The ICO exists to empower you through information.

Considering and balancing

Share

Balancing all relevant factors allows you to take an overall approach. While a request can be vexatious and not a requester, you can take into account the context and history. You should gather evidence of your overall position, before carrying out a weighing or balancing exercise to determine whether the request imposes a disproportionate burden on your organisation and is vexatious. Your decision should be informed by internal consultation where possible. At times, it may be appropriate to consider alternative approaches.

The questions within this module cover how well you are performing in these areas.

Good

  • You always thoroughly consider any factors which mitigate against serious purpose and value in the request.
  • You always thoroughly consider any factors which mitigate against the impact and burden of dealing with the request.
  • You always consider alternative approaches when appropriate before relying on section 14(1) to refuse a request.
  • You always consult with all relevant staff when deciding whether to rely on section 14(1).
  • You always gather evidence of your position before relying on section 14(1).
  • The balancing test is always evidence-based and objective.

Adequate

  • You give some consideration to any factors which mitigate against serious purpose and value in the request.
  • You give some consideration to any factors which mitigate against the impact and burden of dealing with the request.
  • You sometimes consider alternative approaches before relying on section 14(1) to refuse a request.
  • You sometimes consult with all relevant staff when deciding whether to rely on section 14(1).
  • You usually gather evidence of your position before relying on section 14(1).
  • The balancing test is usually evidence-based and objective.

Unsatisfactory

  • You rarely consider any factors which mitigate against serious purpose and value in the request.
  • You rarely consider any factors which mitigate against the impact and burden of dealing with the request.
  • You rarely consider alternative approaches before relying on section 14(1) to refuse a request.
  • You rarely consult with all relevant staff when deciding whether to rely on section 14(1).
  • You sometimes gather evidence of your position before relying on section 14(1).
  • The balancing test is rarely evidence-based and objective.

 

More information

A request may have less serious purpose and value if the subject matter has already been fully investigated and publicly reported on, and less still if the matter was scrutinised independently. Seeking to re-open it may be unreasonably persistent. The request's focus may have drifted from an earlier purpose, or become futile. Other factors can include:

  • arguing points rather than asking for new information;
  • refusing to agree to an independent investigation; or
  • continuing to allege wrongdoing without any clear and logical basis.

The motive behind the request may, in effect, amount to an intention to annoy and cause distress.

More information

As well as inherent purpose and value in the request, other factors may mitigate against any impact and burden on your organisation. These factors may include your handling of any previous requests from the same requester: ask yourselves whether you responded appropriately, or may have dealt with them poorly. A larger public authority is expected to accept a greater burden in handling requests.

More information

You are best-placed to know whether an alternative, more conciliatory approach might successfully address the issue, before you refuse a request under section 14(1). However, if history suggests that the matter is likely to be escalated regardless, there may be little value in attempting any further conciliation. It is usually good practice to consider this and to record it if you decide it’s not appropriate in a particular case.

More information

All relevant people should be consulted before making a final decision on whether a request is vexatious. Effective communication will help to find out the context and history of the request, and to understand the value of the requested information. You should understand the implications of your decision for other departments, and should aim to obtain the backing of a decision-maker at an appropriate level. If the request-handler has been very involved in previous correspondence with the requester, it is advisable to ask someone else to give their objective view, preferably a more senior colleague or your adviser.

More information

The ICO expects evidence of your reasons for relying on section 14(1) - for example, a log of previous communications with the requester. You can include communications during the 20 working days after you received the request in question. This may illustrate not only the amount of correspondence, but also any threatening or otherwise unreasonable behaviour. Evidence can also include links to, or copies of, published materials, the outcome of any independent investigations into relevant matters, and previous decisions.

More information

The key question is whether the value and purpose of the request justifies the impact and burden that you would incur by complying with it. You should judge this as objectively as possible.