8. FoIA ‘Distress &/or Obstruction’

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.

In relation to the suggestion that my request may cause distress, disruption, or obstruction, I must respond with concern and disappointment at what appears to be a disproportionate characterisation of my conduct.

In Dransfield v Information Commissioner & Devon CC [2012] UKUT 440 (AAC), the Upper Tribunal noted:

“Vexatiousness may be evidenced by obsessive conduct that harasses or distresses staff, uses intemperate language, makes wide-ranging and unsubstantiated allegations of criminal behaviour, or is in any other respects extremely offensive (e.g., racist language).”

May I ask: in what way does my request (or previous requests) fall into any of the above categories?

No evidence has been provided to demonstrate that my correspondence:

Has harassed or caused distress to staff;
Used inappropriate or offensive language;
Contained unsubstantiated allegations;
Or engaged in conduct that could reasonably be characterised as obsessive or abusive.

Legal and Procedural Fairness

The Upper Tribunal in Cabinet Office v Information Commissioner and Ashton [2018] UKUT 208 (AAC) confirmed that:

“The application of section 14 requires a holistic assessment of all relevant circumstances.”

This makes clear that context and proportionality are paramount. The ICO’s own guidance reinforces this, stating:

“Section 14(1) is designed to protect public authorities by allowing refusal of requests which have the potential to cause a disproportionate or unjustified level of disruption, irritation, or distress.”

My requests have been consistent in tone and focused on matters of public interest. If any irritation has arisen, it would appear to stem not from my conduct but from the fact that I am pursuing transparency and accountability — core pillars of the Freedom of Information Act.

Comparators and Engagement History

This request is materially similar to others I have submitted to police constabularies, many of which were met with cooperative, professional engagement – including by the NPCC itself. Recently, the NPCC directed me to individual forces when it could not assist directly, and I acted accordingly.

Where previous requests may have approached the Section 12 cost threshold, the NPCC constructively proposed clarifications and alternatives. I welcomed those suggestions and amended my requests as advised. I would have expected a similar dialogue here – not an accusatory refusal under Section 14.

Public Interest Test

The ICO and courts alike have held that a key test when assessing disruption or distress is whether the request has value or serious purpose, particularly in terms of:

Holding public authorities to account;
Understanding public decision-making;
Supporting transparency and scrutiny;
Ensuring procedural fairness and justice.

My current request aligns with all of these purposes. It is targeted, relevant, and submitted in good faith. I have made no excessive demands, submitted no abusive commentary, and have not engaged in serial or overlapping requests designed to frustrate.

Summary

I respectfully reject any suggestion that my request constitutes harassment or causes undue distress. I do not believe it meets the threshold for a Section 14(1) refusal. Should the NPCC maintain its position, I would welcome a detailed breakdown of the specific behaviours or consequences upon which this claim is based, in order to fairly and fully respond.

NEXT PAGE – FoIA ‘191 emails’

The Request & Refusal:

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