Please provide all emails between Helen Chapman and Lee Hill from 01/01/19 to 10/05/19

---

Our Ref:         FOI-0273-1920 / FOI-0420-1920 / FOI-0421-1920 / FOI-0422-1920 / FOI-0423-1920 / FOI-0424-1920 / FOI-0426-1920 / FOI-0431-1920 / FOI-0432-1920 / FOI-0435-1920 / FOI-0461-1920

Thank you for your requests received between 27 April to 14 May 2019 asking for various correspondence and internal memos.

Your request has been considered in accordance with the requirements of the Freedom of Information Act and our information access policy. I can confirm we do hold the information you require.

However, the eleven cases listed above are being refused under section 14(1) of the Freedom of Information Act, which provides an exemption to the disclosure of information where a request is considered to be ‘vexatious’. In reaching this conclusion we have drawn on guidance from the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO), both in relation to the specific application of section 14 and in relation to FOI-handling more generally.
 
On the specific application of section 14(1) we have been steered by the ICO guidance on the use of that exemption that can be found on its website here:

https://ico.org.uk/media/1198/dealing-with-vexatious-requests.pdf

You will note that this guidance includes the following advice to public authorities:

“Section 14(1) may be used in a variety of circumstances where a request, or its impact on a public authority, cannot be justified. Whilst public authorities should think carefully before refusing a request as vexatious they should not regard section 14(1) as something which is only to be applied in the most extreme circumstances”;

“Sometimes a request may be so patently unreasonable or objectionable that it will obviously be vexatious….In cases where the issue is not clear-cut, the key question to ask is whether the request is likely to cause a disproportionate or unjustified level of disruption, irritation or distress…This will usually be a matter of objectively judging the evidence of the impact on the authority and weighing this against any evidence about the purpose and value of the request”;

“The public authority may take into account the context and history of the request, where this is relevant”;

“The information Commissioner recognises that dealing with unreasonable requests can place a strain on resources and get in the way of delivering mainstream services or answering legitimate requests.”

“Section 14(1) is designed to protect public authorities by allowing them to refuse any request which have the potential to cause a disproportionate or unjustified level of disruption, irritation or distress”.

“…the concepts of ‘proportionality’ and ‘justification’ are central to any consideration of whether a request is vexatious”;

The guidance includes some specific indicators to help public authorities judge whether or not a case should be considered vexatious. This includes the following:

“Burden on the authority: the effort required to meet the request will be so grossly oppressive in terms of the strain on time and resources, that the authority cannot reasonably be expected to comply, no matter how legitimate the subject matter or valid the intentions of the requester”;

“Frequent or overlapping requests: the requester submits frequent correspondence about the same issue or sends in new requests before the public authority has had an opportunity to address their earlier enquiries”.

“Disproportionate effort: the matter being pursued by the requester is relatively trivial and the authority would have to extend a disproportionate amount of resources in order to meet the request.”

Considering each of your requests in isolation it is unlikely that we would find that some of them would meet the criteria of being ‘vexatious’. However, the guidance from the ICO makes it clear that public authorities should take into account the ‘context and history’ in which a request is made, and that this will “…often be a major factor in determining whether the request is vexatious”. This part of the guidance goes on to say that:

“In practice this means taking account of:

- Other requests made by the requester to that public authority (whether complied or refused).
- The number and subject matter of those requests”, and;

“A request which would not normally be regarded as vexatious in isolation may assume that quality once considered in context. An example of this would be where an individual is placing a significant strain on an authority’s resources by submitting a long and frequent series of requests, and the most recent request, although not obviously vexatious in itself, is contributing to that aggregated burden”.

It is this ‘aggregated burden’ that is central to our decision to apply the exemption set out in section 14(1) in response to your requests. Given the sheer number of requests you have submitted this year, (you have submitted twenty requests to TfL this calendar year, seventeen of these have been submitted in the last sixty working days up to your most recent request) the most recent of which were all submitted within an eleven working day timeframe, we believe the threshold for applying section 14(1) has been met. The cumulative effect of these requests is that it ultimately provides a sustained burden and disruption to our colleagues across the organisation whose principal function is the running of transport services or the support services required to make that happen.

From your previous requests you are aware that emails contain a significant amount of personal data such as phone numbers and email addresses, whilst this process of redaction does not feature as part of our considerations on whether the cost limit might apply, the burden created by non-specific requests for emails is significant. Your requests for correspondence do not provide a subject, or keywords, and previously where we have asked for clarification of these requests your response has been that you want all correspondence. The ICO describes such requests as “fishing expeditions” as the requesters “have no idea what information, if any, will be caught by the request” and so “casts their net widely in the hope that this will catch information that is noteworthy or otherwise useful to them.”

Processing of these requests require the re-allocation and diversion of already limited resources and places a burden on a small number of personnel. We also believe that the purpose and value of your requests is not necessarily obvious, which brings into question whether it is a justified and proportionate use of our time to comply.

In making any future request I would ask that you consider carefully what information is of most importance to you, and to take into account the guidance and advice provided by the ICO such as the “dos and don’ts” published on its website here: https://ico.org.uk/your-data-matters/official-information/.

You will note that the table halfway down that page includes the following advice to FOI applicants:

Do….“Give the authority ample opportunity to address any previous requests you have made before submitting new ones”;
Don’t… “Submit frivolous or trivial requests; remember that processing any information request involves some cost to the public purse”;
Don’t… “Disrupt a public authority by the sheer volume of information requested. Whether you are acting alone or in concert with others, this is a clear misuse of the Act and an abuse of your ‘right to know’”, and;
Don’t…”Deliberately ‘fish’ for information by submitting very broad or random requests in the hope it will catch something noteworthy or otherwise useful.”

We would therefore encourage you to prioritise any future requests around the information that is of most importance to you to ensure that you are able to make the best use of our resources under the FOI Act.

Please see the attached information sheet for details of your right to appeal.

Yours sincerely

Lee Hill
Information Access Manager

FOI Case Management Team
General Counsel
Transport for London

[email protected]

Back to top

---