The first two examples show people abusing or mis-using their information rights.
(1) A parent requests several pieces of information from a primary school, including minutes and governance reports.
Previously, the requester had complained to Ofsted about the school. The complaint wasn’t upheld. They’d sent multiple emails to different staff members, asking why the school wouldn’t admit to various perceived issues. The school put procedures in place to limit contact, but the requester had created different email addresses and continued to ask questions. They’d made staff members uncomfortable by starting verbal arguments.
Conclusion: The request for the minutes and reports is vexatious. There’s sufficient evidence that the requester is pursuing a personal campaign of harassment after their original complaint wasn’t upheld.
(2) The requester previously made several requests to their local council about gas safety checks near their home. The council responded to those requests and sent them safety reports and information about the work. The requester makes a further request, asking why there were delays. They say the council is acting illegally and idiotically. They want to know who is personally responsible.
Conclusion: The further request is vexatious. The requester has already received factual information about the safety checks, but is becoming more personal. They are making accusations and being rude. It seems likely that they’ll continue to correspond, even if the council provide them with further information.
This example shows that you need evidence of your position.
(3) A former councillor asks for the audio recording of a public council meeting. The council suspect they are seeking to cause trouble.
Conclusion: Without further evidence, this example is not likely to be vexatious. It shouldn’t be difficult to provide the recording. Even if the council has a robust system in place for writing up minutes, there could be a serious purpose in asking for a recording.
Unless the council can show that the request was part of a pattern of harassment, or that it would be difficult to produce the recording, this is unlikely to be a vexatious request.
This example shows a public authority doing a good job of weighing the evidence.
(4) A requester asks a museum how many times it has banned members of the public. They say they’re interested in the need for an independent ombudsman.
The museum has evidence that the requester is pursuing a private matter that had started around five years before. It’s retained a large quantity of correspondence, including other information requests it had responded to. It also has evidence of the requester’s comments on social media and in industry publications.
The museum accepts that this request would not take long to comply with, and that the information might be of some interest to the public. But the evidence shows that the requester is pursuing a campaign against the museum and is being unreasonably persistent. The museum considers that handling their requests causes a significant burden, and that they’ll seemingly never be satisfied. After weighing everything up, it concludes that the burden outweighs the purpose and value, and the request is vexatious.