12. FoIA & ‘Response Timeliness’

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 write in response to your statement:

“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.”

Respectfully, I must challenge the logic and fairness of this assertion.

Use of ‘to expect’ is not understood in the context of my actions. I assume the NPCC mean that it is unreasonable for me to respond promptly. If so, why? If I require clarity, have a query or wish to ‘appeal’ (seek an IR), how long should a requestor wait before returning to the NPCC? The argument in support of ‘vexatious’ appears unwarranted and irrelevant. The accusation appears to have been proffered to fill out an otherwise tenuous position.

There is no suggestion that the approaches for clarification/IR are inappropriate.

Why would a response, made 10 or 20 days later, be any less stressful or interfere with working less?

Timeliness is Not Harassment

Firstly, responding promptly to correspondence is not, in itself, unreasonable, let alone vexatious. I am entitled under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA) to seek clarification or pursue an internal review should the response I receive be unclear, incomplete, or inconsistent with guidance.

Prompt engagement does not equate to harassment or disruption. It is simply a matter of availability on my part – a professional response to a public body whose function is to uphold standards of transparency and openness.

Arguably, a prompt reply, whilst matters are still fresh in the mind, benefits all.

Contradiction in Previous NPCC Feedback

It is particularly contradictory that on 12 March 2025, Fiona of the NPCC wrote to me:

“Thank you for coming back to me so quickly.”

This clearly conveyed that prompt replies were welcomed. It now appears that the same conduct is being retroactively reclassified as inappropriate. This inconsistency raises concerns about shifting standards being applied to justify the use of Section 14.

If there has been a policy change or threshold for what is considered “reasonable” engagement, this should have been clearly communicated in advance – particularly before making any declaration of vexatiousness.

Follow-Up Is a Normal Part of FOIA Correspondence

In many cases, particularly where ambiguity remains in a response, it is entirely normal and expected that a requester might follow up for clarification. The ICO’s own guidance makes clear that:

“Public authorities must accept that requesters are entitled to question and challenge responses.”
— ICO Guidance on Section 14(1), 2016

If anything, prompt responses from requesters enable Authorities to resolve potential issues sooner, avoiding unnecessary delays or extended reviews.

I Do Not Demand Urgency

I do not demand rapid replies nor place unrealistic expectations on your response times. On the contrary, I have always assumed your team will respond when able and have not pursued replies aggressively or impatiently.

Moreover, your organisation has frequently responded to me within short timeframes – which does not suggest being overwhelmed or distressed. To now characterise my conduct as disruptive when it mirrors the tone and pace of your own responses is unfounded and concerning.

Vexatiousness Requires a High Threshold

To conclude, the Upper Tribunal in Information Commissioner v Devon County Council & Dransfield [2012] UKUT 440 (AAC) clarified:

“Vexatious connotes a manifestly unjustified, inappropriate, or improper use of a formal procedure.”

My conduct, in engaging promptly and constructively, does not meet this standard. In fact, by maintaining clarity and efficiency in my correspondence, I am actively trying to minimise unnecessary burden or misunderstanding.

If it is now the view of the NPCC that requesters must delay replies to avoid being labelled vexatious, that would represent a significant — and troubling — shift in practice.

I would appreciate further clarification on how my conduct, as described, could be fairly deemed distressing or unreasonable under the legal and procedural frameworks governing FOIA.

NEXT PAGE – FoIA ‘Prior FoIA Requests’

The Request & Refusal:

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