Homeseptic Ltd v Information Commissioner: manifestly unreasonable environmental information requests

The First-tier Tribunal (General Regulatory Chamber) has dismissed an appeal by Homeseptic Ltd against the Information Commissioner's decision to uphold the Environment Agency's refusal to disclose an unprotected version of its groundwater risk assessment spreadsheet. The judgement, handed down on 23 October 2025, provides important clarification on the application of the manifestly unreasonable exception under the Environmental Information Regulations 2004.

Homeseptic Ltd, a commercial organisation providing sewerage services to properties not connected to water company installations, had repeatedly requested an unprotected, auditable version of the EA's groundwater risk assessment model. The company argued that the password-protected version previously supplied prevented proper scrutiny of the calculations used to determine discharge permit limits. Following the EA's refusal and the IC's subsequent decision notice upholding that refusal, Homeseptic appealed to the tribunal.

The tribunal panel, comprising Judge C Hughes and lay members S Cosgrave and P Taylor, applied the analytical framework established in Dransfield (FOIA) UKUT 440 (AAC) and Craven (EIR) UKUT 442(AAC), examining four key factors: burden on the public authority, the requester's motive, the value or serious purpose of the request, and any harassment or distress caused to staff.

Evidence from EA staff proved particularly compelling. Ms Abrahams, a Customer Coordinator, described how responding to the volume of correspondence consumed a substantial proportion of her workload, causing stress, anxiety and emotional fatigue. Mark Maleham, water quality operations manager leading 65 staff, detailed an intense nine-month period handling multiple requests, complaints and an appeal to the Planning Inspectorate. He explained that dealing with Homeseptic's correspondence required him to deprioritise support to his team, causing significant upset. Joanne Chriscoli, a Permitting Officer, stated the persistent requests had led her to seek support from her GP.

The tribunal found that whilst Homeseptic clearly valued the information, the public value was minimal. The relevant information was already available through user guides and examination of the programme, with no wider public interest beyond the appellant's private concerns. The tribunal noted a paradox: disclosure of an unprotected version would create significant risks of manipulated versions circulating, generating additional burden on the EA to verify each application far more extensively than currently required.

Crucially, the tribunal identified that Homeseptic's requests represented a challenge to underlying policy determined by the Secretary of State, rather than an attempt to inform public discourse. The EA had repeatedly advised Homeseptic that permit determinations accorded with relevant regulations and that policy challenges should be directed appropriately to DEFRA or pursued through the Planning Inspectorate.

The tribunal concluded that the balance of public interest fell decisively in favour of non-disclosure. Considering all circumstances, the request constituted a disproportionate, manifestly unjustified and improper use of statutory rights under EIR. The appeal was dismissed, with the tribunal inviting the respondents to consider whether to make a costs application on the basis that the conduct of the case was vexatious.

This decision reinforces that environmental information rights, whilst important for transparency, cannot be used to impose disproportionate burdens on public authorities or as a mechanism for policy challenges that should properly be pursued through alternative legal routes.