Case Reference: FT.EA.2024.0412
Information Rights
Before
TRIBUNAL JUDGE FOSS
TRIBUNAL MEMBER CHAFER
TRIBUNAL MEMBER COSGRAVE
Between
PETER MARSHALL
Appellant
and
(1) THE INFORMATION COMMISSIONER
(2) WESTMINSTER CITY COUNCIL
Respondents
Representation:
For the Appellant: Unrepresented
For the First Respondent: The ICO Office
For the Second Respondent: Unrepresented
Decision: The appeal is DISMISSED.
REASONS
This is an appeal against Decision Notice reference IC-295567-X3P5 dated 16 October 2024.
By the Decision Notice, the First Respondent (“the Commissioner”) decided that a request for information made by the Appellant of the Second Respondent (“the Council”) on 15 January 2024 (“the Request”) was vexatious, and that the Council was entitled to rely on s14(1) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (“FOIA”) to refuse the Request.
The Tribunal’s decision is unanimous.
Background
In summary: the Appellant alleges that the Council has failed to address inaccurate mapping and inaccurate geographical coordinates on the Local Land and Property Gazetteer (“LLPG”), a database of all addresses in the Council’s purview, with the result that when the emergency services used an address taken from the LLPG, they were delayed in responding to an emergency situation at the Appellant’s address.
The Request
The Request is this:
“On 17 April 2023 I sent an email to [the Head of Data Digital and Innovation Service] notifying him that certain property in the City of Westminster owned by [the Council] was inaccurately represented by Google maps.
Within the body of that communication was a screenshot of the relevant map taken at 19.57 BST on the same date. It reflected the inaccurate information WCC had provided to Ordnance Survey in or about 1999/2000.
For ease of reference the text of the email is as follows:
From: [Appellant’s personal data redacted] Sent: 17 April 2023 21:29
To: [personal data redacted] WCC [personal data redacted]:
RE: INACCURATE INFORMATION SHARED WITH GEOPLACE
Dear [name redacted]: I refer to previous correspondence and would draw your attention to the mapping below. The errors are the result of information uploaded by the LLPG back in 1999/2000. It persisted on OS Mapping until late March 2021.
So far as the Google maps are concerned it continues to this day.
Please advise:
1. What action was taken by WCC to seek correction of the mapping; and
2. Please provide paper copies of all relevant documentation in support of your response.”
On 12 February 2024, the Council refused the Request in reliance on s14(1) FOIA. The Council explained that it had sought to engage with the Appellant in relation to the subject matter of the Request as follows:
“In 2021:
• March 2021 you submitted your first FOI for information about naming/numbering, and
• in April 2021 stated that your request for an Internal Review into the response to your FOI was pending another "internal investigation", and that you hoped "it will not be necessary to revive it again."
• This was because the matter was, at that time, being investigated under the council's stage 1 and 2 formal complaints process, the latter completing in May 2021.
• Further, you referred the matter to the Local Government Ombudsman who issued a decision on 14 July 2021 that the complaint was out of their jurisdiction.
In October 2022, you started to submit further FOI /EIR requests to the council, as well as contacting departments directly.
In 2023 it is believed that managers have attempted to engage with you on these matters in order to reach a resolution but were unsuccessful.
Currently, it is understood that a member of Legal Services has now committed to be the dedicated officer for your queries, and has encouraged you to submit a Letter of Claim in this regard (ongoing). Further, as part of this process, has attempted mediation with you on this issue.
As a result, it is considered that this request represents a continuation of a personal interest which was not resolved to your satisfaction in 2021.
As a result, it is considered that the FOI/EIR access to information regime is being used to pursue a campaign in this regard despite other attempts to resolve the underlying matter between 2021 and 2023 being exhausted and/or unsuccessful. The council is currently seeking to resolve the issue via a legal route and is understood to be engaging with you in this regard at this time.”
The Council went on to explain that:
The Request was one of twenty-two requests which the Appellant had submitted in the fifteen-month period since October 2022:
Nine of the twenty-two requests (including the Request) related to a particular address at which we understand the Appellant to reside (“the Address”).
Four of the nine requests (including this one) relate specifically to the naming/numbering of the Address in 2000.
Three of the nine requests are in relation to planning matters relating to the Address/its gardens.
Two of the nine requests are in relation to emergency access to the Address.
Of the twenty-two requests, a further two requests related to the LLPG Custodian role engaged in the naming/numbering process.
The above is a non-exhaustive list of the Appellant’s previous correspondence and requests on the same topic.
The numbers of requests described did not reflect or quantify the amount of correspondence generated in the course of the nine requests, including the Appellant:
Withdrawing one of the nine requests, then subsequently chasing up a response.
Asking the Council to verify, or engage with, statements made by the Appellant, which was not the purpose of the legislation. For example, one of the nine requests opens with "I note the Council has not refuted the assertion in my email".
Approaching different Council services for similar information, and then cross-referencing and challenging responses.
Using the Council’s responses to make further requests, with the initial request being referenced in a new request and making additional queries.
The Council explained that:
the volume of requests made by the Appellant, accompanying correspondence, and other communication with individual service areas, imposed a disproportionate burden on Council resources, which, in turn, distracted from the provision of Council services.
The Appellant’s focus on particular subject matter services had the effect of targeting an individual within the Council; the naming and numbering relates predominantly to the work of one officer, the LLPG Custodian, who had, since 2021, been involved in responding to, and the subject matter, of seven of the Appellant’s requests, Stage 1 and 2 formal complaints in the Council’s complaints process, and the Appellant’s complaint to the Local Government Ombudsman.
A member of the Council’s Legal Services team had now committed to be the dedicated officer responsible for responding to the Appellant, to try to seek to resolve the matter and to minimise the impact on staff and services in the Council.
The Council said that in refusing the Request, it had considered the accumulative effect of the volume of requests, as well as potential further requests, and the attendant additional correspondence, all of which imposed a disproportionate burden on the organisation, distracting officers from the provision of council services.
On 12 February 2024, the Appellant sought an internal review. In so doing, he said that he strongly objected to and rejected the Council’s assertion that the Request was vexatious, and stated this:
“I strongly object to and reject your assertion that my request is vexatious.
I[t] relates to an issue with regard to Google maps.
The matter was brought to the Council's attention in an email dated 17 April 2023 (which was copied within my Freedom of Information Act 2000, UK GDPR and/or Data Protection Act 2018 request) addressed to [name redacted]
Head of Data
Digital & Innovation Service
Westminster City Council
64 Victoria Street
London SW1E 6QP
I require to know what action the Council has taken since becoming aware of the errors in Google maps relating to properties which it owns and in respect of which it has a duty of care towards its residents.
It has already been pointed out to the Council (via Executive Director [name redacted]) that a recent TMO notice was partially defective because of the use of Google maps (TMO Ref : 8049/LH).
I therefore request an Internal Review.”
On 18 March 2024, the Council maintained its position. It said this:
“While section 14(1) applies in respect of a request the council may consider various factors which are set out as 4 broad themes as below:
1. the value or serious purpose (of the request)
2. the burden (on the public authority and its staff);
3. the motive (of the requester);
4. any harassment or distress (of and to staff).
This review has therefore sought to determine if the response of 12 February 2024 addressed these areas in order that section 14(1) was correctly engaged.
With regard to value or serious purpose, a public authority must consider this in terms of there being an objective public interest in the information sought. The council’s response of 12 February 2024 set out the context / history of this case which identified that this request represents a continuation of a matter of personal interest to you, relating to the naming and numbering of [the Address] in circa 2000. The motive is therefore established as being a matter of personal interest.
While this represents one request, the council determined the request posed an unreasonable burden based on (as set out in the response of the 12 February 2024) the number of requests that have been submitted in this regard over a relatively short time period, relating to an event over twenty years ago. The response also set out that there was a pattern of additional correspondence to be managed in relation to individual requests and received directly by officers across the council.
In terms of harassment or distress caused by the request, the council’s response of 12 February 2024 set out the impact on staff in dealing with continued requests in pursuance of this matter as well as other general correspondence and formal complaints.”
On 18 March 2024, the Appellant complained to the Commissioner. The Commissioner investigated.
By the Decision Notice, the Commissioner decided that the Council was entitled to rely on s14(1) FOIA to refuse the Request. He noted that:
The Appellant’s wider grievance had been thoroughly pursued via the Council’s internal complaints process, as well as by general correspondence and a number of information requests. The Commissioner considered that the Request could be seen as evidence of attempting to prolong a grievance that had already been comprehensively dealt with. In the Commissioner’s opinion this might fairly be described as unreasonable persistence, which is often an indicator of a vexatious request.
Although the Council had not claimed that complying with the Request itself would place a significant burden on the Council, the Commissioner was persuaded that the aggregated burden of dealing with the Appellant's correspondence to date had already placed a considerable strain on the Council and its resources.
The Commissioner was satisfied that the Council had taken steps to manage the Appellant’s behaviour and the impact of his correspondence. This had included setting up a single point of contact, and entering mediation. The Council had responded to the Appellant's correspondence and had provided several responses to his requests for information. The Council had also considered the Appellant's complaints under the appropriate processes.
Having considered the context and history of correspondence, the Commissioner had seen no evidence to suggest that compliance with the Request would bring an end to the dispute. He considered it more likely that any response would lead to further complaints and requests, resulting in more correspondence and further burden.
The Appeal
By Notice of Appeal dated 18 October 2024, the Appellant submits, in summary, that:
The Commissioner’s decision is wrong, unfair and detrimental because it fails to consider the whole context which gave rise to the Request, and effectively facilitates the continued lack of transparency by the Council which flies in the face of FOIA.
The Commissioner has also made inappropriate and unfounded assumptions on behalf of the Council in support of its reliance on s14(1) FOIA.
The following facts were unknown to the Appellant prior to late 2019:
In or about 1999/2000 the Council passed inaccurate information to Ordnance Survey (“OS”) through its contractual agreement with GeoPlace, concerning the re-ordering of the Address. As a result, OS produced maps with incorrect address annotations. In March 2001 the Council used that mapping to assign a Universal Property Reference Number (“UPRN”) and geographical coordinates to the Appellant's property and also to others. That information forms the backbone of the GPS/SatNav system.
In April 2015 the Appellant's father collapsed with a cardiac arrest (as we understand it, at the Address). Emergency responders were unable to locate the Address. This resulted in a serious delay which proved fatal.
In 2019 the London Ambulance Service provided the Appellant with copies of the mapping it utilised and were available to the crews in April 2015 namely OS and Geographia. The geographical coordinates therein did not enable the emergency responders to locate his property.
The Appellant complained to the Council in 2019, but the Council took no action.
In March 2021, following the Appellant’s earlier complaint, OS corrected the mapping errors but only insofar as they related to the Appellant's specific location. OS informed the Appellant that he should contact the Council about any other errors.
The errors in relation to other parts of the neighbourhood remain unaddressed and unresolved as at the date of the Notice of Appeal.
Later, the Appellant brought to the Council’s attention the fact that Google Maps’ data is also incorrect and reflects the same inaccurate information which the Council had originally provided to OS in 1999/2000. Geographia maps also reflect the same erroneous information.
The Council has still not taken any steps to prevent a recurrence of the tragic events of April 2015 such as installing signage. Nor has the Council acknowledged its responsibility for what occurred.
The Appellant made a legal claim against the Council. In October 2023, the Council offered the Appellant mediation. As at the date of the Notice of Appeal, there had only been one meeting between the Council and the Appellant and nothing had been achieved. It appears that the Council has no intention of resolving any of the issues and it can only be inferred that mediation is a sham.
The Request is reasonable.
The matter has a wider public interest because all the affected properties are owned by the Council, which is a social housing landlord, and therefore the Council is potentially in breach of its duty of care to residents.
The Council has not opposed the Request on the grounds of it being over burdensome.
Because the LLPG custodian was responsible for the errors that were made in 1999/2000 and 2001, that officer’s department has rightly been required to deal with the Appellant’s requests for information. There has been no targeting by the Appellant.
The Council’s position, recorded in the Decision Notice, that the Request had effectively been dealt with two years earlier as part of the Council’s response to a similar request from the Appellant in 2021 is nonsensical (in 2021 the Council had explained to the Appellant the process of OS mapping and the role of the Council in that process in the course of a Stage 1 and Stage 2 complaint by the Appellant to the Council). The Council was initially asked by the Appellant to notify Google Maps of the errors, the Appellant believing a request by a local authority would carry more weight.
By Response to the appeal dated 28 November 2024, the Commissioner stands by the Decision Notice, and submits that in all the circumstances of the case, the Request is to be regarded as vexatious further to the binding case law set out by the Court of Appeal in Dransfield v Information Commissioner & Devon County Council [2015] EWCA Civ 454 (which did not depart from the Upper Tribunal findings in Information Commissioner v Dransfield [2012] UKUT 440 (AAC) (“Dransfield”).
By Reply to the Commissioner’s Response, dated 2 December 2024, the Appellant submits, in summary, that:
Inaccurate mapping and assignment by the Council of inaccurate geographical coordinates resulted in the death of his father.
The Commissioner is fully aware of the background including the Council's opacity throughout.
The matter raised by the Request is one of public interest because it affects a large number of residents of ground floor properties whose numbering is still incorrectly represented on mapping by OS, Google Maps, and Geographia.
In view of the fact the mapping errors have been in existence for more than two decades and relate to properties owned by the Council as a social housing landlord, it is clear that the Council has no interest whatever in the residents’ welfare and is in breach of its duty of care towards them by failing to take steps to remedy the issue.
The Decision Notice is wrong and, if allowed to stand, would effectively permit the Council to remain opaque contrary to the intended purposes of FOIA. It would also be unfair and detrimental to the Appellant and numerous others.
On 14 January 2025, the Council was joined as a respondent to the appeal. The Council has not filed a Response to the appeal.
The Tribunal’s initial deliberations
Upon our initial deliberation, we had before us a bundle of 66 pages. That did not include any of the previous requests and associated correspondence to which the Council had referred in refusal of the Request.
The bundle contained a witness statement from Ms Kim Painter dated 28 January 2025. Ms Painter was, at the time she made her statement, a lawyer employed in the Council’s Housing and Litigation team.
Ms Painter explains that:
She is the appointed single point of contact for the Appellant “due to his large and persistent emails and contact with [the Council].”
The Council offered mediation to the Appellant as an alternative to continued correspondence with the Appellant.
Mediation took place in April 2024, at which one of the issues discussed was the “alleged inaccurate information”. Ms Painter records that, “It was accepted that [the Council] cannot be held liable for another party such as OS and Geographia. It is [the Council’s] position that the information that they have provided has always been accurate. It was also confirmed at mediation by the Appellant that the data was now accurate.”
At the mediation as a gesture of goodwill [the Council] agreed to install new signage.
Since the date of the mediation, the Appellant has not agreed to another date for mediation, and two sessions have been cancelled by the Appellant for personal reasons. The Council has sent numerous emails to the mediator to arrange a new date, and the mediator has made several attempts to contact the Appellant to arrange a date for further mediation, without any success.
Instead of progressing the mediation, the Appellant has issued a further FOIA, and then this appeal.
By a witness statement dated 6 February 2025, the Appellant responds to Ms Painter’s evidence, in summary, as follows:
The Council failed to respond to the Request at mediation. Had it done so, this appeal could have been avoided.
The mediation was offered in relation to a letter of claim sent by the Appellant to the Council, in accordance with the Pre-action Conduct Protocol Practice Directions.
The Council has allowed uncorrected, inaccurate OS mapping to remain in the public domain for two decades, and taken no steps to correct it. It is the Appellant who secured the necessary corrections in 2021, but they only relate to the immediate vicinity of his property.
OS required the Council to notify them of any other similar issues. So far as the Appellant is aware, the Council has not done so, even though there is evidence that OS mapping is still defective as regards the surrounding area.
As at 6 February 2025, Google Maps and Geographia continue to reflect the erroneous data originally provided by the Council to OS in 1999/2000. The Council has taken no reasonable steps to secure corrections.
Because the Council has refused to respond to the Appellant’s concerns about Google Maps (replicated by Geographia), he has been forced to make the Request.
All the Request seeks is information as to whether the Council has taken action to correct Google Maps. The Appellant does not assert that the Council has control over Google Maps. Accordingly, the Request is entirely reasonable, and is neither onerous, burdensome or vexatious.
The Appellant believes that the Council has taken no steps to seek the necessary corrections and wishes to avoid disclosing that fact by any means available.
The Appellant disputes Ms Painter’s characterisation of what was accepted at the mediation, saying: “The appellant has always asserted that the OS mapping errors arose solely because of inaccurate data provided by [the Council] which had a statutory duty as Local Land and Property Gazetteer Custodian to maintain accurate records. [The Council] failed to ensure the data it provided was properly utilised by OS and that is mapping represented the true situation on the ground. Because Google and Geographia use data provided by OS they have duplicated the errors.”
The Appellant takes exception to Ms Painter’s description of an offer of signage and the course of the mediation process: “In the year 2000 [the Council’s] Naming and Numbering Department stated in writing that issues were likely to arise in respect of the appellant’s property because of the reordering of the building, changes to the addresses of various addresses and the stopping up of access ways. That advice was ignored and no signage indicating how access to the appellant’s property could be achieved was ever installed by [the Council]. The absence of signage was the cause of the unnecessary delay in emergency services reaching his father which had fatal consequences.”
In 2021, the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (whom we take to be one and the same as the Local Government Ombudsman referred to above) made the following statement which was relayed to [the Council] at the time:
“[The appellant’s property] has to be accessed on foot, and I note Cottesloe House and other buildings around it are all linked, with access points in different places to where one might expect. So it is likely, on balance, the ambulance crew [attending the appellant’s father’s cardiac arrest] relied more on local signage at that point. What local signage there might be is the responsibility of the Council as a social housing landlord which owns the properties. We cannot investigate those actions because section 26(8) and Schedule 5, paragraphs 5A and 5B of the 1974 Act prohibit us from doing so.”
Despite being aware of the opinion of the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman, the Council has taken no action to remedy the defect. Adequate and appropriate signage has been essential since 2001 when the Council imposed significant access restrictions. The Council’s offer of such essential signage cannot be characterised, as Ms Painter would have it, as a goodwill gesture. That characterisation demonstrates the Council’s continued reluctance to admit any wrongdoing.
Having considered the material before us we resolved that we required further information to enable us to determine the appeal.
Accordingly, on 12 June 2025, we directed the Commissioner to provide:
Correspondence between the Commissioner and the Council generated in the Commissioner's investigation of the Appellant’s complaint resulting in Decision Notice reference IC-295567-X3P5 dated 16 October 2024.
A submission as to whether the Request was a request for environmental information pursuant to the Environmental Information Regulations 2004 (“EIR”).
We also directed the Council to provide copies of:
The twenty-two requests for information made by the Appellant described in the Council’s refusal of the Request, and the Council’s substantive responses thereto.
Correspondence generated in the Council’s Stage 1 and Stage 2 complaints process.
Correspondence generated in the complaint to, and investigation by, the Local Government Ombudsman including the Ombudsman’s decision of 14 July 2021.
any mediation outcome statement.
We also directed the Council to provide:
Confirmation of whether the Council had responded to the Appellant's request for information dated 17 April 2023 headed “Inaccurate information shared with Geoplace” (“the Initial Request”, which is referred to in the Request), and, if it did respond, a copy of the response issued.
Submissions as to whether the Request was a request for environmental information pursuant to EIR.
On or around 19 June 2025, the Council filed certain (but not all) of the material and information directed by the Tribunal on 12 June 2025, as follows:
A mediation outcome summary and action points from a meeting between the Appellant and the Council on 18 April 2024.
Twenty-nine separate PDFs, without any covering explanation, which we took to be material intended to be responsive to the Tribunal’s request for copies of the requests and correspondence between the Appellant and the Council, which the Council had described in its refusal of the Request, as well as that generated in the Council’s Stage 1 and Stage 2 complaints process, and in the complaint to, and investigation by, the Local Government Ombudsman.
On 24 June 2025, the Commissioner sent an email to the Tribunal, copied to the parties which, relevantly for current purposes, consisted of:
An explanation that written correspondence between the Commissioner and the Council in the investigation comprised three emails between the Commissioner and the Council to arrange a telephone call to discuss the Appellant’s complaint.
A submission that:
given that the Request is “about the accuracy of land ownership reflected on Google Maps, and primarily the process around the sharing of data used by Google Maps and who decides whether it is correct or not”, the focus of the Request, together with the wording of the specific questions in it, means that the information requested is not environmental information within the meaning of EIR.
The Council was correct to handle the Request pursuant to FOIA.
On 14 July 2025, the Appellant filed submissions which we summarise, relevantly for current purposes, as follows:
Several of the FOIA requests made by the Appellant which the Council had filed in response to the Tribunal’s directions of 12 June 2025, related to matters other than the subject matter of the Request.
The Council had provided no evidence that it had responded to the Initial Request.
It is the Council’s “continual intransigence, persistent determination to remain opaque and the drip-feeding of Information that unavoidably led to multiple FoI requests.” However, the Appellant has only ever made one request in relation to Google Maps.
The Initial Request remained unanswered for nine months prior to the Request. It obviously raises a matter of public interest.
The Appellant's father's death was directly attributable to OS mapping errors and compounded by the absence of any local signage. The Council’s subsequent use of that inaccurate OS mapping for the purposes of assigning a UPRN and the geographical coordinates for the Address meant that data was also in error.
In all the circumstances, the Request is neither unreasonable nor burdensome nor vexatious, whether viewed under FOIA or EIR.
On 28 July 2025, the Appellant filed an application to bring to the Tribunal’s attention a number of screenshots which he says indicate erroneous and corrected OS mapping, erroneous Goegraphia mapping in 2015 and 2021, and the Google Maps representation which the Appellant says is the subject of this appeal.
On 12 January 2026, after protracted correspondence between the Tribunal and the Council seeking clarification of what material the Council had filed in June 2025, we issued further directions to the Council, directing full compliance with the Tribunal’s directions of 12 June 2025.
Witness evidence of Tanya Holden
On 4 February 2026, the Council filed a witness statement from Ms Tanya Holden, Information Governance manager in the Council’s Corporate Services Directorate.
Ms Holden explains that:
The Council does not know whether the person who received the Initial Request responded directly to that request: they had left the Council’s employment in 2023.
The Council have identified an email of 20 April 2023 from the then employee to the Appellant, which states that they are working with other teams within the Council to prepare a response:
“... not just for the FOIs you have raised but also the questions you asked us in your individual correspondence with Debbie, me and others in the Council.
Since it's a cross-functional effort, preparing the details is a time-consuming exercise. Either I or one of my colleagues from the council will reach out in due course (week starting 8th May tentatively) to discuss the status and next steps in the process.”
The material filed by the Council in June 2025 is the substantive correspondence in relation to the Appellant’s requests, between October 2022 and February 2024.
Ms Holden explains that the Council had sought to address the issue of mapping of the Address based on information from other services. Ms Holden sets out a chronological account of matters by reference to the material filed by the Council with the Tribunal as follows:
“
• Stage 1 complaint of Jan 2021, response issued Feb 2021 (in the bundle). NB this refers to emails and phone conversations ongoing since February 2020, and asserts the following:
“Please contact Ordnance Survey for queries relating to the accuracy of Ordnance Survey mapping. Westminster City Council is not responsible for the accuracy of Ordnance Survey mapping.”
• FOI 19948321, rec March 2021, response issued April 2021 (in the bundle):
“Ordnance Survey are responsible for the labelling and content on Ordnance Survey maps. The map extract was supplied by Ordnance Survey and showed the mapping at that time. We recommend contacting Ordnance Survey for further information about the source of map content including labels for that map.”
• Stage 2 complaint, response issued May 2021 (in the bundle). This reiterates that:
“OS are responsible for the content of the OS maps. Westminster City Council are not responsible for the content of the maps, or for providing information to OS”
• Referral to Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman, response issued July 2021 (in the bundle) that they will not investigate.
• FOI 28591749 (in the bundle) response issued 12 December 2022 that the council is responsible for their own dataset, and to contact OS directly in respect of their responsibilities in relation to OS mapping.
• FOI 30853669 (in the bundle) Internal Review response of May 2023 (also covering above FOI 28591749) sets out that: “Please note that Westminster City Council is not responsible for ensuring OS and all other mapping in the public domain is accurate.” “
Ms Holden explains that:
Prior to the Request, the Council had taken a number of steps to consider the Appellant’s interest in the matter, but also to clarify that the Council is not responsible for external mapping. The Request therefore represents a continuation of a subject matter, and pattern of behaviour that shows no signs of abating regardless of the Council’s various responses.
Moreover, after the run of correspondence and complaints described by Ms Holden, and before the Council’s correspondence with the Commissioner in relation to the Request, the Appellant had entered into mediation, in which the Council had confirmed that it did not have control over third parties such as Google Maps and OS, and could only advise them of information changes.
In relation to the issue of whether the information sought by the Request is environmental information, Ms Holden explains that:
The information was not considered to be environmental at the time the Request was received.
As the requested information relates to mapping of urban areas it may be environmental information. In that event, it falls to be excepted from disclosure pursuant to Regulation 12(4)(b) EIR (manifestly unreasonable).
By a Response dated 3 March 2026 to Ms Holden’s evidence of 4 February 2025, the Appellant submits, in summary, as follows:
Given the Council’s unwillingness to respond to the Appellant’s patently legitimate questions, he was forced to raise them by FOIA/EIR: “Even then [the Council] drip-fed Information in such a manner that follow-up requests were unavoidable. Clearly this was intentional and calculated to set up a situation whereby the second respondent could assert vexation and thus avoid lawful disclosure altogether.”
While the Appellant accepts that the Council may have had no control over OS’s labelling practices, the Council had nonetheless a duty of care to ensure the mapping it produced for public use (which was based on specific information provided by the Council in relation to new addresses created by it for properties which it owned) accurately reflected the situation on the ground. The Council has patently failed in that regard and continues to do so as at 3 March 2026 in relation to both OS and Google Maps.
The Appellant appended to his submissions certain emails between him and the Council relating to Google and OS mapping errors and signage, emails relating to a Traffic Management Order, and a further copy of his application of 28 July 2025.
Having reviewed all the further material we have received, we are now satisfied that we can properly determine the issues without a hearing, pursuant to Rule 32(1) of the Tribunal Rules.
The Legal Framework
Section 1 FOIA provides a right of access to recorded information held by public authorities. It provides:
General right of access to information held by public authorities.
Any person making a request for information to a public authority is entitled—
to be informed in writing by the public authority whether it holds information of the description specified in the request, and
if that is the case, to have that information communicated to him.
That right is subject to several exemptions, of which s14 is one, which provides relevantly as follows:
Vexatious or repeated requests.
Section 1(1) does not oblige a public authority to comply with a request for information if the request is vexatious.
Where a public authority has previously complied with a request for information which was made by any person, it is not obliged to comply with a subsequent identical or substantially similar request from that person unless a reasonable interval has elapsed between compliance with the previous request and the making of the current request.
S58 FOIA provides as follows:
Determination of appeals.
If on an appeal under section 57 the Tribunal considers—
that the notice against which the appeal is brought is not in accordance with the law, or
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.
On such an appeal, the Tribunal may review any finding of fact on which the notice in question was based.
Requests for environmental information should be dealt with pursuant to EIR, not FOIA.
Regulation 2(1) EIR defines environmental information as being information on:
the state of the elements of the environment, such as air and atmosphere, water, soil, land, landscape and natural sites including wetlands, coastal and marine areas, biological diversity and its components, including genetically modified organisms, and the interaction among these elements.
factors, such as substances, energy, noise, radiation or waste, including radioactive waste, emissions, discharges and other releases into the environment, affecting or likely to affect the elements of the environment referred to in (a).
measures (including administrative measures), such as policies, legislation, plans, programmes, environmental agreements, and activities affecting or likely to affect the elements and factors referred to in (a) and (b) as well as measures or activities designed to protect those elements.
reports on the implementation of environmental legislation.
cost-benefit and other economic analyses and assumptions used within the framework of the measures and activities referred to in (c); and
the state of human health and safety, including the contamination of the food chain, where relevant, conditions of human life, cultural sites and built structures inasmuch as they are or may be affected by the state of the elements of the environment referred to in (a) or, through those elements, by any of the matters referred to in (b) and (c).
Having considered the Request, we conclude that information requested is not environmental information. The Appellant requested information as to the action taken by the Council to correct the relevant mapping. We do not consider that the activity of mapping falls within any of the definitions of environmental information but even if it does, the requested information is what action the Council took in relation thereto, which is not itself an activity which meets any of the definitions.
The requested information falls to be considered under FOIA. As it is, in the event of request for information being refused by a public authority, whether under FOIA or EIR, on grounds of vexatiousness or manifest unreasonableness respectively, the test for establishing each is, to all intents and purposes, the same.
Analysis
The Request is a request for information as to what action was taken by the Council to seek correction of OS mapping which was the Appellant says was erroneous between 1999/2000 until late March 2021, reflecting inaccurate information provided by the Council to OS in or about 1999/2000.
At the outset, we observe that it is no part of the Tribunal’s jurisdiction to determine the fact of, or any liability on the part of the Council in relation to, any inaccuracy in the data held by OS.
Our role is simply to determine whether the Request is vexatious, and consequently, whether the Council is entitled to refuse the Request in reliance on s14(1) FOIA.
In Dransfield, the Upper Tribunal acknowledged the need to protect public authorities' resources from unreasonable requests:
“Section 14…is concerned with the nature of the request and has the effect of disapplying the citizen's right under Section 1(1)… The purpose of Section 14… must be to protect the resources (in the broadest sense of that word) of the public authority from being squandered on disproportionate use of FOIA…”[10]
S14 FOIA does not define vexatiousness. In Dransfieldthe Upper Tribunal held that it takes its meaning and flavour from its context [24], and that it connotes a “manifestly unjustified, inappropriate, or improper use of a formal procedure.” [27].
The Upper Tribunal suggested four broad issues or themes to consider as evidencing such misuse of the FOIA procedure namely: the burden on the public authority and its staff; the motive of the requester; the value or serious purpose of the request in terms of objective public interest in the requested information; and any harassment of or distress to the public authority’s staff. The Upper Tribunal stressed the importance, nonetheless, of taking a holistic and broad approach to assessing whether a request is vexatious.
While the Upper Tribunal noted that although FOIA is both “motive blind” and “applicant blind”, the application of s14(1) FOIA cannot disregard the question of the underlying rationale or justification for the request, or the wider context of the course of dealings between the individual and the public authority. The Upper Tribunal observed in relation to the issue of burden that the “present burden may be inextricably linked with the previous course of dealings” [29]. It is, therefore, appropriate for us to consider the context and history of the request, including the number, breadth, pattern and duration of previous requests.
The Upper Tribunal observed:
“There is… no magic formula – 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.”
In Dransfield v Information Commissioner & Another and Craven v Information Commissioner & Another [2015] EWCA Civ 454 (CA) the Court of Appeal emphasised the need for a decision maker to consider all the relevant circumstances. Arden LJ observed that “vexatiousness primarily involves making a request which has no reasonable foundation, that is, no reasonable foundation for thinking that the information sought would be of value to the requester, or to the public or any section of the public. Parliament has chosen a strong word which therefore means that the hurdle of satisfying it is a high one and that is consistent with the constitutional nature of the right.” [68].
A request stimulated by a genuine public interest concern may become vexatious by drift where that proper purpose is overshadowed and extinguished by the improper pursuit of a longstanding grievance against the public authority (Oxford Phoenix v Information Commissioner [2018] UKUT 192 (AAC)).
Before we apply consideration of Dransfield to the facts of this case, we think it is useful to set out some of the evidence we have reviewed.
On 21 January 2021, the Appellant asked the Council a number of questions in relation to OS mapping issues. The Council investigated, treating the matter as a complaint, although the Appellant disputed that it was, in fact, a complaint. The Council operates a two stage complaints process.
On 18 February 2021, at Stage 1 of the complaint, the Council (in fact the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea, whom we understand to share certain operations with the Council) provided a detailed response. The Council summarised the complaint as follows:
“As I understand it your concerns are:
1. From the emails included in your email of 21st January I understand the outcome of your correspondence to Ordnance Survey is that the map labels will be updated. I believe you would like this mapping to be used in the Council’s computer systems as soon as possible.
2. You would like us to provide you with an explanation of BLPU points and who is responsible for the positioning thereof.
3. You have advised us that [the Address] is not the only location affected. You have told us specifically about the location of BLPU points relating to other properties in [the Address].
4. You have requested information specifying the respective roles and responsibilities of Ordnance Survey and/or Westminster City Council in relation to mapping, addressing and databases/gazetteers.
5. You have asked for information about the responsibility for the original positioning of the BLPU points as well who should have ensured the OS mapping was accurate.”
The Council started its response as follows:
“... You have been advised that the Ambulance Service do not have direct access to Westminster City Council computer systems. I recommend you contact the Ambulance Service about the information used by them for emergency response.
Westminster City Council is responsible for maintaining the Local Land and Property Gazetteer (LLPG) to a National Standard called BS7666:2006. The LLPG contains addresses, defined as Basic Land and Property Units (BLPU), and representative point coordinates. There is a requirement for the BLPU coordinates to be located at the visual centre of the building and Ordnance Survey mapping is used by Westminster City Council as a source of information for creating and updating BLPU locations.
At the time of your first email to the Council about this matter in February 2020 the location of the BLPU coordinates for your residence, 6 Cottesloe House was within the building footprint shown on the Ordnance Survey map. The point was located close to the visual centre of the building footprint and met the requirements of the BS7666:2006 standard. You asked for the point representing 6 Cottesloe House to be moved to a location more closely representing the property access point.
A Westminster City Council Street Naming and Numbering Officer, and the Gazetteer Custodian Officer visited the building in the summer of 2020 to review the address locations. Information from multiple sources including these visits, information you provided to Westminster City Council, and Ordnance Survey mapping was reviewed. In October 2020, as a courtesy, the BLPU coordinates for 6 Cottesloe House were moved to a location, still within the building footprint, and more closely representing the property access point. The location of the point remains close to the visual centre of the building footprint and therefore continues to meet the requirements of the BS7666:2006 standard.
Additionally the location of the BLPU points for properties [numbers at the Address] were updated. These updates were made as part of the process of continual improvement of the address database/gazetteer. Thank you for contributing to the process of continual improvement. You asked for other BLPU points to be moved and were advised that this would not be possible due, in part, to the requirement to maintain the LLPG to the BS7666:2006 Standard.
You asked for, and were given in January 2021, information about the roles and responsibilities of Ordnance Survey and Westminster City Council for mapping and addressing databases/gazetteers. You have provided copies of some of your email correspondence with Ordnance Survey where it was stated in December 2020 that the building number labelling on the Ordnance Survey maps would be updated by them. ...”
In response to the Appellant’s specific questions, the Council responded as follows:
“1. Loading the most recently revised Ordnance Survey mapping into the Westminster Council Computer systems
The most recent revision of Ordnance Survey mapping with the revised label for [the Address] has now been received by the Council and the process of loading it into the computer systems is underway. As advised by [Council employee personal data redacted] in previous emails and phone calls the updates to Ordnance Survey mapping are received by the Council on a regular basis and updated into the Westminster City Council computer systems.
2. BLPU point positioning responsibilities
As advised by [Council employee personal data redacted] in previous phone calls and in emails of January 2021, the Gazetteer Custodian role at Westminster Council is responsible for the maintenance, upkeep, and improvement of our address database known as the LLPG. When new addresses are added to the LLPG the Gazetteer Custodian will create and position the BLPU points using the Ordnance Survey mapping for reference. The Local Land and Property Gazetteer is a BS7666:2006 compliant address database maintained and used by a relevant local authority. Data entry conventions for the address gazetteer and best practice guidelines are contained in the Data Entry Conventions and Best Practice for the National Land and Property Gazetteer available for reference from the GeoPlace website www.geoplace.co.uk.
Positioning of BLPU points for other addresses in[the Address]
We have reviewed the location of other BLPU points in relation to the Council’s obligations for maintenance of the LLPG and believe that these points are appropriately located with respect to the Ordnance Survey mapping and the LLPG standards and guidance. The gazetteer is continually improved based on mapping updates and other information. If residents contact us with queries about the LLPG for their property we will consider their concerns as we have done for the concerns you raised about the location of the point for 6 Cottesloe Court. Location of the points in relation to the building access is not a requirement and would in some situations result in the gazetteer not meeting the required standards. Having reviewed all the information available to Westminster City Council I am confident other points in [the Address] are appropriately located in the gazetteer.
Roles and responsibilities of Ordnance Survey and/or Westminster City Council in relation to mapping addressing and databases/gazetteers
The roles and responsibilities of Westminster City Council for the LLPG address gazetteer creation are summarised in my response to points 2 and 3 above. Please contact Ordnance Survey directly for information about their roles and responsibilities in relation to the Ordnance Survey mapping.
Responsibility for the original positioning of the BLPU points as well who should have ensured the OS mapping was accurate
As advised by James Johnston in January 2021 the original BLPU points were created from a variety of sources including Ordnance Survey, Royal Mail, and Westminster City Council information. Westminster City Council are not required to, and do not, keep records of the sources of coordinate information for individual address gazetteer points. It is most likely that the original coordinates were created from information held in the Royal Mail Postcode Address File and Ordnance Survey Mapping. Multiple processes are in place to continually improve the data held in the LLPG. Please contact Ordnance Survey for queries relating to the accuracy of Ordnance Survey mapping. Westminster City Council is not responsible for the accuracy of Ordnance Survey mapping. We do work collaboratively with Ordnance Survey as part of the continual improvement programmes of both organisations as demonstrated in in your previous correspondence with both Ordnance Survey and Westminster City Council.”
The Council did not uphold what it characterised as the Appellant’s complaint.
The Appellant advanced his “complaint” of 21 January 2021 to Stage 2 of the Council’s complaints process. He was unhappy with the Stage 1 response saying that the mapping errors at the Address were not limited to that specific locus. In addition, he raised concerns as to why a Statutory Order pursuant to the provisions of the London Government Act 1963 and London Building Acts (Amendment) Act 1939 Part II was issued on 21 April 2000, without his knowledge or consent, changing his address, and remained in force until he became aware of its existence and effect - until 1 February 2002.
In its Stage 2 response, the Council repeated the points it had made in its Stage 1 response. In addition, the Council answered further questions which the Appellant had raised by email dated 1 March 2021 (although it said that it had already covered these in previous communications), as follows (the Appellant’s questions appearing in bold type):
“Q - Having only recently repositioned the BPLU point for my address you cannot suggest its previous position is historic. So please provide the coordinates as requested.
We are not required to and do not keep the history. Having moved the points, we do not have a record of the previous coordinates.
Q - You fail to answer the question concerning the obligation of the Council to notify OS of any local changes in particular changes to access.
There is no obligation for the Council to notify OS of any local changes. We do work collaboratively with OS as evidenced by the previous correspondence with OS.
Q - It is an insult to my intelligence to imply Westminster City Council is somehow outside the loop. They created the new addresses so are responsible for placing the BLPU points which in turn should result in the accurate representation thereof by Ordnance Survey.
The BLPU points are now (and were previously) appropriately located. The Council is not responsible for the representation on OS mapping.
Q - Notwithstanding the arbitrary policy of WCC as regards the printing of emails, please let me have a hard copy of both your substantive reports.
All the information is in the emails sent to you. As you have continually corresponded with the Council by email over the last year this indicates that digital communication is sufficient. The Council is committed to tackling the climate emergency which includes reducing printing wherever possible and therefore we see no reason to print out and resend information that has already been sent digitally by e-mail. The Council however will send a hard copy of this complaint response by post as well as sending a PDF version by e-mail.
In summary, OS are responsible for the content of the OS maps. Westminster City Council are not responsible for the content of the maps, or for providing information to OS. Although we do work collaboratively with OS as part of the continual improvement programmes of both organisations there are no obligations either for us to supply information or for OS to use it, and any concerns about OS maps should be directly raised with OS.”
The Council addressed separately the Appellant’s question relating to the Statutory Order, clarifying that that issue had nothing to do with any of the map labelling it had addressed in its Stage 1 and 2 responses.
The Appellant then complained to the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman. By final decision dated 14 July 2021, the Ombudsman decided that:
He would not consider events of 2015 (when the Appellant’s father died) because his jurisdiction precluded him from investigating late complaints (when someone takes more than 12 months to complain), unless there were good reasons.
In any event, he could not establish if some error in the LLPG contributed in any way to the actions of the ambulance service more than six years ago.
any recent fault by the Council in how it kept the LLPG could not have caused the Appellant injustice that justified the Ombudsman’s involvement.
The Ombudsman was satisfied that the Council had responded appropriately to the Appellant’s queries raised with the Council about the LLPG.
The Mediation Outcome statement we have seen, dated 18 April 2024 and prepared by the Council, records, relevantly for current purposes, the following:
The Council telling the Appellant that:
The Council does not have control over third parties such as OS and Google Maps and that it can only advise them of information changes.
The Council had been in touch with Google Maps “to raise an error” but had never received a response.
The Appellant telling the Council that:
It was the responsibility of local authorities to keep third parties informed of changes to its properties.
It was only through a FOIA request to the London Ambulance Service that the Appellant had discovered that the information held by the service from OS was wrong.
The information which the Council had passed to OS and Google Maps was incorrect, including in relation to the changes in door numbers.
It had taken the Appellant two years to get OS to correct their data, including his address.
The Council’s confirming to him at mediation that it had contacted Google Maps was an example of the Appellant seeking information from the Council which is initially ignored, resulting in him then having to make FOIA requests; this made the Appellant look like a nuisance and labelled a vexatious complainant.
The Mediation Outcome statement records as an action point for the Council: [Ms Painter] to share with [the Appellant] when [the Council] contacted Google regarding the error.
Burden
Turning to the themes in Dransfield, we start with the issue of burden. While we consider that responding to the Request might not, as an exercise in itself, be particularly burdensome, it is appropriate to take into account the course of previous dealings between the Appellant and the Council, attested to by Ms Holden, and evidenced in the material filed by the Council.
We consider that the Council will already have been put to considerable time and expense in dealing with the Appellant’s previous FOIA and EIR requests and associated correspondence on the subject of mapping and signage which is laid out over the many pages of such material before us. We have seen in certain cases that the Council’s responses to individual multi-part FOIA and EIR requests by the Appellant have stimulated the Appellant to issue: immediate, further requests for information pending the outcome of an internal review of the original requests; requests for clarification or explanation of the responses or parts thereof; and requests to know which Council departments have been consulted in the provision of responses.
The Council has shown us other FOIA and EIR requests by the Appellant in the space of 2023 alone, which adopt the same style and approach we have described above, but which appear to relate to matters other than mapping and signage, for example: why a particular piece of land is maintained by the Council’s highways department; details relating to the erection of a feeder pillar cabinet near National Grid premises; questions relating to the late delivery of a Council publication in the context of a postal strike and the impact of that on residents’ ability to vote; detailed enquiries about grants of planning permission; questions about the type of concrete used in construction; requests for details of a merger or collaboration between the Council and the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea relating to the LLPG Custodian; an enquiry as to the purpose of a wire suspended at a particular site; and a request for the Council’s opinion as to how the fire brigade would access a particular location in the event of an emergency.
None of the above, is, on their face, connected with the subject matter of the Request. They demonstrate that the Appellant has a keen interest in his environment and the Council's operations therein. That, of itself, is not, of course, to be criticised. However, we take the view that his repeated and prolific use of the freedom of information regime to satisfy that interest in the manner we have described will have imposed a very significant burden on the Council who, from the material we have seen, have worked diligently to respond to the Appellant month after month.
In our view, answering the Request would be an unreasonable burden viewed against the appreciable wider landscape of the Appellant’s previous requests relating to mapping and signage, his Stage 1 and 2 complaints, and his wider FOIA and EIR requests.
Motive
We do not doubt the sincerity of the Appellant’s concerns underlying the Request: the importance to him personally of the reasons for, and consequences of, emergency services not reaching his late father in good time, and his concern as to the impact of incorrect mapping on his wider community.
However, viewing matters in the round, we cannot discern a proper motive for the Request. The Council has informed the Appellant repeatedly that it is not responsible for the accuracy of the data held by third parties such as OS. The Appellant has not demonstrated to us that this is not the case.
It seems to us that what may have been a reasonable or benign motive behind initial enquiries of the Council as to its mapping responsibilities and interaction with OS, perhaps inspired by a strong sense of civic duty, has now, by the Request, taken on the character of something which affords an improper motive in the context of FOIA: a campaign by the Appellant to harry the Council on this topic by means of FOIA.
Value or serious purpose of the Request
Again, we acknowledge that the Appellant has a strong personal interest in the subject matter of the Request, but we are unable to find that the Request, viewed objectively, has value or any serious purpose.
We accept that there is, in principle, value and serious purpose in the pursuit of information from public authorities whose disclosure may shed light on potential breaches of legal duties impacting health and safety, but we do not consider that the Request, viewed on its precise terms, could be effective to achieve this.
We bear in mind the Appellant’s submission that incorrect mapping data held by third parties may affect persons other than the Appellant, and that there is, therefore, a wider public interest in the Council responding to the Request. However, we cannot see that howsoever the Council might respond to the precise terms of the Request that would, of itself, have any direct effect on such persons.
Harassment or distress
We accept that the Request is inoffensively framed, and viewed in isolation, is unlikely to cause harassment or distress.
However, the fact that the Request comes at the end of a long line of previous requests which, cumulatively, are likely to have imposed real pressure on the staff responsible for responding, including in several cases, a single officer of the Council, tends, in our view, to suggest that the Request would have the capacity to harass those tasked with responding, if only to a low degree.
Conclusion
We have structured our analysis of vexatiousness around the four themes identified in Dransfield,but we have also taken a holistic view of the Request.
In viewing the Request that way, we conclude that it is manifestly unreasonable and unjustified.
We do not consider that any failure by the Council to respond to the Initial Request, vitiates the basis for it refusing the Request in reliance on s14(1) FOIA by reference to the Appellant’s previous, repetitive requests and complaints in relation to the errors concerning OS and his use of the freedom of information regime more widely.
Viewing both the Request and the request for an internal review, we consider that the Council would be justified in thinking that the Request represents a drift from the Appellant’s interest in the accuracy of data held by OS, to wider issues as to the accuracy of the data held by Google Maps. Indeed, it is evident from the Appellant’s evidence and submissions in this appeal that he now seeks to include Geographia in the scope of his enquiries.
In our view, the Request bears all the hallmarks of vexatiousness by drift. What may have started out as a line of enquiry stimulated by a genuine concern, appears, by the time of the Request, to have metamorphosed into a pursuit so unreasonable and so disproportionate as to have lost any initial value or serious purpose it may have had.
The Request is predicated on the Appellant’s belief that the Council has breached its legal duties to ensure that OS holds correct data, and has been attempting to cover up that breach. However, the Appellant has been told repeatedly by the Council that it does not have control over the data held by third parties such as OS. Nothing in the material before us indicates that the Appellant has demonstrated in any forum the existence of such duties at law. It is, presumably, open to the Appellant to contact OS or any other third party directly. Indeed, he, himself says that he achieved correction of the data held by OS in relation to the immediate vicinity of his property.
It is evident from the material before us that the Council has sought over many months diligently to respond to the Appellant's FOIA and EIR requests and requests for internal reviews on, or related to, the subject matter of the Request. In our view, the Request cannot justify the resource and operational burden it would impose on the Council substantively to respond to it, whether viewed in isolation or against the Appellant’s previous course of dealings with the Council in relation to the subject matter of the Request or against the wider context of his FOIA and EIR requests of the Council. In our view, any substantive answer the Council might provide to the Request would make no difference to the Appellant's intent in that regard.
It is notable that the Appellant has fully availed himself of other avenues to obtain information and accountability: Stages 1 and 2 of the Council’s complaint process, and a complaint to the Local Government Ombudsman. None of those has satisfied him.
FOIA is intended to provide citizens with a qualified right of access to information held by public authorities. It is a means by which a citizen might hold a public authority to account. It is important that the standard for identifying the exercise of that right as vexatious is set high.
Having carefully considered all the submissions and evidence before us, we have concluded that the Request, viewed in the round, is an improper use of FOIA and meets the high bar of vexatious.
The Commissioner was correct to find that the Request was vexatious. The Decision Notice is in accordance with the law.
The appeal must be Dismissed.
Signed: Judge Foss Dated: 12 June 2026