City Doctoral Researchers Association v The Information Commissioner [2026] UKFTT 508 (GRC)

“Having considered City’s handling of Your Request, and your concerns outlined above I consider that City was correct in issuing a Refusal Notice in respect of Your Request and confirming that City would not be processing your Request further. As was explained in Our Response, City estimates that the costs of complying with your Request in full would considerably exceed the ‘appropriate limit,’ as defined by the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and prescribed by the Freedom of Information and Data Protection (Appropriate Limit and Fees) Regulations 2004. City is therefore under Section 12(1) of FOIA allowed to refuse to comply with Your Request as it estimates that the cost of compliance with your Request would exceed the appropriate limit. As City explained, and you have acknowledged, the appropriate limit is currently set at £450. This equates to 18 hours of City staff time (including any external contractors) spent on the activities described above, where a flat hourly rate of £25 per person per hour is applied. City estimated that it would take at least 100+ hours to: run the IT searches to determine whether the information is held; to locate and retrieve the information; and to extract the requested specific information. City is unable to confirm whether it holds the information you have requested as it would exceed the appropriate limit to determine whether City holds this information. We would need to retrieve the substantial number of email exchanges you have referred to and then search for the requested information within these, and the time required to undertake this exercise would itself exceed the appropriate limit. I have noted that you have not sought to narrow the scope of Your Request as we had in Our Response proposed you might do. I have also addressed below the concerns you have raised in relation to Our Response in your request for an internal review which I summarised above. 1. Separate Topics: You have suggested that if Your Request is considered as two separate requests: Request 1 – Publication of a Paper and Unauthorised Use of Intellectual Property; and Request 2 – Investigation, Grievances, Student and Group Complaints and Student Representation and these are considered separately, it will be possible to allocate resources more efficiently and ensure the appropriate limit is not inappropriately applied across the entire request. You consider this approach could facilitate a more manageable and targeted response. This separation explains your purpose for requesting the respective information. However, this does not impact the breadth of the request you have made and the need for City to run the searches to locate all of the emails to and from the long list of individuals you have identified (and related documents) in relation to the specific matters you have identified in your Request; and then to review these emails to locate, retrieve and extract the wide categories of information you have requested in your Request. I do not consider that assessing your Request as two separate Requests with the matters you have specified will impact on the time required for City to manage and respond to your Request. Whilst IT searches would be carried out to identify the relevant emails between those named individuals in the specified periods, I anticipate that most of City’s time would be incurred in staff time searching for the requested information within the relevant emails retrieved from the IT searches (as explained further below). On this basis, even with your separation of Your Request into two topics, I anticipate that the estimate provided in our Response that City would incur at least 100+ hours to set up the search parameters, run the IT searches to determine whether the information is held, and then to locate and retrieve the information and to extract the requested specific information, would remain the same. This does not include the application of any exemptions. 2. Costs Estimate: Whilst acknowledging the £450 financial limit you have sought a more detailed breakdown of the estimated costs. Specifically, you require a detailed explanation of the tasks involved; information on any efficiency measures that can be implemented to reduce the time and cost of fulfilling the request e.g. if certain IT tools or search parameters could expedite the process; and that we let you know if similar searches have been conducted in the past which could potentially reduce the time needed for the current request and, if so, you request details on any relevant past searches that could be leveraged. You consider that understanding the basis for the estimate is essential for ensuring transparency and accountability in the allocation of resources. You understand that the appropriate limit for responding to an information request is 18 hours or £450. However, you consider that the distinct sphere of the two requests, as specified in your request for internal review, should each be considered separately to ensure the appropriate limit is not inappropriately applied across the entire request. You consider this separation will help ensure that each aspect of the request is adequately reviewed and responded to within the prescribed limits. As noted above City’s estimated costs and breakdown apply to the following actions: (1) setting up the parameters of the IT searches required to identify the relevant email exchanges between the many individuals you have named, within the time periods you have identified, to locate the emails relevant to Your Request; (2) running the IT searches to determine whether the information is held; (3) locating, retrieving and downloading the relevant emails and related documents; (4) staff searching for the requested information within the relevant emails retrieved from the IT searches to locate, retrieve and extract the requested information. City has not included any time for considering whether any of the information is protected by an exemption. I consider that the staff time for searching for the requested information within the relevant emails retrieved from the IT searches to locate, retrieve and extract the requested information would in itself far exceed the appropriate limit and agree with the estimate of the time likely to be incurred set out in Our Response. As regards efficiency measures that can be implemented to reduce the time and cost of fulfilling the request, I confirm that City does use IT tools and search parameters to locate and expedite the process of identifying and locating the information requested under FOIA. In my experience of handling FOIA requests I do not consider that any additional IT tools could be used to search for the requested information within the relevant emails retrieved from the IT searches to locate, retrieve and extract the requested information. This exercise would need to be undertaken by City staff. In relation to your question as to whether similar searches have been conducted in the past which could potentially reduce the time needed for the current request I can assure you that from City’s and my own experience over the years, City ensures that it conducts all searches for information in the most efficient manner possible using the technology and staff resources available to City. 3. Public Interest: As I have noted above, you have raised the issue of public interest. You consider the public interest in disclosing the requested information is substantial. You have stated that the information pertains to the publication of a paper and the unauthorised use of intellectual property, as well as investigations, grievances, and Doctoral Researchers’ representation. You consider transparency in these areas is crucial. As explained above, under Section 12(1) of FOIA City is allowed to refuse to comply with Your Request as it estimates that the cost of compliance with your Request would exceed the appropriate limit. City is not required to take account of any issues of public interest in its refusal where the costs limit will be exceeded. 4. Statutory Considerations: You have acknowledged the potential application of the Section 40(2) FOIA exemption to third party personal data (as we had noted in Our Response), but you consider that the public interest in accessing the requested information outweighs these considerations. Sections 40(2) and 40(3A) of FOIA provide that information is exempt from disclosure if its disclosure to a member of the public otherwise than under the Act would contravene any of the data protection principles contained in Article 5(1) of the UK General Data Protection Regulation (‘UK GDPR’). I am not able to assess the application of the Section 40(2) exemption to the information you have requested as City would need to have located the requested information to make the relevant assessment. However, if satisfied this exemption is absolute. This means that no public interest test is required to be conducted, although the public interest could be a required consideration in relation to the lawfulness of the processing of third party personal data under this exemption. You also challenge the notion that any refined or amended request submitted to City would be considered a new request subject to new statutory timescales. You consider that FOIA stipulates that refinements or amendments to an initial request should be treated as part of the original request, provided they are within reasonable limits and do not substantially alter the nature of the request or incur significant additional costs. However, I note that ICO Guidance specifies any refined request becomes a new request. This means that the statutory time for compliance begins on the date of the receipt of that new request as City advised in Our Response. You also refer to Article 15 of the UK GDPR guaranteeing individuals the right to request their personal data and request amendments or clarifications without resetting statutory timelines unreasonably. You state that the exemptions protect the privacy of individuals which you respect. However, you urge transparency in how these exemptions are applied. As noted above, I am not able to assess the application of the Section 40(2) exemption to the information you have requested as City would need to have located the requested information to make the relevant assessment. However, I confirm it is City’s practice when applying exemptions and withholding or redacting information to do so with appropriate justifications and explanations. I appreciate that this may not be the result that you were hoping for, but I am satisfied that Our Response meets the requirements of the FOIA.”

“Section 12 of FOIA – cost limit Section 12(1) allows a public authority to refuse to comply with a request for information if the authority estimates that the cost of compliance would exceed the ‘appropriate limit’, as defined by the Freedom of Information and Data Protection (Appropriate Limit and Fees) Regulations 2004 (the Regulations). Section 12(2) allows a public authority to refuse to confirm or deny whether it holds information of the nature requested if simply to do so would in itself exceed the appropriate limit. The appropriate limit for central government departments is £600 and £450 for all other public authorities. The Regulations allow a public authority to charge the following activities at a flat rate of £25 per hour of staff time: • determining whether the information is held; locating the information, or a document which may • contain the information; • retrieving the information, or a document which may contain the information; and • extracting the information from a document containing it. In order to assist with our determination in this case please answer the following questions. which may In order to assist with our determination in this case please answer the following 1. With reference to the four activities set out above, please provide a detailed estimate of the time/cost taken to provide the information falling within the scope of this request. (Or confirming whether information falling within the scope of the request is held). When providing these calculations please include a description of the nature the type of work that would need to be undertaken (e.g. searching X number of files– 1 hour). In providing this estimate please be aware that a number of Information Tribunals have made it clear that an estimate for the purposes of section 12 has to be ‘reasonable’ which means that it is not sufficient for a public authority to simply assert that the appropriate limit has been met; rather the estimate should be realistic, sensible and supported by cogent evidence. 2. Please clarify whether a sampling exercise has been undertaken in order to determine this estimate. 3. Please also confirm that the estimate has been based upon the quickest method of gathering the requested information, for example, where possible databases would be used rather than searching manual files. 4. Section 16 places a duty on a public authority to provide advice and assistance to someone making an information request, including helping an applicant refine a request so that it can be answered within the appropriate costs limit. Therefore, please clarify the nature of any advice and assistance given to the applicant in this case and if no advice and assistance was provided please explain why not.”

“To determine whether the requested information is held, a sample exercise using Microsoft Purview was conducted. The exercise involved searching across the following mailboxes mentioned in the request: • [NAME REDACTED] <[EMAIL REDACTED] >; • [NAME REDACTED] <[EMAIL REDACTED] > ; • [NAME REDACTED] <[EMAIL REDACTED] >; and • [NAME REDACTED];; • [EMAIL REDACTED]; The search of the above mailboxes was conducted using the following keywords aligned with the request: • [NAME REDACTED] / General Secretary; • Team Members ([NAMES REDACTED]) ; • Senate Representation; • PhD Reps / Representation; • Post grad network; • City Doctoral Researchers’ Association From the above mailboxes the search returned 6,559 emails.. As each email varied in size we considered a proportionate average time to review each email would be approximately 2 minutes. Thus resulting in a total of 219 hours. The sample exercise indicates that a more comprehensive search to confirm whether the requested information is held would require significantly more time. The five mailboxes reviewed represents a small portion of the relevant email accounts as mentioned within the request, from this sample it is predicted that searching all of the mailboxes outlined in the request would likely involve reviewing thousands of emails. This would far exceed the 18 hour cost limit set out in section 12 of the FOIA.”

“We can confirm that the initial estimate provided in our response was conducted by previous members of the Information Assurance team who no longer work at the University. Therefore, this exercise was conducted by myself in order to comply and confirm the initial response. I can confirm that Microsoft Purview has been used to gather the information required to carry out the sample exercise.”

“I can confirm that the quickest method was used. An extensive sampling exercise using Microsoft Purview / e-discovery searches has been undertaken by myself to determine the estimate provided. This exercise involved the searching of 5 relevant mailboxes from the wide range of mailboxes/accounts outlined by the applicant's request”

“To advise and assist the requestor in refining their request, the requestor was asked to consider: • Specifically stating what information he/she wished to obtain • Narrowing the scope of the request by restricting the timeframes, reducing the number of named individuals and/or search terms. In accordance with Section 16 FOIA, advice and assistance was offered to the requestor in both our initial response as well as out response to the internal review received.”

“1. Breach of Statutory Deadlines and Case Law: The third party failed to respond to the request within the 20-working-day statutory deadline required by section 10(1) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000. While FOIA allows for limited extensions in certain circumstances, these extensions must still be reasonable and, according to the Respondent's Code of Practice, should not normally exceed a total of 40 working days. In IC-221204-J5M2, the Respondent found that delays exceeding these timeframes constituted breaches of FOIAs procedural requirements, specifically sections 17(3) and 17(5), and criticized the authority for not responding within the statutory and recommended periods. 2. Sections 12 and 16 Applied Unreasonably: The cost estimate under s12 was insufficiently justified, relying on a partial sample without demonstrating its representativeness or providing a detailed breakdown. The refusal to engage meaningfully with the proposal to split the request, fell short of the duty under s.16. Respondent's guidance and case law make clear that public authorities must work with requesters to help bring requests within the cost limit, not simply reject them on cost grounds. 3. Public Interest: The requested information related to compliance with statutory obligations—matters of clear public interest. In IC-221204-J5M2, the Respondent found as found that transparency about how public bodies make decisions outweighed the "effective conduct of public affairs" exemption, especially since the decision was already made and arguments for withholding were generic. The Respondent stressed that public interest assessments must be case-specific and that broad or administrative justifications do not override the public interest in transparency regarding statutory compliance. Under FOIA, disclosure is favored where it enhances understanding of how public bodies perform their legal duties. 4. Inconsistent Treatment of Request Refinement and Statutory Timelines: The decision is wrong because, under FOIA and Respondent's guidance, only a substantially revised or clarified request—especially after advice and assistance—should be treated as a new request that restarts the 20-working-day deadline. Minor clarifications should not be used to delay disclosure. The third party's approach, and the Respondent's acceptance of it, risks frustrating access to information and undermines the principles of transparency and fairness in FOIA.”

“This separation explains your purpose for requesting the respective information. However, this does not impact the breadth of the request you have made and the need for City to run the searches to locate all of the emails to and from the long list of individuals you have identified (and related documents) in relation to the specific matters you have identified in your Request; and then to review these emails to locate, retrieve and extract the wide categories of information you have requested in your Request. I do not consider that assessing your Request as two separate Requests with the matters you have specified will impact on the time required for City to manage and respond to your Request.”

“We respectfully decline the suggestion to narrow the scope of the request. Both aspects of the inquiry are integral to Our mission of promoting transparency and accountability within Our academic community.” aspects of the inquiry are integral to Our mission of promoting transparency and accountability within Our academic community.”