Dear Cabinet Office,

I am writing to request information under the Freedom of Information Act 2000. I am seeking the following from recorded information:

"When the Cabinet Office refuses a Freedom of Information request and then declines to conduct an internal review upon request, how does it ensure that its initial refusal was correct before the complainant potentially escalates the matter to the ICO? This is particularly important given that approximately 48.39% of the decision notices issued to the Cabinet Office by the ICO mandate some form of corrective action.
Source https://icosearch.ico.org.uk/s/search.ht...
"

I would like to request:

1. Active documents or records that explain the circumstances as to when the Cabinet Office will and will not conduct an internal review upon request after refusing a request for information under the Freedom of Information Act 2000.

2. Active documents or records containing the processes or procedures followed by the Cabinet Office to ensure the accuracy and correctness of an initial refusal of a request for information under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 when the Cabinet Office declines to conduct an internal review upon request.

3. The three most recent statistics or records relating to the number of times the Cabinet Office has declined to conduct an internal review following an FoI refusal, along with any reasons recorded for these decisions.

4. The most recent 3 correspondence or communications, whether internal or external, that discuss or evaluate the Cabinet Office's process for handling FoI refusals and the decision not to conduct an internal review.

Please provide the information in electronic format where possible. If this request is too broad or unclear, I would be grateful if you could contact me to provide advice and assistance under Section 16, as demonstrated in Decision Notice IC-305616-X3M2 (5 July 2024), on how I can refine it.

Please note this request is not seeking personal data. Should any be found in the documents I have requested, then it may be redacted so that Section 40 does not apply.

Please note this request is not requesting that data be created. We are only seeking what exists.

I understand that under the Freedom of Information Act 2000, I am entitled to a response within 20 working days of your receipt of this request. I look forward to your response.

If you need any further information from me in order to process this request, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Yours faithfully,

Amanda Hart
Stop UK Lies and Corruption

Dear Cabinet Office,

Please pass this on to the person who conducts Freedom of Information reviews.

I am writing to formally request an internal review of the decision made regarding my Freedom of Information (FOI) request referenced FOI2024/09267, which was refused on 16 August 2024 under Section 14(1) of the FOI Act, mistakenly perceived as vexatious.

Grounds for Requesting the Review:

1. Legitimate Purpose and Significant Public Interest:

My FOI request addresses critical concerns related to the transparency and accountability of the Cabinet Office's procedures for handling FOI refusals and decisions not to conduct internal reviews. This information is essential, given the ongoing ICO investigation (case IC-315653-J7F4). The significant public interest in understanding how the Cabinet Office ensures the legality and correctness of its refusals cannot be overstated.

Precedent: In IC-291622-V6L4 (31 July 2024), the Information Commissioner ruled in favour of the requester, affirming that even when a request might impose some burden, the serious purpose and public interest involved far outweigh any inconvenience. This directly applies to my request, which aims to ensure compliance with legal obligations under the FOI Act.

2. Unreasonable Persistence: A Mischaracterisation

The persistence in my requests is solely a consequence of the Cabinet Office’s refusal to provide clear, consistent, and transparent answers. Far from being an unreasonable burden, this persistence is a necessary and lawful means of ensuring that the government is held accountable, particularly given the Cabinet Office's history of ICO interventions.

Precedent: In IC-291288-Z3M5 (30 July 2024), the Commissioner found that persistence in requesting information on matters of public interest is entirely justified and does not render a request vexatious. This precedent clearly supports my continued pursuit of information in light of the Cabinet Office's previous refusals.

3. Misapplication of Section 14(1):

The decision to label my request as vexatious under Section 14(1) represents a clear misapplication of the law. The FOI Act is intended to facilitate public access to information, and the ICO’s guidance explicitly states that a request cannot be deemed vexatious merely because it is inconvenient or requires multiple responses. The absence of a substantive public interest test in your refusal notice further demonstrates that the requirements of the FOI Act were not adequately met.

ICO Guidance: The ICO's guidance on Section 14(1) clearly states that a request should only be considered vexatious if it is intended to cause disruption, harassment, or is manifestly unreasonable. My request, which serves a legitimate purpose in advancing public understanding of government accountability, does not meet any of these criteria.

Best Practices: The ICO’s best practices recommend that public authorities engage with requesters under Section 16 of the FOI Act to offer advice and assistance in refining requests. This would have been the appropriate course of action if the Cabinet Office had any concerns about the scope or nature of my request, rather than refusing it outright as vexatious.

4. Request Specificity and Manageability:

My request was meticulously crafted to be specific and manageable, intentionally designed to be within the practical limits of the FOI Act. The Cabinet Office’s claim that the request lacks specificity or would require subjective judgment is entirely unfounded and unsupported by the Act.

Precedent: IC-290069-N2S8 (22 July 2024) highlights that requests should be judged on their content and purpose, not on perceived subjectivity or tone. This case further supports the validity of my request, which is clear, specific, and within reasonable limits.

5. Addressing Previous Requests:

The refusal to consider my request as valid, based on previous interactions, fails to acknowledge your obligation to respond to specific and lawful inquiries made on 22nd June 2024 and 13th July 2024. These communications sought to clarify apparent inconsistencies in your refusal under Section 8(1)(c). The failure to provide clarity on whether the refusal was due to the non-existence of information or the potential existence of more documents than specified contradicts the FOI Act’s requirements for transparency.

Precedent: IC-286941-T7V0 (11 July 2024) supports the notion that repeated requests are justifiable, especially when previous responses have been unsatisfactory or incomplete. This decision is directly applicable to my situation, where the Cabinet Office's responses have been contradictory and inadequate.

Furthermore, the decision notices I previously cited in my communications further reinforce the validity of my request:

IC-46775-N8G0 (4 March 2021) and FS50613438 (16 May 2016) confirm that a request is valid under Section 8 if it describes the information sufficiently, and that the public authority must seek further clarification rather than outright refusal.

IC-259181-K2Z7 (5 January 2024) and IC-47958-R8L1 (17 November 2021) underscore that requests containing criticisms or specific allegations remain valid as long as they describe the requested information adequately.

FS50460593 (27 February 2013) and FS50522278 (16 July 2014) further affirm the obligation of public authorities to interpret requests broadly and seek clarification when necessary.

6. Additional Precedents Supporting My Case:

IC-287694-Q7X3 (2 August 2024) - Fareham Borough Council: This decision demonstrates that a request cannot be dismissed as vexatious purely because it may be burdensome. The public interest in transparency, particularly when it involves the accountability of public bodies, outweighs the administrative burden.

IC-316861-T8P0 (31 July 2024) - National Archives: The Commissioner ruled that repeated requests are not vexatious when they relate to ongoing issues of public significance, reinforcing that persistence in seeking transparency is lawful and justified.

IC-288019-R6T1 (30 July 2024) - East Suffolk Council: This decision confirms that the volume of correspondence alone does not justify a vexatious label if the requests are meritorious and in the public interest.

7. Transparency and Accountability: The Public's Right to Know

My request seeks to illuminate how the Cabinet Office ensures the correctness of its FOI refusals, particularly when internal reviews are declined. The public interest in understanding these processes is magnified by the Cabinet Office’s record with the ICO, where nearly half of the decision notices mandate corrective action. This demonstrates an urgent need for transparency in your FOI handling procedures.

The Public’s Right to Know: The FOIA is rooted in the principle that the public has a right to know how decisions affecting access to information are made. This is particularly vital when those decisions might obstruct public scrutiny of government activities. My request is aligned with this fundamental principle, aiming to ensure that the Cabinet Office is held accountable for its actions and decisions.

8. Potential Consequences of Continued Non-Compliance:

While my intention is to resolve this matter amicably through the internal review process, I must emphasise that continued non-compliance with the FOI Act could have significant repercussions. Not only could this lead to further investigation and potential censure by the ICO, but it also risks damaging the Cabinet Office’s reputation as a transparent and accountable public body.

Reputational Risk: By fulfilling my request, the Cabinet Office has an opportunity to demonstrate its commitment to transparency and accountability. Conversely, persisting in withholding this information could contribute to perceptions of opacity and resistance to scrutiny, which would be detrimental to public trust.

Conclusion:

Given the precedents, the compelling public interest in the information sought, and the principles of transparency and accountability, it is evident that my FOI request is neither vexatious nor unreasonable. I respectfully urge the Cabinet Office to reconsider its decision, withdraw the vexatious claim under Section 14(1), and process my FOI request in full compliance with the FOI Act. The disclosure of this information is vital for ensuring public accountability and contributing to an informed public debate on government transparency.

I look forward to receiving your response within the statutory deadline of 20 working days.

A full history of my FOI request and all correspondence is available on the Internet at this address: https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/r...

Yours faithfully,

Amanda Hart
Stop UK Lies and Corruption

Dear Cabinet Office,

Re: IR2024 11218

We acknowledge receipt of your response. Although we recognise that you are not obligated to reply to this correspondence, we feel it is necessary to address the following points.

1. According to the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO), the Cabinet Office ranks among the worst offenders in terms of Freedom of Information (FOI) compliance. The ICO has had to take corrective action against your department’s refusals more frequently than any other public authority or government department. Members of the public can compare the cases upheld (where action was mandated) with cases not upheld demonstrating a huge amount of the Cabinet Offices FoI responses being incorrect: https://icosearch.ico.org.uk/s/search.ht...

2. In light of this, the public has a legitimate right to scrutinise how the Cabinet Office determines it is justified in refusing FOI requests and internal reviews. This is particularly pertinent when the refusal is issued despite clear awareness that the requester intends to escalate the matter to the ICO.

3. Our request for an internal review made it unequivocally clear that this is not a vexatious request. In fact, it highlights key elements of the ICO’s own guidance, further substantiating its legitimacy.

4. While this request is made in the public interest, we note that it stems directly from your ambiguous and contradictory response to our FOI request, specifically your reliance on Section 8(1)(c). Your refusal suggested that you may not possess the information requested while simultaneously implying you may hold more information than was specified. This lack of clarity has compelled us to refer to your response: https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/r...

Despite our request for clarification, sent via email on 22nd June 2024 at 16:23, asking for an explanation of whether the refusal was due to the non-existence of the information or because more documents may be held, you provided no response. We followed up again on 17th July 2024 at 17:41, but you still failed to reply. As a result, we were forced to submit a formal FOI request.

The Freedom of Information Act permits exemptions, but the information provided in conjunction with any refusal must withstand scrutiny. Contradictory statements such as “We may possess more information than requested” and “We may not possess the information” do not align with a Section 8(1)(c) refusal, which implies a clear understanding of the information being requested.

5. This case has already garnered the attention of the Tribunal, where it has been cited as part of a broader demonstration of the Cabinet Office’s recurring failure to comply with FOI obligations.

6. Our request for an internal review is further evidence that this is not a vexatious request. Rather, your response appears to be an attempt to obstruct due legal process. As such, we believe that your actions could themselves be construed as vexatious.

7. A significant amount of time and effort could have been spared had you responded with either the requested information or a clear statement that the information is not held.

8. This matter will now be pursued with the ICO and obtain further public attention as we write about it.

Yours faithfully,

Amanda Hart
Stop UK Lies and Corruption

Dear FOI Team,

Thank you for your response dated 9 May 2025, issued in compliance with the Information Commissioner’s Decision Notice (IC-335858-Q3D5).

We acknowledge and respect the approach taken in your reply. While we continue to view the subject matter of the request as important to public accountability, we appreciate that your issuing a fresh response in line with the Decision Notice represents the most cost-effective and proportionate outcome for the public.

We will retain your response on record and do not intend to pursue this matter further at this time.

Yours faithfully,
Amanda Hart
Stop UK Lies and Corruption