Tribunal upholds appeal after council labels FOI request as vexatious

The First-Tier Tribunal (Information Rights) has upheld an appeal by a campaigner after his freedom of information request was labelled as vexatious by a local authority that had earlier asked for input from "critical friends".

In Pringle v IC and Bury Council (EA/2012/0062) the appellant was part of a group named Save Our Suite that was concerned about the fate of the Longfield Suite in Prestwich. The suite contains a well-regarded main hall as well as a number of registered war memorials.

In April 2011 Mr Pringle submitted an 11-part information request to Bury Metropolitan Borough Council, asking for – amongst other things – a copy of the current business plan and marketing strategy for the suite, any previous business plans, the audit of accounts for 2010/11 including a full set of receipts for all bookings, and information on the venue’s role in improving the health and well-being of Bury residents.

The council refused the FOI request the following month, relying on s. 14 of the Freedom of Information Act on the basis that it was a vexatious request.

The local authority said the request had been considered to be one which imposed a significant burden in terms of expense and distraction, that it was designed to cause disruption and annoyance and lacked any serious purpose or value.

Bury confirmed its reliance on s. 14 after the requester demanded an internal review.

Mr Pringle then complained to the Information Commissioner. But in a decision notice the IC concluded that the council’s refusal of the request as vexatious was correct.

This was because of the cumulative effect of factors – to which varying degrees of weight were given – identified by Bury. These included the request being excessive or manifestly unreasonable, the claimed burden and distraction of staff, the financial burden historically, and the request being designed to cause disruption and annoyance.

The Information Commissioner also concluded that the purpose pursued by the Save Our Suite campaign group was not sufficiently serious to outweigh the other factors identified.

Mr Pringle appealed to the Tribunal.

In its submissions Bury relied on the fact that a public authority, in assessing whether or not a decision was vexatious, could take into account all the facts – including any previous history of contact – in arriving at its conclusion.

The authority said the SOS group had persistently requested information by using a number of avenues over a sustained period.

The appellant argued that his identity had been “retrospectively conflated” so that he was associated with a series of lawful activities carried out by other individuals and campaign groups not connected with him.

He pointed out that he only made one FOIA request, using his private address and details. The request also made no reference to the SOS group.

The Tribunal upheld Mr Pringle’s appeal. It said it could see that there had been an attempt by Bury to seek “critical friends” – following a press statement in March 2010 – within the local community as it started considering plans relating to the Longfield Suite.

“This open approach appears to have narrowed rather rapidly when individuals, and groups like Save Our Suite, took the council at its word and sought to provide inputs that were sometimes critical and potentially time-consuming in terms of requiring reasoned responses,” the judgment said.

The Tribunal added that the council did not seem to have considered inviting the appellant to narrow and focus his request so that it might be dealt with in a more effective and less onerous way.

It also said that while the request may have contained a lengthy series of questions, it was the only one made by Mr Pringle. “In the scale of things this did not amount to the kind of email bombardment of a public authority seen, for example, in Duke v IC & University of Salford (EA/2011/0060).”

The Tribunal concluded that Bury and the Information Commissioner had been too keen to aggregate the request by an individual into parallel activity by the campaign group of which he was part “without considering whether there were elements – if the request itself was reduced in scope – that could rightly and properly be dealt with or (on the other hand) resisted by way of any other relevant exemptions that might be appropriate”.

The judgment rejected Bury’s inclusion – in its claim of vexatiousness – of the impact of questions submitted at public council meetings, to the Audit Commission and to a local MP.

“It seems to us that whilst such enquiries may indeed result in a draw on resources, these are legitimate avenues of enquiry, outside of the Freedom of Information Act and necessary in a democratic society,” the Tribunal said.

It added: “In our opinion, the sustained pursuit of a matter of such importance to the local community via such avenues should not lightly be characterised as a vexatious campaign, particularly in the context of the council’s request for ‘critical friends’.”

The Tribunal issued a substituted decision notice calling for the requested information to be supplied to the appellant, subject to any relevant statutory exemptions within 31 days.

Philip Hoult