10. FoIA ‘Senior Management Discussions’

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.

I refer to your statement that:

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

I must respectfully challenge this assertion on the following grounds:

Lack of Transparency About “Senior Management” Involvement

No prior indication has been provided that my requests were escalated to, or discussed with, senior management. Had I been informed of this unusual handling, I would have welcomed the opportunity to clarify or adjust my request, especially if doing so would have reduced any perceived complexity.

Moreover, your comment lacks detail:

What specific aspect of my request warranted escalation?
Which requests were referred?
Why was management involvement deemed necessary?
What was the outcome of these internal discussions?

It appears my request(s) have been treated differently from others, I respectfully request a record of such discussions, including meeting notes, emails, or memos, in line with your duties of transparency and accountability under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA) and general public law principles.

No Evident Justification for Escalation

The ICO’s guidance is clear that Section 14(1) is a high hurdle, and that disproportionate effort must be demonstrated:

“The key question is whether the request is likely to cause a disproportionate or unjustified level of disruption, irritation or distress.”
— ICO Guidance: Dealing with Vexatious Requests, Section 2.1

Merely asserting that internal conversations occurred does not, in itself, demonstrate “grossly oppressive” burden, particularly when:

My correspondence has remained civil and constructive.
Clarifications or refinements have been readily accommodated when requested.
Previous NPCC communications have often been professional, helpful and supportive.

Unless it can be shown that management-level resources were essential — rather than simply used — and that their use was caused by my unreasonable conduct, the reliance on Section 14 is misplaced.

Clarification and Engagement ≠ Vexatious Conduct

I understand that certain requests, particularly where issues are technical or cross-functional (e.g., concerning NaVCIS or PNC records), may attract internal queries. However, this is not evidence of vexatiousness. The Upper Tribunal in Dransfield (Information Commissioner v Devon County Council & Dransfield [2012] UKUT 440 (AAC)) confirmed:

“Authorities should not use Section 14 to try and silence requesters with legitimate concerns who are simply seeking information.”

Any internal workload arising from these requests is not due to the manner of the request itself, but the importance of the issue and the possible cross-departmental implications.

Requests Treated Differently Suggest Disproportionate Scrutiny

Your assertion appears to acknowledge that my requests have been singled out for greater-than-usual internal scrutiny. If so, I respectfully ask:

What specific factors led to escalation?
How frequently are similar requests escalated?
If this is not the norm, does it indicate unconscious bias, internal caution, or other motivations inconsistent with FOIA’s open-access objectives?

Again, these are not rhetorical queries. If internal decision-making has impacted the handling or outcome of my request, transparency is required to validate that impact.

Request for Disclosure

Accordingly, I request the following under FOIA or your complaints/disclosure law/protocol:

Notes or records of all internal discussions involving senior management related to my FOIA requests;
A list of personnel involved;
The specific requests discussed;
The nature and duration of the discussions;
Their outcome or advice given.

If such material exists, it is directly relevant to the determination that my requests are vexatious, and I am entitled to understand how that conclusion was reached.

Summary

In conclusion:

The mere fact that a request prompts internal discussion is not evidence of vexatiousness.
Escalation to senior management is a matter of internal discretion and resourcing, not an inherent burden caused by the requester.
The NPCC’s position must be supported by demonstrable evidence, not broad assertions.
Any unusual scrutiny should be documented and disclosed to ensure fairness and transparency.

I remain open to constructive dialogue to refine any request that is causing operational concern and reiterate my commitment to pursuing these matters responsibly and respectfully.

NEXT PAGE – FoIA resources

The Request & Refusal:

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