Decision Notice 203/2024: Whether requests were vexatious

Authority: Glasgow City Council
Case Ref: 202400881, 202400975, 202400976, 202400977 and 202400978

Summary

The Applicant asked the Authority for information on several matters related to the education and experiences of

primary and secondary schoolchildren.  The Authority declined to comply with the requests as it considered them

vexatious.  The Commissioner investigated and found that the requests were vexatious, and so the Authority was not

obliged to comply with them.

Relevant statutory provisions

Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002 (FOISA) sections 1(1), (2) and (6) (General entitlement); 14(1)

(Vexatious requests); 21(1), (8)(b) and (9) (review by a Scottish public authority); 47(1) and (2) (Application

for decision by Commissioner)

Background

1.    On 2 May 2024, 11 June 2024 (two requests), 14 June 2024 and 19 June 2024, the Applicant made five

requests for information in total to the Authority.  The information requested concerned several matters related

to the education and experiences of primary and secondary schoolchildren.  The full wording of each request can be

found at Appendix 1.

2.    The Authority responded on 30 May 2024 to one of the requests, on 20 June 2024 to two of the requests and

on 21 June 2024 to the two remaining requests.  The Authority provided information in response to the Applicant’s

request dated 2 May 2024, but stated that it considered his other requests were vexatious and, in line with

section 14(1) of FOISA, it was not obliged to comply with them.  

3.    On 3 June 2024 and 25 June 2024, the Applicant wrote to the Authority requesting a review of its decisions

for each of his five requests.  For his request dated 2 May 2024, the Applicant disagreed that the Authority had

provided him with all relevant information in response to his request.  For his other requests, the Applicant

disagreed that they were vexatious.

4.    On 24 June 2024 and 9 July 2024, the Authority notified the Applicant of the outcome of its reviews for

each of his five requests.  For the Applicant’s request dated 2 May 2024, the Authority revised its original

decision and stated that it considered the request was vexatious (as was the requirement for review).  For the

Applicant’s other requests, the Authority upheld its original decision that they were vexatious (as were the

requirements for review).

5.    On 27 June 2024 and 15 July 2024, the Applicant wrote to the Commissioner, applying for a decision in

terms of section 47(1) of FOISA for each of his five requests.  The Applicant stated that he was dissatisfied with

the outcome of the Authority’s reviews because he did not agree that his requests were vexatious.

Investigation

6.    The Commissioner determined that the applications complied with section 47(2) of FOISA and that he had the

power to carry out an investigation.

7.    On 23 July 2024 and 20 August 2024, in line with section 49(3)(a) of FOISA, the Authority was notified in

writing that the Applicant had made valid applications for each of his five requests.  All cases were allocated to

an investigating officer.

8.    Section 49(3)(a) of FOISA requires the Commissioner to give public authorities an opportunity to provide

comments on an application.  The Authority was invited to comment on all five applications and to answer specific

questions on each.  These questions related to why the Authority considered the requests were vexatious.

Commissioner’s analysis and findings

9.    The Commissioner has considered all of the submissions made to him by the Applicant and the Authority.  

Section 14(1) – Vexatious requests

10.    Under section 14(1) of FOISA, a Scottish public authority is not obliged to comply with a request for

information if the request is vexatious.

11.    The Commissioner has published guidance  on the application of section 14(1) of FOISA. This states:

There is no definition of "vexatious" in FOISA.  The Scottish Parliament considered that the term "vexatious" was

well-established in law and chose to give the Commissioner latitude to interpret the term in that context, so that

the interpretation might evolve over time in light of experience and precedent.

12.    In the Commissioner's view, there is no single formula or definitive set of criteria that allow a

formulaic approach to be taken to determining whether a request is vexatious.  Each request must be considered on

the merits of the case, supported by evidence, clear evaluation and reasoning.  Although this is not an exhaustive

list, the following factors will be relevant to a finding that a request (which may be the latest in a series of

requests or other related correspondence) is vexatious:

(i)    it would impose a significant burden on the public authority

(ii)    it does not have a serious purpose or value

(iii)    it is designed to cause disruption or annoyance to the public authority

(iv)    it has the effect of harassing the public authority

(v)    it would otherwise, in the opinion of a reasonable person, be considered to be manifestly unreasonable or

disproportionate.

13.    While the Commissioner's view is that the term "vexatious" must be applied to the request and not the

requester, he also acknowledges that the applicant's identity, and the history of their dealings with a public

authority, may be relevant in considering whether a request is vexatious.

The Authority submissions

14.    The Authority provided detailed submissions explaining why it considered the Applicant’s requests

vexatious in terms of section 14(1) of FOISA.

15.    The Commissioner is unable to reproduce or summarise those submissions in any detail, within this decision

notice, without breaching the obligation of confidentiality in section 45 of FOISA.

16.    However, the Authority stated that it considered the Applicant’s requests were vexatious for the following

reasons:

• the Applicant’s history of dealings with the Authority, both by requests using information legislation and through other correspondence and interactions (relating to the education of his child and to other matters)
• it did not believe that the requests had any serious purpose or value and were instead a means to cause annoyance and disruption
• the requests had the effect of harassing the Authority and its staff.

17.    The Authority provided evidence of previous relevant communications from (and interactions with) the Applicant and background information for those communications and interactions.

18.    The Authority noted that, since January 2024, the Applicant had submitted 20 requests for information,

nine requirements for review, six subject access requests and five applications to the Commissioner (those under

consideration in this decision).

19.    The Authority explained that it had responded to communications from the Applicant wherever possible, but

it had concluded that it was not obliged to comply with the requests in question as they were vexatious in terms

of section 14(1) of FOISA.

The Applicant’s submissions

20.    The Applicant explained that he had sought information under FOISA as it was the only way to get a

response from the Authority because it had “banned” him from communicating with it.

21.    The Applicant submitted that his requests were made due to genuine concern about the education and safety

of his child (and other children) and that his requests were not vexatious in any way.

The Commissioner's view

22.    Taken in isolation, the Applicant's requests might not appear to be vexatious.  However, the vexatious

nature of a request may only emerge after considering it in the context created by previous correspondence and

dealings the Applicant has had with an Authority.

23.    The Commissioner is satisfied, having reviewed the submissions provided by the Authority, that it was

reasonable for the Authority to consider previous correspondence and interactions with the Applicant when deciding

whether the requests in question should be treated as vexatious.

24.    Given the history and nature of the Applicant’s correspondence (as set out in the Authority’s

submissions), the Commissioner is also satisfied that the Authority was entitled to conclude that the requests in

question were vexatious.

25.    Section 45 of FOISA makes it a criminal offence for the Commissioner or a member of his staff to disclose

without lawful authority information which he has obtained, or which has been furnished to him, under or for the

purposes of FOISA if the information is not at the time of the disclosure, and has not previously been, available

to the public from another source.

26.    In the circumstances, the Commissioner does not consider it possible to set out in greater detail the

reasons for his conclusions without potentially breaching section 45 of FOISA.

27.    In this case, having considered all relevant submissions and the terms of the requests, the Commissioner

is satisfied that the Authority was entitled to refuse to comply with the requests in question by virtue of

section 14(1) of FOISA.

28.    The Commissioner would like to make clear that his finding in this decision does not mean that any request

from the Applicant to the Authority would necessarily be vexatious.  In this case, the Commissioner is satisfied

that the Authority was entitled to refuse to comply with the requests in question by virtue of section 14(1) of

FOISA, considering the submissions provided by the Authority and bearing in mind that the requests in question

were clearly linked by subject matter (albeit without such focus as would suggest any reasonable purpose in

extracting information on them).  

29.    However, the right to request information is an important legal right.  It should not be abused, but the

provisions within section 14(1) of FOISA must still be used carefully, which means authorities must always

consider requests on their own merits and consider all the relevant circumstances, in order to reach a balanced

conclusion as to whether a request is vexatious.

Decision

The Commissioner finds that the Authority complied with Part 1 of the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002

in responding to the information request made by the Applicant.

Appeal

Should either the Applicant or the Authority wish to appeal against this decision, they have the right to appeal

to the Court of Session on a point of law only.  Any such appeal must be made within 42 days after the date of

intimation of this decision.

Euan McCulloch 
Head of Enforcement

16 September 2024 

Appendix 1:

Dates and requests for information    

1.    Date: 2 May 2024.    

Request: I would like to know all the facts children are taught at P1-P7 about teeth health

2.    Date: 11 June 2024.

Request: How many cases of abusive/violent behaviour by primary school children towards school staff and other pupils were reported to the council in the school year 2022/2023.

[Also] How many cases of abusive/violent behaviour by secondary school children towards school staff and other pupils were reported to the council in the school year 2022/2023.
 

3.    Date: 11 June 2024.

Request: Are computer/IPad games used in any form in your secondary schools?

4.    Date: 14 June 2024.

Request: Are secondary pupils checked for weapon possession?  How many cases of weapon possession were registered in secondary schools in the last 2 years?

5.    Date: 19 June 2024.

Request: What do you teach children in primary and secondary schools about dairy consumption effects on health of children and of adults?