Whether the Council was justified in refusing the applicant's request for records relating to a certain planning matter on the ground that the request forms part of a pattern of manifestly unreasonable requests

Conducted in accordance with section 22(2) of the FOI Act by Stephen Rafferty, Senior Investigator, who is authorised by the Information Commissioner to conduct this review

Background

The applicant submitted a request to the Council by letter dated 16 September 2014 for a broad range of records relating to a planning matter. The request was set out under 22 points or paragraphs, each specifying a requested record or category of records sought by the applicant. By letter dated 14 October 2015, the Council refused the request under section 15(1)(g) of the FOI Act. The applicant sought an internal review of this decision by letter dated 15 October 2015. In its internal review decision, the Council refused the request under section 15(1)(g) on the ground that it forms part of a pattern of manifestly unreasonable requests from the same requester. The applicant applied to this Office for a review of that decision on 10 November 2015.

I consider that this review should now be brought to a close by means of a formal binding decision. In conducting this review I have had regard to the correspondence between the Council and the applicant on the request, and to correspondence between this Office and both the applicant and the Council on the matter.

Scope of Review

This review is solely concerned with the question of whether the Council was justified in its decision to refuse the applicant's request under section 15(1)(g) of the FOI Act on the ground that the request forms part of a pattern of manifestly unreasonable requests from the same requester.

Analysis and Findings

This review is very similar to Case 150140 where this Office upheld a decision of the Council to refuse a request by the applicant for certain records relating to a planning matter on the ground that the request formed part of a pattern of manifestly unreasonable requests from the same requester.

In my decision in Case 150140, I set out some of the factors considered to be relevant in assessing whether or not there is evidence of a pattern of manifestly unreasonable requests. I noted that the request to which the review related had its background in a dispute between clients of the applicant and the Council relating to a planning matter dating as far back as 2006. I further noted that it was the thirty ninth request the Council had received from the applicant, dating from 2008, all of which related to the site that was the subject of the dispute. I found as follows:

In essence, it seems to me that the applicant has engaged in a pattern of submitting detailed broad requests with a view to pursuing a dispute that has been ongoing for a number of years and that the FOI Act is being used for a purpose unrelated to the right of access to records, i.e. it is being used tactically for the purpose of pursuing the dispute. Having regard to the number of request made by the applicant relating to the same matter, and to the excessively broad and detailed nature of those requests, I am satisfied that that the Council was justified in deciding to refuse the request at issue on the ground that it forms part of a pattern of manifestly unreasonable requests from the same requester. I find, therefore, that section 15(1)(g) applies.

The FOI request to which this review relates covers a broad range of records relating, according to the Council, to the same site and planning matter as did the request in Case 150140 and his many other requests. In my view the request is, yet again, both excessively broad and unusually detailed and represents a continued engagement by the applicant in a pattern of submitting detailed, broad requests with a view to pursuing the dispute that has been ongoing for many years. I am satisfied that the pattern of use suggests a tactical use of FOI for the purpose of pursuing that dispute and that the request to which this review relates forms part of that pattern. Accordingly, I find that the request forms part of a pattern of manifestly unreasonable requests from the same requester and I find, therefore, that the Council was justified in deciding to refuse the request at issue under section 15(1)(g).

Decision

Having carried out a review under section 22(2) of the Freedom of Information Act 2014, I hereby affirm the decision of the Council.

Right of Appeal

Section 24 of the FOI Act sets out detailed provisions for an appeal to the High Court by a party to a review, or any other person affected by the decision. In summary, such an appeal, normally on a point of law, must be initiated not later than four weeks after notice of the decision was given to the person bringing the appeal.

Stephen Rafferty
Senior Investigator