FOI requests made by blogger to council not vexatious, Tribunal rules

An individual who has contributed to the Bexley Council is Bonkers blog made Freedom of Information requests that were neither vexatious nor unreasonable, the First-tier Tribunal (General Regulatory Chamber) Information Rights has found.

District Judge Watkin said blogger Dmitri Shvorob was serving the public interest by seeking to check the accuracy of information, even if Bexley might consider the requests excessive.

Mr Shvorob made a series of requests concerning the London ultra low emissions zone (ULEZ), road safety issues and procurement. 

Bexley refused to answer his latest requests, considering the requests under EIR were manifestly unreasonable and that the requests under FOIA were vexatious.

"The decision is largely based on the fact that 87 requests had been made over an 18-month period from 23 June 2022 to 31 October 2023 (the "Previous Requests") which covered a wide range of the public authority's service areas and preceded the Requests," District Judge Watkin noted.

Mr Shvorob complained to the Information Commissioner, who sided with the council.

He told the tribunal it was important for accurate information to be published on the blog and he made requests to either establish or check facts prior to publication.

He said there was an absence of local journalists, so it was up to amateurs such as himself to make enquiries.

Mr Shvorob said that his requests were not burdensome and that if the information had been in the public domain - as he considered it should have been - they would have been unnecessary.

DJ Watkin said: "The tribunal considers the appellant as akin to a local journalist as he seeks information on a range of issues for the purposes of distributing the information to the readers of the blog.

“The tribunal has seen no evidence of the appellant obtaining the information for purposes which were ‘self-serving’ and his evidence, which was accepted, was that the information was intended to serve a wider purpose. The Tribunal considers that the appellant has acted prudently by checking matters prior to publication.”

Bexley argued it had not seen evidence that the information provided was used to enhance further public awareness.

But the tribunal said this might be because information provided did not support any particular suspicion “which would mean that the information was beneficial in quashing concerns” or council officers might not have read the blog.

DJ Watkin concluded: “Despite the volume of requests made by the appellant…the tribunal does not consider that the requests are vexatious/manifestly unreasonable in the circumstances.

“In the main, the appellant's individual requests are not burdensome and are considered to serve the public interest. In circumstances where they appear to be more burdensome, there is no evidence that [Bexley] has provided him with the appropriate level of advice and assistance which they are required to provide under regulation 9(1) EIR.

“There is no evidence or suggestion that the requests have harassed or caused distress to the of the public authority."

Mark Smulian