6. FoIA & ‘Burden’ - Car Crime U.K.

Following a request made of the NPCC, FOI Ref: 2233/2025, which was refused citing s.14 – vexatious, the below and associated links are submitted to support an Internal Review request.

The following is taken from ICO vs Devon County Council & Dransfield, commonly cited:

“29…the present or future burden on the public authority may be inextricably linked with the previous course of dealings. Thus the context and history of the particular request, in terms of the previous course of dealings between the individual requester and the public authority in question, must be considered in assessing whether it is properly to be characterised as vexatious. In particular, the number, breadth, pattern and duration of previous requests may be a telling factor.”

“30…the greater the number of previous FOIA requests that the individual has made to the public authority concerned, the more likely it may be that a further request may properly be found to be vexatious. Volume, alone, however may not be decisive. Furthermore, if the public authority in questions has consistently failed to deal appropriately with earlier requests that may well militate against a finding that the new request is vexatious”

“32. As regards pattern 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.”

“33….a long history of requests e.g. over several years may make what would otherwise be, taken in isolation, an entirely reasonable request, wholly unreasonable in the light of the anticipated present and future burden on the public authority.”

I write in response to your position that my FOIA request may be refused under Section 14(1) on the grounds that it imposes a burden on the authority.

I respectfully challenge this conclusion and set out below the legal context and why, in this instance, the use of Section 14 is unjustified, disproportionate, and procedurally flawed.

Legal Standard: What Constitutes a “Burden” Under Section 14?

The ICO’s guidance is clear: a request may only be refused under Section 14(1) where it causes a “disproportionate or unjustified level of disruption, irritation or distress”.

“The fact that dealing with a request would impose a burden in terms of expense and distraction alone will not necessarily make the request vexatious. Public authorities should bring robust evidence to show that the impact would be grossly oppressive in the context of their available resources.”
— [ICO, “Dealing with vexatious requests”, Section 4]

This test is echoed in Information Commissioner v Devon CC & Dransfield [2012] UKUT 440 (AAC):

“The burden must be proven to be grossly oppressive, and the test is whether a reasonable authority, with proper resources, should be expected to handle it.”
— [Judge Wikeley, para 29]

The burden must be evidenced, not presumed, and weighed in proportion to the value of the request.

My Request: Clear, Specific, and Proportionate

The request I submitted was:

Narrow in scope, limited to defined dates and organisations;
Targeted to a topic of national concern (vehicle theft and oversight);
Clearly structured, citing background and intent.

The ICO has explicitly stated that “the size of a request alone is not enough to engage Section 14.”

The volume of correspondence internally generated by the authority (e.g. emails, internal reviews, dissemination processes) is not the responsibility of the requester and cannot be cited without detailed explanation or attribution. If internal process inefficiencies are creating administrative volume, that alone is not a justifiable ground for refusing access to public information.

Public Interest and the Value of the Request

As the Upper Tribunal in Dransfield (para 38) explained:

“The value or serious purpose of a request is usually bound up with the question of the requester’s motive. Does the request have a value or serious purpose in terms of the objective public interest in the information sought?”

This request clearly concerns:

Public-private policing accountability (NaVCIS),
Discrepancies in vehicle theft reporting and PNC procedures,
The application of public resources toward vehicle crime.

Even a burdensome request must be met if the subject matter holds substantial public interest, which this demonstrably does. I have made prior efforts to refine requests, and where necessary, have cooperated with authorities to narrow scope or agree staged disclosures.

No Warning, No Engagement, No Alternative

At no time before the refusal under Section 14 was I:

Notified that the request was perceived to be burdensome;
Asked to revise or limit its scope;
Or engaged in a way that would allow for mutual resolution.

This absence of prior engagement undermines the fairness of the Section 14 application. The ICO encourages early dialogue to reduce burden and foster constructive resolution — an opportunity that was not offered in this case.

Conclusion

Section 14(1) is a powerful provision and must be applied only with caution and clear justification. In this case:

The request was lawful, proportionate, and in the public interest;
The authority has not provided robust evidence of gross burden;
There was no attempt at early resolution or clarification;
And the refusal has the appearance of being premature or administratively convenient.

I therefore request an internal review of the decision and invite the authority to engage in meaningful dialogue if further narrowing or clarification is needed. I remain willing to cooperate and have always done so in good faith.

NEXT PAGE – FoIA & ‘Overwhelming’

The Request & Refusal:

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