pacac@parliament.uk

Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee.

14th March 2026

Dear PACAC Secretariat,

Please find attached a short briefing note highlighting evidence of systemic misuse of Section 14 of the Freedom of Information Act and the oversight role of the Information Commissioner’s Office. I hope it may assist the Committee in its scrutiny of public administration and transparency mechanisms.

Briefing Note to the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee (PACAC)

Subject: Systemic misuse of “vexatious” powers under the Freedom of Information Act 2000

Prepared by: Alan M Dransfield

Email: alanmdransfield@gmail.com

1. Purpose of this briefing

This briefing is submitted to assist the scrutiny work of the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee in relation to public administration and oversight bodies.

It highlights evidence suggesting that the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) and public authorities are using the “vexatious request” provision in Section 14(1) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA) in a way that undermines the statutory right of access to information.

The issue is systemic and affects multiple requesters across the United Kingdom.

2. The Dransfield precedent

In Dransfield v Information Commissioner and Devon County Council, the Upper Tribunal expanded the interpretation of “vexatious” requests.

Subsequent rulings effectively allowed public authorities to consider:

  • the identity of the requester
  • previous requests by the requester
  • perceived burden on the authority

rather than assessing the intrinsic value of the information requested.

This has enabled a practice whereby individuals can be labelled “vexatious”, after which multiple requests are routinely refused.

3. Evidence of systemic application

Evidence indicates that the precedent is now used widely across government bodies, including:

  • Local authorities
  • Police forces
  • National regulators
  • Government departments

Examples include refusals by:

  • Transport for London
  • Devon County Council
  • Health and Safety Executive
  • Office for Nuclear Regulation
  • Metropolitan Police

In several cases, authorities have refused multiple unrelated requests from the same individual by relying on the “vexatious” designation.

4. The role of the Information Commissioner

The Information Commissioner’s Office has reinforced this trend through decision notices and guidance.

In practice, the ICO frequently upholds Section 14 refusals and has relied on Section 50(2)(c) FOIA to decline investigation of complaints where it considers them “frivolous or vexatious”.

This combination has the practical effect of:

  • preventing access to information
  • blocking independent oversight
  • limiting the ability of citizens to challenge refusals.

5. Constitutional implications

The Freedom of Information Act was introduced to improve transparency and public accountability.

However, the current interpretation of Section 14 has created what some campaigners describe as a de facto blacklist mechanism, allowing authorities to refuse requests from particular individuals regardless of the public interest in the information.

This raises important constitutional questions concerning:

  • the effective operation of FOIA
  • the oversight role of the ICO
  • the accessibility of complaint mechanisms.

These matters fall squarely within the scrutiny remit of the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee.

6. Suggested areas for PACAC scrutiny

PACAC may wish to consider examining:

• Whether Section 14 FOIA is being applied consistently with the original intent of Parliament.

• Whether the ICO’s guidance and decision-making practices adequately protect the public’s statutory right to information.

• Whether the use of Section 50(2)(c) FOIA restricts legitimate complaints from being investigated.

• Whether reforms are needed to ensure that FOIA rights cannot be effectively removed from particular individuals.

7. Conclusion

The issue raised in this briefing is not an individual dispute but a broader question about the functioning of transparency legislation and regulatory oversight.

If the current interpretation of Section 14 continues unchecked, there is a risk that the statutory right to information under FOIA may become increasingly limited in practice.

PACAC scrutiny would therefore be valuable in assessing whether the legislation is operating as Parliament originally intended.

Sincerely,


Alan M Dransfield