12 May 2015, Central government
In a three part request, the complainant has requested type approval information about a particular type of Porsche vehicle. The VCA has refused to comply with part 1 of the request, which it says is partly vexatious under FOIA section 14(1) and, to the extent that it also contains environmental information, is manifestly unreasonable under regulation 12(4)(b) of the EIR. It has refused to comply with part 2 of the request as to do so would exceed the appropriate limit under section 12 of the FOIA for some of the information and, to the extent that it also contains environmental information, responding to the request would also be manifestly unreasonable under regulation 12(4)(b). It says it does not hold the information requested at part 3. The Commissioner’s decision is as follows: Part 1 of the request is manifestly unreasonable by virtue of being vexatious under regulation 12(4)(b) of the EIR, and the VCA is correct not to comply with it. The public interest favours withholding the information. Part 2 exceeds the appropriate cost limit under section 12 of the FOIA for some of the information. In relation to the information which constitutes environmental information it is also a manifestly unreasonable request by virtue of cost under regulation 12(4)(b) of the EIR and the public interest also favours withholding the information. The VCA is therefore correct not to comply with it. On balance, the VCA does not hold the information requested at part 3 and has therefore met its obligations under section 1 of the FOIA and regulation 5 of the EIR. The Commissioner does not require the VCA to take any further steps. This decision notice is currently under appeal to the Tribunal.
FOI 1: Not upheld FOI 12: Not upheld EIR 12(4)(b): Not upheld