260401 An FoIA Loop-Hole

01/04/2026 – ICO Decision Notice IC-405539-W4V9

A sequence raising a serious procedural concern that needs explaining. What I find difficult to reconcile is the sequence of decisions.

A public authority considered my request and concluded it was vexatious (section 14 FoIA). That position was:

  • taken at the initial response, and
  • upheld at internal review

Only once the matter was put before the Information Commissioner did that position change; section 14 withdrawn and replaced by “information not held”. That raises straightforward questions:

  • If the request was genuinely vexatious, why is it no longer so?
  • if it was not vexatious, why was that not identified
    • at the time or
    • at internal review?

More importantly, the effect of that sequence is that:

  • no searches were undertaken at the time of the request,
  • the question of whether information was held was not addressed when it mattered, and
  • the position is now being assessed at a point where it may no longer be possible to determine what was held at the time.

This is not simply a disagreement about outcome. It raises a broader procedural concern:

whether the application of section 14, followed by its withdrawal at a later stage, can result in the fundamental question

“was information held at the time of the request?”

never being properly answered.

That is the issue I consider needs examination.

01/04/2026 – The ICO’s decision notice can be read here. The ICO has declined to address the issue.

Comment can be read here – FoIA Oversight Under Pressure – A Systemic Concern

09/04/2026 – Determination by a Tribunal has been requested – submission & skeleton argument

Associated enquiries can be found here: