Robert William Sloan v The Information Commissioner [2025] UKFTT 627 (GRC)

[2025] UKFTT 00627 (GRC)Case Reference: FT/EA/2024/0402
First-tier Tribunal
(General Regulatory Chamber)
Hearing Heard on: 29 May 2025Date 3 June 2025
Information Rights
Heard by Cloud Video Platform
Before
JUDGE HEALDMEMBER SCOTTMEMBER SIVERS
Between
ROBERT WILLIAM SLOANAppellantTHE INFORMATION COMMISSIONERRespondentMr Sloan appeared in person for Appellantno attendance. for RespondentDecision: The Appeal is DismissedREASONS
[1]This Decision relates to an Appeal brought by the Appellant pursuant to section 57 Freedom of Information Act 2000 ("FOIA"). It is in respect of the Decision Notice (“DN”) issued by the Information Commissioner (“the IC”) on 6 September 2024 (ref IC-307602-V3M7). It concerns a request for information (“the Request”) made by the Appellant on 13 February 2024 to Lancaster University ("the University") as set out in the Annex to this Decision.[2]What follows is a summary of the submissions, evidence and our view of the law. It does not seek to provide every step of our reasoning. The absence of a reference to any specific submission or evidence does not mean it has not been considered.[3]References to page numbers in this Decision are to the open bundle ("the Bundle") produced for the Appeal. Parties and the background[4]The University was established in the 1960s and is now based just outside Lancaster. The Appellant is not a former employee or otherwise connected to the University. He did say that he perceives dealing with it to be a "David versus Goliath" situation (B90).[5]In summary there was (and it may still exist) a group called variously The Lancaster University Continuing Learning Group or the Senior Learning Group or Senior Learners Group ("the Group"). It had a number of people who ran it. The Appellant was not part the Group. He attended one lecture on 23 January 2019 on non violent communication. He told us that its purpose was to facilitate learning for older people and they did this for example by putting on lectures.[6]There is a disagreement about whether the Group is part of the University. The Appellant says in effect that it is a part. The University told the IC (B98) that the Group "... are autonomous to the University in both the setting and the running of the Group and are not subject to the Freedom of Information Act" but that:- "Some of the members of the Group hold honorary researcher positions at the University and as such have University IT accounts and other privileges of the University afforded to them. These privileges include access to the University’s IT facilities and the ability to book rooms on our main campus. This meant that many of the communications from the Group were sent from IT accounts linked to the University and that many (but not all) in-person events were held in University buildings"[7]On 5 July 2021 the Appellant emailed and asked (B141) "Please add me to your Mailing List, as shown by <Join Our Mailing List>...." On 12 October 2021 he was notified (B141) that he was going to be excluded from the Group's activities as follows:- "Thank you for your email. The organising committee have discussed your request with the department head and decided that it is in the best interests of the programme not to add you to the mailing list or admit you to the lectures"[8]On 26 October 2021 the Appellant complained to the University's Vice Chancellor about the exclusion. This was not in the Bundle but the Appellant told us that he asked about the status of the Group and why he had been excluded.[9]In a partially redacted email of 1 December 2021 (B108) the writer says (about the Appellant's membership of the Group):- "I have therefore asked our organising committee to exclude him from our activities as I feel quite threatened in his presence. Perhaps we could have a chat on the phone in the first instance to see what information you might require in order to respond to him?"[10]From B109 there appears to have been a "Complaint Meeting" on 2 February 2022 at which the Appellant's complaint was to be discussed.[11]On 3 February 2022 (B111) the University replied saying:- "I am writing to you in final response to your letter dated 26 October 2021 asking the University to look into the reasons for your exclusion from the Senior Learners Group. The Senior Learners Group is an autonomous group with no affiliation with the University other than the organisers have access to IT facilities and the ability to book rooms for the groups use because of their status at the University. Therefore because of the groups autonomous status the University does not have any authority regarding membership to or exclusion from the group, so any regress you seek in regards to your own exclusion can only be taken up with them. If the group, for reasons known only to them are not prepared to enter into a discourse with you about this matter then again the University is not in a position to or has the authority to intervene or act on your behalf in such matters. The University therefore considers its role in this matter closed. "[12]As to why he was excluded we saw in the Bundle (B99) that the University says the cause of his exclusion from the Group was:- "Due to these allegations of the requester’s past behaviour and conduct towards individuals, the Group organising committee took the decision to exclude the requester from the Group and any Group activities/events. The requester was then informed that they had been exclude from the Group and that they would not be placed on the Group’s mailing list nor permitted to attend lectures/events run by the Group."[13]The Appellant told us that finding out why he was excluded from the Group is why he made the Request and why he has been making FOIA requests to the University. He does not accept there were or should have been any genuine concerns about his behaviour. He thinks the reason for his exclusion may have been connected to a disagreement he had while a director of Halton Senior Cohousing Limited ("Halton") with a co-director who is also in a leadership role with the Group. He thinks he was treated unfairly by her in connection with Halton and she was apprehensive about that and his presence at the Group's event because that was an embarrassment for her.[14]On 15 June 2022 the Appellant made a FOIA request to the University (A31)asking:- "1. What is the formal status of The Lancaster University Continuing Learning Group? 2. Does the Lancaster University Continuing Learning Group operate under the auspices of C4AR in the Dept of Health and Medicine? 3. Are Janet Ross-Mills and David Penner accredited honorary staff members in C4AR and or the Department of Health and Medicine? 4. Is Professor Catherine Walshe the Head of Department referred to in Janet Ross-Mills' email dated 12 October 2021? (Copy attached) 5. What matters or issues did Janet Ross-Mills present to 'The organising committee' and 'department head' that warranted my exclusion from Lancaster University Senior Learner's Group? 6. Why was I not accorded access to such matters or issues and denied any option to review or appeal? 7. What steps did Barbara Pilkington take to deal with my letter of complaint to Professor Andy Schofield dated 26 October 2021 (Copy attached) 8. Why was there a delay of three (3) months before her final report dated 3 February 2022 to effect that '... the University is not in a position to or has the authority to intervene [on my behalf] in such matters.'? (Copy attached) 9. Does the Human Rights Act 1989 requirement that any exclusion from education be both 'Reasonable' and 'Proportionate' pertain to a public body offering Adult Education?"[15]The University responded on 4 July 2022 (B114- B117) and gave information in response to questions 1, 4 and 7. For questions 2 and 3 it applied section 21 FOIA and provided links. Questions 8 and 9 were said to be "speculative questions rather than requests for information." For questions 5 and 6 the University said it did not hold the information.[16]On 2 August 2022 (B112) the Appellant requested an internal review. This is at B123. The reply is at B123 to B125. The Decision ref IC-103080-V7D4 of 16 March 2023 said:- "7.

(a) , 38(1)(b) and 40(2) of the FOIA"

[17]The IC (A31/C183) decided that section 21 FOIA was an appropriate response for questions 2 and 3, section 40(2) FOIA was an appropriate response as regards question 5, the information at 6 is not held on the balance of probabilities and the University should respond to question 9. There was no appeal.[18]The Appellant made further requests for information (before the Request directly relevant to this Appeal dated 19 February 2024) as follows. 19 August 2022[19]This request (B126) asked for:- “...full and detailed particulars of all files containing the recorded ‘correspondence and discussion’ with the necessary and appropriate individuals related to the complaint’. This in any and whatever format including diary records of telephone or face to face conversations"[20]The University say (B99) that this request was asking for the same information exempted from "the request that was considered by the Commissioner in IC-193080-V7D4."[21]The University responded on 30 August 2022(B126- 127). They told the Appellant that the information was held but that they intended to apply the exemptions set out in sections 40(1), 40(2), 38(1)(a) & 31(1)(b)FOIA. He made no complaint to the IC. 19 April 2023[22]In an email of 15 August 2023 (B154) from the Appellant to the University reference is made to a request dated 19 April 2023. He asked:- "Please DISCLOSE the requested information with or without ANALYSIS which the Commissioner did NOT require the University to undertake."[23]The Appellant told us that he is not sure what happened to this. 8 June 2023[24]In this request the Appellant asked (B145) "Who is or are the Team?" The University's Response (B145) of 21 June 2023 was to provide a link to the information and rely on the exemption at section 21 FOIA and it said:- "Information regarding the members of the University’s Information Governance Team is available on the University’s website. This information is exempt under section 21 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000; information reasonably accessible to the applicant by other means. This acts as our refusal "[25]On 14 July 2023 (B147) the Appellant asked for an internal review. He said:- "Please carry out an internal review of the response to my request dated 21 June 2023. It is my wish to be able to enquire of one or more individual, rather than have my enquiry dealt with impersonally by an amorphously anonymous ‘Team’ acting as a jury in a case with either charge, prosecution defence or any al context of Due Process”[26]On 26 July 2023 the University replied to the request for a review and said(B148):- "The University’s original response contained a URL link to where the requested information is publicly available. Therefore, it is our determination that the University was correct in applying the section 21 exemption (“Information which is reasonably accessible to the applicant”). As such, we are satisfied that the University’s original response met our obligations under the Freedom of Information Act 2000"[27]From para 23 of the DN (A11) we understand that the University's response was then the subject of a complaint to the IC which the IC says (see para 23/A11) was closed. The Appellant could not recall why it had been closed. 27 July 2023 (B150)[28]On 27 July 2023 the Appellant wrote:- "Reverting to the matter of my exclusion from lectures by the Senior Learners Group, I am now advised that the GDRP provisions include a right of access to ALL my personal data held by the University. I therefore request copies of all the emails between appropriate individuals relating to my exclusion, none of which as has been established, refer to the lecture given by Sarah Ludford on 23 January 2019 nor were directed to or received from the head of any department of the University. I realise that, these documents may be redacted to ensure the physical and mental health of the said individuals, thus complying with demands of the Public Interest that I should remain ignorant of their identity."[29]The Appellant told us that the University's response was to say he had received some of the information before and other parts could not be redacted to protect anonymity effectively. It was not the subject of a complaint to the IC. 5 January 2024[30]On 5 January 2024 the Appellant asked the University (B156):- "a) The University holds emails of which the total number is x relating to my exclusion from the Group. b) Of these the University reveals that 4 of the total specify reasons submitted for my exclusion from the Group. c) The University admits to holding an undisclosed additional number of emails in which some or all of the information captured in the 4 was repeated and captured. To ensure perfect clarity I submit this ORIGINAL QUESTION expressed in algebraic format; b) 4 + c) <an undisclosed number> = x) where x is an integer. Please reveal the numeric value of x (above)"[31]He told us that he couched the request in algebraic language to achieve clarity.[32]The University provided a response on 1 February 2024 in which it said (B156):- "The University holds a further 4 emails which contain the reasons for your exclusion from the autonomous Senior Learners Group. These were generated in the course of the University investigating your complaint"[33]It was not the subject of a complaint to the IC. It was followed by the FOIA Request of the 13 February 2024 (B158) which led to this Appeal.[34]In addition to the above the Appellant indicated he made at least two Subject Access Requests. Role of the Tribunal[35]The Tribunal's role in an appeal by section 57 FOIA is as set out in section 58 FOIA which provides that:-(1) If on an appeal under section 57 the Tribunal considers— (a) that the notice against which the appeal is brought is not in accordance with the law, or (b) to the extent that the notice involved an exercise of discretion by the Commissioner, that he ought to have exercised his discretion differently, the Tribunal shall allow the appeal or substitute such other notice as could have been served by the Commissioner; and in any other case the Tribunal shall dismiss the appeal.(2) On such an appeal, the Tribunal may review any finding of fact on which the notice in question was based.[36]We had regard to:-(a) NHS England -v- Information Commissioner and Dean [2019] UKUT 145 (ACC) where the UT said "10. The First-tier Tribunal ‘exercises a full merits appellate jurisdiction and so stands in the shoes of the IC and decides which (if any) exemptions apply...(b) Peter Wilson -v- The Information Commissioner [2022] UKFTT 0149 in which the FtT said:- 30...the Tribunal’s statutory role is to consider whether there is an error of law or inappropriate exercise of discretion in the Decision Notice. The Tribunal may not allow an appeal simply because it disagrees with the Information Commissioner’s Decision. It is also not the Tribunal’s role to conduct a procedural review of the Information Commissioner’s decision making process or to correct the drafting of the Decision Notice.” Matters considered and evidence[37]At the Appeal the Tribunal heard directly from the Appellant and he is thanked for his attendance and his assistance to us. There were no witnesses or witness statements from or on behalf of either party or the University. Further the University did not become a party and we noted that in Case Management Directions of 7 February 2025 it is recorded that (C199) "Lancaster University informed the Tribunal on 12 December 2024 that they do not wish to be added to the case as the Second Respondent."[38]For the Appeal we had the Bundle of 200 pdf pages and a closed bundle of 22 pdf pages. The Appellant had the Bundle but indicated he might not be able to access it speedily. Relevant documents were therefore read out to him where needed.[39]The closed material provided to the Tribunal was held as provided for by rule 14(6) The Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (General Regulatory Chamber) Rules 2009 ("2009 Rules") and the Order of 8 April 2025. Para 5 of the Order referred to a gist of the closed material as being set out in a Form GRC5 dated 21 February 2025. This was not in the Bundle and the Appellant did not recall seeing it. As explained to the Appellant at the hearing the Closed Bundle contained 4 items. Each also appears in the Bundle in a partially redacted form. The Closed version is an unreacted version of those 4 otherwise open documents. Each redaction goes to issues connected to why the University says the Appellant was removed from the Group. As explained to the Appellant we did not consider the closed material was relevant or necessary to reach a conclusion as to whether the Request is vexatious and we did not have regard to it. From Request to Appeal (overview)[40]On 13 February 2024 the Appellant made the Request to the University (B58) set out in the Annex. On 19 February 2024 the University did try to seek clarification of the Request (B160) but the response of 20 February 2024 will not have assisted (B160).[41]On 8 March 2024 the University responded to the Request (B61/62) and indicated that they refused to reply on the basis of section 14 FOIA namely that in their view the Request was vexatious. On 9 May 2024 (B65) the Appellant asked that the University review their Response. The University on 15 May 2024 (B66) said that it refused to carry out an internal review as the request for it had been received more than 40 days after their initial response.[42]In the meantime on 16 March 2024 the Appellant had complained to the IC (B70) supported by his letter of 31 March 2024 to the IC (B72). The Complaint was:- "The public body has not responded to my request for an internal review, or has refused to conduct an internal review, I disagree with the public body's refusal to provide the information I requested" and "Lancaster University Information and Governance Team (a body comprising 25 individuals vs my unsupported self) has invoked FOIA Section 14 and refuses to review neither FOI-5819 nor it's unexamined predecessor FOI#5769."[43]On 6 September 2024 (A6) the IC notified the Appellant in DN IC-307602-V3M7 that "2. The Commissioner’s decision is that the request was vexatious and therefore the university was entitled to rely upon section 14(1) of FOIA to refuse it".[44]This Appeal (A18) is from that DN. It was commenced later than as provided for by the 2009 Rules and was dated 8 October 2024. The Notice of Appeal was supported by a number of documents (A31-A50). It stated that the reasons for the Appeal were (A25):- "THE UNIVERSITY HAS MISINTERPRETED MY PERSISTENCE AS VEXATIOUS. ITS CONTINUED DEFENSIVENESS TO MY INFERENCE OF A HUMAN RIGHTS ISSUE IS SELF-EVIDENT. N.B. I am in the process of seeking legal advice on the matter. "[45]The Appellant's stated outcome sought was (A26):- "CLEARING THE WAY TO RESOLUTION OF THE ISSUE"[46]Since the Appeal was commenced the IC responded to it on 24 December 2024 (A51-A53) and there have been various Case Management Directions including on on 27 November 2024 (C193) by which the Registrar allowed the late Appeal to proceed. FOIA[47]FOIA provides that any person making a request for information to a public authority is entitled to be informed in writing if that information is held (section 1(1)(a) FOIA) and if that is the case to be provided with that information (section 1 (1)(b) FOIA). These entitlements are subject to a number of exemptions and in addition for example to the provisions of section 14(1) FOIA. By section 84 FOIA information for these purposes means "information recorded in any form". Scope[48]While there may be disputes in the background the sole issue for this Appeal was for there to be consideration of whether the IC was right to agree that the Request was vexatious. Law – section 14 FOIA[49]Section 14(1) FOIA provides that “section 1(1) does not oblige a public authority to comply with a request for information if the request is vexatious.”[50]FOIA does not provide a definition of the word vexatious. Judge Wikeley in the UT in Information Commissioner vs Devon County Council & Dransfield [2012] UKUT 440 (AAC), (28 January 2013) provided this guidance on its meaning “vexatious” connotes manifestly unjustified, inappropriate or improper use of a formal procedure”[51]The Decision in Dransfield provides guidance on the approach to section 14(1) FOIA. Four broad and non exhaustive issues were identified for consideration namely(1) the burden on the public authority and its staff(2) the motive of the requester(3) the value or serious purpose of the request, and(4) the presence of any harassment or distress.[52]As regards burden:- “..the present or future burden on the public authority may be inextricably linked with the previous course of dealings. Thus the context and history of the particular request, in terms of the previous course of dealings between the individual requester and the public authority in question, must be considered in assessing whether it is properly to be characterised as vexatious. In particular, the number, breadth, pattern and duration of previous requests may be a telling factor.” “the greater the number of previous FOIA requests that the individual has made to the public authority concerned, the more likely it may be that a further request may properly be found to be vexatious. “ “..requester who consistently submits multiple FOIA requests or associated correspondence within days of each other, or relentlessly bombards the public authority with e-mail traffic, is more likely to be found to have made a vexatious request.” “a long history of requests e.g. over several years may make what would otherwise be, taken in isolation, an entirely reasonable request, wholly unreasonable in the light of the anticipated present and future burden on the public authority.[53]On motive:- “...the motive of the requester may well be a relevant and indeed significant factor in assessing whether the request itself is vexatious. The FOIA mantra is that the Act is both “motive blind” and “applicant blind”. ….., the proper application of section 14 cannot side-step the question of the underlying rationale or justification for the request. What may seem an entirely reasonable and benign request may be found to be vexatious in the wider context of the course of dealings between the individual and the relevant public authority. Thus vexatiousness may be found where an original and entirely reasonable request leads on to a series of further requests on allied topics, where such subsequent requests become increasingly distant from the requester’s starting point.” “...it is important to bear in mind that the right to information under FOIA is a significant but not an overriding right in a modern democratic society. As has already been noted, it is a right that is qualified or circumscribed in various ways. Those restrictions reflect other countervailing public interests, including the importance of an efficient system of public administration. Thus section 14 serves the legitimate public interest in public authorities not being exposed to irresponsible use of FOIA, especially by repeat requesters whose inquiries may represent an undue and disproportionate burden on scarce public resources.”[54]For the question of the value or serious purpose and again from Dransfield:- “Does the request have a value or serious purpose in terms of the objective public interest in the information sought? In some cases the value or serious purpose will be obvious – say a relative has died in an institutional setting in unexplained circumstances, and a family member makes a request for a particular internal policy document or good practice guide. On the other hand, the weight to be attached to that value or serious purpose may diminish over time. For example, if it is truly the case that the underlying grievance has been exhaustively considered and addressed, then subsequent requests (especially where there is “vexatiousness by drift”) may not have a continuing justification. In other cases, the value or serious purpose may be less obvious from the outset. Of course, a lack of apparent objective value cannot alone provide a basis for refusal under section 14, unless there are other factors present which raise the question of vexatiousness. In any case, given that the legislative policy is one of openness, public authorities should be wary of jumping to conclusions about there being a lack of any value or serious purpose behind a request simply because it is not immediately self-evident.”[55]Finally on the question of harassment and distress:- “vexatiousness may be evidenced by obsessive conduct that harasses or distresses staff, uses intemperate language, makes wide-ranging and unsubstantiated allegations of criminal behaviour or is in any other respects extremely offensive”[56]These questions are non exhaustive and illustrative only. As was said in Dransfield:- “...the observations that follow should not be taken as imposing any prescriptive and all encompassing definition upon an inherently flexible concept which can take many different forms.”…...“There is no magic formula – all the circumstances need to be considered in reaching what is ultimately a value judgement as to whether the request in issue is vexatious in the sense of being a disproportionate, manifestly unjustified, inappropriate or improper use of FOIA”.[57]In Dransfield-v-(1) Information Commissioner and(2) Devon County Council and Craven -v-(1) The Information Commissioner and (2) The Department for Energy and Climate Change [2015] EWCA Civ 454 the Court of Appeal added (para 68):- “The decision maker should consider all the relevant circumstances in order to reach a balanced conclusion as to whether a request is vexatious”[58]Arden LJ in the Court of Appeal in Dransfield (at 68) held:- "…Parliament has chosen a strong word which therefore means that the hurdle of satisfying it is a high one, and that is consistent with the constitutional nature of the right.” The position of the parties in the Bundle[59]The University's explanation to the Appellant as to why it considered the Request to be vexatious is set out in its reply to the Request of 8 March 2024. They say (from B62):- "The section 14 exemption is perhaps something that is not as clear-cut as the exemptions under Part 2 of the Act. As the Upper Tribunal in Information Commissioner vs Devon County Council & Dransfield [2012] UKUT 440 (AAC), (28th January 2013) observed; ‘There is…no magic formula – all the circumstances need to be considered in reaching what is ultimately a value judgement as to whether the request in issue is vexatious in the sense of being a disproportionate, manifestly unjustified, inappropriate or improper use of FOIA’ The ICO advises that authorities should therefore consider the purpose of the legislation, and review requests by taking into account any wider value or public interest in making the requested information publicly available.” The Upper Tribunal considered that there are four broad themes which should be considered when assessing whether a request should be rejected under section 14 of the Act. The four broad themes are: the burden (on the public authority and its staff); - the motive (of the requester); - the value or serious purpose (of the request); and - any harassment or distress (of and to staff). - The submitted request is extremely narrow in scope, and even then, it is difficult to understand the benefits to the public in the pursuance of a wholly private matter (exclusion from a group autonomous to the University), raising queries in relation to the minutiae of information held (e.g. were certain emails direct replies to other emails) by the University. It is clear from previous interactions with the requester that this request has been made for purely private reasons with no public interest in the release of the requested information, and therefore has not been made within the letter or the spirit of the Act. It is almost impossible to see how responding to the request would serve the wider public interest, especially when balanced against the burden on the University. Requests of this nature do cause disproportionate disruption to public authorities and take resources away from processing valid requests submitted in the public interest. This is especially pertinent in this case as the information requested relates to a group which is autonomous to the University (the Senior Learners Group) and the only reason the University holds the majority of this information is due to a complaint generated by the requester in the mistaken understanding that this group was a Lancaster University activity. It is clear that the request has no serious value or purpose, and the release of the information would serve no wider public interest. It would not, for example: hold a public authority to account for their performance; - help the public understand how we make our decisions; - ensure transparency of the public authority; or - ensure justice. - We also note that, when we approached the requester asking for clarification on a number of points related to this latest request, rather than provide the requested clarification, the requester simply resent their original request (20 Feb 2024) stating that:
“For your information I have attached a PDF copy designated FOI Request 5796 dated13 February 2024. I trust that further consideration of this document whatever it’s shortcomings will clarify your understanding of the specific points I raised therein.”
When considering the above against ICO guidance on the application of section 14 of the Act, we note that “rejecting advice and attempts to assist out of hand” and “taking an unreasonably entrenched position” are two of the factors which may indicate that a request may be considered to be a form of harassment, as identified in the Dransfield decision. The requester then sent a further email (22 Feb 2024) stating:
“I am advised by the Office of the Information Commissioner to respond to your FOI-5819 misunderstanding by re-submitting my original request and your replies dated 21 February 2024 for Second Level review”
. The requester sent this email to 25 members of staff within the Division of Strategic Planning and Governance, in which the University’s Information Governance team reside. The requester is fully aware of the email addresses by which to send requests or clarifications to, having made a number of requests via these email addresses in the past. We can only surmise that by sending the ‘clarification’ email to 25 members of staff within the wider division that the requester was attempting to further increase the burden of this latest request on the University. We have previously provided the requester with the number of emails held by the University containing the reasons for their exclusion (FOI ref 5664 & 5769), along with other ancillary information, and we feel that we have given this requester a certain amount of leeway in previous requests of this nature. However, we feel that this latest request crosses the line into vexatiousness due to the lack of serious value and/or purpose, the lack of public interest in the requested information, and the associated burden on staff and the authority. We also have concerns that communications around the request, and the request itself, may fulfil the ‘harassment’ theme identified by the Upper Tribunal in the Dransfield case. This acts as our refusal notice."[60]The University's position can also be seen inits redacted response to the IC of 19 August 2024 (B98-B107).[61]The IC in the DN set out its understanding of the history of the matter from the University's perspective (A9-A15). It then recorded what it understood to be the Appellant's position from para 41 (A15) where they said:-"41. The complainant’s initial complaint to the Commissioner explained what they believed had “triggered Section 14. I had the temerity to address my singular insignificant unadvised self to the Whole TEAM. How very DISRUPTIVE !!!”.42. The complainant explained to the Commissioner that they are keen to resolve this matter informally and referred to the Commissioner’s letter which includes the following:
“‘Where possible the Information Commissioner prefers complaints to beresolved informally […]’”
. The complainant also referred to the Commissioner inviting the university to revisit their request. The Commissioner notes that these two expressions are included in the Commissioner’s investigation letters in an attempt to reset an often entrenched position on both sides. 43. The complainant contended that they had considered “my own perception of anything in or about my request that LU might possibly have perceived or interpreted as vexatious”. They described their “intention in addressing all 25 members of their previously unrevealed Division of Strategic Planning and Governance (as distinct from simply ‘Infomation and Governance’ <foi@lancaster.ac.uk> ) was to make clear my irritation at The Team’s form of address. I would certainly not have been irritated had ‘Dear [redacted title and name]’, rather than the quasi-personal ‘Dear [redacted whole name]’ been the formula”. 44. The complainant suggests that - “one or more of the 25 will have been legally qualified and fully conversant with FOIA and previous interpretations thereof, it seemed the intention was to intimidate, thus inhibiting any further reference to or investigation of the potential Human Rights Issue clearly acknowledged by the Commissioner in IC-193080-V7D4…”[62]The IC's conclusions in the DN are set out from para 45 (A16) as follows:-"45. In cases where a public authority is relying on section 14(1), it is for the public authority to demonstrate why it considers that a request is a disproportionate, manifestly unjustified, inappropriate or improper use of FOIA. The university has provided the Commissioner with additional information to support the citing of section 14(1) of FOIA that cannot be included here for personal data reasons.46. The university has provided information to the complainant in response to previous requests. IC-193080-V7D4 has already been considered by the Commissioner and this request appears to be an attempt to revisit it.47. The Commissioner has spoken to the complainant who provided him with the context and background to this request. He is unable to set out those details for reasons of personal data, both the complainant’s and third parties. The complainant did not want to use feelings but did say that they felt as if they were in a David and Goliath situation with the university.48. Although the Commissioner understands the complainant’s need to examine how this occurred and the resentment it has clearly caused, he considers this request to be an example of what has now become unreasonable persistence and, if the university provided information, is only likely to lead to more requests. The Commissioner does not accept that the complainant is going to find closure by making FOI requests stemming from an incident that occurred some years ago involving third party personal data. The university has explained the scattergun approach the complainant has taken by sending emails to multiple addresses which resulted in a diversion from the Information Governance’s core functions. There is very limited value in complying with this request, except to the complainant, who appears to have exhausted other avenues and wishes to continue a dispute via the FOIA route. This is not what the legislation was intended for and the Commissioner therefore finds that the university is entitled to rely on section 14(1) of FOIA." Submissions made at the Appeal[63]At the Appeal the Appellant made submissions on each element of the test set out in Dransfield.[64]The Request itself (see the Annex) was read out to him. He said he did not consider answering this should be a burden on the University. He pointed to there being a team of 25 at the University to deal with it. He thought it might take an hour once the information had been obtained.[65]He also did not believe that all the FOIA requests taken together should have been collectively burdensome although he said he understood if they had become "a nuisance ". In his view any burden had been the result of the University deciding not to be open about what he was asking.[66]The Appellant told us that his motivation or serious purpose for the Request (indeed all the requests) was to find out and understand why he had been excluded from the Group. He told us that he was "bemused" and cross about the decision. The value to him in getting an answer was so he could understand it and if he is being lied to then he wants to know that.[67]He was asked how the information (if disclosed) would be valuable more widely. He said that in his view it would be of interest to other members of the Group and more generally that everyone would be interested if someone's human rights had been infringed.[68]On harassment he told us he did not think it applied to him but that he accepted that he sent the email to the 25 people to be a little proactive and at times was being sarcastic in his communications with the University.[69]He was asked if his requests had, in his view, became obsessive (as referred to in Dransfield). He said no but that he agreed he was very persistent.[70]The Appellant was asked to consider the content of the Request (which was read out) and then ask himself and tell the panel how answers to the Request would assist him in his motivating desire to understand why he had been excluded from the Group. After some consideration he was not able to tell us. Our review[71]The Appellant told us that his motivation for the Request (and the prior requests) was to obtain an answer to the question "why was I excluded." This is a serious purpose for him and to find out the answer is important to him and has a clear value to him.[72]While recognising that the Appellant accepted he had at times been provocative and sarcastic we did not conclude that the matters complained of such as emailing 25 people amounted to harassment or vexatiousness of a type set out in Dransfield.[73]However, having considered the Bundle and the Appellant's submissions at the Appeal and reviewed the evidence holistically we concluded that the Request was vexatious. Our principal reasons for this conclusion are that-(a) to provide answers to the Request would take the University time (and longer in our view than the 1 hour referred to by the Appellant). While in itself this did not render the Request a burden we also had regard to the existence of at least 5 or 6 prior requests and the fact that the University had been dealing with the issues since October 2021.(b) in our view the Request and potential answers to its various elements had little or no value or serious purpose in terms of the objective public interest.(c) none of the Request even if answered would assist the Appellant in finding out why he had been excluded and therefore would have no value to him in light of his stated motivation.(d) we are not convinced that there is a wider interest in knowing why he was excluded from the Group even if the Request might have led to an answer to that question.(e) the burden on the University to answer the Request might not be great but it would in our view be a disproportionate task when compared against the likely value to the Appellant and more widely especially when seen in the context of the work done on the prior requests.(f) even if the Request was answered it would not assist with his purpose and he would thus not be satisfied and would likely make further requests.[74]For completeness we were not convinced that all parts of the Request asked for information in a recorded form. Decision[75]Accordingly, for the reasons set out above, the relevant DN is in accordance with the law and the Appeal is dismissed. Signed Tribunal Judge Heald Date: 3 June 2025 Annex – the FOIA request of 20 February 2024 With reference to your response dated 01/02/2024 in which the University discloses that it ‘holds a further 4 emails which contain the reasons for [my] exclusion from the autonomous Senior Learners Group.’ meaning that the University confirms (a.) that it holds a total of 8 emails containing the said reasons and furthermore (b.) that only 4 of these were demonstrably disclosed to and thus considered by the Information Commissioner in arriving at FOI Decision notice IC-193080-V7D4 dated 16 March 2023. Exemption under FOIA 2000 sections 21, 40(2) was upheld but not under sections 38(1)(a) and 38(1)(b). In view of the spirit of the Commissioner’s comments in Paragraph 14, please review your response dated 01/02/2024 with reference to Paragraph 24 of IC-193080-V7D4 dated 16 March 2023 to confirm that all 8 recorded emails were disclosed to the Commissioner when arriving at that decision. Designating the 8 relevant items individually as Email 1.) > 8.) in which nos 1.) > 4.) are (ORIGINAL) and 5.) > 8.) are (FURTHER), please disclose; 1.) do the senders of Emails 4.) > 8.) specify their desired anonymity as did those of 1.) > 4. (Confirmed by IC-193080-V7D4 Paragraph 24)? 2.) how many of those in (F) constitute a direct reply to one or more in (O)? 3.) the date sent and/or received (as relevant)of each item sequentially in both groups (O) and (F) separately. 4.)how many in either group are addressed to or received from <senior.earners@lancaster.ac.uk>? 5.) how many in either group are designated <undisclosed recipients>? 6.) how many of those in (F) constitute a direct reply to issues mentioned in one or more in (O)? 7.) bearing in mind that they relate to the University’s investigation of the reasons provided in (O) how many in (F) mention or include any or all the keywords acknowledged to be found in (O) and so refer to facts and not to opinions on which the exclusions upheld by the Commissioner might be seen as not being applicable? (Ref: FOI-5664 Response dated 01/11/2023) 8.) how many in (F) include questions or similar requests for evidence as verification and substantiation of the reasons for my exclusion from lectures, and/ or indicating the direction, time taken, extent and thoroughness of the University’s investigation of [my] complaint? 9.) how many in (F) are to or from {undisclosed}@lancaster.ac.uk? 10.) does any in (F) appear to be to or from any living person acknowledged to be or to have been identifiable as the head of any Lancaster University Department? Finally, considering the Commissioner’s directive relating to the Human Rights Act, (IC-193080-V7D4 Paragraph 15) and the University’s responses (FOI-5110 dated 19/04/2023) does the University maintain the position expressed, bearing in mind that should any information as to whether the REASONS(S) for my exclusion from lectures be withheld, any consideration as to whether the decision was PROPORTIONATE is fatally obfuscated?