BAILII
British and Irish Legal Information Institute


Freely Available British and Irish Public Legal Information

[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]

First-tier Tribunal (General Regulatory Chamber)


You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> First-tier Tribunal (General Regulatory Chamber) >> Williams v Information Commissioner [2025] UKFTT 707 (GRC) (17 June 2025)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKFTT/GRC/2025/707.html
Cite as: [2025] UKFTT 707 (GRC)

[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]

Neutral Citation Number: [2025] UKFTT 707 (GRC)
Case Reference: FT/EA/2024/0372

First-tier Tribunal
(General Regulatory Chamber)
Information Rights

Heard by Cloud Video Platform
Heard on: 29 April 2025
Decision Given On: 17 June 2025

B e f o r e :

TRIBUNAL JUDGE THOMAS BARRETT
TRIBUNAL MEMBER AIMÉE GASSTON
TRIBUNAL MEMBER STEPHEN SHAW

____________________

Between:
ANTONY WILLIAMS
Appellant
- and -

THE INFORMATION COMMISSIONER
Respondent

____________________

Representation:
For the Appellant: Written submissions
For the Respondent: Written Submissions

____________________

HTML VERSION OF DECISION
____________________

Crown Copyright ©

    Decision: The appeal is Dismissed. The public authority was entitled to rely on s. 12 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 ("FOIA"). The public authority complied with its s 16 duty to provide advice and assistance.

    REASONS

    Introduction

  1. This is an appeal against the Commissioner's decision notice IC-300200-F7L7 of 28 August 2024 ("DN") which held that the British Broadcasting Corporation ("BBC") was entitled to refuse the request in reliance on FOIA section 12.
  2. The Commissioner found that the BBC had complied with its section 16 duty to provide advice and assistance. The Commissioner required no steps to be taken.
  3. The proceedings were held by video (CVP). Both Mr Williams and the Commissioner considered that the appeal could be appropriately dealt with on the papers and so did not attend, instead relying on the contents of the written representations included in the bundle. The Tribunal met by CVP and was satisfied that it was fair and just to conduct the hearing in this way.
  4. General Background

  5. The DN relates to four individual (but related) requests submitted to the BBC these are:
  6. a. Request 1 – Submitted 3 October 2023 - BBC Reference RFI20231294
    b. Request 2- - Submitted 3 November 2023 – BBC Reference RFI20231456
    c. Request 3 – Submitted 21 December 2023 – BBC Reference RFI20231639, and
    d. Request 4 – Submitted 17 January 2024 – BBC Reference RFI20240059.

    Request and Response

  7. The following paragraphs provide a summary of the key elements in the considerable correspondence and interactions that took place between Mr Williams and the BBC in relation to these requests. The details of which are set out in full in the open bundle.
  8. Request 1 stated;
  9. "Please provide details of
    1) arrangements for general public access to the Media Cafe in New Broadcasting House, London
    2) a copy of the current Public Space Management Plan as agreed by deed between the BBC and Westminster City Council
    3) Copies of written correspondence received by the BBC from, or sent Information Commissioner's Office by the BBC to Westminster City Council since 2015 on the subject of general public access to the Media Cafe in New Broadcasting House, or relating to the Public Space Management Plan."
  10. The BBC responded to this request on the 30 October 2023, addressing bullets 1) and 2) but refusing part 3) relying on s.12(1) of FOIA to do so and setting out the reasoning behind that decision. On the 3 November 2023 Mr Williams requested an internal review as regards the part 3) response and the BBC conducted that review. On the 4 December that review concluded and the result was that the original position of reliance on s.12(1) FOIA as regards part 3 was upheld, but the BBC did advise as to how the part 3) query could be refined so as to try and bring the query within the costs limit. That same day Mr Williams replied to the internal review amending the request, but only in relation to one of the suggestions made by the BBC (i.e. reducing the period from 8 years to 3 years) and asserting that the suggested refinement in relation to sender/recipient in the BBC was unreasonable.
  11. On the same day (3 November 2023) that Mr Williams requested an internal review on Request 1, he also submitted Request 2 in the following terms;
  12. "Please provide copies of all emails sent between the BBC and Westminster City Council over the past eight years".
  13. The BBC refused Request 2 on 24 November 2023 relying on s.12(1) of FOIA and provided advice and assistance as to how the request might be narrowed. Mr Williams asserted that the BBC had overestimated the resource required for a "simple electronic search" and so requested an internal review of the response to Request 2 on that same day, the 24 November 2023, and this was provided by the BBC on 21 December 2023 where they maintained their position to refuse the request on the basis of s.12(1) FOIA. The BBC again provided advice and assistance as to how the request might be successfully narrowed.
  14. Request 3 was submitted by Mr Williams on the 21 December 2023 on the same day the BBC provided an internal review to Request 2. This request stated;
  15. "Following your earlier refusals, I have made my request extremely simple to execute.
    Please provide all copies of emails currently stored in live (not archive) central mailboxes that were sent to or received from the email domain "westminster.gov.uk
    This can be done by a central search on the BBC's Microsoft Exchange email servers, and does not need to involve individual staff.
    As this is a programmatic search, there is no need for staff time to review the results for a match against the subject."
  16. The BBC responded to Request 3 on the 16 January 2024, refusing it on the basis of s.12(1) of FOIA and provided advice on how it might be refined to fall within the costs limit. Mr Williams requested an internal review on that same day and the BBC provided the internal review on the 12 March 2024. The BBC maintained its position in refusing the request on the basis of s.12(1) of FOIA and providing detailed reasoning. It also stated that it was still considering how it might provide the "most appropriate" further advice and assistance before eventually doing so on the 1May 2024.
  17. The final request, Request 4, was submitted by Mr Williams on the 17 January 2024 (i.e. the day after the BBC initially responded to Request 3). This request stated;
  18. "Please provide a list of all "departments, teams or individuals" in the BBC - for individuals, job titles will suffice."
  19. The BBC did not refuse this request and responded on 14 February 2024 by providing a list of job titles "in their associated job families". This took the form of a 2 column table, made up of job titles in one column and an associated employee count for each job title. The Job title column was further subdivided with subtitles such as "Finance", "Human Resources" and "Programme Scheduling".
  20. Mr Williams again requested an internal review of this response on the 18 February 2024 on the basis that the BBC had not provided information about departments or teams. The BBC internal review for Request 4 was provided on 16 April 2024 explaining that the BBC does not use the terms 'departments or teams' using instead the term 'job families' indicating that the subtitles in the job title column were the job families/teams/departments. The BBC was therefore content that it had complied with the request and provided the information within scope.
  21. Complaint to the Commissioner

  22. On the 11 April 2024 Mr Williams contacted the Commissioner to complain about the responses he had received in relation to all 4 requests.
  23. In summary Mr Williams argued that:
  24. a. it would "have been straightforward for the BBC to locate the relevant documents",
    b. the BBC gave no explanation or reason as to how they calculated the costs limit would be exceeded,
    c. the suggestions to refine the request were neither "reasonable or necessary",
    d. the BBC made false and "entirely untrue" claims in their response,
    e. There was a pattern of failing to give appropriate guidance that "gives the impression that there is a deliberate attempt here to avoid releasing the requested information".

    The decision notice

  25. In a decision notice dated 28 August 2024 Ref. IC-300300-F7L7 ("the Decision Notice" / "the DN") the Commissioner decided that BBC was entitled to refuse the request in reliance on FOIA s.12(1), and that they had complied with their obligations under s.16 FOIA to offer advice and assistance. Stating that under section 12(1) of FOIA a public authority such as the BBC can refuse to comply with a request if the cost of complying with it would exceed the appropriate limit of £450 (18 hours work at £25 per hour).
  26. In the DN the reasons provided by the Commissioner can be summarised as:
  27. a. In relation to request 1, the element of the request which was refused under s.12 spanned a period of eight years, involved a number of departments in the BBC and included all written correspondence including both electronic and hard copy matters. The Commissioner accepted this was no small task and considered that the estimate by the BBC was reasonable in that context
    b. As regards Request 2, although this was narrowed in relation to seeking emails the between the BBC and Westminster Council it still covered an 8-year period and was not limited in terms of subject matter. This caused there to be many thousands of email accounts within scope, the content of which would have to be reviewed for relevance. The BBC had given an account that having consulted with the information security team as to the time and processes needed to conduct a search on that scale they were satisfied that even a fraction of what would be needed to respond to this request would exceed the 18-hour limit. The Commissioner saw no basis to doubt that account and accepted it.
    c. Request 3 reduced the scope of the request by excluding archived mailboxes. However, this request was at the same time expanded by moving from an 8-year period to an indefinite period. The Commissioner noted the BBC's response to Mr Wilson stating that they ran 2 'live' systems for email and that a sample exercise had been conducted on one of these for a limited 6-month period (rather than the indefinite range of the request). That sample test indicated that a search covering the entire indefinite period of the request would likely produce many hundreds of results that would all need to be reviewed for relevance. The Commissioner saw no reason to doubt the BBC's explanation and agreed that in the circumstances it was reasonable to consider that it would exceed the cost limit to fulfil the request made.
    d. Request 4 was not refused on s.12 or any other grounds. When Mr Wilson submitted his complaint to the Commissioner the internal review he had requested had not taken place, however this had happened by the time of the DN and so the Commissioner considered that the complaint as regards Request 4 had been addressed.
    e. As regards the application of the s.16 duty to provide advice and assistance, the Commissioner noted that in relation to each request the BBC had advised Mr Wilson how the request could be revised to bring it within scope of the costs limit in specific and actionable ways and so provided reasonable assistance and thereby complied with s.16 in relation to these requests.

    The appeal to the Tribunal

  28. Mr Wilson appealed on the 12 September 2024.
  29. The relevant grounds of appeal raised by Mr Wilson in relation to the Decision notice can be summarised as:
  30. a. That both the BBC and the Commissioner were wrong to conclude that s.12 applied in the circumstances of this request and of the BBC because it is asserted by Mr Wilson that the electronic systems of the BBC are such as to provide search facilities that would allow for the requests to be completed in significantly less time than the cost limit. Mr Wilson also asserts that the Commissioner failed to take account of alleged 'obvious errors' of the BBC when responding to them and that these errors support his view that the cost limit would not be exceeded.
    b. That as regards compliance with s.16 the Commissioner was wrong to conclude that the BBC was compliant with this duty in so far as they had advised Mr Wilson at one stage to narrow his request by citing particular departments, teams or individuals that the search should be limited to, without providing details of the potentially relevant departments, teams or individuals.
  31. Mr Wilson stated that he sought the overturning of the DN with it being substituted with a new DN upholding his position as the outcome of the appeal.
  32. ICO response

  33. On the 18 October 2024 the Commissioner responded to Mr Wilson's appeal.
  34. The Response adopts the findings of the DN in their entirety, stating that the BBC was correct to rely on s.12(1) as regards the relevant part of Requests 1, as well as the whole of each of Requests 2 and 3, additionally finding that the BBC had complied with its s.16 duties as regards all four requests. The Commissioner submits that the Appellant's grounds do not identify any error of law in the DN, nor do they identify any incorrect exercise of the Commissioner's discretion.
  35. As regards the ground of appeal relating to the technical capacity of the BBC the Commissioner sets out in detail the basis on which it was concluded that the cost limit would be exceeded given the specific systems, and processes of the BBC in relation to the relevant material. The response covers how the BBC IT system actually operates, including the use of two separate live systems and a further archiving system. Noting the considerable time, resources and process required to execute centralised searches on one of the two live systems on a previous occasion, as well as the fact that the archive system has no function to run centralised searches. The Commissioner further points out that in light of the above and the reasonable approach to estimates made by the BBC, it is correct that s.12 applies here. Arguing that this ground of appeal amounts to mere "supposition and guesswork rather than any clear reasoning" by Mr Wilson.
  36. The Commissioner also sets out a position as regards why their and the BBC's interpretation of the requests was correct (in paragraphs 30 to 37 of the response).
  37. Finally, the response addresses the ground of appeal that argues that the s.16 duty was breached because the advice offered was allegedly 'unreasonable' in the context here as regards requests 2 and 3. The Commissioner reiterates their view that the advice and assistance provided in each case was reasonable and specific to the requests made, underlining that this duty does not oblige a public authority to "consider every possible way a request could be refined".
  38. Reply by Mr Wilson to the ICO Response

  39. On the 25 November 2024 Mr Williams replied in writing to the Commissioner's response to the appeal.
  40. The 2-page document asserts that the Commissioner used his discretion in this case inappropriately and irrationally other than in accordance with the evidence.
  41. In support of that position the reply can be summarised as making a number of unsubstantiated or irrelevant allegations about the actual capabilities of the BBC systems (or their replies about this subject) and why (in Mr Wilson's opinion) these are incorrect, resulting in his view that the difficulty and time asserted by the BBC to deal with the requests is 'unrealistic'.
  42. Mr Wilson additionally is at pains to state that he has personal experience of "the types of systems involved and professional experience in the retrieval of email" which he states supports his conclusions in this regard. Mr Wilson also makes reference to generic software functionality information provided by the supplier, functionality that he asserts and assumes is available to the BBC in this context.
  43. However, Mr Wilson does not claim to have knowledge or experience of the particular and specific systems, processes or configurations and operations of the relevant parts of the BBC that this request relates to.
  44. The relevant law

  45. The relevant provisions of FOIA are set out below:
  46. 1 General right of access to information held by public authorities

    (1) Any person making a request for information to a public authority is entitled—
    (a) to be informed in writing by the public authority whether it holds information of the description specified in the request, and
    (b) if that is the case, to have that information communicated to him.
    (2) Subsection (1) has effect subject to the following provisions of this section and to the provisions of sections 2, 9, 12 and 14.

    ...

    12 Exemption where cost of compliance exceeds appropriate limit

    (1) Section 1(1) does not oblige a public authority to comply with a request for information if the authority estimates that the cost of complying with the request would exceed the appropriate limit.
    (2) Subsection (1) does not exempt the public authority from its obligation to comply with paragraph (a) of section 1(1) unless the estimated cost of complying with that paragraph alone would exceed the appropriate limit.
    (3) In subsections (1) and (2) "the appropriate limit" means such amount as may be prescribed, and different amounts may be prescribed in relation to different cases.

    ...

    16 Duty to provide advice and assistance.

    (1) It shall be the duty of a public authority to provide advice and assistance, so far as it would be reasonable to expect the authority to do so, to persons who propose to make, or have made, requests for information to it.
    (2) Any public authority which, in relation to the provision of advice or assistance in any case, conforms with the code of practice under section 45 is to be taken to comply with the duty imposed by subsection (1) in relation to that case.

    ...

    58 Determination of appeals

    (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.
  47. The "appropriate limit" under section 12(1) for the BBC is £450 as per regulation 3(3) of the Freedom of Information and Data Protection (Appropriate Limits and Fees) Regulations 2004. Additionally, under Regulation 4(4) costs are to be estimated at the rate of £25 per person per hour. This means that the limit for the BBC is exceeded after 18 hours of work by a single person.
  48. Regulation 4(3) of those regulations sets out what work qualifies for the purpose of that estimate as follows:
  49. (a) determining whether it holds the information;
    (b) locating the information, or a document which may contain the information;
    (c) retrieving the information, or a document which may contain the information; and
    (d) extracting the information from a document containing it.
  50. In assessing the time that would be required, the authority is entitled to aggregate requests from the same person subject to the conditions under Regulation 5(2).
  51. A public authority does not have to provide a precise calculation of the cost of complying with a request, only an estimate is required. However, the estimate must be sensible, realistic, and supported by cogent evidence (McInerny v IC and Department for Education [2015] UKUT 47 (AAT) para 39-41).
  52. As stated by the Upper Tribunal in Kirkham v Information Commissioner [2018] UKUT 126 (AAC), paragraph 24;
  53. "An estimate involves the application of a method to give an indication of a result. In the case of FOIA, the result is whether the cost of compliance would exceed the appropriate limit (regulation 4(1)). It follows that the method employed must be capable of producing a result with the precision required by the legislation in the circumstances of the case. The issue is whether or not the appropriate limit would be reached. The estimate need only be made with that level of precision. If it appears from a quick calculation that the result will be clearly above or below the limit, the public authority need not go further to show exactly how far above or below the threshold the case falls."
  54. The appropriate limit is assessed on the basis of the information storage and retrieval systems that a public authority actually has - not the ideal systems, or the systems that an appellant thinks a public authority ought to have (See Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis v Information Commissioner and Mackenzie [2014] UKUT 479 (AAC)).
  55. The Tribunal's remit is governed by s.58 FOIA. This requires the Tribunal to consider whether the decision made by the Commissioner is in accordance with the law or, where the Commissioner's decision involved exercising discretion, whether he should have exercised it differently. The Tribunal may receive evidence that was not before the Commissioner and may make different findings of fact from the Commissioner.
  56. Issues and evidence

  57. The issues to be determined are:
  58. a. Whether the Commissioner's decision was in accordance with the law, and to the extent that they exercised a discretion, was that was done properly as regards finding that the BBC was entitled to rely on section 12 FOIA (cost of compliance) to withhold the requested information. In particular, was a reasonable estimate that is sensible, realistic and supported by cogent evidence provided that estimated that the costs would exceed the relevant limit?
    b. Did the BBC comply with its duty under section 16 to provide reasonable advice and assistance to Mr Wilson to enable him to take practical action so as to refine the request in a way that would likely bring it within the cost limit?
  59. The Tribunal took account of the open bundle of documents (including the decision notice, the appeal, and responses amongst other items) when making our decision.
  60. Discussion and conclusions

    Findings of fact

  61. We make the following findings of fact based on the evidence before us on the balance of probabilities.
  62. The BBC is a large organisation with a global reach and a significant history. It necessarily has within its control very large amounts of both hard copy and electronic data spanning many years. Even searches of just the material relating to one of the specific subsections of the BBC are likely to involve significant volumes of material that have to be searched and have the outcome of those searches reviewed for relevance. In relation to manual data this task will be particularly burdensome, but even as regards electronic data the scale and period such data pools cover will inevitably present a challenge as regards cost limits unless the request is meaningfully focused.
  63. The BBC has set out on several occasions within the open bundle the particular nature of the specific information storage and retrieval systems it has in operation. Highlighting that there are 3 relevant email systems for the purpose of the request, 2 that are live systems and a third separate archive system. The evidence set out as to the operation of those systems in the particular context of the BBC, especially as regards the limitations on the ability to conduct central searches was compelling and provided the Tribunal with no reason to doubt the veracity of those statements.
  64. The Tribunal notes that Mr Wilson has at various points sought to argue that the BBC position in this regard is incorrect. Mr Wilson argues that the capabilities of the BBC's system would allow central searches and alike so as to allow for the request to be handled within the cost limit. These arguments are based on Mr Wilson's own "personal experience of the types of systems involved" and general details published by one of the major software suppliers as to some of the capabilities of their software. Both of which fail to address the critical issue here that, in line with the Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis v Information Commissioner and Mackenzie [2014] UKUT 479 (AAC), neither the capabilities of other similar types of system nor the potential full capabilities that could be offered for any particular service used by the BBC are relevant. The sole relevant factor in this regard is what the actual capabilities were of the BBC at the relevant time.
  65. On that basis, given the comprehensive and cogent evidence provided on this by the BBC, compared to the speculative and non-specific allegations made by Mr Wilson, we find on the balance of probabilities that the BBC information storage and retrieval systems were of the nature as set out by the BBC.
  66. Was the estimate sensible, realistic and supported by cogent evidence?

  67. We have considered the information provided by the BBC in its response to the Commissioner (and other communications within the open bundle). The BBC has in relation to each relevant request provided an explanation of why it believes the costs limit would be exceeded, due to the amount of work involved.
  68. As regards Request 1, this request had three elements, in relation to the first two of which the BBC provided the information requested. The third element was refused on s.12 grounds. That third element covered an 8-year period, related to all individuals and subsections of the BBC and covered both electronic and paper documentation. The BBC estimated that that the cost limit would be exceeded given that even a search and review for relevance by just 20 persons of their electronic records would amount to 30 hours. To fulfil the request as a whole would require many more individuals to each search their electronic records and review for relevance (noting that the BBC employs more than 20,000 people). Additionally, it would also require a much more burdensome manual review of hard copy records that cannot be searched with a keyword or similar. Consequently, the BBC took the view that it was clear that the cost of complying with the request would clearly exceed the cost limit by a very significant amount.
  69. Request 2 in effect repeated the previous request other than to slightly narrow the scope by excluding any document that was not an email. The BBC has set out that even limiting the search to electronic records only meant that the estimated cost of complying with the request would still exceed the limit given that the scope of the request covered an 8-year period and several tens of thousands of mailboxes (including both individual and shared mailboxes). A sampling exercise was not conducted given it was abundantly clear to the BBC from the potential volume of the information in scope that the cost limit would be exceeded even if only a fraction of that amount was searched and reviewed for relevance.
  70. The third request (Request 3) took a different approach, requesting "all copies of emails currently stored in live (not archive) central mailboxes that were sent to or received from the email domain "westminster.gov.uk''". This removed hard copy documentation from scope, as well as any archived emails. Whilst this request narrowed what was sought in that regard it unhelpfully took the opposite approach as regards the period in scope compared to the previous request. Reframing the period from 8 years to an indefinite all-inclusive period. The BBC has set out that it operates 2 'live' email systems, and the request therefore required both to be searched. One of these was more modern and easier to search and the other live system (the 'legacy' system), whilst still in live use, posed a number of operational challenges.
  71. In relation to the more modern of the 2 live systems the BBC did undertake a sampling exercise which resulted in 97 items being produced on that system for a single 6-month search period. The Commissioner notes, and the Tribunal agrees with them, that on the basis of that sample it is reasonable to assume that even if the period of Request 3 was narrowed to 8 years (from the indefinite period it asked for) this would still result in hundreds of search results that would each have to be reviewed for relevance.
  72. On the second live system (the "legacy" one) there are 13,842 mailboxes, but the particular nature of that system is such that central searches across all mailboxes simultaneously are impossible and instead a resource intensive series of manual searches of each individual mailbox is required using significant additional technical input to create scripts as well as the deployment of particular additional software/skills to achieve the search necessary.
  73. The BBC therefore calculated that the cost of replying to this request, involving both 'live' systems and an indefinite period, would clearly be above the limit in the context of the above.
  74. The Commissioner accepted that the BBC had adopted a reasonable approach in relation to all 3 requests, and saw no reason to doubt the explanation or reasoning of the BBC. The Commissioner also specifically noted that in calculating the cost it is not simply the case that it is only the time necessary to set up and start an automated search across a system that is relevant. The search for material in response to a request also must include time taken to perform the necessary review of any such automated results for relevance to the request.
  75. Mr Wilson does not accept the estimates provided nor the Commissioner's decisions about them. His overall position is that the requests could be resolved simply by using 'programmatic searches' on the BBC's information storage and retrieval systems, but without providing any evidence as to whether those specific systems the BBC has in place do actually have the capacity to do this in a manner that would allow the request to be responded to within the cost limit (or at all in some cases). The fact that in Mr Wilson's experience other similar types of system could do this is irrelevant, as is whether the supplier of services to the BBC has products that could do this (unless it can be shown that the BBC system does include the particular product and function alleged).
  76. Mr Wilson has made a number of broad assertions that there would not be any need to manually review for relevance the results of the initial or automated searches conducted in response to his requests. However, the Tribunal agrees with the Commissioner and the BBC that such relevance searches are necessary and need to be considered when calculating the cost of responding to a request. This is especially the case as regards broadly scoped requests where the risks of unintentional by-catch in the results of automated searches are heightened.
  77. It is clear that in this context and in relation to these particular requests taking account of the information storage and retrieval service the BBC had at the relevant time, that a simple, centralised search is not, in practice, possible. Even if it were, the results produced in each case would still need to be reviewed for relevance, which given the significant volume of potential material in each case (because of the broad nature of the requests) would itself alone likely exceed the cost limit.
  78. Taking all of the above matters into account, we find that the BBC has taken in each case a reasonable, sensible and realistic approach to estimating the cost of compliance. It has provided cogent evidence as to why in each case the cost of compliance with the request would exceed the cost limit. In light of Kirkham v Information Commissioner [2018] UKUT 126 (AAC), the BBC did not need to provide an estimate of any particular amount. It is sufficient that they were satisfied that the estimate would clearly be above the cost limit, which they did in relation to each of the requests.
  79. Section 16 Compliance

  80. The Commissioner in their DN considers in detail how the BBC executed their duty to provide advice and assistance in relation to each request. It is not in dispute that the BBC did in relation to all the relevant requests actually make suggestions as to how each request could be refined so as to bring it within the cost limit.
  81. Mr Wilson's objection focuses on the point that he believes that the suggestions for refinement were not "reasonable". In particular Mr Wilson objects to the suggestions made by the BBC at various points that one of the ways these requests could be refined would be to narrow the request to relate to particular persons, roles or teams in the BBC. Mr Wilson takes the view that such advice and assistance is inherently unreasonable unless at the same time the Authority makes explicit suggestions as to the potential persons, roles or teams that could be used (because he believes only they are in a position to know such details).
  82. The Tribunal fundamentally disagrees with Mr Wilson on this point.
  83. Firstly, such advice is only a suggestion not a requirement– it needs to be offered 'only so far as it would be reasonable to expect the authority to do so'. We note that Mr Wilson was at liberty to, and did, come up with his own ways of narrowing the request. The suggestion to narrow the request by reference to particular persons, roles or teams was also in this case only one of several ways offered up to reduce the scope of the request to an amount that would fall within the cost limit. For example, in Request 1 the narrowing by sender/recipient was the third of four points of advice including suggestions to limit the search to emails and electronic documents, as well as to limit the search to a 3-year period, and to provide a list of keywords to use for searches. Only one of these was ever adopted by Mr Wilson in the context of this series of requests. It is plausible that refined requests that adopted all the other recommendations bar any relating to specific senders/recipients could have sufficiently narrowed matters to bring them within the cost limit.
  84. Secondly whilst it is inevitably true that a public body will know its own staff and structure better than most (if not all) FOIA requestors, that does not mean that requestors will never be able to refine their requests by way of individual or role or team without the authority spoon-feeding them specific suggestions in this regard first. The caselaw of this Tribunal is replete with cases where requestors are able from the initial request (or even shortly thereafter) to narrow a request by reference to individuals, teams or roles without any external assistance. This may be because they are aware of that detail from previous dealings or other sources (such as perhaps because the information is already publicly available). However, it might also be by simple deduction, such as by referencing a particular job function e.g. the 'Legal department' or "the Project manager for X" or similar. Additionally, public bodies will never have a perfect understanding of the particular intent or underlying interest behind a query. Thay can, and do, try to interpret it but the broader the request is, the harder it is to do that with any accuracy. An individual generically requesting information about a particular project might really only be interested in the financial aspects. So, advising such a requestor that they might wish to narrow their search by reference to the Environmental Officer or the Legal Team would be unhelpful even if it was well intended because it was known they both had material relating to that project. In contrast advising such a requestor to narrow the request by reference to a specific person/body or team would enable that requestor to specify the "team responsible for finance" or something similar. Suggesting that a request is narrowed in this way without making suggestions as to which persons or team might be used for this purpose is not therefore inherently unhelpful or without merit. It is in our view especially important to make this suggestion (even if a particular example can't be offered up) in the particular situation in this case where one of the in-scope information storage and retrieval systems is technically unable to do estate-wide searches and must be searched on an individual mailbox-by-mailbox basis.
  85. Thirdly, in this case, over the course of the requests the BBC did provide advice identifying particular senders/recipients that the request could be narrowed by. In relation to Request 2 for example, it was suggested reference might be made to "the team concerned with the BBC's London Estate Management and/or New Broadcasting House".
  86. It is notable that over the course of these requests the various points of advice and assistance provided by the BBC to help narrow the request were more often than not ignored by Mr Wilson. The Commissioner in paragraph 39 of the DN noted "A public authority isn't obliged to consider every possible way a request could be refined. In this case the BBC has clearly suggested reasonable ways of reducing the scope to something more manageable, but the complainant has failed to have regard to these". The Tribunal strongly concurs with this and finds that in relation to the relevant requests the BBC did provide reasonable advice and assistance thereby fully discharging their duty under s.16 FOIA.
  87. Conclusion

  88. Consequently, we find that BBC was entitled to rely on s.12 FOIA and were not in breach of s.16 FOIA. Therefore, we also find that the Commissioner's DN was in accordance with the law and did not require any discretion to be exercised differently. We dismiss the appeal. The decision of the Tribunal is unanimous.
  89. Signed Thomas Barrett

    Date: 5/6/25

About BAILII - FAQ - Copyright Policy - Disclaimers - Privacy Policy amended on 25/11/2010