B. Refusal – 250411 NPCC & ‘Vexatious’ – s.14 FoIA

11/04/2025 NPCC response – relevant extract:

FREEDOM OF INFORMATION REQUEST REFERENCE NUMBER 2233/2025

NPCC Response:

Refusal notice for your request.

That right of access to information is not without exception and is subject to a number of exemptions and other provisions under the Act, including Section 14(1) which provides:

Section 1(1) does not oblige a public authority to comply with a request for information if the request is vexatious.
Section 14(1) the legislation

Under Section 14(1) of the Act, public authorities do not have to comply with vexatious request. There is no public interest test and no requirement to provide any information or confirm or deny whether the information is held.

In wishing to explain further, Section 14(1) may be used in a variety of circumstances where a request, or its impact on a public authority, cannot be justified.

The term ‘vexatious’ is not defined in the legislation in ICO vs Devon County Council & Dransfield the Upper Tribunal defined the purpose of Section 14 as ‘…must be to protect the resources (in the broadest sense of that word) of the public authority from being squandered on disproportionate use of FOIA….’.

The Tribunal commented that vexatious could be defined as the ‘manifestly unjustified, inappropriate or improper use of a formal procedure’. The Tribunal’s definition clearly establishes that the concepts of proportionality and justification are relevant to any consideration of whether a request is vexatious.

To identify and deal with a vexatious request the ICO suggests that there are some typical key features of a vexatious request and four broad themes:

The burden (on the public authority and its staff;
The motive (of the requester);
The value or serious purpose (of the request); and
Any harassment or distress (of and to staff).

The ICO states that the key test to determine whether the request is likely to cause a disproportionate or unjustified level of disruption, irritation or distress. A starting point is to assess the value or purpose of the request. When considering the issue the Upper Tribunal in Dransfield asked itself, “Does the request have a value or serious purpose in terms of there being an objective public interest in the information sought?” (paragraph 38). The public interest can encompass a wide range of values and principles relating to what is in the best interests of society, including, but not limited to:

Holding public authorities to account for their performance;
Understanding their decisions;
Transparency; and
Ensuring justice.

When considering the amount of work that would be involved in dealing with a request and whether it would impose an unreasonable burden, the NPCC and the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) takes into account the level of resources available. There are two NPCC FOI Decision Makers and the threshold at which the burden becomes grossly oppressive is lower than for a larger public authority with many staff.

It is common for a potentially vexatious request to be the latest in a series of requests submitted. The greater the number of requests received, the more likely it is that the latest request is vexatious. This is because the collective burden of dealing with the previous requests, combined with the burden imposed by the latest request, becomes a tipping point, rendering the latest request vexatious.

In addition, the pattern of request is overwhelming with numerous requests made in quick succession. Requests are submitted before the NPCC has had the opportunity to respond to previous requests. The Upper Tribunal in Dransfield said:

“A requester who consistently submits multiple FOIA requests or associated correspondence within days of each other, or relentlessly bombards the public authority with e-mail traffic, is more likely to be found to have made a vexatious request” (paragraph 32).

The ICO provides advice on Duration. Where requests have been submitted over a long period, possibly years, this may indicate that requests will continue to be made in the future. Therefore, even if the latest request appears entirely reasonable, when viewed in isolation, you may take into account the anticipated burden of those future request when assessing burden.

It is also recognised that a request which is the latest in a series demonstrating obsessive behaviour can have the effect of harassing staff due to the collective burden they place on staff.

In Rod Cooke vs IC EA/2018/0028 23 July 2018 the Tribunal considered requests made to Kirby Cane and Ellingham Parish Council regarding a dispute over the ownership of a certain piece of land. When looking at any harassment or distress caused to the parish council the Tribunal stated that:

“We do not find that the appellant has deliberately harassed or caused distress to the Council members or clerk. Nonetheless, we note that there has been a considerable volume of correspondence over a number of years directed at a single issue. In the context of a small council run by volunteers and a part time clerk, we find that the burden of dealing with this matter would potentially cause a feeling of harassment and distress to the individuals involved.” (paragraph 26).

Your request relates to similar requests previously received by you:
2202/2025 Initial Request 0093/2025 Initial Request
0044/2025 ICO Appeal of 426/2024 (subject to IR 450/2024)
0039/2025 Internal Review
0014/2025 Initial Request
0012/2025 Internal Review IR of 425/2024
0450/2024 Internal Review IR of 426/2024
0426/2024 Initial Request
0425/2024 Initial Request
0254/2024 Initial Request

Of those requests, the emails generated in processing each of the above totals 191 which includes internal emails relating to the request in retrieval efforts and request for clarification with you. This does not include the time taken to retrieve, review and consider information held.

In addition to the above, the time taken to discuss progress with your request(s) with Senior Management is disproportionate to progressing other requests.

It is unreasonable to expect that within minutes of us providing a response to you, you are then seeking clarification on information provided, further queries or appeal. This is causing unnecessary distress and prohibiting daily activities and making our daily working environment stressful.

Note – the Information Commissioner vs. Devon County Council & Dransfield dates from 2013 – full judgement here. It appears the NPCC has used the judgment selectively as this matter was also cited in a more recent Tribunal finding that dismissed both a constabulary and the ICO’s position about ‘vexatious’: Case Reference: FT/EA/2024/0101 – Decision given on: 27 February 2025

Regarding the NPCC’s stance, they have been asked to reconsider their position on the following basis:

I apologise for any offence caused. I would be grateful if you could consider my request again. I understand a Response can be amended.

Please also note my typographical error, the periods should be 01/01/2023 to 31/12/2023 and 01/01/2024 to 31/12/2024 to enable year-to-year comparison.

If the request will not be reconsidered, I would be grateful if you could provide the reasoning behind your assessment that this was a vexatious request. My intention was not to cause disruption or annoyance, and seeing the reasoning applied would help me to understand how to reframe my request accordingly or, if necessary, present an Internal Review Request.

As you may be aware, the ICO advises that “public authorities must keep in mind that meeting their underlying commitment to transparency and openness may involve absorbing a certain level of disruption and annoyance”.
Additionally, the ICO advise that best practice for authorities applying this exemption is to suggest ways in which a request may be made less burdensome (see https://ico.org.uk/media/for-organisations/documents/1198/dealing-with-vexatious-requests.pdf).

I would be grateful if you could review whether this is the correct exemption to have been applied: would section 12, ‘Cost of compliance exceeds appropriate limit’ have been more appropriate? If so, please reassess my request accordingly.

The ICO advise that best practice for authorities applying this exemption is to suggest ways in which a request may be made less burdensome (see https://ico.org.uk/media/for-organisations/documents/1198/dealing-with-vexatious-requests.pdf). I would be grateful if you would make such suggestions so that I can reframe my request.
May I also take this opportunity to assure you that my request was not intended to be vexatious.

As to purpose, please see https://carcrime.uk/2504040-navcis-pnc-los-submissions/.

You may also wish to consider a more recent Tribunal decision relating to vexatious – https://carcrime.uk/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/015-200225-Decision-FT.EA_.2024.0101.pdf

Ideally, it will not be necessary to present a request for Internal Review (IR); however, upon reviewing the history of requests and the NPCC’s stance, it appears the application of ‘vexatious’ is onerous, inappropriate – why?

NEXT PAGE – The Internal Review Request

The Request & Refusal:

The Internal Review (IR) submissions are provided on the associated pages: