When Can A FOI Request Be Refused As Vexatious?

In the case of Marshall v ICO, the First-tier Tribunal dismissed an appeal against a Council’s decision to refuse a Freedom of Information request as vexatious. The ruling, handed down in June 2026, is a useful and very recent illustration of exactly where that line sits.

In April 2015, Peter Marshall’s father had a cardiac arrest at home. The ambulance struggled to find the address because the mapping data available to emergency services was wrong. His father died soon after. Nine years and twenty-two Freedom of Information requests later, Mr Marshall was still pursuing Westminster City Council for answers about that same mapping error, this time as it appeared on Google Maps.

What makes a request vexatious?

Section 14 of the Freedom of Information Act lets a public authority refuse a request that’s vexatious. That doesn’t mean rude or abusive. The courts treat it as an unjustified or improper misuse of the request process, not simply an inconvenient one. The test comes from a 2012 case called Dransfield and the same four questions have been applied in every vexatious-request case since.

A Tribunal weighs up: the burden the request places on staff, the requester’s motive, whether the request still has real value or purpose, and whether it is causing distress. None of these needs to stand alone. It’s the overall picture that counts. (See the ICO’s own guidance on vexatious requests for the regulator’s view of the same test).

The Marshall case: vexatiousness by drift

The Council maintains Westminster’s Local Land and Property Gazetteer, the address database that feeds Ordnance Survey and, from there, Google Maps. Mr Marshall believed an error in that data, dating back to 1999 or 2000, had contributed to the delay in reaching his father. That was a genuine, sympathetic starting point, and the Council corrected the mapping around his own address in 2021.

But the correspondence didn’t stop there. Over the next three years, Mr Marshall sent 22 separate requests to the Council, nine of them about his own address alone. The Council set up a dedicated point of contact and offered mediation; both broke down. His final request, about what the Council had done to fix the same error on Google Maps, was the one refused as vexatious. The Tribunal agreed, calling it a case of vexatiousness by drift: a request that starts from genuine concern, then slowly expands into a pursuit that has lost its original value.

How do you handle a vexatious FOI request?

If you’re making a request, keep it focused on specific recorded information, not on reopening a grievance the organisation has already addressed. If you’ve been offered mediation or a single point of contact, engage with it seriously. Tribunals look far more favourably on an authority that tried to help.

If you’re a public authority relying on section 14, general frustration with a persistent requester isn’t enough on its own. Keep a clear record of the volume and pattern of requests, the burden they’ve placed on specific staff, and the steps you’ve already taken to try to resolve things. The bar for vexatiousness is high, and a Tribunal will expect to see that evidence. Our team often advises both sides of disputes like this.

Need advice on a Freedom of Information dispute?

Our team advises individuals, businesses and public authorities on Freedom of Information Act requests, and wider public law matters. For a related read, see our case note on the Freedom of Information Act. If you’re dealing with a refused request, or you need help deciding whether section 14 applies to a request you’ve received, please get in touch with a member of the team.