Exe This b V

o M

a1

F

Ca

This sectiothe C

ecutive S

briefing summ

Vexatious oobliged to co

Manifestly uauthorities m10(4)(c) justi

Frivolous oCommissioneapplication w

briefing is ion. Please

Commission

Summa

marises the S

or repeatedomply with r

unreasonabmay refuse refies refusal w

or vexatiouser under FO

which, in the

intended to remembener’s concl

E

ary

Scottish Infor

d requests equests for i

ble or geneequests for ewhere reque

s applicatioOISA and the

Commission

o provide gr that all reusions on a

xemp

rmation Com

– section 1information t

eral requestenvironmentasts are form

ons – sectioEIRs – gives

ner’s opinion

general guidequests fora particular

ption

mmissioner’s

4(1) and 14that are vex

ts – regulatal informatio

mulated in too

on 49(1) FOs the Commin, is frivolous

dance on thr informatior matter w

Brie

Vexati

s (the Comm

4(2) FOISAatious or rep

tions 10(4)on that are mo general a m

OISA: applieissioner the s or vexatiou

he interpreon must be

will depend o

efing S

ous or

missioner’s) g

A: Scottish ppeated.

(b) and (c) manifestly unrmanner.

s to applicatdiscretion nous

tation and e considereon the circ

Series

Repea

general appro

public author

EIRs: Scotreasonable, w

tions made toot to reach a

applicationed on a casecumstances

s

ated Re

oach to:

rities are not

ttish public while regulat

o the a decision on

n of the rele by case bas of that cas

equests

t

tion

n an

evant asis - se.

Intr Theseexercprovidon thethe au Publicmake authounrea

Vex Part Sectiocomply See A Part Therewell-ebackg Essentinterpand macknoreason Thererequeevalua(which

• • • • •

This issuppo

roductio

e provisions aise their righde a way of de financial anuthority.

c authorities a genuine inrity’s resoursonable.

xatious

1: What d

on 14(1) of Fy with a requ

Appendix for

2: Interpr

e is no definitestablished inround, in or

tially, sectionpreted in themust not be uowledged then to refuse t

e is no single est is vexatioation and reah may be the

it would imit does noit is designit has the it would odispropor

s not an exhorted by evid

on

aim to protehts to informdealing with nd human res

should not uformation re

rces, but thes

request

does the la

FOISA states est for inform

full text.

retation

tion of ‘vexan law and opder that the

n 14(1) is co context of t

used to undee damage whto deal with

formula or us, and eachasoning. Thee latest in a s

mpose a signot have a serned to causeeffect of har

otherwise, inrtionate.

austive list: ddence), other

ect the credimation respon

the few applsources of p

use these proequest. Reqse factors ar

ts – sect

aw say?

that the genmation if the re

atious’ in FOted to give tinterpretatio

ncerned witthe importanermine that rhich may be da request if t

definitive set request mue Commissioseries of req

nificant burdeious purpose

e disruption orassing the p the opinion

depending onr factors may

bility and effnsibly, but thlications thatublic authori

ovisions lightuests may be

re not on the

tion 14(

neral right ofequest is vexa

ISA. The Scothe Commisson might evo

h the effect once of the rigright. In recodone to the the requeste

t of criteria tst be consid

oner consideuests or oth

en on the pue or value; or annoyancublic authori of a reasona

n the circumy be relevant

fectiveness ohere are raret are manifesities or are d

tly. Applicane inconvenieeir own suffi

(1) FOIS

f access to inatious”.

ottish Parliamsioner latitudolve over tim

of the requeght of accessognising thatright by its d

er’s actions a

that enable aered on the

ers the followher related co

ublic authorit

e to the pubity; able person,

mstances (andt.

of freedom ofe occasions wstly unreasondeemed to b

nts must notent, and meeticient to dee

SA

nformation “

ment acknowde to interprme in light of

est on the aus to informatt a request mdisproportionare not justif

a totally formmerits of th

wing factors torresponden

ty;

blic authority

be consider

d provided th

f informationwhen this is nable, would e vexatious

be unjustly ting them ma

em a request

does not oblig

wledged thatret that termf experience

thority and ition conferre

may be vexatinate use. A ied when tak

mulaic approae case, suppto be relevannce) is vexati

y;

red to be ma

he impact on

n laws. Mostnot the case

d impose a sigbecause of o

denied the oay at times st vexatious o

ge a Scottish

t the term ‘vm in accordan

and precede

its staff. It shed by sectiontious, Parliamkey issue is

ken in contex

ach to deterported by evint to a findinious:

anifestly unre

n the author

t applicants e. These provgnificant burother impact

opportunity tstretch an or manifestly

public author

exatious’ wance with thisent.

hould be n 1(1) of FO

ment has whether thext.

rmining whetidence and cng that a req

easonable or

ity can be

2

visions rden ts on

to

rity to

as s

ISA

ere is

ther a lear uest

r

Reso ParliamTuesd01/j10 Tuesd02/j10 Part Is a r This s14(1)

• • •

Signif A reqamoustatutdutiescore f Generof thethe ke If the applicExces In botCommScotti(whichrepresshouldmatte

urces:

mentary debaday 30 Octob01-2902.htm

day 12 Febru02-0502.htm

3: Applyin

request ve

section sets oi.e.:

how to dewhat to tawhat proc14(1).

ficant burd

uest will impnt of time, aory functions under FOI functions are

rally, the aute organisationey functions

expense invation of sectsive Cost of

th Decision missioner wash Governmh was small asented a signd expect to rr of the requ

ates – Justice ber 2001 (Co

ary 2002 (C

ng section

exatious?

out consider

etermine whake into accocesses you n

den

pose a ‘signifnd the diver

ns. This shoulegislation. I

e of a higher

thority shouln most immeand/or tasks

volved in deation 12 of FOf Compliance

078/2012 aas not persua

ment. The Mand extremenificant burdereceive a conuests, she fo

1 Committee:ol 2740-2742

ol 3207-321

n 14(1)

rations when

hether a requount in detereed to follow

ficant burdenrsion of an unuld include dIf the public priority than

d consider tediately affecs from which

aling with a rOISA (excesse’ (details at t

and Decisioaded by arguinisters argu

ely busy). Gien. The Comnsiderable nund it unsur

: 2) - www.sco

2)- www.sco

n dealing with

uest is vexatirmining whetw if you dete

n’ on a publicnreasonable emonstratinauthority don the statuto

he impact ofcted. It shouh resources w

request is thesive cost of cthe end of th

on 173/2012uments relatied that Mr Riven their brmmissioner tumber of reqprising that s

ottish.parliam

ottish.parliam

h a request w

ious; ther a requeermine that t

c authority wproportion

ng why thoseoes not perfoory requirem

f the requestuld also be abwould requir

e only considcompliance).his section) f

2 Mr Daviding to the peRule’s requesroad and unfotook the viequests and pso many of t

ment.uk/busi

ment.uk/busin

where there

est is vexatiothere are gro

where dealingof its financia

e other statutorm statutor

ment to respo

t on its wholble to quantire to be dive

deration invo See the Co

for guidance

d Rule and terceived impasts were “taocused natur

ew that the Fprepare itselfthem were d

ness/commit

ness/commit

may be grou

ous; ounds for ref

g with it woual and humantory function

ry functions, ond to inform

le resourcesify the impac

erted to deal

olved, the auommissioner’

on the appli

the Scottisact of requergeted” at thre, the MinistFirst Ministerf for that eveirected at th

ttees/histori

ttees/historic

unds for refu

efusing a requ

uld require an resources,ns take priorit should demation reque

s, rather thanct of the req with it.

uthority shour’s briefing onication of se

h Ministerssts on a parthe First Ministers believedr’s Office, byentuality. Gihe First Minis

c/justice1/or

c/justice1/or-

usal under se

uest under se

a disproporti away from ority over statmonstrate wests.

n simply that uest and iden

uld consider n ‘Fees and ction 12.

s, the ticular part oster’s Office d the requesy its nature, ven the subjster’s Office.

3

r-

-

ection

ection

ionate other tutory

why its

part ntify

the

of the

sts

ect .

The r Publicpurpoto obtpublicseriouCommpublic In Dereque In an ecommautomrandowhethwholly

The r This isrequeappliccannointentito accapplicwas thguidan In Deregulanot alconsidcause The r This tapplicand/olanguainappr

request lac

c authorities ose or value, tain the inforc authority. Tus purpose omissioner wic authority to

ecision 078/est lacked any

earlier decismon charactematically folloom list of 19 her the contey disproport

request is d

s not a concester’ below)ant to state

ot, in the whoion in makingcess the inforant’s intentiohe applicant’nce on this p

ecision 020/ation 10(4)(bways accuratder it reasondisruption o

request has

takes into accant did not ir its staff, it mage and toneropriate lang

cks serious

should not rthe applican

rmation. ThThe inclusio

or value that ll accept thato provide ro

/2012 Mr Dy serious pu

ion (245/201eristic of relaowed they shpublic figureent of the retionate to an

designed to

lusion an aut and the reawhy they waole circumstg a request. rmation thaton where hes intention f

point see disc

/2011 Mr Gb) of the EIRstely (for exa

nable to interor annoyance

s the effect

count the effntend to caumay be deem

e of a requestguage’ below

purpose or

reach this cont might fromhe applicant in of this critthey can ont some casesbust reasons

David Rule arpose or val

11) the Comating to peophared anythines. There haequest was suny purpose se

o cause disr

thority shouasons for it aant informatiances of the If the intenti

t is the subjee/she has madrom prior kncussion unde

Garry Caldes), the Commample, in conrpret this, in e.

t of harassin

ffect a requesuse inconvenmed vexatiout may be rele

w).

r value

onclusion lighm a subjectives not obligederion simplyly be seen ass have no sers, supported

and the Scoue.

missioner acple in the pubng more in cd to be a pouch that the erved.

ruption or a

ld reach lightre a matter fion. Howevcase, be dis

ion is evidenct of the reqde it explicitnowledge of,er ‘request n

er and East missioner accnsistently mis

the context

ng the pub

st has on a pnience or expus when conevant in asse

htly. Even if e and reasond to share hiy recognises s vexatious. rious purpos by relevant

ottish Minis

ccepted that blic eye. Hocommon. In oint at which

demands pla

annoyance

tly. Strictly for the appli

ver, there areregarded. F

ntly to cause quest, the ret. It may be p, and docum

not requester

Lothian Cocepted that ts-spelling thet of the com

lic authorit

ublic authorpense, if the sidered from

essing this (fo

a public authnable point ois/her motivethat some reWhat the fo

se or value, bevidence.

sters the Co

the individuowever, in th

summary, thit was reaso

aced on its t

e

speaking, a rcant. Neithee occasions wor that reasodisruption oquest may b

possible for aented interar’ below).

ouncil (conthe applicant

e name of a pmunications

ty

ity regardlesrequest has

m the perspeor further gu

hority thinks of view have es for seekinequests may ollowing decibut only whe

ommissioner

als identifiedis case she d

he Ministers onable for thime and reso

request is apper FOISA nowhere the inon, this factoor annoyancee vexatious. a public authactions with,

sidered furtht expressed particular Cohe had seen

s of the applthe effect of

ective of a reuidance see d

that a requea genuine de

ng the informbe so obvioision demonen appropria

r accepted th

d in the requdid not accephad been pre authority tources in de

plicant blind or the EIRs rntention behior considers e to the auth It will be eaority to demthe applican

her below, ahimself stronouncil officern, as indicatin

licant’s intenf harassing th

easonable perdiscussion un

est lacks seriesire and/or

mation with tously lacking strates is tha

ate. It is for

hat Mr Rule’s

est shared thpt that it resented withto ask itself aling with it

(see ‘Requeequire the ind a requestthe applican

hority, ratherasiest to gaug

monstrate thant (for furthe

s a decision ngly, and perr). He did nong an intentio

ntions. Even he public autrson. The nder ‘abusive

4

ious need

the in at the the

s

he

h a

was

est not

t nt’s r than ge an at this

er

under rhaps ot on to

if an thority

e or

In DeComm The aperiodnot lisdissatinvestexhau It wasto extany cl In Deconclu For ciKane The r RegarvexatiThe eRelevaresouabovethe retransp Vexa Therethey dreach Requ The te It is norequeapplicthey m Howecould deeme

ecision 133/missioner acc

uthority hadds had expirestened to theisfied with. Ttigations whicusted.

s reasonable tend the dialoser by resp

ecision 013/usion was re

rcumstancese and Scott

request is m

rdless of the ious if, in theffect on a puant factors torces that wo

e on ‘significaequest, beariparency in pu

atious requ

e are a numbdo not make their conclu

uest not req

erm ‘vexatio

ot the identiest made in liant has beenmay have sub

ever, an applireasonably ced vexatious

/2012 Mr Acepted that t

d repeatedly ed and the fie advice it gaThe authoritch had been

to concludeogue about t

ponding to th

/2013 Clydeeached in rela

s in which thish Water,

manifestly u

apparent pue opinion of ublic authorito consider inould be requant burden’). ng in mind thublic authorit

uests – ge

ber of generarequests ve

usions about

quester

ous’ must be

ity of the appight of the sun deemed vebmitted othe

icant’s identiconclude thas in another

A and the Cthe applicant

explained toiles in questiave. Underlyty explained concluded s

from the evthose long-sthe requests.

e Marine Seation to a pa

he Commissioconsidered

unreasonab

rpose or vala reasonablety of dealing nclude the coired to proc Balanced ag

hat FOISA aties.

neral prin

al principles txatious/manthe factors a

applied to th

plicant that durrounding cxatious in an

er (unrelated

ity, and the hat a particulacontext, and

hief Constat’s pattern of

o Mr A that iton had beenying the requthat the info

some years e

vidence provtanding conc

ervices Limattern of per

oner did notfurther belo

ble or dispr

ue of a reque person, it wwith the reqomplexity ofess it, and thgainst these nd the EIRs a

ciples

that apply toifestly unreaas set out ab

he request, N

determines wcircumstancenother conted) requests th

history of thear request red so refuse th

able of Dumf behaviour h

t no longer hn destroyed. uest were hisormation souearlier, and t

vided by the cerns. It app

mited and Srsistent reque

t accept a haow in the con

roportiona

uest, or the inwould appeaquest will bef the requesthe impact onfactors shouare designed

o all considerasonable in thbove.

NOT the req

whether a rees. A requesext, for instahat were vex

eir dealings wepresents thehe request a

mfries and had the effec

held the info The authorstoric investught would nthat all avenu

authority thapeared highly

Strathclydeests submitte

arassing effecntext of regu

ate

ntention of tr to be mani

e relevant in t, the volumen the authoriuld be the wid to give acce

rations abouthemselves, th

uester.

equest is vexast cannot be nce if he/shexatious.

with a publice continuatioas being vexa

Galloway Cct of harassin

ormation he wity was able igations by t

not change thues in relatio

at the requey unlikely tha

Partnershed over a co

ct, see Decisulation 10(4)

the applicantfestly unreasdetermining e of informatty’s statutorder value aness to inform

t whether a hey may have

atious, but thjudged vexat

e has made a

c authority, mon of a patteratious. This m

Constabulang the public

was asking foto demonst

the authorityhe outcomes

on to them ha

ests were beiat resolution

hip for Tranonsiderably s

sion 012/20(b) of the EI

t, a request msonable or dwhether thi

tion requestry and/or cornd (where knmation and to

request is veve a bearing o

he nature antious simply

another com

may be relevarn of behaviomay arise, fo

ary, the authority.

or. Retentiorate that Mr

y which Mr As of the ad been

ng used primwould be br

nsport, a simhorter perio

012 Mr TomRs.

may be deemisproportionis is the caseted, the time re operationnown) purpoo promote

exatious. Won how auth

nd effect of thbecause an plaint or bec

ant. An authour which it

or example,

5

on A had

A was

marily rought

milar od.

mmy

med nate. e.

and ns (see ose of

While orities

he

cause

hority has

wherean extobses Campshouldtake inwell fothe rebe casobtain This dgiven proce The re

a

b

A useanothvexati In Decircumdialognothin The aLaw Sthere closerprolonthe ap The p Wheractioninconsrequeauthoautho

e an applicantended campsive.

paigning in fud not deal wnto account ounded or helevant authoses in which n information

doesn’t meanreasons to h

esses have be

equest may b

a) there is disclose

b) it is unlisubject procedu

ful test is forer person, uious.

ecision 145/mstances for gue about hisng more cou

uthority wasSociety of Scowas nothing

r by providinnging yet furpplicant did n

public auth

re an authorins may have sistent respo

ests, for clarifrity’s actionsrity has met

nt has an on-gpaign, for exa

rtherance ofwith a campaig

could includas no reason

orities; or thait is reasonan, for examp

n that an apphelp them uneen followed

be vexatious

no additioned; or ikely that thein question hure).

r the public aunknown to t

/2012 Mr B the Council

s complaints.uld be added.

s able to demotland, and vg more it coung a responserther correspnot require t

hority’s acti

ity intends tocontributed

onses to prevfication. Thes helped proits duties un

going grievanample to exp

f legitimate cgn as potent

de, for exampnable prospeat he/she ref

able to conclple on the ba

plicant’s requnderstand the.

s if it is the c

al informatio

e additional ihas already b

authority to the authority

and Aberdl to conclude. These wer.

monstrate thvarious Ombuld do on thee to the requpondence onthe informati

ions

o take accouto the situatvious requese Commissio

otract dealingnder section

nce against apose wrongd

concerns is atially vexatiouple, evidenceect of succesfuses to consude that the

asis of their p

uests for infoe conclusion

ase that:

on that can b

information wbeen thoroug

consider why. If it would

deenshire Ce that FOISAre about mat

at the applicbudsmen andese issues anuest. The Con matters whion to pursu

unt of prior dtion. For inssts for informoner is unlikegs between a15 (see belo

a public authodoing, to the

appropriate aus lightly, ore (from the hs; that the resider any alte

e applicant’s pprevious dea

ormation shons reached by

be provided b

would shed ghly address

hether the ind, this might

Council, theA was being utters the Cou

cant had exhad Commissiond it appeareommissionehich had beee his intentio

dealings withstance, whermation, this mely to concluauthority andow on sectio

ority, or coupoint that h

activity in a dr simply becahistory of theequester hasernative poinpurpose is tolings with th

ould be refusy an authorit

because all r

light on, or ased through t

nformation wsuggest that

e Commissioused by the auncil believe

austed the cooners. The Ced unlikely thr accepted thn addressed on of submit

h an applicantre an authorimight have leude that an ad applicant, eon 15: the du

uld reasonablhis/her behav

democratic sause it is a cae matter) thas failed to taknt of view ono pursue an ae authority.

ed automaticty, and to be

relevant infor

alter, the appthe relevant

would be supt the request

oner found thapplicant primd had been a

omplaints prCouncil had ihat their resohat respondiexhaustively

tting a new c

t, it should cty has provid

ed to the appapplicant shoespecially if thuty to provid

ly be describviour can be

society, and pampaign. Coat the campake his/her con the matterargument an

cally; the appe assured tha

rmation has

plicant’s situacomplaints o

pplied if it wet should not

hat it was reamarily to coaddressed fu

rocess with tinformed himolution wouling would hay. She was acomplaint to

consider wheded partial, aplicant makin

ould be penalhere is no ev

de advice and

bed as condudescribed as

public authoronsiderationsaign is eitheroncerns up wr. There maynd not really

plicant shoulat proper

already been

ation (becauor appeals

ere requestedbe treated a

asonable in tntinue extenlly and on w

the Council, m in 2004 thald be broughave the effectalso satisfied the Council

ether its ownambiguous, ong further ised if the puvidence that d assistance).

6

ucting s

rities s to r not with y also to

d be

n

se the

d by as

the nded

which

the at

ht any t of that .

n or

ublic the

.

Serie Wherconsidwill noreason If the authomay b

• 06

Maunodeonstau

• 12Cw AasmTimin

Abus The ulanguawhethtowar • 08

la TGAagauww

es of reques

re a request dered collectot necessarilnably be exp

number of rrity could re

be vexatious.

62/2005 MaMacbrayne Luthorities, wot be vexatioeciding whetn the public taff capable outhorities an

28/2007 Doommissione

which would b

ll 4,895 requs being vexat

manually and phe Commiss

mposed, colleformation o

sive or inap

se of abusiveage a reasonaher a requestrds a request

80/2005 Mrnguage used

his case concrampian Hodvocate. Thgainst individutomatically

was expressedwanted.

sts or large

is the latest tively when ay mean any

pected to ma

requests madeasonably be Decisions w

acroberts aLtd – This chich both mous, but thatther each waauthorities a

of dealing witd that the re

omhnall Car ruled that be a disprop

uests for infotious, explainprocessing tsioner’s rulinectively, a disn a separate

ppropriate l

e or inapproable person t meets the t being deem

r David Em by the appli

cerned a requsing Associ

he public autuals. The Cmean that itd was both i

e numbers o

in a series, oassessing theof those reqake numerou

de by one reexpected to

where the C

and the Scocase concernaintained we

t in this case as vexatious. and were math them, andequests colle

amshron anall but two oortionate inc

ormation relaning that onlyhem would p

ng took note sproportiona topic that w

language

opriate languawould consicriteria spec

med vexatiou

mslie and thicant were in

quest for infoation, Aberdhority deemommissione

t will be vexanappropriate

of requests

or where a lae burden theuests are ve

us requests t

quester, at to deal with thCommissione

ottish Execued 720 requ

ere vexatiousrequests fro The issue w

anifestly unre the Commi

ectively were

nd James Wof the 4,895 convenience

ated to lunchy two staff mplace a signifof the volum

ate inconvenwould not im

age will not, der abusive

cified above. s in the follo

e Scottish nappropriate

ormation reladeen City Coed the requer noted that atious, but ine and made i

s

arge numberey impose onexatious. Ceto the author

the same timhem in acco

er has consid

utive and 0uests made bs. The Com

om the same was whethereasonable. Tissioner conce vexatious.

Watt Collegrequests wo

e and expens

h expenses amembers couficant burdenme and subjenience and exmpose a signif

in itself, makor inapprop The Comm

owing case:

Executive e, and that th

ating to comouncil, the Dest vexatioust the use of an this case thit almost imp

r of requestsn the public aertain kinds ority.

me or in closerdance with

dered large n

063/2005 My one applica

mmissioner coapplicant co

r the 720 reqThe specialistcluded this w

ge of Furtheould, collective.

and other mauld deal withn on the admect matter inxpense. Theficant burden

ke a request riate in the c

missioner foun

- The Commhe request w

mmunicationsDepartment fs, noting thatabusive langue language u

possible to w

are submittauthority, buof requester,

e succession,the requiremumbers of re

acroberts aant on the saoncluded thaould be consiquests wouldt subject matwould impose

er & Highevely, involve

atters. The cthem, and t

ministration a accepting th

e other two rn on the auth

for informatcircumstancend that inapp

missioner agras vexatious

s between thfor Work ant it included

uage in an infsed and the

work out wha

ted at once, tut a large num in particular

, is so great tments of FOequests inclu

and Caledoame day to tat each requeidered collec

d impose a sitter limited te a significan

er Educatioa diversion

college refusthat the recoand operatiohe majority orequests wehority.

tion vexatioues may be a fpropriate lan

reed that thes.

he (then) Justd Pensions aunsubstantia

formation remanner in wat informatio

they can be mber of requr, might

that no publISA, the requde:

onian two public est alone woctively whengnificant burthe number nt burden on

on. The of resources

sed the requords were hens of the colof the requere for

us. Howevefactor in decnguage contr

e allegations

tice Ministerand the Lordated allegatio

equest will nowhich the reqon the applic

7

uests

ic uests

ould

rden of the

s

ests eld llege. sts

r, ciding ributed

and

r, d ons ot quest cant

The d There(see Ashoulddepenactionassistavexati Deal Once this ef

•

• Wherand to If the for rethe apthe Cgood for a d

Decis

A dectheir rtaken decisiodecisioevidensignific Good If a puused tapplic

duty to pro

e is a duty onAppendix ford be consultend on the cirns. If an authance with refious.

ing with v

an authorityffect to the a

a notice hCommissiJames Milliin the circ

re a notice iso apply to th

authority review itself) i

pplicant of thommissionerpractice to edecision in tw

a) where b) where

sion-makin

cision to deeright to requat an appropon-making pon. If it comnce and souncant burden

d practice

ublic authoritto determineants that an

ovide reaso

n an authoritr full text). Ifed to help th

rcumstances hority has takfining the req

vexatious r

y has decidedapplicant wit

has already bioner’s view igan and Glascumstances,

s issued, it me Commissio

ceives a reqs vexatious.

his, again withr if he/she reexplain, as fawo cases:

he/she has rno such not

g and reco

m a request uest a reviewpriately senio

process, i.e. wmes to an invnd reasoningwould be in

ty receives ae if a requestobjective me

onable advic

ty under sectf processing hem refine thof each caseken reasonabquest, and th

requests

d there are gthin 20 work

een given in is that this w

sgow City Couit would be

ust include doner if he/sh

uest for revi If the publichin 20 workemains dissatar as possible

eceived one ice has been

rd-keeping

vexatious ww, and ultimaor level, andwhy the requvestigation byg, with quantvolved.

a high proport is vexatiousethod of ass

ce and assis

tion 15 of FOa request is

heir request e, but the Coble steps to he applicant

grounds for rking days unle

relation to awould need tuncil); and unreasonable

details of thehe remains di

ew, it does nc authority ding days. Thtisfied, and oe, the reason

of the notic issued.

g

will often be ctely to makeafter carefu

uest was judgy the Commification of th

rtion of vexas. This will hessment is u

stance

OISA to provlikely to impin order to

ommissionerexplain the d(without goo

refusing a reess:

a previous idto be a notic

e to expect

e applicant’s issatisfied aft

not have to cdecides not this notice muof the furtherns for this de

ces mentione

contentious, e an applicatiul thought. Itged to be vexissioner, shehe impact of

atious requeshelp staff memused.

vide reasonapose a signifimake it morwould expe

difficulties invod cause) re

equest under

dentical or suce under sect

it to serve a

right to ask ter that.

comply if theto carry out ust include der right of appcision. An a

ed above, and

and it is quition to the Ct is also impoxatious, and

e will expect f the request

sts, it may bembers faced

able advice ancant burden re manageabect to see evivolved in profuses to refin

section 14(

ubstantially stion 14(1) –

nother notic

the public au

e original reqa review it metails of the peal to the Capplicant can

d is dissatisfie

te likely thatommissionerortant to keehow the pubsuch decisio

t where the a

e worth pubwith making

nd assistance on an authole. How thisidence of theocessing a rene their requ

1), it must is

similar requesee Decision

ce.

uthority to r

quest (or indmust issue a applicant’s r

Court of Sessn apply to th

ed with this;

t the applicanr. Such deciep records dblic authorit

ons to be bacauthority is a

blishing the cg the decision

e to applicanority, an appls is done wile authority’sequest and ouest, it may b

ssue a notice

st. The 191/0212 M

review its dec

deed the reqnotice inform

right to applysion. It is alse Commissio

or

nt will exercsions should

documenting y came to thcked by detaarguing that

riteria whichns and also s

8

nts licant l

s offered be

to

Mr

cision

uest ming y to so oner

ise d be

the his ailed a

h are show

Reso CommThe fuCommdecisio CommScottiwww. Other Freedwww. ScottiInformhttp:// Other HM Chttp://http://princiDransf Rep Part Sectioinformthere hreques See A Part Is a r It shorequeattem

urces:

missioner’s Decull text of all missioner’s won number (

missioner’s Guish Informati.itspublickno

Resources: om of Inform.hmso.gov.uk

sh Ministersmation (Scotl/www.scotla

jurisdictions Courts & Trib/www.inform/www.judiciaples include field [2012] U

peated r

1: What d

on 14(2) of Fmation, it is nohas been a rest”.

Appendix at t

2: Applyin

request re

uld be relativest, but it is apt to define

cisions: of the Com

website. To v(e.g. 0xx/200

idance: on Commisswledge.info/

mation (Feesk/legislation/s

’ Code of Prland) Act 20nd.gov.uk/Re

bunals Servicmationtribunaary.gov.uk/mRigby v IC EAUKUT 440 (A

requests

does the la

FOISA states ot obliged to ceasonable per

the end for fu

ng section

epeated?

vely straightfa judgment ca “reasonab

mmissioner’s view a decisi0x) in the ‘Se

sioner’s ‘FeeLaw/FOISA-

s for Requirescotland/ssi2

ractice on th002 and the Eesource/Doc

ce: decisions al.gov.uk/Pubedia/tribunal

A/2009/0103AAC).

s – sect

aw say?

that “where comply with a riod of time b

ull text.

n 14(2)

forward to eall whether a

ble period of

decisions, inon, go to ww

earch’ bar.

s and ExcessEIRsGuidanc

ed Disclosure2004/200404

e Discharge Environmentc/933/010942

of the Inforblic/search.asl-decisions/o; Lee v IC EA

ion 14(2

a Scottish pu subsequent retween the m

establish whea reasonabletime” in the

cluding thosww.itspublick

sive Cost of ce/Fees/Fees

e) (Scotland)467.htm

of Functionstal Informatio25.pdf

rmation Rightspx and Upp

osccs-decisio/2012/0015,

2) FOIS

ublic authorityrequest from

making of the

ether a reque period of tie legislation,

e referencedknowledge.in

ComplianceOverview.as

) Regulations

s by Scottishon (Scotland)

ts Tribunal per Tribunal ns Decision 0049 and 0

SA

y has compliedthat person w request comp

est is identicme has elapsbecause it w

d above, can nfo/decisions

’ Guidance - sp

s 2004 (the F

Public Auth) Regulations

(Administrats which are 085, and (in

d with a requwhich is identiplied with and

cal or substansed between

will depend on

be viewed os and enter t

Fees Regulat

horities undes 2004

tive Appeals particularly

the Upper Tr

uest from a peical or substad the making

ntially similarn requests. Tn the circum

on the the relevant

ions)

er the Freedo

Chamber) helpful on geribunal) IC v

erson for ntially similar of the subseq

r to a previoThere is no

mstances.

9

om of

eneral,

unless quent

ous

Consielapse

i) Ha It is immatteterms14(2). If thenew/‘reasojustifi

Whercircumand reAlternalread ii) Ha It is alreque

ab

If the lead toPublicmust Pro-a If a puthe in Com SectiorequePublic

dering the foed:

i) Has theii) Have th

s the inform

mportant to r or precise

s as earlier re.

e informationadditional inonable perioied within sh

re a request mstances havefusing the renatively, checdy received.

ave the circ

lso essential est, which me

a) the risk b) whethe

circumstanco a different

c authorities be able to de

active rele

ublic authoritformation th

mplying wit

on 14(2) is diest; for instanc authorities

ollowing two

e informationhe circumsta

mation cha

consider thewording. A

equests. Thi

n captured byformation, a

od of time’ hahorter interv

captures botve not changequest insofack with the a

cumstances

to consider ean that a fre

k of substantir the public

es have chant outcome, thshould not uemonstrate t

ease

ty is receivinhrough its pu

th repeate

iscretionary, nce, where tshould give

o questions w

n changed? ances change

anged?

e actual informApplicants oftis does not a

y the new realteration to as elapsed. Rvals than req

th new infored – see beloar as it relateapplicant, wh

s changed?

whether theesh decision

ial prejudice interest lies

nged since thhe Commissuse this sectithat the rele

ng repeated rublication sch

ed request

not mandathe applicant due weight t

will help pub

d?

mation captuten submit mautomatically

equest is diffeexisting infoRepeat requuests relating

rmation and iow), there ises to the oldho may clarify

e circumstanon the new

arising fromin withholdin

he applicant’sioner is likelion to unjust

evant conditio

requests for heme.

ts

ory. Even if has lost or f

to such repre

lic authoritie

red by a reqmore than ony mean the r

ferent to theormation – thests for infog to a comp

information s no difficultyd informationfy that they d

nces have chaone is warra

m disclosure; ng or disclos

s last requesy to concludtifiably restrions apply.

particular in

f this section failed to retaesentations w

es to assess w

quest at the tne request oequests will

informationhe Commissirmation thatleted or stat

considered iy in giving fren on the basidid not inten

anged since tanted. The p

and sing the infor

t, and a freshde that a ‘react an applica

nformation, it

applies, it main the informwhere they a

whether a re

time it is recn a subject, pbe ‘repeated

n captured byioner is likelyt is routinelytic process.

in relation toesh consideris that the red to capture

the decision passage of tim

rmation.

h look at theasonable perant’s rights to

t should con

might still be rmation, but tare made.

easonable pe

eived, and npossibly evend’ for the pu

y the earlier y to conclud

y updated are

o an earlier rration to theequest is, in e information

was taken ome may affec

e informationriod of time’ o access info

nsider pro-ac

reasonable tthen realised

eriod of time

ot just the sun in the samerpose of sec

request – i.ede that a e likely to be

request (and new informpart, repeaten they have

on a previousct:

n or issues mhas elapsed.

ormation. Th

ctively publish

to comply wid they still ne

10

e has

ubject e

ction

e.

e

the ation, ed.

s

might

hey

hing

ith the eed it.

Deal The pAuthovexatiPreviosectioCounc ResoParliamTuesdwww. Part • 15

Cm DagCsinTsc

• 09Bere

MreunpaMcoha

• 19

re

Manhaauna

ing with r

process for dorities shouldious and repous notice unon 14(2) will cil).

urces: mentary debday 12 Febru.scottish.parl

3: Section

59/2007 Mrouncil’s conc

made in June 2

Documents hagencies, and wommissionence the first he applicant cope of the a

98/2011 Mrenson’s requesponded to

Mr Benson argequested, witniversities’ darticular info

Mr Benson didonclude that ad dealt with

91/2012 Mrequest was r

Mr Milligan’s tnd sought thead not challeuthority had ature and no

repeated r

dealing with rd note that teated requender sectiononly apply to

bate – Justiceary 2002 (Cliament.uk/bu

n 14(2) in

r Campbellclusion that 2005.

ad been creawhich shouldr was also corequest, durhad made cl

applicant’s re

r Ian Bensouests were idin full.

gued that thth the resultisclosures in

ormation heldd not challenthe previou

h Mr Benson

r James Milepeated. Sh

two requestse same infor

enged the Cofailed to pro

othing had ch

requests

repeated reqthe Commisssts, whereve 14(1) will oo subsequen

e 1 Committol 3207-321usiness/comm

practice: r

l Martin anMr Martin’s

ated after thed have been oncerned tharing which tilear that he wequest should

on and Glasdentical and t

e Universityt (in his viewn response tod by the Uninge the previs response d’s previous r

lligan and Ge did not acc

s related to trmation relatouncil’s previovide the infohanged betwe

quests is the sioner has noer previous nonly apply to t repeated o

ee – 2) mittees/histo

relevant d

d North AyJune 2007 re

e first requeconsidered at the Councme the Couwas only seed have been

sgow Caledthat the info

’s response t) that sectioo similar reqversity had cious decisiondid not comprequest in ful

Glasgow Cicept that a y

the same penting to signagious decisionormation reqeen the two

same as withot interpretenotice has besubsequent

ones (see De

oric/justice1/

decisions

yrshire Couequest was i

est, which invfor disclosurcil deemed tncil had corr

eking copies clarified bef

donian Univormation req

to his previon 14(2) couluests demonchanged. Thn within FOIply with his rll, even if info

ity Council year between

nalty charge ge and facilitin. Consequequested. Threquests ap

h vexatious red section 16een given undvexatious recision 191/02

/or-02/j102-0

uncil - The dentical or s

volved differere in responsthe request ‘responded wof correspon

fore deeming

versity - Thuested had n

ous request hd not apply.

nstrated thathe CommissSA time limitrequest. In aormation ha

- The Comn this and a p

notice issueies for the pently, the Coe informatioart from the

requests, and6(5) as beingder either suequests, whil212 Mr James

0502.htm

Commissionsubstantially

ent Governmse to the secrepeated’ wh

with the Govndence not pg the request

e Commissionot changed.

had not supp He also bel

t the circumsioner did nots, so the Coany case, it wd been withh

mmissioner aprevious req

d in the samurchase of p

ommissioner on concernede passage of t

d is set out ag engaged forubsection of e previous n

es Milligan and

ner did not asimilar to a

ment departmcond requesthen 18 mont

vernment abopreviously sut repeated.

oner accepte. The earlier

plied all the ilieved evidenstances surroot accept theommissionerwas evident theld.

accepted thquest was a r

me controlledparking vouchr could not cd was relativtime.

above. r subsequentsection 14.

notice under d Glasgow Cit

accept the request he h

ments or t. The ths had elapsout the projeupplied. The

ed that Mr r request had

nformation nce of other ounding the

ese argumentr was unablethat the Univ

hat Mr Milligareasonable pe

d parking arehers. Mr Milonclude that

vely static in

11

t

ty

had

sed ect. e

d been

ts. to versity

an’s eriod.

ea, lligan t the

ResoCommThe fuCommdecisio Other HM Chttp://http:// ManEIR Part Underextent

See A Part The E Mani The EConveunreafor reinformworki The C‘manifconsid As witreque

urces: missioner’s Decull text of all missioner’s won number (

jurisdictions Courts & Trib/www.inform/www.judicia

nifestly Rs

1: What d

r the EIRs, a t that:

• the req• the req

duty un

Appendix at t

2: Applyin

EIRs impleme

ifestly unr

EIRs do not dention Implesonable’. Unsponding to

mation requeng days.

Commissionefestly unreasderations as

th a ‘vexatioest to be ‘ma

cisions: of the Com

website. To (e.g. 0xx/200

bunals Servicmationtribunaary.gov.uk/m

unreaso

does the la

Scottish pub

quest for infoquest for infonder regulati

the end for fu

ng the reg

ent Directiv

reasonable

define the terementation Gnder regulatia request fo

ested makes

er has publishonable’. Geshe would in

ous request’, nifestly unre

mmissioner’s view a decis

0x) in the ‘Se

ce: decisions al.gov.uk/Pubedia/tribunal

onable o

aw say?

blic authority

ormation is mormation is fon 9 [to pro

ull text.

gulations

ve 2003/4/E

e requests

rm ‘manifestGuide makes ion 7 of the

or environmeit impractica

hed a numbenerally, in apn reaching a

there may beasonable’ (se

decisions, inion, go to w

earch’ bar.

of the Inforblic/search.asl-decisions/o

or gene

y may refuse

manifestly unormulated in

ovide reasona

C on public

tly unreasonait clear that EIRs, a publiental informaable to comp

er of decisionpplying this rdecision as t

be circumstanee above).

cluding thoswww.itspublic

rmation Rightspx and Upp

osccs-decisio

eral requ

e a request to

nreasonable (n too generaable advice a

access to en

able’, and net volume andc authority iation to 40 wply with the r

ns on whethregulation, shto whether a

nces where t

e referencedcknowledge.i

ts Tribunal per Tribunal ns

uests – r

o make envir

(regulation 1al a manner, aand assistanc

nvironmenta

ither does thd complexity s allowed to

working daysrequest (or t

her a requesthe is likely toa request is v

the burden o

d above, can nfo/decision

(Administrat

regulati

ronmental in

0(4)(b)); or and the auth

ce to the app

l information

he Directive.alone do no

o extend the s if the volumto decide to

t for environo take into acvexatious (se

of responding

be viewed ons and enter

tive Appeals

ions 10(

nformation av

hority has coplicant] (regu

n.

. However, ot make a req

maximum 2me and comp

refuse the r

nmental inforccount the see above).

g alone justif

on the the relevant

Chamber)

(4)(b) &

vailable to th

omplied with ulation 10(4)(

the Aarhus quest ‘manife

20 working dplexity of therequest) with

rmation is ame kinds of

fies deeming

12

& (c)

he

its (c)).

estly ays

e hin 20

f

g a

Unlikewhere

a

b

Publicdifficu(witho Requ The CCommfor:

A reqworkian autreque Reaso Regula

a

b The Sthe EIstates

e FOISA, thee:

a) the timereasona

b) an extenwith the

c authorities ulties involvedout good cau

uests form

Convention amissioner has

• an auth• an auth

days wo

uest may be ng days or athority may rest will not b

onable adv

ation 9(2) pr

a) ask the of a req

b) assist th

cottish MinisRs (see belo (on pages 9

• providi• providi

the info• providi

provide• contact

ere is no cos

e and expensable person wnsion of an ae request ma

have a duty d in processuse) refuses t

mulated in

and the EIRs s not yet dea

hority’s abilithority’s abilitould still not

general, butan extended receive a reqe too genera

vice and ass

rovides that

applicant as quest, to prohe applicant i

sters’ Code ow) provides9 and 10) tha

ng the outlinng access toormation helng a general ed on requesting the appl

t limit on co

se involved iwould regardadditional 20anageable.

to advise aning a requestto refine the

too gener

do not specalt with a cas

ty to identify ty to comply t be sufficien

t if the autho40 day perioquest for ‘all al.

sistance

where a req

soon as posvide more pin providing

of Practice o guidance on

at where a re

ne of the diffo detailed catld by the autresponse to

st; or icant to disc

omplying with

n complying d them as ex0 working day

d assist applt, and has offeir request, it

ral a mann

cify what is mse on this iss

the informawith the reqt to make th

ority is able tod, it is unlike

information

uest has bee

sible, and in articulars in those partic

on the dischan what constequest is not

ferent kinds otalogues and thority; o the request

uss what info

h a request f

with a requxcessive; andys (possible

icants. If an affered assistat may be ’ma

ner

meant by ‘forsue. Howev

ation requestquest - i.e. if he request m

to identify thely to be ‘to

n held on X’

en formulate

any event norelation to tulars.

arge of functtitutes reasot reasonably

of informatioindexes to h

t setting out

ormation the

for environm

est for envir under regula

authority hasance with refanifestly unre

rmulated in ter, the expe

ted; or extending th

manageable.

he informatioo general’ fobut if X is a

d in too gen

o later than the request;

tions by Scotnable adviceclear approp

on that mighhelp the app

options for

e applicant w

mental inform

ronmental inf

ation 7) is no

s taken reasofining the reqeasonable’.

oo general actation is tha

he 20 workin

on requestedor the purpodiscrete subj

eral a manne

20 working and

ttish public auand assistan

priate assista

t meet the tlicant ascerta

further infor

wants.

mation, but th

formation m

ot sufficient t

onable stepsquest, and th

a manner’, anat there mus

ng days perio

d and complyse of the EIR

bject, with lim

er, the autho

days after th

uthorities unnce. In particance might in

terms of the ain the natur

rmation that

here may be

means that an

to make dea

to explain the applicant

nd the st be implicat

od to 40 wo

y, either withRs. For instamited record

ority shall:

he date of re

nder FOISA cular, the Conclude:

request; re and exten

t could be

13

cases

ny

ling

the

tions

rking

hin 20 ance, ds, the

ceipt

and ode

nt of

Publ The erelatiomakinreque The Cavailab Part • 02

M TpamCreCclexCau

• 15

su Tcoacthredepr

• InfoM

Twsttohacowth Fi

ic interest

xceptions inon to regulatng the requesests, may be r

Commissioneble from the

3: Regulat

20/2011 MrMr Calder’s

he decisionart of the ap

make, especiommissione

evisit issues rommissioneassify Mr Caxpressed stroouncil; robu

uthorities an

53/2011 Mrubmissions o

he Commissonsidered ancknowledgedhese were voequests of themonstratingrovided by th

n Decision 0ocused too mMr Kane’s cur

he current r

when dealing wtaff at the effo evidence ofave been harontinued to s

within Scottishhat this was a

nally, Scottis

t test

regulations tion 10(4)(b)sted informarelevant her

er has produ Commissio

tion 10(4)

r Garry Calrequests w

n acknowledpplicant andially where r accepted trelating to a r commente

alder’s style oongly and nost and persisd by the indi

r Tommy Kon the wide-r

sioner notedny of the reqd the relevanoluminous anhat nature. Tg a significanthe Ministers

012/2012 Mmuch on the rrent reques

requests werwith them infect of the ref harassmentrassed simplyseek more. h Water wita particularly

sh Water app

10(4)(b) and), where a reation availablee.

ced separatener’s website

)(b) in prac

lder and Eaere manifes

dged that thd being vexarequests what there muparticular gr

ed on a numbof corresponot always accstent questioividuals repr

Kane and thranging natur

that the Minuests to hav

nce of other nd complex, The Commist burden, buwas not suff

Mr Tommy disruptive nats were disr

re specific annitially. Scottequests on tht. The Comy because theThe Commi

th the knowly unusual situ

peared to ha

d (c) of the Eequest is mane. Consider

e guidance toe (see Resou

ctice: relev

ast Lothianstly unreaso

here was oftatious or mere linked tust be a limitrievance, butber of specifindence as intcurately; andoning, sometesenting the

he Scottishre of Mr Kan

nisters coulde been formrequests froalthough thesioner accept was not saficiently case

Kane and Sature of prevuptive and ca

d well formutish Water hheir other dumissioner die applicant hissioner acknedge and exuation.

ave indicated

EIRs are subjnifestly unrearations of pro

o assist with urces section

evant decis

n Council -onable.

ten a thin limanifestly unto a backgrot to the numt did not beliic aspects oftended to ca (2) that the

times in fairlyem.

h Ministers ne’s requests

d have soughmulated in tooom Mr Kane, ere were spepted that volatisfied that se-specific to

Scottish Wvious requesaused harass

ulated, and Shad also refeuties. The Cod not agree

had been pronowledged thperience to

d to the appl

ect to the puasonable butoportionality

the considen below).

sions

The Comm

ne betweennreasonableound issue w

mber of timesieve this authf the case, disause disruptio correspondy critical tone

–The Comms.

t more partio general a mstill under c

ecific provisioume and com

such a burdeenable that c

Water, the Csts, some timsment.

Scottish Waterred to the ommissionerthat an auth

ovided with ahat there migdeal with re

icant that it w

ublic interestt there is stily, outlined ab

ration of the

missioner wa

n requests s. This coulwhich was ds a public authority had resagreeing (1)on or annoyadence had thees, was to be

missioner did

iculars (undemanner. Theconsiderationons in the EImplexity mign existed heconclusion to

ommissionerme in the past

ter had been concern andr could not aority and its

a substantial ght be a relaquests of thi

would refuse

t test. This l a strong pubove in relat

e public inter

as not satisf

showing perld be a difficdifficult to rthority couldeached that p) that it was ance, althouge effect of hae expected b

d not accept

er regulatione Commission by the MinRs designed

ght be relevaere as the info be reached

r found that st, when argu

able to appld annoyance accept that t employees amount of in

atively small is nature, bu

e to respond

is most relevublic interesttion to vexat

rest test. Th

fied that

rsistence oncult judgmeresolve. Thd be expectepoint here. reasonable tgh it was arassing the by public

the Minister

9(2)) if theyoner isters. Someto deal with

ant factors information d.

the authorituing that

ly exemptionexpressed b

these amouncould be saidnformation, number of pt did not bel

d to any futu

14

vant in t in tious

his is

n the nt to

he ed to The to

rs’

y had

e of h

ty had

ns y its ted d to but

people lieve

re

reTas

• 02beevan

FrCun

ResoCommThe fuCommdecisio The PuThe CEIRsG If you or dec Directhttp:/ ConveMattewww. The Awww. ScottiInformhttp:// Other HM Chttp://http://

equests fromhe Commisss manifestly u

20/2013 Mre manifestlyven if it mignother form

rom the arg

Council that nreasonable

urces: missioner’s Decull text of all missioner’s won number (

ublic Interest CommissioneGuidance/The

do not have acisions. Conta

tive 2003/4/E//eur-lex.eu

ention on Acers .unece.org/en

Aarhus Conv.unece.org/en

sh Ministersmation (Scotl/www.scotla

jurisdictions Courts & Trib/www.inform/www.judicia

m him regardsioner could unreasonable

r Daniel Hey unreasonaght be morem of the aut

guments procompliance

e.

cisions: of the Com

website. To (e.g. 0xx/200

Test: er’s briefing oePublicIntere

access to the act details are

EC on publicuropa.eu/Le

ccess to Info

nv/pp/docum

vention: An Imnv/pp/acig.pd

’ Code of Prland) Act 20nd.gov.uk/Re

bunals Servicmationtribunaary.gov.uk/m

less of subjecnot support

e.

enderson aable to prove meaningfuthority’s cho

ovided and e would req

mmissioner’s view a decis

0x) in the ‘Se

on the publicestTest.

internet, thene available at

c access to eexUriServ/

ormation, Pub

ments/cep43e

mplementatidf

ractice on th002 and the Eesource/Doc

ce: decisions al.gov.uk/Pubedia/tribunal

ct matter, hot this approac

nd Falkirk vide the infol (as the Cooosing.

the informaquire such a

decisions, inion, go to w

earch’ bar.

c interest tes

n you can conthe end of thi

environmenta/LexUriServ

blic Participa

e.pdf

on Guide

e Discharge Environmentc/933/010942

of the Inforblic/search.asl-decisions/o

ow readily thch, which wo

Council - Tormation inouncil believ

ation availaban input of s

cluding thoswww.itspublic

st is available

ntact our officis document.

al informatiorv.do?uri=O

ation in Deci

of Functionstal Informatio25.pdf

rmation Rightspx and Upp

osccs-decisio

hey could beould be to re

The Commi the generaved) to pro

ble, the Coskill and jud

e referencedcknowledge.i

e at www.its

e to request a

on: OJ:L:2003:04

sion-making

s by Scottishon (Scotland)

ts Tribunal per Tribunal ns

e responded egard the ap

ssioner did al form requvide inform

mmissionerdgment that

d above, can nfo/decision

publicknowle

a copy of any

41:0026:003

and Access

Public Auth) Regulations

(Administrat

to or their applicant (and

not acceptuested by th

mation of thi

r did not agt the reques

be viewed ons and enter

edge.info/Law

y of the Comm

32:EN:PDF

to Justice in

horities undes 2004

tive Appeals

actual impactnot the requ

t that it wouhe applicantis type in

ree with thst was manif

on the the relevant

w/FOISA-

missioner’s bri

F

Environmen

er the Freedo

Chamber)

15

t. uest)

uld t,

e festly

efings

ntal

om of

Friv Part Underapplicthe pureasonis frivo Part Vexa The Cfor th Frivo ThereCommsectioserve Part The C •

•

volous o

1: What d

r section 49(ation which ublic authoritnable in the olous or vex

2: Applyin

atious app

Commissionee purpose o

olous appl

e is no definitmissioner hason 14. The te

no useful pu

3: Section

Commissione

In one case,section 38(1data subjectapplicant, upCommissionpurpose.

In a further which had aapplicant in Commissioninvestigation

or vexat

does the la

(1) of FOISAshe believesty notice in wcircumstanc

xatious. The

ng section

lications

er will take inf section 14(

ications

tion of a ‘frivs greater diserm ‘frivolouurpose, and w

n 49(1) in

er does not d

the applican1)(a) of FOISt). The Compholding the ner deemed

example, thealready been the later app

ner had just n would have

tious ap

aw say?

A, the Scottis is frivolous writing withies. The Com applicant ha

n 49(1)

nto account (1) of FOISA

volous’ applicscretion thanus’ may be apwould not be

practice: c

deem applica

nt was dissatSA (which prmmissioner h

use of the ethis new app

e Commissiofound to be

plication hadissued a dece served no

pplicatio

sh Informatioor vexatiousin one montmmissioner’sas a right of a

the same crA (see above)

cation in FOn a public autpplied wheree an appropr

case files

ations to be

tisfied becausrovides an abad previously

exemption onplication to b

oner deemedexempt in a

d acted as ageision on the useful purpo

ons – sec

on Commissis. In such cath of receivins notice musappeal to the

riteria as she ).

OISA. The tethority has we an applicatriate use of l

vexatious lig

se a requestbsolute exemy issued fourn each occasbe frivolous a

d an applicata decision issent for the amatter. Wi

ose.

Kinb

ction 49

ioner has theases, the Comng the applicast set out thee Court of S

would if con

rm does notwhen decidinion is so cleaimited invest

ghtly.

for his own mption for per separate desion. Four mas further in

tion frivoloussued a few daapplicant in tithout a chan

Theburn Castle, D

9(1) FOI

e discretion mmissioner mation, or withe reasons whession on a p

nsidering wh

t appear in seg whether toarly trivial ortigative reso

personal datersonal data ecisions on t

more investigvestigation w

s where it soays before thhe first, so wnge in circum

For

e Scottish IDoubledykes

enquirieww

ISA

not to reachmust give thhin such othhy she believpoint of law.

hether a requ

ection 14, mo comply witr lacking in m

ources for th

ta had been where the athe same issugations werewould have s

ought a subsehe applicatiowas aware thmstances, a fu

more infor

nformations Road, St A

es@itspubliww.itspubli

h a decision oe applicant a

her period asves the applic.

uest is vexati

meaning the th a request

merit that it we Commissio

declined undapplicant is thue to the sam on-going. T

served no us

et of informaon was made.hat the urther

rmation co

n CommissAndrews KY1

T: 01334 4F: 01334 4

cknowledgcknowledg

16

on an and s is cation

ious

under would oner.

der he me The eful

ation . The

ntact:

sioner 6 9DS

464610 464611

ge.info ge.info

App Free 14

15

16

Envir

9

pendix

edom of In

Vexatiou

(1) Sere

(2) Wobunan

Duty to p

(1) Aas

(2) Acoco

Refusal o

…

(5) Awno

(a

(b

…

ronmenta

Duty to

(1) Ato

(2) W

(a

1

nformation

us or repea

ection 1(1) dequest is vex

Where a Scotbliged to comnless there hnd the makin

provide adv

A Scottish pubssistance to a

A Scottish pubonforms to tomply with t

of request

A Scottish pubwithin that timot be given if

a) the authe ap

b) it wourelatio

al Informat

provide a

A Scottish puo expect the

Where a req

a) ask thafter reque

n (Scotland

ated reques

does not oblixatious.

ttish public amply with a shas been a reng of the sub

vice and as

blic authoritya person wh

blic authoritythe code of pthe duty imp

blic authorityme, give the af-

uthority has, pplicant a no

uld in all the on to the cu

tion (Scot

advice and

ublic authore authority

quest has be

he applicantthe date of

est; and

d) Act 200

sts

ige a Scottish

uthority has subsequent reasonable pesequent req

ssistance

y must, so fao proposes t

y which, in rpractice issueosed by subs

y which, in rapplicant a n

in relation ttice under th

circumstancrrent reques

land) Regu

assistance

rity shall proto do so, to

een formula

t as soon asf receipt of

02

h public auth

complied wrequest fromeriod of timeuest.

ar as it is reato make, or

relation to thed under secsection (1).

relation to sunotice which

to a previoushis subsectio

ces be unreast.

ulations 2

e

ovide advico applicants

ated in too g

s possible, arequest, to

hority to com

with a requestm that person between th

asonable to ehas made, a

he provision ction 60 is, a

uch a requeststates that i

s identical oron; and

sonable to e

004

e and assists and prosp

general a m

and in any e provide mo

mply with a r

t from a pern which is idee making of

expect it to drequest for

of advice or s respects th

t, claims thatt so claims; e

r substantially

xpect it to s

tance, so farpective appli

manner, the

vent no lateore particu

request for in

rson for inforentical or suthe request

do so, providinformation

assistance inhat case, to b

t section 14 except that t

y similar suc

serve a furth

r as it woulicants.

authority s

er than 20 wlars in relat

nformation if

rmation, it isubstantially sicomplied wi

de advice andto it.

n any case, be taken to

applies mustthe notice ne

ch request, gi

er such notic

d be reason

hall-

working daytion to the

17

f the

s not imilar ith

d

t, eed

iven

ce in

nable

ys

10

(b

(3) T1h

(4) Inrerere

Exceptio

(1) A

(a)

(b)

(2) In au

(a)

(b)

…

(4) A

…

(b

(c

…

b) assist

To the exte8 in relatio

have compli

n any case toeceived by tegulations 5espond to t

ons from du

Scottish pub

) there

) in all tthat in

considering thority shall-

) interp

) apply

Scottish pub

…

b) the re

c) the recomp

…

t the applica

nt that a Scon to the pred with the

o which parthe authorit5(2)(a), 6(2)that request

uty to make

blic authority

is an except

the circumstn maintaining

the applicati-

pret those pa

a presumpti

blic authority

equest for inf

equest for inflied with its

ant in provid

cottish publiovision of a

e duty impo

ragraph (2) ty shall be t(a) and 13(at by these R

e environm

y may refuse

tion to disclo

tances, the pg the except

ion of the ex

aragraphs in

on in favour

y may refuse

formation is

formation is duty under r

ding those p

ic authorityadvice and aosed by para

applies, thetreated as ta) and any p

Regulations

mental infor

a request to

osure under

ublic interesion.

xceptions ref

a restrictive

r of disclosur

to make env

manifestly u

formulated regulation 9;

particulars.

y conforms tassistance inagraph (1) in

e date on whe date of tperiod withshall begin

rmation av

o make envir

paragraphs (

st in making t

ferred to in

way; and

re.

vironmental

unreasonable

in too gener;

to a code on a particulan relation to

which the furthe request in which thon the day

ailable–

ronmental inf

(4) or (5); an

the informat

paragraphs (

information

e;

ral a manner

of practice uar case, it sho that case.

rther partict for the purhe authorityfollowing th

formation av

nd

tion available

(4) and (5), a

available to

r and the aut

under regulahall be take.

culars are rposes of y is requiredhat date.

vailable if-

e is outweigh

a Scottish pub

the extent t

hority has

18

ation n to

d to

ed by

blic

that

App

PrepaDateApprDateDocuversioNumPubli

Record

Date

26/3/1

pendix 2

ared by: :

roved by: :

ument namon and loca

mber of pageshed:

d of Documen

Versiochang

13 V01.00

2 - Docu

EuMSIM

me, ation:

SeIN

es: 19Y

nt Changes

on ged

New versiono

0 19

ument I

uan McCulloMarch 2013 IC

March 2013 ection 14 BrNV 39874 9

Yes

on

Brie

Majofor dete

Informa

och

iefing: Vexat

Date:

ef Descript

or update tosubstantial bermination m

ation

tious or Repe

28 March 20

tion

o remove reqburden and tomore criteria

eated Reque

013

quirement o make a focussed

ests

Reason foChange

Policy shift

or Initials

EM

19