[reposted from LinkedIn]
Until a few days ago, I had never, in almost twenty years of making FOI requests, had one refused on the section 14(1) grounds that it was vexatious. But this one broke that streak.
A request can be vexatious for a number of reasons, most of which go to the motives or behaviour of the requester (see the leading case of IC v Dransfield [2012] UKUT 440 (AAC)), but the law has also developed to encompass requests which, by nature of the work which would be required to assess and redact exempt information, are simply too onerous to respond to (see Cabinet Office v Information Commissioner and Ashton [2018] UKUT 208 (AAC)).
As I try to have, and show, no bad motive or behaviour, and as I try very hard not to make requests that are too broad, I’d managed to avoid such a refusal until now.
I asked for the full dataset of Tribunal cases which the Information Commissioner has been involved in. In a previous disclosure an extract from this dataset had been provided to someone. I didn’t know that that full dataset had potentially exempt fields in it. Having had this explained to me I don’t doubt that these fields would be exempt, and I don’t doubt the onerousness of the work which would be required to redact it all. So on the face of it, the refusal is fine, and I’ve submitted a follow up request for narrowed-down information.
But I think this was a good example of how the public authority could have dealt with this differently. They knew that I’d seen the previous extract, and should reasonably have surmised from that that I only wanted those fields, but across the whole dataset. An email or phone call to clarify this would have resolved the issue straight away (and I wouldn’t be writing this now). The case officer does acknowledge this (“we apologise that we did not contact you sooner to advise that we would be unable to respond to this request and advise on how it could be revised”), and I’m not going to whinge (unless this is a whinge (it probably is, isn’t it?)) – everyone is busy, and I’ve certainly handled requests as a practitioner where I’ve realised I could done things differently and better earlier in the process.
But it’s a good example of how a small gap in understanding between requester and public authority can lead to more (and unnecessary) work for both.
The views in this post (and indeed most posts on this blog) are my personal ones, and do not represent the views of any organisation I am involved with.
informationrightsandwrongs 
Having a request labelled as “vexatious” and upheld has a sting effect doesn’t it, even where it is “just” because the redaction would take too long. FWIW I hadn’t imagine you ever doing anything genuinely vexatious.
I wonder about the duty to offer advice and assistance, also where (as in this case) S12 can’t be used as the onerous time is in redaction there should still be the duty to narrow the request. But I guess that later would require legislative change.