(1) will continue to apply even if the circumstances do change
or the requester’s assumptions prove to be incorrect.
99.  In that event, the authority would still be free to contact the
requester to ask if they wanted to withdraw the request.

20
Recognising a Request made under the Freedom of Information Act (Section
8)
20140226

Version: 1

However, unless the requester does withdraw their request, the
authority remains under an obligation to provide a response.
Round robin requests
100. Provided the request is in writing, states the name and address
of the applicant and describes the information, it should be
treated as valid under Section 8, even if that same request has
been sent to a number of authorities at the same time.
Questionnaires
101. A questionnaire will qualify as an FOIA request provided the
requester has supplied their real name and an address, and at
least one of the questions provides a valid description of the
information.
102. However, authorities will need to treat each individual question
on its merits which means adopting the following approach:
    Respond to any questions that provide a valid description
of the information.
    For questions that are unclear, ask the requester for
further clarification under Section 1(3).
    If any of the questions fail to meet the criteria for a valid
description, issue the requester with a timely response
advising that they are invalid under Section 8(1)(c) and
explaining why.
Requests for information in publications schemes
103. A request for information included in a publication scheme will
be valid provided it is in writing, states the name and address
of the applicant and describes the information. However, the
authority could, if it wished, refuse such a request under
Section 21 of the Act on the grounds that the information is
reasonably accessible to the requester by other means.
104. If an authority does choose to apply Section 21, then we would
expect it to provide the requester with details on how to obtain
the information through its publication scheme.

21
Recognising a Request made under the Freedom of Information Act (Section
8)
20140226

Version: 1

105. For further information please read our guidance Information
reasonably accessible to the applicant by other means (Section
21).
Requests made through What Do They Know.com or
Social Media.
WhatDoTheyKnow.com
106. Requests made through the whatdotheyknow.com website will
be valid, provided the requester supplies their real name and
describes the information concerned.
107. With respect to the address for correspondence, we consider
the @whatdotheyknow.com email address provided to
authorities when requests are made through the site to be a
valid contact address for the purposes of Section 8(1)(b).
108. In any case where it is not reasonably practicable for the
authority to provide the information in the electronic format
required by the whatdotheyknow.com site, it should ask the
requester to provide an alternative postal address where it can
send its full response.
Social media websites
109. If the authority subscribes to a social media site such as
Twitter or Facebook, then any request it receives through that
site will be valid, provided it fulfils the criteria set out in Section
8.

With specific regard to Twitter, requests that refer to the
authority in the context of an ‘@mention’ context, for
example, ‘@ICO news’, should be treated as having been
directed at and received by that authority for the purposes of
the FOIA.

110. Where the requester’s username is an obvious pseudonym, or
only includes a part of their real name (for example @john3453
or @smith6474) then the request will only be valid if their real
name is visible elsewhere on their user profile.

22
Recognising a Request made under the Freedom of Information Act (Section
8)
20140226

Version: 1

111. However we would urge authorities to remain mindful of the
applicant and motive blind principles behind the Act in any case
where they are not satisfied as to the requester’s identity but
would still be content to disclose the information.
112. Where an authority does refuse the request on the grounds
that the name is invalid, we would expect it to fulfil its Section
16 duty to provide advice and assistance to those wishing to
make a request by advising the requester to resubmit the
request using their real name.
Responding to a request made via a social networking
site or online forum
113. If the requester has effectively made the request public by
publishing it on a website, as opposed to sending a private
message to the authority’s account, then we will consider it
within the requester’s reasonable expectations that the
authority will also publish its response on the site.
114. However, if the authority has any particular reason to believe
that it would be inappropriate to publish the information online,
then it may wish to respond via a private message to the
requester’s account instead. If this facility is not available then
it should obtain an alternative contact address from the
requester.
115. Issues may also arise if technical constraints make it
impractical for the authority to provide a response through the
site in question.
116. For example, where a request is submitted through Twitter, the
limitations on the length of a ‘tweet’ may prevent the authority
from providing its full response via that site.
117. Where this is an issue the authority should address the
problem by asking the requester to provide an alternative email
or postal address where it can send its response.
118. Another possible solution would be for the authority to post the
information on its own website and post a link to this from the
site.

23
Recognising a Request made under the Freedom of Information Act (Section
8)
20140226

Version: 1

Provision of advice and assistance where the request is
invalid
119. If the request does not include a valid name, address or
description then it will be invalid; it also follows that the
authority will have no obligation to confirm or deny whether the
information is held under Section 1(1), or issue a formal refusal
notice under Section 17.
120. However, Section 16 of the Act does state that a public
authority has a duty to provide advice and assistance, ‘…so far
as it would be reasonable to expect the authority to do so, to
persons who propose to make, or have made, requests for
information to it’.
121. We consider this duty to extend to requesters who have made
invalid requests. This being the case we will expect the
authority to issue a prompt response to the requester
explaining why their request was invalid under Section 8.
122. Further information on the duty to provide advice and
assistance can be found in our guidance Good practice in
providing advice and assistance.
More information
123. This guidance has been developed drawing on ICO experience.
Because of this it may provide more detail on issues that are
often referred to the Information Commissioner than on those
we rarely see. The guidance will be reviewed and considered
from time to time in line with new decisions of the Information
Commissioner, Tribunals and courts.
124. It is a guide to our general recommended approach, although
individual cases will always be decided on the basis of their
particular circumstances.
125. If you need any more information about this or any other
aspect of freedom of information, please contact us: see our
website www.ico.org.uk.

24
Recognising a Request made under the Freedom of Information Act (Section
8)
20140226

Version: 1