Adrian Finch v The Information Commissioner & Anor
[2024] UKFTT 908 (GRC)
G Brida v The Information Commissioner & Anor
2 October 2024
[2024] UKFTT 876 (GRC)
First-tier Tribunal
Someone asked the Financial Ombudsman for lots of documents. The Ombudsman said it would cost too much (over £450). The Information Commissioner agreed, but also said it would be too much work. A judge looked at the case and said the Ombudsman was right about the cost, so they didn't need to look at the 'too much work' part. The judge said the Ombudsman's estimate of the cost was reasonable, even though there might have been faster ways to do it.
Key Facts
- •Mr. Brida requested a large number of internal guidance notes from the Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS).
- •The FOS refused the request based on section 12 (excessive cost) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA).
- •The Information Commissioner (IC) upheld the FOS's reliance on section 14 (grossly oppressive burden) of FOIA.
- •Mr. Brida appealed the IC's decision.
- •The Tribunal found that the FOS's estimate of costs exceeded the FOIA limit under section 12.
- •The Tribunal considered alternative methodologies proposed by Mr. Brida but determined they weren't reasonably available to the FOS at the time of the request.
Legal Principles
Section 12 FOIA: A public authority is not obliged to comply with a request if the estimated costs exceed the appropriate limit (£450). The estimate must be sensible, realistic, and supported by cogent evidence. The test is subjective to the authority but qualified by an objective element.
Freedom of Information Act 2000, Regulation 3 of the Freedom of Information and Data Protection (Appropriate Limit and Fees) Regulations 2004, McInerny v IC and Department for Education [2015] UKUT 0047 (AAT), Reuben Kirkham v Information Commissioner [2018] UKUT 126 (AAC)
Section 14 FOIA: A public authority can refuse a request if compliance would impose a grossly oppressive burden.
Freedom of Information Act 2000
Section 11(1)(b) FOIA: A preference for inspecting a record must be expressed at the time of the original request. A subsequent request is considered a fresh request.
Freedom of Information Act 2000, Innes v Information Commissioner and Buckinghamshire County Council [2014] EWCA Civ 1086
Section 16 FOIA: Public authorities have a duty to advise and assist applicants in reframing requests to bring them within the cost limit. A breach of section 16 does not invalidate reliance on section 12.
Freedom of Information Act 2000, Alasdair Roberts and the Information Commissioner (EA/2008/0050, 4 December 2008)
Tribunal's role under Section 58 FOIA: The tribunal stands in the shoes of the Commissioner and can decide which exemptions apply, even if making different findings of fact.
Freedom of Information Act 2000, Information Commissioner v Malnick and others [2018] UKUT 72(AAC)
Outcomes
Appeal allowed in part.
The Tribunal found the FOS was entitled to rely on section 12 due to the excessive cost of fulfilling the request, even considering alternative methodologies suggested by Mr. Brida. The Tribunal did not need to consider section 14.