Ian Redman v The Information Commissioner: When repeated FOI requests become vexatious

The First-tier Tribunal's decision in Ian Redman v The Information Commissioner [2025] UKFTT 1205 (GRC) provides a detailed examination of when repeated Freedom of Information requests cross the threshold into vexatiousness under section 14(1) FOIA, and the circumstances in which public authorities may rely on section 17(6) to decline issuing further refusal notices.

Background to the dispute

The appeal concerned Bournemouth, Christchurch & Poole Council's refusal to respond to Redman's request for grant-related documentation under the Bounce Back Challenge Fund (BBCF). Redman's unsuccessful grant application in 2021 precipitated a sustained series of information requests spanning nearly three years. Between July 2021 and January 2023, the Council received seven FOIA requests regarding the BBCF, with some generating over 100 follow-up emails.

Following an internal review in March 2023, the Council invoked section 17(6), notifying Redman it would not respond to further requests on the same topic. When Redman submitted a fresh request in April 2024 seeking declarations of final spend and supporting invoices for four grant recipients, the Council declined to issue a refusal notice. The Information Commissioner upheld this position, prompting Redman's appeal.

The Tribunal's application of Dransfield

The Tribunal adopted the holistic approach established in Information Commissioner v Devon County Council and Dransfield [2012] UKUT 440 (AAC), examining whether the request constituted "a manifestly unjustified, inappropriate or improper use of FOIA".

Regarding burden on the authority, the Tribunal emphasised the cumulative impact of Redman's correspondence pattern. Beyond the volume of requests, the "scatter-gun approach" of sending multiple emails on similar topics to various individuals created disproportionate demands on council resources. The Tribunal accepted the Council's contention that compliance would inevitably generate further correspondence, supported by Redman's persistence in requesting a monitoring report even after being advised of its imminent publication.

On motive, whilst acknowledging FOIA's general motive-blindness, the Tribunal found section 14 represents an exception. The communications demonstrated a pattern progressing from concerns about Redman's own application to broader allegations of mismanagement and ultimately to scrutinising other grant recipients. The Tribunal concluded the requests formed part of a campaign to question and undermine the Council, fuelled partly by grievance over the 2021 grant refusal and subsequent adverse business decisions.

Concerning value and serious purpose, the Tribunal recognised legitimate public interest in council accountability over public funds. However, whilst initial requests possessed value, the frequency and volume of subsequent requests undermined any remaining purpose. The Tribunal noted that both a detailed closure report and an independent university review of the BBCF had been published, addressing the underlying concerns.

On harassment and distress, although Redman's language rarely reached the extreme threshold described in Dransfield, the sustained intensity of communications over multiple years created cumulative impact on staff.

Section 17(6) considerations

Having determined vexatiousness, the Tribunal addressed whether the Council acted reasonably in refusing to issue a further refusal notice. Despite the 15-month gap between requests, the intervening period saw continued contentious correspondence on related matters concerning Redman's business applications. The Council had clearly warned Redman about non-response to future requests.

Importantly, the Tribunal clarified that section 17(6) does not create a permanent bar. The Council must assess each future request individually to determine whether section 14 applies and whether issuing a refusal notice remains unreasonable.

The appeal was dismissed, reinforcing that FOIA's protective purpose extends to safeguarding public authority resources from disproportionate deployment, even where underlying concerns possess superficial legitimacy.