Key Facts
- •Stephen Pollard made multiple information requests to Royal Holloway, University of London (the College) regarding anti-social behaviour (ASB) by students.
- •The College initially responded but later claimed the request was vexatious under s.14 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA).
- •The Information Commissioner (ICO) upheld the College's decision.
- •Pollard appealed to the First-Tier Tribunal (FTT).
- •The FTT considered whether the ICO's decision was in accordance with the law.
Legal Principles
A request for information under FOIA is not obliged to be complied with if it is vexatious.
Freedom of Information Act 2000, s.14(1)
In determining vexatiousness, factors such as burden on the public authority, requester's motive, value/purpose of the request, and harassment/distress to staff are relevant but not exhaustive.
Dransfield case ([2012] UKUT 440 (AAC) and [2015] EWCA Civ 454), CP v Information Commissioner [2016] UKUT 427 (AAC), Cabinet Office v IC and Ashton [2018] UKUT 208 (AAC)
The Tribunal may review any finding of fact on which the notice in question was based.
Freedom of Information Act 2000, s.58
Outcomes
The appeal is allowed.
The ICO erred in concluding that the College could rely on s.14(1) FOIA. The Tribunal found insufficient evidence to support the conclusion that Pollard's request was vexatious; the College conflated complaints with FOIA requests and the request related to a matter of public interest.
The Decision Notice dated 8 December 2022 is set aside.
The ICO's decision was not in accordance with the law.
Royal Holloway must respond afresh to Pollard's information request within 30 days.
The College failed to demonstrate that Pollard's request was vexatious.