Freedom of Information request - Rejected FOI requests on the grounds that the requester used a pseudonym
Request ID: FOI-1916-2324 Date published: 25 September 2023
You asked
Dear Transport for London,
I note with regret your response to a FOI request published on WhatDoTheyKnow [1], ref FOI-1751-2324, where you state that:
> "we frequently receive requests from pseudonymous accounts as part of a targeted campaign seeking to cause disruption or evade previously applied exemptions."
I am interested to learn more about this unfortunate trend.
(1) Please could you elaborate on the forms of disruption caused by pseudonymous requests?
(2) Please could you provide me with statistics on the number of requests refused on the grounds that TfL believes the requester has used a pseudonym? (Please provide both absolute numbers, as well as the proportion of all requests.)
(3) Please could you provide me with a summary of the most common topics of requests refused by TfL on the above grounds, along with any information TfL holds about associated "targeted campaigns"?
(4) Has TfL carried out any equality impact assessments relating to its practice of refusing pseudonymous requests?
I am happy for you to respond only with information relating to the last 10 years, if you would otherwise refuse the request for being unbounded, though would appreciate having as full a picture as possible. If you do not hold information going back this far, please kindly advise to what extent your records go.
We answered
Our ref: FOI-1916-2324/GH
Thank you for your request received by Transport for London (TfL) on 1 September 2023 asking for information about rejected FOI requests on the grounds that the requester used a pseudonym.
Your request has been considered under the requirements of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and our information access policy. I can confirm that we do hold some of the information you require.
(1) Please could you elaborate on the forms of disruption caused by pseudonymous requests? The disruption referred to can take several different forms but often it is where a requester seeks to wilfully disrupt our operations through sheer volume of requests, often as part of a personal campaign, or as an attempt to circumvent refusal notices that have been issued to them previously.
(2) Please could you provide me with statistics on the number of requests refused on the grounds that TfL believes the requester has used a pseudonym? (Please provide both absolute numbers, as well as the proportion of all requests.) It is not our ordinary course of action to seek identification and occurrences of this are rare. Only in specific circumstances where we have reason to believe the request is submitted using a pseudonym and the identity of the requester could be relevant to the application of one or more exemptions would we adopt this approach. Please note that Section 8 (1)(b) of the FOI Act states that the real name of the applicant must be used when requesting information and not any other name, for example, a pseudonym. Since such requests do not satisfy the definition of a request for information contained in section 8(1)(b) of the Act, we do not consider that the right to information contained in section 1 is engaged. Therefore requests submitted using a pseudonym are invalid and as such would not be recorded against our statistics and nor would the requester be issued a refusal notice under the Act. For that reason we do not hold the specific information you require however we estimate the number would represent a tiny proportion of the 3,000+ requests we process each year – very likely below 1%.
(3) Please could you provide me with a summary of the most common topics of requests refused by TfL on the above grounds, along with any information TfL holds about associated "targeted campaigns"? All requests received are considered on a case by case basis and, for the reasons set out above, we do not hold any recorded information on this.
(4) Has TfL carried out any equality impact assessments relating to its practice of refusing pseudonymous requests? As stated above, it is written into the FOI Act that requests submitted using a pseudonym are invalid. The intention of the legislation is for the requester to provide their real name so their request can be processed in accordance with the requirements of the FOI Act. This is supported by the fact that there are circumstances under the Act where a requester’s true identity can be relevant, for example, where an authority is considering aggregating the cost of requests or refusing a request as vexatious or repeated.
We appreciate that this may appear to be a minor point and could be an inconvenience but the ICO has advised that, by virtue of section 50 of the FOI Act, they are unable to consider pseudonymous requests for information. In the event that TfL goes on to process a pseudonymous request and withholds any information, the requester would therefore not be able to exercise the statutory rights to challenge this decision.
We have not carried out any equality impact assessment in relation to this as we consider it to be entirely consistent with the requirements of the FOI Act. However, to reiterate, it is not our usual practice to request confirmation of a requesters identity and would only occur in instances where we have reason to believe a pseudonym is being used, for the reasons set out above.
If you are not satisfied with this response please see the attached information sheet for details of your right to appeal.
Yours sincerely
Graham Hurt FOI Case Officer FOI Case Management Team General Counsel Transport for London
