2. FoIA & ‘Vexatious’ - 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.

I write in response to your decision to refuse my FOIA request under Section 14(1) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (“FOIA”), on grounds that the request is deemed vexatious. I respectfully challenge that decision and set out my position below, supported by authoritative case law, ICO guidance, and core principles of transparency and proportionality.

The Definition and Threshold of Vexatiousness

FOIA does not define “vexatious,” but the Upper Tribunal in Dransfield (Information Commissioner vs Devon County Council [2012] UKUT 440 (AAC)) offers the leading authority:

“‘Vexatious’ connotes manifestly unjustified, inappropriate or improper use of a formal procedure.”
— [Judge Wikeley, para 27]

Furthermore, the Court of Appeal in Dransfield (Dransfield & Anor v IC & Devon CC [2015] EWCA Civ 454) clarified:

“The emphasis should be on an objective standard and the starting point is that vexatiousness primarily involves making a request which has no reasonable foundation.”
— [Arden LJ, para 68]

ICO guidance echoes this view, stating that Section 14 should only be engaged where the request would cause a “disproportionate or unjustified level of disruption, irritation or distress” and that it “sets a high hurdle.”

My Request is Focused, Legitimate, and Clearly Directed

My request was short, narrowly scoped, and submitted with full understanding that the NPCC may not directly hold the information but would likely have oversight via NaVCIS. Based on prior engagement, I understand that NPCC does not report LoS data to DVLA, but NaVCIS does. My intent was to clarify this process.

No part of the request is manifestly improper, disruptive, or lacking purpose.

No Prior Warning or Engagement

At no point was I informed that my conduct or the volume of requests had become a concern. I was not:

Invited to narrow or clarify the request,
Given advance notice of possible refusal under Section 14,
Or offered the chance to adjust my behaviour before a decision was made.

The ICO’s guidance recommends that public authorities should seek to engage with the requester where possible before applying Section 14, especially when the motive or conduct is relevant to the decision.

Had I been told that my approach was considered problematic, I would have welcomed the opportunity to review and refine my request — as I have done in previous correspondence with the NPCC.

Purpose and Public Interest

The ICO further clarifies:

“A request which may be irritating or burdensome to deal with is not necessarily vexatious if it has a serious purpose and raises matters of public interest.”
— [ICO, “Dealing with vexatious requests under Section 14”]

My request clearly relates to:

Oversight of vehicle theft prevention and recovery,
NaVCIS’s public-private operational model,
Discrepancies in the Police National Computer (PNC) use and DVLA submissions,
Broader public accountability in vehicle crime enforcement.

These matters have received significant public attention, with rising vehicle theft rates and concerns over transparency in public-private policing initiatives. I am not alone in raising them, and there is a clear objective public interest in the information sought.

A Disproportionate and Procedurally Unfair Outcome

The sudden application of Section 14 without prior dialogue or invitation to clarify creates the appearance of a retrospective justification for withholding information — rather than a measured application of law.

If a requester is expected to explain motive, value, or context, it follows that they should be:

Notified before Section 14 is invoked,
Given a chance to respond to concerns,
And treated as a participant in an open, democratic information system.

The absence of engagement raises a broader concern: was Section 14 applied because of the request’s perceived sensitivity or challenge, rather than because of any inherent deficiency?

Conclusion

I respectfully submit that this request:

Does not meet the threshold of vexatiousness,
Was submitted in good faith with a clear, serious purpose,
Raises matters of legitimate public concern,
And was neither disruptive nor excessive in volume or tone.

I therefore request:

An internal review of the Section 14(1) decision,
A clear explanation of the rationale behind the determination,
And an opportunity to further clarify or refine the scope if required.

I trust the NPCC will assess this matter holistically, in line with ICO guidance and Dransfield, and apply FOIA in a manner consistent with openness, fairness, and the public’s right to know.

NEXT PAGE – FLA & the FoIA

The Request & Refusal:

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