Guy Forkes
Date
21 June 2024
Via ‘What Do They Know’
Post Office
100 Wood Street
London EC2V 9ER
Your Ref:
Classification:
Public
Dear Guy Forkes,
Freedom of Information Request
We are writing in response to your fifteen emails received by Post Office Limited
(“
Post Office”) on 19 May, 20 May, 22 May, and 5 June, which have been dealt with
under the terms of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (“
FOIA”).
For ease, we are providing the reference numbers for each of your fifteen
information requests below (further details of each request can be found in Annex 1
at the end of this letter):
FOI2024/00809; FOI2024/00810; FOI2024/00815; FOI2024/00816;
FOI2024/00819; FOI2024/00820; FOI2024/00821; FOI2024/00822;
FOI2024/00832; FOI2024/00833; FOI2024/00889; FOI2024/00890;
FOI2024/00891; FOI2024/00892; FOI2024/00893.
We can confirm that Post Office does hold some information relevant to your
requests. However, considering all fifteen requests for information together, they fall
under section 14(1) of the FOIA (vexatious requests), due to the unreasonable
burden that complying with these would impose on Post Office. The reasons for this
decision are set out below.
Section 14(1) of the FOIA states:
“(1) Section 1(1) does not oblige a public authority to comply with a request
for information if the request is vexatious.”
Page 1 of 7
Post Office Limited is registered in England and Wales. Registered No. 2154540.
Registered Office 100 Wood Street, London WC2V 7ER
postoffice.co.uk
Post Office and the Post Office logo are registered trade marks of Post Office Limited.
We have taken the Information Commissioner's Office (“
ICO”) guidance on dealing
with vexatious requests and the Freedom of Information Code of Practice into
account when making this decision. These guides explain that a number of factors
need to be considered before the threshold for section 14(1) is reached. Links to
both guides can be found below:
https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/foi/freedom-of-information-and-environmental-
information-regulations/section-14-dealing-with-vexatious-requests/
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attach
ment_data/file/744071/CoP_FOI_Code_of_Practice_-
_Minor_Amendments_20180926_.pdf
We have, therefore, carefully considered the number, pattern, duration, breadth, and
motive of your requests when determining the burden placed on Post Office.
You submitted 15 requests to Post Office in a period of less than three weeks
between 19 May and 5 June 2024. In total, you have submitted 25 requests since 1
January 2024. Your recent requests are detailed in Annex 1 and are likely to require
Post Office to spend a significant amount of time not only retrieving responsive
material, but also in considering the extent to which exemptions under FOIA may
apply to that material. In the circumstances, we consider that this would impose a
disproportionate and unreasonable burden on our resources as wel as an unjustified
level of disruption.
The ICO guide 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.”
Dealing with such 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. The burden in responding to your requests for information would take
away resource from handling legitimate requests, negatively impacting on our
obligations to the people who submit them
We note that the FOIA Code of Practice states that public authorities should:
Page 2 of 7
postoffice.co.uk
Classification
“… 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.”
The FOIA Code of Practice also states:
“Public authorities should also keep in mind the requirements of section 8, in
particular, the requirement for applicants to provide their real name and not
use a pseudonym. As set out in paragraphs 1.14 and 1.15 pseudonymous
requests are not valid requests under the Act. However, the use of
pseudonyms may also form part of broader considerations when considering
whether or not a request, or a series of requests, should be considered
vexatious.”
Taking all these factors into account, Post Office is therefore not obliged to consider
your requests further. Whilst in accordance with section 17(6) FOIA, Post Office is
also not obliged to respond to further requests of a similar nature or on the same
topic, we do understand that some of your requests may have a serious purpose.
Where possible, when a public authority cites section 14(1), they should provide
advice and assistance under the section 16 FOIA, which places a duty on public
authorities to give advice and assistance to requestors. Post Office is committed to
transparency, and we will consider any further requests for information 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 above within 40
working days of receipt of this response stating your reasons for your internal review
request or alternatively, by emailing
xxxxxxxxxxx.xxxxxx@xxxxxxxxxx.xx.xx. 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
Page 3 of 7
postoffice.co.uk
Classification
Cheshire SK9 5AF
Telephone: 0303 123 1113
www.ico.org.uk/foicomplaints
Yours sincerely,
Information Rights Team
xxxxxxxxxxx.xxxxxx@xxxxxxxxxx.xx.xx
https://corporate.postoffice.co.uk/en/governance/access-to-information/access-to-
information/
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
Page 4 of 7
postoffice.co.uk
Classification
Annex 1 – Current FOIA requests (including verbatim wording)
Case
Received
Reference
Date
Case Wording
In a recent witness statement in the ongoing Inquiry, it was stated
that IBM had won the contract to replace Fujitsu.
What was the total cost of the contract?
How long was the tenure of this contract?
FOI2024/00809 19/05/2024 How much did POL and/or IBM (separately) spend on this contract?
When was the contract terminated?
Who made the decision of terminating the contract?
Can you disclose all emails referring to the contract termination?
What role did Gill Tait play in the contract termination?
How many individuals were there in any type of Postmaster Working
Group for the design, implementation or rol out of this replace-
ment?
Please disclose any documentation relating to the speed of the re-
FOI2024/00810 19/05/2024 placement of Horizon historically.
What i am trying to establish is whether the current Horizon system
is faster on transactions or slower than any or all of previous re-
placements initiated or implemented by POL.
I understand this data is held central y by POL as the NFSP use this
information to request business impact.
How may branches by branch type are less than 1 mile (road dis-
FOI2024/00815 19/05/2024 tance) to the next nearest branch?
How may branches by branch type are less than 0.75 mile (road dis-
tance) to the next nearest branch?
How may branches by branch type are less than 0.50 mile (road dis-
tance) to the next nearest branch?
How may branches by branch type are less than 0.25 mile (road dis-
tance) to the next nearest branch?
FOI2024/00816 19/05/2024 How may employees within Post Office and/or Payzone are currently
or have worked on Drop & Collect branch rollout? If you could also
provide a total cost of employees please.
Please advise which POL employees have face to face contact with
FOI2024/00819 20/05/2024 Postmasters.
Who is ultimately responsible for these employees?
How many employees conduct this role?
Page 5 of 7
postoffice.co.uk
Classification
How many visits are made to branches every year (for the last 5
years)?
Are these visits conducted for every type of branch?
When did this commence?
What is Martin Roberts key accountabilities in his role?
FOI2024/00820 20/05/2024 When did Martin Roberts role commence?
Who did Martin Roberts replace in the organisation?
Since 2001 who are the people that represented a Martin Roberts
role?
For the last 20 years or as data is available by year, how many peo-
FOI2024/00821 20/05/2024 ple have taken voluntary redundancy in Post Office and how many
have been made redundant through compulsory instruments?
What was the total cost of any redundancy payments by year
please?
Does the Post Office log all requests for information?
Similarly, are all responses logged?
FOI2024/00832 22/05/2024 What system(s) are used to hold this information?
Does the Post Office categorise each request/response?
Can you disclose the categories and the number of requests/re-
sponses for each category historically?
Please can you disclose the engagement survey results of any and all
engagement surveys conducted before September 2019.
FOI2024/00833 22/05/2024 Also can you disclose the engagement survey results of any and all
engagement surveys conducted in 2024.
Ideally i would like a report that shows comparison of engagement
surveys but understand this may exceed the confines of the Act.
Through your wish to become transparent with your decisions and
so forth, how many Board meetings and minutes have been dis-
closed to public, employees and Postmasters since the commence-
ment of the Public Inquiry.
Also can you advise if these have been disclosed through a portal,
FOI2024/00889 05/06/2024 emails, cloud links or through other means?
How often have these been disclosed?
Is there a disclosure register maintained by Post Office?
Is this now consistent policy to disclose such items?
If none of these have been disclosed, can you state why given Post
Offices' desire to become transparent and honest and one way to re-
build trust with the public, it's customers and Postmasters.
FOI2024/00890 05/06/2024 After a policy has been agreed, it is sound business rationale, that is
applied consistently and fairly.
Page 6 of 7
postoffice.co.uk
Classification
Please advise where any policy decisions around distance to other
branches may have been applied in an inconsistent or unfair manner
to that of a standard postmaster, a multiple partner or any other
type of postmaster. Can you also explain your rationale why this may
have taken place and any decision making surrounding this either in-
ternally or with external stakeholders.
To ensure this does not breach the confines of the Act, if this could
be applied to any decisions made post 2020.
What was the rationale to cease providing private medical insurance
as a perk/benefit to employees?
FOI2024/00891 05/06/2024 When was this decision made?
How many employees are currently receiving this perk/benefit?
Is it a taxable benefit?
Were economies of scale part of the rationale to cease?
How many branches indicated a loss or gain on their branch ac-
FOI2024/00892 05/06/2024 counts by week, month or year since records began?
If this could be provided in tabular format please indicating the num-
ber of branches that reported a loss or gain by the datum you use.
FOI2024/00893 05/06/2024 Please can you provide the number of senior managers that have re-
signed or through redundancy (compulsory or voluntary) every year
since 2001
How many internal postmaster complaints have been registered by
FOI2024/00822 20/05/2024 the Post Office since 1st Jan 2024.
Please group this by the compliant categories.
If you are able to split the numbers by complaints about postmasters
and complaints by postmasters, i would be grateful.
Page 7 of 7
postoffice.co.uk
Classification