Gerry Woodhouse v Potto Parish Council [2025] UKFTT 109 (GRC)

[2025] UKFTT 00109 (GRC)Case Reference: EJ/2023/0005
First-tier Tribunal
(General Regulatory Chamber)
Enforcement
Before
JUDGE MOANTRIBUNAL MEMBER TAYLORTRIBUNAL MEMBER SIVERS
Between
GERRY WOODHOUSEApplicantPOTTO PARISH COUNCILRespondentDecision no 1 of 2 in the appeal.Decision: The application to certify an offence of contempt is adjourned pending a response by the Respondent to directions issued by the Tribunal.The application was considered on the papers – all parties consented to a determination without a hearing.REASONSDate 2025-01-31
[1]On 7th June 2023 the Tribunal allowed the Appellant’s appeal against the decision of the Information Commissioner and made a substitute decision notice in the following terms – Potto Parish Council was not entitled to refuse Mr Woodhouse’s request for information dated 3rd May 2021 on the grounds that it was vexatious under section 14(1) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (“FOIA”). To ensure compliance with FOIA, Potto Parish Council must issue a fresh response to the Request which does not rely on section 14(1) FOIA within 35 days of the date of this Decision Notice.[2]It is fair to summarise that the decision on vexatiousness was based on the discretion of the Tribunal, the Tribunal concluding that due to the cessation on consistent requests by and emails from the Appellant for a period of time, the Tribunal found the extant request not to fall foul of section 14 albeit recognising the previous finding in 2019 of vexatiousness.[3]The Information Commissioner sent the substituted decision to the Respondent on 22nd June 2023.[4]The Appellant first started to correspond with the Tribunal in July 2023 about the non-compliance by the Respondent with the substituted decision notice. There did not appear to be a proper application in the correct format at that stage but the issue raised was the lack of response at all as opposed to a response that did not fully comply with the substitute decision notice. The emails were accepted as an enforcement application.[5]It is agreed that the Respondent did not participate in the original appeal but the decision notice was sent to them to ensure compliance. There then followed a period where the Respondent was deciding whether to, and ultimately did, apply for permission to appeal to the Upper Tribunal. The enforcement application was stayed until the application for appeal was dealt with. Ultimately the Tribunal were advised in May 2024 that the application for permission to appeal by the Respondent was withdrawn. The original request for information[6]This application arises from the Tribunal’s decision dated 7th June 2023 in case number EA/2022/0266. The original request by the Appellant for information was made on 3rd May 2021. The request is repeated below and so will not be repeated here.[7]Some information was provided in response on 14th May 2021. In summary, the Respondent provided some information, denied it held some information and then refused to provide the information in response to Question 4 and asked for clarification regarding question 6. Following an internal review, the Respondent concluded that the request was vexatious under section 14(1) of the Freedom of Information Act on 29th July 2021. Reliance on that exemption was agreed by the Commissioner but subsequently overturned by the Tribunal on appeal.[8]The Applicant referred to the 2021 responses in his submissions but they are not the subject of the Tribunal’s decision in the original appeal nor are the subject of this appeal. They are repeated only insofar as they provide additional information. The Tribunal is not undertaking a critical analysis between the 2021 and 2024 responses to compare the responses. Contempt is concerned with compliance not the Appellant’s satisfaction with a response. Background to the contempt application[9]What is abundantly clear is that there has been an ongoing dispute between the Appellant and the Respondent – described by the Tribunal in the June 2023 decision as a “long and difficult relationship”. At para 24 of the decision the Tribunal said – The Tribunal went on to consider the wider course of dealings between the Appellant and the Parish Council, and in particular, the findings of the 2019 Tribunal about the burden of the Appellant’s requests for information, complaints and correspondence, from 2014 to 2018. That Tribunal found that the Appellant had sent 690 emails to the Parish Council between January 2014 and August 2018 and that his language was at times abusive and had caused distress. The 2019 Tribunal had concluded:
“Mr Woodhouse’s case is almost a paradigm illustration of the abuse of the important constitutional right to freedom of information which s14 is designed to counter…. the effects of his behaviour in causing not only huge and wildly disproportionate disruption but also personal distress are precisely the kinds of consequences which the section seeks to guard against.”
[10]The derogatory tone of the Appellant’s representations about the Respondent confirmed that the hostility was continuing. He described the chair’s response as “completely farcical” and that his attitude was “simply appalling, contemptuous, irrational and profoundly unprofessional”. The vitriol and blatant contempt for the Respondent made it more challenging for the Tribunal to find the substance of the Appellant’s allegations about non-compliance. There is nothing wrong with requiring an authority to be accountable or requiring them to share information but the Appellant showed little empathy for this small Parish Council and his correspondence with them and about them has historically, and at times in this application, been abusive.[11]Shortly after the June 2023 decision had been promulgated, the Respondent had indicated their intention to apply for permission to appeal to the Upper Tribunal. The substituted decision notice was suspended whilst those appeal proceedings ran their course. On 8th May 2024, the stay was lifted and the Respondent was required to issue a fresh response, which was duly issued by the Respondent on 15th May 2024. It is that response that is the subject of the contempt application.[12]The Appellant made his application for contempt under Rule 7A of the Tribunal Procedure (First Tier Tribunal) General Regulatory Chamber) Rules 2009 (2009 Rules) on 19th May 2024. The Appellant contended that amongst his complaints about the Respondent, that the response did not comply with the substituted decision notice. Parties each responded about whether there had been a failure to comply. The Appellant submitted that the Respondent had continued to not fully comply with the decision notice by not providing all of the information and the Respondent submitted that it has.[13]Both parties have consented to a paper hearing. Quite apart from the saving on expense, especially noting the size of the Council concerned, the Tribunal agreed that it was able to analyse whether there had been a proper response as the response had been provided from the bundle and the parties had been given the opportunity to make their respective submissions.[14]The Appellant provided a bundle of 220 pages and final submissions that were not included in the bundle. The Legal Framework for a contempt application[15]The powers of the Tribunal are to be found in sections 61(3) and (4) of FOIA 2000 – (3) Subsection (4) applies where—(a) a person does something, or fails to do something, in relation to proceedings before the First-tier Tribunal on an appeal under those provisions, and(b) if those proceedings were proceedings before a court having power to commit for contempt, the act or omission would constitute contempt of court. (4) The First-tier Tribunal may certify the offence to the Upper Tribunal.[16]The 2009 Rules provide details of the procedure to be followed. The procedures were not contentious in this application.[17]The power of contempt is to be considered amongst the other provisions of FOIA 2000 namely –(i) The power of the Information Commissioner under s50 to make a decision upon application;(ii) The power of the Information Commissioner under s52 and 54 to enforce its own decision; and(iii) The creation of a criminal offence under s77 of altering etc information with the intent to prevent disclosure. The delineation of powers and responsibilities are a clear reflection of the will of Parliament.[18]The power to certify an act or omission as a contempt has two distinct phases. Firstly, the Tribunal will consider whether the Respondent has committed an act or omission that would amount to a contempt and secondly, whether the First Tier Tribunal should exercise its discretion to certify the contempt to the Upper Tribunal.[19]In Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council v Harron & The Information Commissioner's Office and Harron v Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council & The Information Commissioner's Office: [2023] UKUT 22 (AAC) Farbey J said - At para 53 “…There is no power to compel a public authority to comply with a substituted decision notice. In the context of para 8 of Schedule 6 to the 1998 Act, the UT has held that there is a power to punish for not doing so, although that power may operate as an incentive to comply (Information Commissioner v Moss and Royal Borough of Kingston Upon Thames [2020] UKUT 174 (AAC), para 1). I see no reason to take a different view.”[20]And at para 54 - “54. The principle that proceedings for contempt of court are intended to uphold the authority of the court and to make certain that its orders are obeyed is longstanding (for a recent restatement, see JS (by her litigation friend KS) v Cardiff City Council [2022] EWHC 707 (Admin), para 55). A person who breaches a court order, whether interim or final, in civil proceedings may be found to have committed a civil contempt. Given the nature and importance of the rights which Parliament has entrusted twenty-first century Tribunals to determine, the public interest which the law of contempt seeks to uphold – adherence to orders made by judges – is as important to the administration of justice in Tribunals as it is in the courts. There is no sound reason of principle or policy to consider that any different approach to the law of contempt should apply in Tribunals whose decisions fall equally to be respected and complied with.”[21]In that case, Mrs Justice Farbey also restated the principles elucidated by the Court of Appeal in Navigator Equities Limited v Deripaska [2021]EWCA Civ 1799, para 82 as they apply to contempt – “The following relevant general propositions of law in relation to civil contempt are well-established: i) The bringing of a committal application is an appropriate and legitimate means, not only of seeking enforcement of an order or undertaking, but also (or alternatively) of drawing to the court’s attention a serious (rather than purely technical) contempt. Thus a committal application can properly be brought in respect of past (and irremediable) breaches; ii) A committal application must be proportionate (by reference to the gravity of the conduct alleged) and brought for legitimate ends. It must not be pursued for improper collateral purpose; iii) Breach of an undertaking given to the court will be a contempt: an undertaking to the court represents a solemn commitment to the court and may be enforced by an order for committal. Breach of a court undertaking is always serious, because it undermines the administration of justice; iv) The meaning and effect of an undertaking are to be construed strictly, as with an injunction. It is appropriate to have regard to the background available to both parties at the time of the undertaking when construing its terms. There is a need to pay regard to the mischief sought to be prevented by the order or undertaking; v) It is generally no defence that the order disobeyed (or the undertaking breached) should not have been made or accepted; vi) Orders and undertakings must be complied with even if compliance is burdensome, inconvenient and expensive. If there is any obstacle to compliance, the proper course is to apply to have the order or undertaking set aside or varied; vii) In order to establish contempt, it need not be demonstrated that the contemnor intended to breach an order or undertaking and/or believed that the conduct in question constituted a breach. Rather it must be shown that the contemnor deliberately intended to commit the act or omission in question. Motive is irrelevant; viii) Contempt proceedings are not intended as a means of securing civil compensation; ix) For a breach of order or undertaking to be established, it must be shown that the terms of the order or undertaking are clear and unambiguous; that the Respondent had proper notice; and that the breach is clear (by reference to the terms of the order or undertaking).”[22]In the case of Information Commissioner v Moss [2020] UKUT 174 (AAC), the Upper Tribunal concluded that, noting the enforcement powers that already existed under Rules 7 and 8 of the 2009 Rules, that not much else is left for section 61 of FOIA to deal with, apart from non-compliance with a substantive decision of the First Tier Tribunal. The evidence and respective submissions[23]The Applicant had sent a response to the Respondent on 7th June 2021 to identify what he considered to be omissions and/or errors with their initial response to his request for information.[24]Immediately after the Respondent’s 2024 response to the request, the Appellant submitted that the response was not a fresh response as it provided the same information as that provided in 2021. In the Tribunal’s judgment, whether it provided the same information was not the issue; the issue is whether it was a response to the information requested. A fresh response in the context of this appeal means a response not relying on the section 14 exemption and not new to any other response or information previously provided. The fact that it may be cut and pasted from the 2021 replies was irrelevant. The issue was whether the Respondent had complied with the substituted decision notice.[25]The Appellant submits that the breach was intentional, premeditated and protracted. He provides many narratives in the bundle as to why he believes this to be the case. His statement dated 20th August 2024 described how he considered in the strongest terms that the Respondent’s actions were part of a pattern of deliberate obstruction regarding the request and flagrant disregard for the Tribunal. The vitriol in that statement appeared to camouflage some pertinent points about the chronology of the Appellant seeking to obtain the information by pointing out what information had not been supplied. The tone of the Appellant’s submissions was unhelpful.[26]The Respondent responded to the contempt application on 21st August 2024. At the outset, they submitted that they would never knowingly hold any decision of the Tribunal in contempt. They said that the Parish Council was run by a small cohort of volunteers. Whilst there was some information about chronology and the Respondent’s concerns about the Appellant’s behaviour towards the members of the Council, the Tribunal focussed on compliance with the substituted decision. The submission of the Appellant was, of course, that the substituted decision had still not been complied with in full.[27]The Respondent was not party to the 2023 proceedings. That was their gift; they are bound by the decision of the Tribunal in the substituted decision notice nonetheless. That decision was properly served on the Council. They submitted that they sent a substantive response when they were advised to and would not wilfully breach the decision of the Tribunal. There can be no doubt that they replied promptly to the Tribunal’s order dated 8th May 2024 to provide a response. The Council repeated their concerns about the behaviour of the Appellant and the impact on the Parish. They provided a fresh response on 15th May 2024. Whilst there were repeated further submissions from the Appellant, many of them contained the same hostile accusations, when in reality, the substantive and first consideration for the Tribunal is whether the Respondent had complied with the substituted decision notice.[28]The Tribunal considered the requests for information 1-7, the information provided and submissions about the 2024 responses as follows:[29]Q1. I refer to a detailed objection letter, submitted to Potto council on 1st September 2020, about your 2019-20 accounts. Please advise if the council has (as per previous years) sent a response to the External Audit team about this matter and, if so, I wish to request a full copy of the council's response.[30]The initial response of the Respondent in 2021 was that they had not been asked to respond to the objection letter dated 1st September 2020. In his June 2021 application for an internal review, the Appellant said that the Council has not answered whether they had sent a response and not whether they had been “requested”to send a response.[31]Following the substituted decision in June 2023, the reply of the Respondent in May 2024 was - As previously noted PPC has not been requested by the external auditor to specifically respond to the objection letter from the 1st September 2020, therefore there was no response from PPC to the external audit team specifically for the objections to the 2019-20 accounts. A request was received from the auditor covering the combined audit of accounts for the years ended 31st March 2017,2018,2019, and 2020 for PPC to addressed certain points raised by the objector, this response constitute a large amount of information and are available on request.[32]The Appellant in his reply dated May 2024 said the request required a “yes or no” answer as to whether a response was sent. He accused the Respondent of not handling correspondence correctly because they should have published in its correspondence, records that it had responded to the Auditor copying in the objector. He said that the Respondent should not await a request for information from the Auditor but be eager to respond in the face of the objection letter. He accused the second part of the response to be false – he said that there were no combined audit of accounts. He also said that the auditor did make a request for data and the council responded. His request for information was literally days after that request from the auditor. He said that the Council accepted the information was available on request but that all of his correspondence was now met with a refusal under section 14 FOIA.[33]The Respondent replied that a clear response was provided.; it was neither unhelpful nor obstructive. They acknowledged that some of the information provided in the response was not accurate specifically when dealing with the financial years for the accounts; it was a typographical error and nothing more. They clarified that –a. The audit undertaken by PKF Littlejohn in 2022 covered the years 2016/17,2017/18, 2018/19, 2019/20 and 2020/21;b. The information sent to the auditors was in response to a detailed set of questions made by the auditors, not as noted by the applicant. in response to his objection letter; andc. The auditors’ requests for information are answered as required and dependant of course upon the questions received, there can be no suggestion of wrongdoing otherwise the auditors themselves would have objected. There was a large amount of data associated with four years of accounts, PPC have a fully transparent policy and any and all information is available upon request.[34]Q2. Regular reviews are required to monitor the effectiveness of arrangements to protect public money, but I cannot find this information anywhere in the minutes published on your website. I wish to request the page number of the meeting minutes (if there is one), and the minuted item reference number on this page, that specifically records the council's two most recent acts of monitoring and also records the results of this monitoring.[35]In their 2021 response, the Respondent responded that all policies and procedures were reviewed on an annual basis, budgets were reviewed monthly (see minutes ref 1005). In his June 2021 application for an internal review, the Appellant said that whilst he had seen reference in the minutes to policies and procedures, he had not seen any reference to monitoring or the result of monitoring. He asked the Respondent to clarify where he believed the monitoring to be recorded? He wanted clarity about where information was recorded about budget reviews.[36]In their May 2024 response to the substituted decision, the Respondent said - As previously noted all policies and procedures are reviewed on an annual basis, Example one, the April 2021 PPC meeting where it is recorded in the minutes that each of the noted Policies and Procedures were reviewed and approved by Councillors (Minute 1005 Item 8.1) Example two, the January 2020 PPC meeting where it is recorded in the minutes that each of the noted Policies and Procedures were reviewed and approved by Councillors (Minute 957 Item 4.2) Copies of minutes are available on the parish council website at Potto Parish Website - The website of Potto Parish, North Yorkshire There are no further documents related to Policies and Procedures held by PPC. Finance is an agenda items at each parish council meeting where expenditure is approved, and finances and budgets reviewed.[37]In his reply dated May 2024, the Appellant accused the Council of not holding reviews. He was seeking information to clarify how it monitored and reviewed the effectiveness of internal control arrangements. He said that the Respondent was well aware of the nature of the request but could not give information as there were no reviews. The Respondent said in reply that they provided a clear and substantive response. The examples were clear proof that the policies and procedures were reviewed on an annual basis. They said that the Appellant’s vexatious nature was clear from his response.[38]Q3. I refer to the two Audit remedial Action Plans that were deleted from the council's website around June 2019, apparently in contravention of the council's Retention of Documents Policy, which states 'Indefinite' for all Audit records (I note that all the other Audit data remains published on your website). What information do you have to explain or substantiate why these Action Plans are no longer published (noting also that all the Audit Actions in these Plans still remain outstanding)?[39]In 2021, the Respondent has responded that both action plans were completed, copies were available on request. In his June 2021 application for an internal review, the Appellant criticised the action plans. He wanted to know why the action plans were deleted from the council’s website.[40]In May 2024 the Respondent said - both actions plans were completed, copies are attached. In his reply dated May 2024, the Appellant said that he asked why the documents were no longer published. He suspected that the lack of publishing was to conceal outstanding audit actions.[41]In its submissions document dated 20th August 2024, the Respondent said the documents were provided, they had not been deleted or destroyed, there was no breach of the Retention of Documents policy. There was no requirement to publish every document on their website. Once the action plan was completed it was archived. PPC submitted that an appropriate response was provided to this request, yet the minutia into which the request is broken down is a clear indication that the Appellant would not be satisfied with whatever response was given.[42]Q4. I am advised that your External Auditor provides Potto council with financial updates from time to time, regarding the additional Audit fees now being incurred for additional Audit work. Please provide the date and the financial fee, as per the most recent update.[43]The 2021 response of the Respondent was that the current fees were part of the on-going investigation and would be available when the investigation was concluded. In his June 2021 application for an internal review, the Appellant said that his question was not about the fees that were being investigated but if the council had received an update about audit fees, to provide him with that information.[44]The May 2024 response of the Respondent was - As previously noted the fees were part of an on-going investigation and appeal by PPC. The fees were settled in 2022-23 as follows; 2016/17 £ 2,160.00 2017/18 £ 2,220.06 2018/19 £ 2,615.41 2019/20 £ 2,919.53 2020/21 £ 1,216.46[45]The Appellant, in his reply dated May 2024, said that the reference to the appeal was irrelevant to his 2021 request (the appeal took place in 2022/early 2023). He said that the date and size of the fee would shed light on the Respondent’s difficulty in budgeting. The further response of the Respondent in their submissions confirmed that the invoices for the years 2016/17, 2017/18, 2018/19, 2019/20 and 2020/21 were contested and the final invoices were not issued until 2023. The figures were a verbal estimate which was subject to challenge. The response was clear and accurate. The appeal resulted in a 75% reduction in the fees charged. Despite the claims by the applicant that Parish Council is providing details about a fantasy ‘appeal’ and that it is providing details it knows to be false and irrelevant, this is far from the truth, the process was clear and appropriate to the situation. The residents had themselves voted in favour of the appeal against the fees not Parish Council.[46]Q5. I note that there is an undesignated date written at the top of recent agendas. What information does this date signify (eg, date compiled or date published, etc)?[47]The initial response of the Respondent in 2021 was that the date was the date the agenda was produced.In his June 2021 application for an internal review, the Appellant said that he understood that agendas were written, probably over several days, then published on another specific date. Could they clarify?[48]In response to the substituted decision, the Respondent in May 2024 responded - As previously noted the date at the top of the agenda is the date that the agenda is produced, typically the agenda is produced and issued on the same day.[49]In his reply dated May 2024, the Appellant said that the reply was unhelpful. He did not understand what “produced” and “issued” referred to. The Respondent responded that their response was clear and not unhelpful or evasive. The agenda was typically produced and issued on the same day.[50]Q6. Thank you for sending me a copy of the council's 2019-20 asset register on 12 May 2020. However, as the asset registers are still not published on the council's website, I wish to request a copy of the 2020-21 asset register. I also request a copy of any supporting ledgers, etc, stating the financial details for each of these assets, for both 2019-20 and for 2020-21.[51]In 2021 the Respondent had responded and provided a copy of the 2020-21 asset register and asked for clarity as to what other information was being requested. In his June 2021 application for an internal review, the Appellant said that he also requested supporting ledgers and documents, but the information was not provided and was not on its website.[52]The May 2024 response of the Respondent was -Please see a copy of the 2020-21 Asset Register and the 2019-20 Asset Register attached.[53]In his reply dated May 2024, the Appellant acknowledged receipt of the asset register for that year. He said that an earlier asset register for 2019-20 did not have values for the assets and the explanation given was that the asset figures were recorded in a separate ledger. The issue of the supporting ledgers had not been addressed.[54]The Respondent replied that the asset register 2019-2020 was provided but the values were yet to be confirmed. In the response provided on the 15th May 2024 additional copies of the 2020 and 2021 Asset Registers were attached. The assertions made regarding missing ledgers etc were somewhat absurd, the Respondent like all other Parish Councils are subject to and Internal Financial Audit as well as an external Financial Audit each year. These independent bodies undertake an in-depth scrutiny of the Parish Councils’ finances in-line with the appropriate legislation. Additionally, all financial documents are made available through the “Exercise of Public Rights” an annual period where members of the public can scrutinise the Parish Councils accounts. It should be noted that none of these audits have ever raised any questions of financial impropriety as suggested by the Appellant.[55]Q7. In your email dated 26 November 2020 you reiterate allegations and threats of harassment under the Prevention of Harassment Act 1997. What advice, information or evidence has Potto council received from third parties (eg, YLCA), to support these persistent threats?[56]The initial response to the request in 2021 was that there were no documents available regarding that matter. In his June 2021 application for an internal review, the Appellant said that the response was unhelpful as he asked for information.[57]In May 2024 the Respondent responded to the request as follows – PPC as a small parish council comprising of volunteers from the community, we have the right to undertake our work without fear of Harassment, Bullying and Abuse. Information and legislation is available on the subject of harassment on the internet and from various sources. PPC have received information from bodies such as North Yorkshire Police, The ICO, Protection Against Stalking and Theseus Risk relating to stalking and harassment.[58]In his reply dated May 2024, the Appellant stated that the Respondent in their answer conceded that they have information and from what sources but did not disclose that information. He did not know if this was information was provided prior to 26th November 2022, general in nature or about him. The Respondent said that in 2021 they said that the Parish Council had no documents regarding this matter. That answer was clear and correct. The assertions by the Appellant that the Respondent had published unpleasant allegations about the Appellant was false and unfounded. Conclusions[59]In relation to request 1, The Tribunal considered that the request considered objectively was whether the Council sent a response to the letter dated 1st September 2020 that related to the accounts 2019-20, regardless of whether a response had been requested. That was answered in May 2024 in the negative, therefore no further information was held. The remainder of the response went much further than the request for information. The Tribunal considered that this was the Respondent trying to be helpful to the Appellant and being clear about when they did respond (other than to the 2019-20 accounts which was the subject of the request). Not only did the Respondent answer the request for information but they went above and beyond to furnish the Appellant with information about their responses in other years.[60]In relation to request 2, the request, viewed through the Appellant’s reply dated May 2024, was arguably a question rather than a request for recorded information. What the Respondent was required to do was to provide any records of information held, if not already published elsewhere. The Respondent had done that within their May 2024 response. The Tribunal were under no doubt that the request for information had been answered by the Respondent. The Tribunal were not concerned whether they or the Appellant believed the Respondent about its reviews. The FOIA regime is to provide recorded information not to require the Respondent to justify themselves.[61]As far as request 3 is concerned, the replies of the Respondent in 2021 and May 2024, objectively, did not engage with the request for information which was whether there was information about why two previous action plans were no longer published on the website. The response of the Respondent dated 20th August 2024 explains the position regarding the action plans. The Tribunal considered that the request for information was borderline a further question for the Respondent. The emphasis in FOIA is whether there is information recorded; it is not clear whether there was a record of this information somewhere. Whilst the Respondent has treated the request as a question and duly answered it, requests should focus on whether there is information recorded. In this case, the Appellant may have benefitted from the full answer, as it may be the case that the Respondent did not hold any recorded information about the archiving of completed action plans. Ultimately, the circumstances have been explained and the Respondent cannot be criticised for its full response in August 2024.[62]The Tribunal considered that the response given to request 4 was full and correct. The fees were the fees to be paid (which were finalised post-appeal) and not the invoices rendered. Had the Appellant wanted information about the invoices rendered, he could have asked for that. The fees were being appealed and so as at May 2021 there were fee invoices that were being appealed. To give information about the fees in May 2021 may be misleading as they were invoices and not fees paid. The May 2024 was accurate and very helpful. The Appellant had not asked for as much information as had been supplied to him and thus this was another example of the Respondent going above and beyond in providing information.[63]In relation to request 5, the Respondent had, without doubt, answered the request fully in the May 2024 response.[64]The Tribunal looked at the request in question 6 objectively. The asset registers had been provided. However, the Appellant had also asked for a copy of any supporting ledgers, etc, stating the financial details for each of these assets, for both 2019-20 and for 2020-21. The phrase ‘ledger’ in this context appears to have been used in correspondence with the Appellant. At page 35 of the open bundle, the Appellant says this:
“The council’s explanation for the discrepancy between the lack of any values recorded on the asset register and for the total asset value figure recorded on the Accounting Statement was that the values of each asset were recorded on a ‘separate ledger’. Accordingly, my May 2021 information request explicitly requested copies of these ‘supporting ledgers’.”
The Respondent did not address in their response whether this information was held or not, and if it was held, whether it could be provided or an exemption claimed. To this extent, the Respondent had failed to engage with the second part of this request.[65]In relation to request 7, the Tribunal looked objectively at the request. The Appellant was looking for any recorded information from third parties to support the threats and allegations outlined in the email dated 26th November 2020. The email in question appeared at page 37 of the pdf bundle and was an email from the Respondent to the Appellant closing his complaint about the Council’s Clerk and the Council’s views that the complaint was a continuation of the Appellant’s vexatious behaviour towards the Clerk and members of the Parish Council. The Appellant’s request asked for information, evidence and advice from third parties (i.e not the Respondent or its members/staff) to support the claim that the Appellant’s behaviour was a pattern of vexatious behaviour towards the Council and its Clerk. The FOIA regime requires the Respondent to confirm whether any recorded information was held, and if it was, to consider whether it should be released or whether an exemption applies. The 2024 response was somewhat confusing as to whether information was received from external agencies generally as appears to be suggested from the wording of the response, or whether the agencies had given information to support the threats and allegations which is the defining character of the request. The Tribunal considered that this request had not been answered properly.[66]In summary there were two discrete aspects of the requests for information which had not been responded to by the Respondent and required a focussed response –(a) Request 6 - I also request a copy of any supporting ledgers, etc, stating the financial details for each of these assets, for both 2019-20 and for 2020-21.(b) Request 7 - In your email dated 26 November 2020 you reiterate allegations and threats of harassment under the Prevention of Harassment Act 1997. What [recorded] advice, information or evidence has Potto council received from third parties (eg, YLCA), to support these persistent threats?[67]The Tribunal considered it appropriate to give the Respondent an opportunity to address those aspects of the requests for information that had not been answered within these proceedings before making any final findings on the contempt application. The Respondent is directed to provide a response within 21 days of receipt of this document and provide a copy to both the Tribunal and the Appellant. The Tribunal will then independently consider whether the Respondent has fully complied with the substituted decision notice. The Tribunal does not require any further submission from either party, but they have leave to file the same no later than 14 days after the response from the Respondent.[68]The Tribunal will send this document to both parties together with an Order confirming our directions. District Judge Moan sitting as a Judge of the First Tier Tribunal 31st January 2025