Vexatious FOIA Request: Webb v Information Commissioner

Colin Webb v Information Commissioner [2026] UKFTT 00990 (GRC)

The backdrop to this dispute is a long history of contact between Colin Webb (Appellant) and Irby upon Humber Parish Council (Council). As well as approaching the Council directly, a total of 15 information requests were made to the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) over a 4-year period.

On 10 February 2024, the Appellant sent a Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA) request to the ICO seeking information in relation to the steps taken by the Council to register and renew as a data controller with the ICO including the fees paid in relation to the same each year.

The ICO considered the request vexatious and referred to the “obsessive nature and volume of complaints and requests”. The ICO therefore refused to respond to the request under Section 14(1) of the FOIA.

Unhappy with the decision, the Appellant submitted that he had not made any requests to the Council previously and that the ICO were mistaken in this regard. As a result, he sought an internal review.

The ICO maintained its position and found that Section 14(1) of the FOIA had been correctly applied. In support of its position, the ICO confirmed that it was unclear how the requested information would help the Appellant resolve the dispute with the Council and that any wider public interest in the registration history of a small parish council would not be substantial enough to justify the possible detriment to the council.

The Appellant appealed the decision to the First-Tier Tribunal. In the appeal, the Appellant maintained the position that he had not made any other requests in relation to the Council and submitted that the ICO had incorrectly merged personal data relating to the Appellant and the previous person who had made a request.

The ICO resisted the submissions made by the Appellant and noted that the previous request made in February 2021 was from someone with the same name as the Appellant and requested information about the “data controller registration of [the Council] for previous years”. The ICO submitted that this request had striking similarities to the request in February 2024 and therefore considered that it was more likely than not that the Colin Webb who made the request was the Appellant.

It transpired that the Appellant’s son was also called “Colin Webb” and that he lived at the same address as the Appellant. Counsel for the ICO submitted that the Appellant and his son were acting in concert as there were large similarities between the requests.

The question for the Tribunal to consider was whether Section 14(1) of the FOIA 2000 had been correctly applied to the request by the ICO. The Tribunal confirmed that it was satisfied that the evidence showed a pattern of linkage between the two requesters (i.e. the Appellant and his son) and that they were focussed on a small parish council which had attracted no interest from other members of the public.

The Tribunal confirmed that the key question when considering whether to apply Section 14(1) of the FOIA 2000 is whether the request is likely to cause a disproportionate or unjustified level of disruption irritation or distress. In this case, the Tribunal considered the burden on the Council and its staff, the requester’s motive, the value or serious purpose of the request and the distress of the experience of harassment for staff.

The history of interaction between the Appellant and the Council showed a substantial burden, harassment and disruption to the Council which in turn resulted in significant burdens on the ICO. The Tribunal therefore concluded that Section 14(1) of the FOIA 2000 had been applied correctly. The appeal was therefore dismissed.

Comment

The above is a reminder that authorities can legitimately withhold data in response to a FOIA request in certain circumstances. If you are unsure as to your position in relation to a FOIA request it is important that you seek legal advice as soon as possible.