Peter Stead v The Information Commissioner

On 17 September 2024, following various other requests for information made to the BBC and associated correspondence, the Appellant contacted the BBC and requested information in the following terms (original emphasis retained):

“Please send to me all the materials you hold, including but not limited to, all correspondence and associated attachments, that directly relate to the Creative Industries Independent Standards Authority (CIISA).

Please narrow the scope as follows: Year: 2023

BBC Teams: Security and Resilience team (SSR), the office of the Director General, the Press Office.”.

The BBC responded on 15 October 2024. It refused the Request, citing section 14(1), stating that “…the pattern of your requests can be considered as disproportionate and burdensome…”.

On 24 October 2024, the Appellant contacted the BBC requesting an internal review.

The BBC responded with the outcome of its internal review on 29 November 2024 (Footnote: ¹), upholding its position.

The Appellant complained to the Commissioner on 11 December 2024 about the BBC’s response to the Request.

The Commissioner subsequently issued the Decision Notice.

In the Decision Notice, the Commissioner referred to various points made by the BBC regarding its position that the Request was vexatious, including with reference to its statements that:

The Decision Notice recorded the Appellant’s views regarding his motivation for making the Request, which related to his concerns regarding potential conflicts of interest in relation to CIISA’s adjudication of cases concerning their own funders.

The Decision Notice also recorded the BBC’s representations that:

The Decision Notice recorded the Commissioner’s view that, when considering the serious purpose or value, the question is whether there is a wider public value in disclosure of the Requested Information. The Commissioner considered that the Appellant’s own private interests in the Requested Information carry little weight unless they coincide with a wider public value. The Commissioner also considered that the Appellant’s allegations of conflicts of interest regarding CIISA were hypothetical, with no cogent supporting evidence.

The Commissioner accordingly agreed with the BBC that the serious purpose and broader value to the wider public, regarding the Appellant’s various requests, was unclear. He also considered that if the BBC was to comply with the Request, it was likely that this would not resolve the Appellant’s concerns and would result in further correspondence or requests for information.

The Commissioner therefore concluded in the Decision Notice that the Request was vexatious and that the BBC was entitled to rely upon section 14(1) to refuse it.

The Decision Notice did not require the BBC to take any further steps.

The Appellant argued that the Commissioner was wrong to allow the BBC to refuse the Request as being vexatious.

In summary, the material aspects of the Appellant’s grounds of appeal were as follows:

The powers of the Tribunal in determining the appeal are set out in section 58, as follows:

“(1)

If on an appeal under section 57 the Tribunal considers—

(a)

that the notice against which the appeal is brought is not in accordance with the law, or

(b)

to the extent that the notice involved an exercise of discretion by the Commissioner, that he ought to have exercised his discretion differently,

the Tribunal shall allow the appeal or substitute such other notice as could have been served by the Commissioner; and in any other case the Tribunal shall dismiss the appeal.

(2)

On such an appeal, the Tribunal may Review any finding of fact on which the notice in question was based.”.

In summary, therefore, the Tribunal’s remit for the purposes of the appeal was to consider whether the Decision Notice was in accordance with the law. In reaching its decision, the Tribunal may review any findings of fact on which the Decision Notice was based and the Tribunal may come to a different decision regarding those facts. Essentially, the Tribunal is empowered to undertake a ‘full merits review’ of the appeal before it (so far as the Decision Notice is concerned).

The parties consented to the appeal being determined by the Tribunal without an oral hearing. The Tribunal had the benefit of the bundle of evidence and pleadings referred to below. Having reviewed that bundle, we did not consider that further information was required from the parties in order to make an informed decision.

The Tribunal accordingly considered that the appeal was suitable for determination on the papers in accordance with rule 32 of the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (General Regulatory Chamber) Rules 2009 and was satisfied that it was fair and just to conduct the appeal in this way.

The Tribunal read and took account of an open bundle of evidence and pleadings.

The open bundle included a witness statement on behalf of the BBC. The statement was given in the witness’s capacity as a Senior Lawyer at the BBC, with responsibility for advising it on FOIA matters. It is not necessary for us to identify this witness by name in this decision, therefore we merely refer to them as “the witness” and we mean no disrespect to them in doing so.

All of the contents of the bundle, including all the submissions of the parties, were read and taken into account, even if not directly referred to in this decision.

Section 1(1) provides individuals with a general right of access to information held by public authorities. It provides:

“Any person making a request for information to a public authority is entitled—

(a)

to be informed in writing by the public authority whether it holds information of the description specified in the request, and

(b)

if that is the case, to have that information communicated to him.”.

In essence, under section 1(1), a person who has requested information from a public authority is entitled to be informed in writing whether it holds that information. If the public authority does hold the requested information, that person is entitled to have that information communicated to them. However, those entitlements are subject to the other provisions of FOIA, including some exemptions and qualifications which may apply even if the requested information is held by the public authority. Section 1(2) provides:

“Subsection (1) has effect subject to the following provisions of this section and to the provisions of sections 2, 9, 12 and 14.”.

Accordingly, section 1(1) does not provide an unconditional right to be told whether or not a public authority holds any information, nor an unconditional right of access to any information which a public authority does hold. The rights contained in that section are subject to certain other provisions of FOIA, including section 14.

Section 14(1) provides:

“(1)

Section 1(1) does not oblige a public authority to comply with a request for information if the request is vexatious.”.

The term ‘vexatious’, used in section 14(1), is not defined in FOIA but has been interpreted by case law, to which we briefly refer below.

Section 16(1) provides:

“It shall be the duty of a public authority to provide advice and assistance, so far as it would be reasonable to expect the authority to do so, to persons who propose to make, or have made, requests for information to it.”.

We turn now to case law regarding the term ‘vexatious’ in section 14(1). As we have noted, it is not defined in FOIA but guidance on applying that term has been given in case law. We do not set out details of the case law but it is helpful to refer, in our discussions below, to the following four broad issues or themes which were identified in Dransfield as being of potential relevance when deciding whether a request is vexatious:

It is also important to note that it has been made clear that those four issues or themes are not exhaustive and are not intended to create a formulaic checklist, and that a holistic approach needs to be taken in assessing whether a request is vexatious. It was stated by the Upper Tribunal in Dransfield that: “…all the circumstances need to be considered in reaching what is ultimately a value judgement as to whether the request in issue is vexatious in the sense of being a disproportionate, manifestly unjustified, inappropriate or improper use of FOIA.”.

Accordingly, the Tribunal should adopt a rounded approach, taking into account all the relevant factors, in order to reach a balanced conclusion as to whether a particular request is vexatious.

We start by noting that the positions of both the BBC and the Commissioner were largely aligned, with the Commissioner having generally come to his conclusions in the Decision Notice based on information provided by the BBC during his investigation.

Consequently, partly for convenience and partly because of the BBC’s participation in the appeal as Second Respondent, the remainder of this decision generally refers only to the position or views of the BBC, but this should be taken as including reference to the Commissioner’s position or views to the extent applicable. No disrespect to the Commissioner is intended by this approach.

We turn now to the question of whether the Request was vexatious for the purposes of section 14(1).

In our opinion, consideration of all four of the broad themes outlined in Dransfield is helpful, as part of our broad assessment as to whether the Request was vexatious in all the circumstances. We have accordingly referred to those four themes below. However, we should stress that we have not been constrained or confined in any way by considering them. On the contrary, we have adopted a holistic approach, taking into account all of the relevant circumstances, and we have been mindful that the fundamental consideration was whether or not the Request was, essentially, a manifestly unjustified, inappropriate or improper use of FOIA.

We begin by addressing the position recorded in paragraph 21 of the Decision Noticethat the Request was the thirteenth request for information submitted by the Appellant on the subject of CIISA. The Commissioner stated in paragraph 24 of the Decision Notice that the burden cited by the BBC was “real and significant”.

As we referred to in paragraph 18.d, the Decision Notice recorded the Appellant’s argument that the number of requests made by him was in part due to the BBC’s advice relating to refinement of requests. The Appellant considered that this was therefore not a true reflection of the requests in question.

We accordingly set out below the position regarding the thirteen requests for information made by the Appellant, referred to in the Decision Notice, as set out by the witness in their witness statement. For reasons we will come to, we do not agree that each of those thirteen requests for information were indeed ‘requests for information’ but we use that terminology for consistency with the position reflected in the Decision Notice and in the witness statement. In order to help distinguish the Request from those other requests for information, we refer to each of the latter as an “RFI” (Request For Information) and give them a separate number. In summary, the position stated by the witness in respect of each of the RFIs is as follows.

RFI 1, dated 3 March 2023, asked for information relating to “meetings in which the BBC partook, regarding the new regulator for the creative industries”. RFI 1 was withdrawn by the Appellant on the same date, on the basis that it contained a typographical error. Later on the same day, the Appellant made a new request (RFI 2) correcting that error.

On 23 March 2025, the BBC replied to RFI 2 asking the Appellant for clarification of whether it related to CIISA. This was confirmed by Mr Stead on 24 March 2025, which was registered by the BBC as a new information request (RFI 3).

RFI 3 was subsequently responded to by the BBC. However, its response was late and the Commissioner determined that the BBC had breached section 10(1) in responding to RFI 3.

RFI 4 was dated 16 August 2023 and sought information about how much money Channel 4 had already given, and how much it had committed to give in the future, to CIISA.

The BBC responded to RFI 4 on 18 August 2023, stating that it did not hold the requested information and advising the Appellant to contact Channel 4.

RFI 5 was dated 18 August 2023 and sought information about how much money the BBC had already given, and how much it had committed to give in the future, to CIISA.

The BBC responded to RFI 5, disclosing information, on 18 September 2023.

RFI 6 was dated 30 August 2023. This was described by the witness as a “meta-request”. RFI 6 sought all the materials held by the BBC related to RFI 3 and another request for information made by the Appellant (allocated reference IR2023027 by the BBC).

The Commissioner determined that the BBC had breached section 17(3) regarding RFI 6 by failing to complete its public interest test deliberations within a reasonable timeframe.

The BBC responded to RFI 6, disclosing information, on 1 December 2023. The witness stated that the disclosure comprised an 87-page bundle, explaining that some redactions had been applied for personal data under section 40(2) and legal professional privilege under section 42.

The Appellant subsequently complained to the Commissioner about the BBC’s application of section 42 regarding RFI 6 and, following reconsideration by the BBC of its reliance on that section, it made a further disclosure (comprising six pages of material) on 3 June 2024.

RFI 7 was dated 17 January 2024 and sought all materials regarding internal discussions relating to the setting up of CIISA.

The BBC was late responding to RFI 7 and, following a complaint made to the Commissioner by the Appellant, the BBC accepted that it had breached section 10(1) in respect of RFI 7.

The BBC’s response to RFI 7, dated 5 March 2024, advised that it would exceed the appropriate limit pursuant to section 12 and some advice was given to the Appellant (pursuant to section 16) about ways in which RFI 7 could be limited in scope, to bring it within the costs limit.

Following the advice given by the BBC regarding RFI 7, the Appellant made a new clarified request for information (RFI 8) dated 5 March 2024, which limited the scope of the previous request (RFI 7) to the year 2023.

The BBC’s response to RFI 8, dated 4 April 2024, again advised that it would exceed the appropriate limit pursuant to section 12 and the same advice was given again to the Appellant (pursuant to section 16) about ways in which his request could be limited in scope, to bring it within the costs limit.

Following the BBC’s response to RFI 8, the Appellant made a further request for information on 4 April 2024 (RFI 9). This stated that the Appellant sought “a full breakdown of how you are calculating the cost, this will help inform my thinking as to what degree to narrow my search”. RFI 9 included the Appellant’s comments on certain points which, in essence, related to the Appellant’s desire to understand if the BBC had made the best suggestions as to how to limit the scope of this request.

The BBC replied on 1 May 2024, giving an explanation of its estimate of costs for the purposes of section 12 and providing clarification on some of the points which the Appellant had made.

The Appellant requested an internal review on the same date, stating that the BBC had not given him what he had requested. He set out some views on the involvement of the BBC’s HR department and Finance department and asked for a list of the BBC’s teams holding materials which have a connection to CIISA “so I can make a fully informed decision”.

The BBC responded on 30 May 2024, upholding its reliance on section 12 and reiterating the advice it previously gave and commenting that the Appellant had not narrowed his request in accordance with “the full range of refinements” which the BBC had suggested, instead only focusing on the year 2023.

The Appellant’s request for a list of BBC teams which held material in connection with CIISA was registered by the BBC as a new request for information (RFI 10).

On 19 June 2024, the Commissioner wrote to the BBC informing it that a complaint had been received from the Appellant relating to the BBC’s application of section 12 with respect to RFI 7, RFI 8 and RFI 9. The Commissioner subsequently notified the BBC (on 10 September 2024) that the complaint was being closed because “it seems that the complainant has subsequently narrowed their request several times and is continuing to do so”.

As noted above, the Appellant’s request for an internal review on 1 May 2024 regarding RFI 9, pursuant to which he asked for a list of BBC teams which held material in connection with CIISA, was registered by the BBC as a new request for information (RFI 10).

The BBC responded to RFI 10 on 31 May 2024, providing a list of teams within the BBC which may hold relevant information and explaining why the BBC had identified its HR and Finance teams as the “key departments most likely to hold the information most relevant to your request”.

RFI 11 was dated 3 June 2024 and sought all of the emails and associated attachments between the BBC’s Finance and HR Departments and CIISA.

The BBC responded to RFI 11 on 4 September 2024, applying section 12 and asking the Appellant whether he could also limit his request to the year 2023.

The Appellant responded on the same date, confirming that he was content to limit RFI 11 to the year 2023. This was registered by the BBC as a new request (RFI 13).

RFI 12 was a request from the Appellant, dated 26 June 2024, for a complete list of BBC Departments which hold materials on CIISA, including internal correspondence, for the date range of 1 June 2021 to 17 June 2024.

The BBC responded to RFI 12 on 24 July 2024, stating that this information had previously been provided in response to RFI 10.

As noted above, RFI 13 was registered by the BBC as a new request for information in respect of the Appellant’s confirmation (on 4 September 2024) that RFI 11 could be limited to the year 2023.

On 16 December 2024, the BBC was informed by the Commissioner that the Appellant had made a complaint in relation to the delay in receiving a response to RFI 13. The Commissioner directed the BBC to respond within ten working days.

The BBC responded to RFI 13 on 9 January 2025. In its response, the BBC disclosed a bundle of 187 pages, applying some redactions for personal data under section 40(2) and commercial prejudice under section 43(2).

The Appellant requested an internal review regarding the BBC’s response to RFI 13 on 19 January 2025, challenging the application of the exemptions under section 40(2) and 43(2) and regarding the material which had been found to be outside the scope of the request.

On 21 March 2025, the BBC provided the outcome of its internal review. It upheld its initial decision regarding the redactions and the exemptions relied on, it but made an additional disclosure of two documents which had been missed from its previous disclosure.

We accept the witness’s evidence as outlined above, regarding the essential attributes (including the dates) of the relevant correspondence comprising the RFIs, and make findings of fact accordingly. However, as we have mentioned, we do not agree that each of the thirteen RFIs were indeed ‘requests for information’ and therefore we consider that they should not have been characterised as such by the BBC (or by the Commissioner in the Decision Notice). We set out below our reasons for that, as well as our views on certain matters regarding the RFIs.

RFI 1, RFI 2 and RFI 3 were plainly related to the same information request. Given that the Appellant withdrew RFI 1 and replaced it with RFI 2 simply because of a typographical error, we consider that it was inappropriate to record those as two separate requests for information. Likewise, when the Appellant provided the BBC with clarification that RFI 2 related to CIISA, we also consider that this should not have been recorded as a third request for information. That was merely a response to the BBC in respect of its own query that RFI 2 related to CIISA and clearly was not a further additional request for information.

Consequently, whilst the Decision Notice counted RFI 1, RFI 2 and RFI 3 as three of the thirteen ‘requests for information’ preceding the Request, we find that only one of those should have been taken into account as a request for information.

We find that RFI 4 and RFI 5 were valid requests for information and were responded to by the BBC. However, given that RFI 4 was seeking information regarding Channel 4 and the BBC responded to say that it did not hold the requested information, we consider that little weight should be given to RFI 4 when considering the question of burden.

Incidentally, the Appellant stated in his reply in the appeal that (regarding RFI 4) he had asked same question of Channel 4 and so accidentally left in “Channel 4” in his request to the BBC. Essentially, the Appellant was stating that RFI 4 was issued to the BBC by mistake.

We find that RFI 6 was also a valid request for information and was responded to by the BBC. However, as we have noted, the Commissioner determined that the BBC had breached section 17(3) regarding RFI 6 and, following a complaint about the BBC’s application of section 42, it made a further disclosure of information.

We find that RFI 7 was also a valid request for information and was responded to by the BBC. Again, however, the BBC was late responding to RFI 7.

We accept that the BBC’s response to RFI 7, in respect of which the BBC cited section 12, contained some advice (pursuant to section 16) about ways in which RFI 7 could be limited in scope, to bring it within the costs limit.

However, in response to that advice, when the Appellant reformulated RFI 7 to limit the scope of that to the year 2023, the BBC recorded that as a further request for information (RFI 8). In our view, it was inappropriate to treat this as a new, separate, request for information. Rather, it was a refining of the previous request (RFI 7) following the advice given by the BBC.

Similarly, we consider that RFI 9 should not have been treated as a separate request for information. As we have noted, following the BBC’s response to RFI 8 (which cited section 12 and gave advice on limiting the scope of the request), the Appellant contacted the BBC to seek “a full breakdown of how you are calculating the cost, this will help inform my thinking as to what degree to narrow my search”. We consider that it was evident from the correspondence that the Appellant was seeking to understand how best to refine RFI 7, based on the advice given by the Appellant. Likewise, the Appellant’s correspondence with the BBC on 1 May 2024 stated that it had not given him what he had requested and he sought a list of the BBC’s teams holding relevant material in order for him to “make a fully informed decision”. Again, whilst that correspondence was registered by the BBC as a further request for information (RFI 10), we also consider that it should not have been.

Whilst the Appellant was seeking information from the BBC in RFI 9 and RFI 10, we find that this was requested from the perspective of seeking to understand and contextualise the advice which the BBC had given to the Appellant under section 16, in order to help him ascertain how best to refine his earlier request. Accordingly, we consider that the Appellant’s correspondence was merely part of the process of seeking to refine the request and gaining clarity from the BBC about the advice it had given in that regard. Again, in our view this correspondence was clearly not further, additional, requests for information for the purposes of section 1(1). Rather, we consider that this correspondence should have been identified as being simply part of the BBC’s duty to provide reasonable advice and assistance pursuant to section 16.

We acknowledge that the Appellant’s correspondence with the BBC dated 1 May 2024 stated that he was requesting an “internal review”. However, in our view, the Appellant’s reference to an internal review was not determinative of the nature and purpose of the correspondence. We consider that the BBC (and in turn the Commissioner) should have assessed the substance, as opposed to the form, of that correspondence, having regard to its broader context. For the reasons we have given, that correspondence should have been identifiedas relating to advice and assistance regarding the scope of the relevant RFIs. We also note, incidentally, that notwithstanding the Appellant stating that he was seeking an “internal review”, the BBC nevertheless categorised it as a separate RFI.

It is also relevant to note that (as referred to in paragraph 63), the Commissioner notified the BBC that the Appellant did not wish to pursue his complaint relating to the BBC’s application of section 12 with respect to RFI 7, RFI 8 and RFI 9, on the basis that the Appellant had narrowed his request and was continuing to do so. We consider that this provides further context to the Appellant’s relevant correspondence (namely, that the Appellant himself considered that he was seeking to refine the relevant RFIs), which reinforces our comments above. We also note that the Commissioner’s correspondence with the BBC which referred to the Appellant withdrawing his complaint included (as part of the heading) the BBC’s reference for RFI 10, in addition to the references for RFI 7, RFI 8 and RFI 9. Given that the Commissioner (as well as the BBC) was aware of the Appellant’s reasons for withdrawing his complaint relating to these RFIs, we consider that the BBC and the Commissioner should have recognised the context of the relevant RFIs as relating to attempts to refine the relevant request, rather than counting those RFIs as separate requests for information.

To be clear, we do not question how the BBC chooses to categorise requests for information and related correspondence by way of its administrative procedures. In other words, it was open to the BBC to allocate separate reference numbers to different items of correspondence from the Appellant, to help it to manage its dealings with the Appellant as part of its internal processes. However, in the context of assessing burden when section 14 is cited, we consider that it is important to accurately assess the nature of each relevant item of correspondence to determine whether or not it constituted a request for information for the purposes of FOIA.

Turning to RFI 11, we find that it was a valid request for information and was responded to by the BBC. However, following the BBC’s response to that (which cited section 12 and asked the Appellant whether he could also limit his request to the year 2023), the BBC registered the Appellant’s response (confirming that he was content to limit RFI 11 to 2023) as a new request for information (RFI 13). Again, we consider that it was clear that the Appellant was not making a new request for information, but that he was merely refining and confirming the scope of RFI 11 in response to the BBC’s advice.

We find that RFI 12 was a valid request for information and was responded to by the BBC, albeit some information was only disclosed (under the BBC’s categorisation as ‘RFI 13’) following the Appellant’s request for an internal review. However, given that the BBC’s primary response to RFI 12 was that information had previously been provided in response to RFI 10, we consider that little weight should be given to RFI 12 when considering the question of burden.

Summarising the material aspects of our views on some of the RFIs:

Accordingly, we disagree with the Commissioner’s conclusions in the Decision Notice that there were thirteen ‘requests for information’ preceding the Request. Of those thirteen, we find that there were only five separate valid requests for information.

We also consider that only two of those five requests for information (RFI 6, pursuant to which an 87-page bundle was disclosed, and RFI 13, pursuant to which a bundle of 187 pages was disclosed) constituted a significant burden on the BBC. As we have noted, we find that little weight should be given to RFI 4 and RFI 12 when considering the question of burden. The final remaining request (RFI 5) was not, in our opinion, of sufficient complexity (in terms of the request or the response required) such that it should be afforded much weight for the purposes of assessing burden.

We recognise that, over a period of approximately 18 months prior to the date of the Request, the Appellant had corresponded many times with the BBC on the subject matter of CIISA, including regarding requests for intern reviews and (as we have referred to) regarding advice and assistance relating to the Appellant’s requests for information.

However, we do not accept the witness’s evidence regarding the burden created by the RFIs. This is partly because it was based on their view that there were thirteen requests for information, which was inaccurate for the reasons we have given. Further, the witness stated (referring to the RFIs) that:

“Each time a request is received, this involves BBC time and resources in the FOI team registering it as a new matter; providing an acknowledgement; liaising with internal business areas to identify what searches may be required and the likely custodians of relevant information; reviewing the information that is provided; and preparing a response”.

Given our comments on the nature of the thirteen RFIs, we do not agree that that above statement is an accurate reflection of the burden of burden involved in each of the RFIs. We also consider, for the reasons we have referred to, that the five valid requests for information within the RFIs, even taken as a whole (and including the Request), do not constitute a significant burden on the BBC such that it would support a finding of vexatiousness. In this regard, we also comment as follows in respect of the two RFIs which we have found constituted a significant burden on the BBC: RFI 6 (involving disclosure of an 87-page bundle)and RFI 13 (involving disclosure of a bundle of 187 pages):

Accordingly, we consider that the dates of both RFI 6 and RFI 13 are such that, even taking into account the burden which they imposed on the BBC, these are not material factors supporting a finding of vexatiousness in respect of the Request.

The witness’s view on burden was also based on their assertion that (in addition to there being thirteen requests for information) there were “multiple internal review requests”. We also disagree with the witness’s assessment of the extent of the burden as linked to the Appellant’s requests for internal reviews, given that (as we have noted):

Accordingly, there were evidently some shortcomings on the part of the BBC in dealing with the RFIs, given that some information was only disclosed after further correspondence and complaints from the Appellant. Also, as we have noted, some of the Appellant’s correspondence which was treated by the BBC as ‘internal review’ requests should have been categorised as advice and assistance pursuant to section 16. In addition, as we have also noted, there were other shortcomings on the part of the BBC in dealings with the RFIs, including a breach of section 10(1) regarding RFI 3, RFI 7 and RFI 11 (see paragraph 107) and a breach of section 17(3) regarding RFI 6.

We consider that failings on the part of the BBC should be taken into account, in assessing the question of burden, as part of the consideration of all of the circumstances (including the course of dealings between the Appellant and the BBC).

Considering the Request itself, this sought all materials held by the BBC which was directly (using the emphasis in the Request) related to CIISA. The Request also stated that it was to be limited in scope to the year 2023 and three specific BBC teams.

The witness stated that the Appellant’s focus on those three teams in the Request “appeared to be an attempt to circumvent the narrowing advice he had been provided”. They went on to state that:

“This pattern of requests indicated that Mr Stead would be likely to make successive FOI requests for information held by each of the teams provided in this list, until they were all exhausted, even though he had appeared initially to accept narrowing advice to limit the request to the BBC HR and Finance departments.”.

Similarly, the Commissioner’s view, in paragraph 26 of the Decision Notice, was that it appeared that “if the BBC were to comply with the request in this case, it is likely that this would not resolve the complainant’s concerns and would result in further correspondence or requests for information”.

Those views regarding the possibility of future requests were factors taken into account by the BBC and the Commissioner as contributing to the overall assessment of the collective burden on the BBC of the Appellant’s requests regarding CIISA. However, we consider that there was insufficient evidence to support those views. Rather, those views appeared to be based largely on supposition (see also our comments in paragraph 132). As the witness also explained, the three teams which were identified in the Request had been given to the Appellant as part of a list of BBC teams which may hold information in connection with CIISA, as requested by the Appellant (RFI 9/RFI 10 and RFI 12). Accordingly, focussing the scope of the Request on the three teams in question could (in contrast to the witness’s views) reflect a legitimate intention on the part of the Appellant to limit the scope of the Request following the previous advice which the BBC had given pursuant to section 16.

Whilst concerns about patterns of information requests can be valid considerations in concluding that a particular request is vexatious, we do not consider such concerns to be weighty factors in this case, taking into account all of the circumstances. The views of the Commissioner and the witness were evidently based (at least in part) on their view that there had been thirteen RFIs preceding the Request, which was inaccurate for the reasons we have given.

Finally, in respect of the BBC’s position (recorded in paragraph 21 of the Decision Notice) that the Request was submitted eight working days after the Appellant’s previous request (RFI 13), we comment as follows. First, as we have noted, RFI 13 was registered by the BBC as a new request for information in respect of the Appellant’s confirmation that RFI 11 could be limited to 2023. For the reasons we have given, we find that it was wrong to record that clarification regarding RFI 11 as a new, separate, request for information. Secondly, RFI 11 was dated 3 June 2024 and the BBC responded late to that (in breach of section 10), only responding on 4 September 2024. It was on that same date that the Appellant confirmed that he was content to limit the scope of RFI 11 to 2023.

Consequently, we consider that it was disingenuous for the BBC to state that the Request was only made within eight working days after his previous request (referring to RFI 13), given that the request in question (RFI 11) was made on 3 June 2024, was only responded to by the BBC on 4 September 2024 and then the BBC recorded the Appellant’s clarificatory response to that as a separate request (RFI 13) on that date. The request for information which was actually the one preceding the Request (RFI 12) was dated 26 June 2024, almost three months before the date of the Request.

Whilst we have been provided with details of the relevant interactions between the Appellant and the BBC, we are not satisfied (taking into account the matters we have referred to, including our assessment of the nature and context of the correspondence) that there is a sufficient evidential foundation regarding their course of dealings to support the conclusion that the Request was vexatious based on its burden (including having regard to the RFIs, for the reasons we have referred to).

For all of the reasons we have given, we conclude that there was no material burden associated with the Request, including taking into account the RFIs and associated correspondence.

The question of motive is usually connected, to some degree, with the inherent value or purpose of a request for information. In this case, we find that those themes are intrinsically connected and we address further below the issue of the ‘purpose or value’ of the Request.

In short, we consider that there was a genuine motive behind the Request (linked to our comments below regarding the purpose or value of the Request).

As with the question of the burden of the Request, paragraph 24 of the Decision Notice recorded the Commissioner’s view that the BBC’s arguments that the Request lacked serious purpose or value were “real and significant”. That paragraph also recorded the Appellant’s argument that his requests for information made to the BBC had a serious purpose.

Paragraph 25 of the Decision Notice also recorded the BBC’s view that providing the Requested Information would not add any value more broadly in terms of holding the BBC to account, understanding BBC decisions, transparency or ensuring justice.

Linked to our comments above regarding the Appellant’s genuine motive in making the Request, we accept the Appellant’s arguments that the Request was related to his concerns about an alleged conflicts of interest regarding CIISA and other concerns (referred to in paragraph 18.c) about the role of CIISA as a non-statutory regulator.

Given the nature of those concerns, we therefore disagree with the BBC’s views (as recorded in the Decision Notice) that providing the Requested Information would not add any value in terms of (at least) understanding BBC decisions and transparency.

As we have noted, the Commissioner considered that the Appellant’s allegations of conflicts of interest regarding CIISA were hypothetical, with no cogent supporting evidence. In our view, in the context of assessing the value of a request for information under FOIA, it does not necessarily follow that there is little or no public interest in the relevant subject matter simply because allegations appear to be unfounded. Indeed, sometimes a request for information under FOIA can have serious purpose and value on the basis that the requested information could demonstrate whether or not any allegations are unfounded.

We therefore consider that the nature of the Appellant’s concerns signifies a wider public interest which goes to the value and purpose of the Request and militates against a finding that it was vexatious.

We appreciate that the Appellant’s concerns regarding CIISA are not, at face value, matters for the BBC. However, the Appellant’s concerns do have some relation to the BBC’s involvement with CIISA and this is relevant to our conclusion that there is some value and serious value to the Request.

To be clear, we make no finding regarding the merits or validity of the Appellant’s concerns, save for our view that the Appellant’s motive in seeking the Requested Information was linked to a genuine belief in those concerns and that there is accordingly some value and purpose (and associated public interest) in the Request.

In its response to the appeal, the BBC accepted that there was at least some value and serious purpose associated with the Appellant’s various information requests regarding CIISA. However, the BBC submitted that, in considering all of the circumstances, any such value and serious purpose was outweighed or exhausted by the number, pattern and burden of the requests which the Appellant had made and the responses which he had already received.

We have already set out our finding that there was no material burden associated with the Request, including taking into account the number and pattern of the RFIs and associated correspondence. It follows from that finding, and our comments above in respect of the ‘value or serious purpose’ of the Request, that we disagree with the BBC’s submission that any value or serious purpose in the Request was outweighed or exhausted by the issue of burden.

For all the reasons we have given, we disagree with the Commissioner’s view in the Decision Notice that the BBC’s arguments regarding the Request lacking serious purpose or value were “real and significant”. Likewise, we do not consider that the BBC’s arguments were sufficiently strong or evidenced in order to draw the conclusion that there was insufficient serious purpose or value to the Request, or that this was outweighed or exhausted by the issue of burden, such that the Request was vexatious.

It was not asserted by the Commissioner or the BBC that the Appellant had used offensive or threatening language in their dealings with the BBC, and we saw no use of any inappropriate language on the part of the Appellant. Likewise, there was no evidence before us that any individuals were harassed or distressed as a result of the Appellant’s RFIs, the Request or other correspondence.

We therefore find that there was no harassment of, or distress to, any individuals in connection with the Request or the Appellant’s wider dealings with the BBC.

We would also make the following additional, incidental, observations. We recognise that (in considering the lawfulness of the Decision Notice) we need to assess the BBC’s reliance on section 14 as at the date of the BBC’s refusal of the Request. However, we note that the witness also referred to another request for information which was made by the Appellant after the date of the Request (but before the date of the Decision Notice). That request, dated 13 December 2024, also related to the subject of CIISA and sought information regarding funding given or committed to be given to it by the BBC.

The witness stated, in support of the BBC’s position that the Request was vexatious, that the further request dated 13 December 2024 was “an indication that Mr Stead is likely to keep making further FOI requests to the BBC regarding CIISA”. However, the witness also explained that the BBC responded to that further request on 23 January 2025, disclosing the requested information.

The witness had also stated that “it is in the context of the burden of all of Mr Stead’s requests as a whole and the disclosures made to him that the Request was deemed to be vexatious”. As we noted in paragraph 5, the BBC’s response to the Request stated that “…the pattern of your requests can be considered as disproportionate and burdensome…”.

It is difficult to reconcile the BBC’s position set out in the preceding paragraph with the fact that it subsequently responded to the Appellant’s further request dated 13 December 2024. If a public authority relies on section 14 to refuse a request for information, we would ordinarily expect that public authority to refuse further information requests relating to the same subject matter. In this case, we consider the fact that the BBC responded to that further request, after the date of the Request and notwithstanding that it related to the same subject matter (CIISA), to be inconsistent with its position that the Request was vexatious. This is particularly so given that the witness stated that the Appellant’s further request dated 13 December 2024 was an indication that he was likely to keep making further requests regarding CIISA, and given that this was part of the rationale for the BBC refusing the Request as vexatious.

There is a high hurdle to satisfy in considering whether a request for information is vexatious under section 14(1). In this case, the Decision Notice referred to the issues of ‘burden’ and the Request ‘lacking serious purpose or value’ as being “real and significant”, but we disagree that the evidential hurdle has been met, for the reasons we have referred to, in order to support a conclusion that the Request was vexatious.

Taking into account all of the circumstances, for all of the above reasons, we consider that the Request did not constitute a disproportionate and inappropriate use of FOIA and accordingly we find that the Request was not vexatious for the purposes of section 14(1).

We note that the Appellant submitted in his reply in the appeal that has no plans to make any further requests in relation to CIISA and any other BBC team, although he also stated that “this could change if, for example, new information comes to light”. We should make it clear that nothing in this decision should be taken as precluding the BBC from determining that any future additional request for information relating to CIISA is vexatious pursuant to section 14.

For all of the reasons we have given, we find that the Decision Notice involved an error of law in concluding that the BBC was entitled to refuse the Request pursuant to section 14(1).

We therefore allow the appeal and we make the Substituted Decision Notice as set out above.