Reference: FS50673271 Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA) Decision notice Date: 6 September 2017 Public Authority: Bury Council Address: Town Hall Knowsley Street Bury BL9 0SW Decision (including any steps ordered) 1. The complainant has requested information about instances of abuse and hate crimes that have been ignored by Bury Council, and the number of staff paid £52,000 or more per annum. 2. The Commissioner’s decision is that Bury Council has correctly applied the provision for vexatious requests at section 14(1) of the FOIA. 3. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken. Request and response 4. On 13 March 2017, the complainant wrote to Bury Council (‘the Council’) and requested information in the following terms: “As you know I have been abused by Rochdale MBC. This is a hate crime. I reported the matter to Greater Manchester Police but instead of addressing it they abused me themselves. Another hate crime. Greater Manchester Police and the Crown Prosecution Service even harassed me and prosecuted me, for nothing more sinister than telling the truth and trying to get the abuse addressed, in order to assist offenders and affect a cover up. Thankfully after years of hell I was eventually acquitted by the Crown Court. 1 Reference: FS50673271 GMP and the CPS refuse to take any action against the perpetrators who have clearly harassed and abused a vulnerable disabled person and then repeatedly and deliberately lied (including to courts of law) and withheld evidence in order to cover it up. GMP even lied themselves. You are all aware of the abuse but have done nothing and clearly condone and/or actively support hate crimes and abuse against the disabled. Rochdale MBC continues to employ a good many people who have been party to the abuse despite a claim in their 'Dignity at Work Policy' to 'do everything in their power to address abuse'. Sadly Rochdale MBC is a liar, a bully and a hypocrite and its policies aren't worth the paper they are printed on. They continue to spend hundreds of thousands of pounds of 'scarce' public money defending the abuse and the abusers. I believe that Oldham Council continues to employ one of the abusers too. The Police & Crime Commissioner Mr Tony Lloyd is also aware but has done nothing. Clearly he condones and/or actively supports abuse and corruption. The 'independent' Police Complaints Authority is aware but has done nothing. Clearly they condone and/or actively support lawbreaking and abuse. As does my own Member of Parliament Mr Jake Berry and the MP for Rochdale Mr Simon Danczuk. Indeed even the former Prime Minister Mr Cameron and the current one Mrs May. I intend standing in the upcoming election of a mayor for Greater Manchester. 1) How many more instances of abuse have you been aware of but ignored? 2) How many more hate crimes have you ignored? 3) How many people do you pay £52,000 per year or more?” 5. The Council responded on 17 March 2017 and refused to provide the requested information citing the exemption for vexatious requests at section 14(1) of the FOIA. The complainant requested an internal review on the same day. 6. Following an internal review the Council wrote to the complainant on 9 May 2017 and stated that the decision was upheld. 2 Reference: FS50673271 Scope of the case 7. The complainant contacted the Commissioner 9 May 2017 to complain about the way his request for information had been handled. 8. The Commissioner has considered whether the Council was correct to apply section 14(1) of the FOIA to the request. Background 9. On 11 March 2017 the complainant requested information in the same terms to 9 councils in the Greater Manchester area, the Crown Prosecution Service and the Greater Manchester Police. He also copied it to MPs and 90 news organisations. 10. On 4 April 2017 the complainant sent a link to his petition “Expose / Address hate crimes and abuse and corruption by Rochdale MBC and GMP” to the same councils and a number of news desks and other public organisations, also stating “Please pass my email on to the chief executive and confirm you have done so. In addition please take this as a formal request under the freedom of information act. What is the email address of the chief executive of your council?” 11. A number of the Councils have refused the requests siting section 14(1) of the FOIA. In response the complainant typically raises a complaint with the Information Commissioner in terms similar to this: “xx council have indicated they believe hate crimes and corruption are 'vexatious'. That's ok. They are entitled to their opinion. They can go at the top of the list of people/organisations who condone and support hate crimes and corruption which will be published in due course.” 12. Related Decision Notice FS50672933 (August 2017), which upholds that the Greater Manchester Police (GMP) were entitled to rely on section 14(1) of the FOIA, gives useful background to the complainants various information requests: “The background to this matter is that the complainant was dismissed from his job, and at the subsequent Employment Tribunal, he maintained that key witnesses perjured themselves. He reported these concerns to GMP, but was dissatisfied with its investigation of them. Subsequently he embarked on a course of action which resulted in him being convicted of harassment (although he has told the Commissioner that this conviction was recently quashed). Decision Notice reference FS50663939 (July 2017) is also related and upholds that information requests on a similar theme made by the complainant to Oldham Council were vexatious. In this Decision Notice the Commissioner considered that the request sought to reopen issues 3 Reference: FS50673271 which have already been adjudicated upon in the courts which reduce the serious purpose and value of the requests. Reasons for decision Section 14(1) – Vexatious requests 13. Section 14(1) of the FOIA states that section 1(1) does not oblige a public authority to comply with a request for information if the request is vexatious. There is no public interest test. 14. The term ‘vexatious’ is not defined in the FOIA. In the case of Information Commissioner vs Devon County Council & Dransfield1, the Upper Tribunal took the view that the ordinary dictionary definition of the word vexatious is only of limited use, because the question of whether a request is vexatious ultimately depends upon the circumstances surrounding that request. The Tribunal concluded that ‘vexatious’ could be defined as the “…manifestly unjustified, inappropriate or improper use of a formal procedure” (paragraph 27). The decision clearly establishes that the concepts of ‘proportionality’ and ‘justification’ are central to any consideration of whether a request is vexatious. 15. The Commissioner has published specific guidance2 on vexatious requests. The guidance includes a number of indicators that may apply in the case of a vexatious request. The fact that a request contains one or more of these indicators will not necessarily mean that it must be vexatious. All the circumstances of the case will need to be considered in reaching a judgement as to whether a request is vexatious. 16. As discussed in the Commissioner’s guidance, the relevant consideration is whether the request itself is vexatious, rather than the individual submitting it. A public authority can also consider the context of the request and the history of its relationship with the requester when this is relevant. The Commissioner’s guidance states: 1 UKUT 440 (AAC) (28 January 2013) 2 https://ico.org.uk/media/for-organisations/documents/1198/dealing-with-vexatious-requests.pdf 4 Reference: FS50673271 “The context and history in which a request is made will often be a major factor in determining whether the request is vexatious and the public authority will need to consider the wider circumstances surrounding the request before making a decision as to whether section 12(1) applies”. 17. Sometimes, it will be obvious when requests are vexatious, but sometimes it may not. In this respect the Commissioner’s guidance states: “In cases where the issue is not clear-cut, the key question to ask is whether the request is likely to cause a disproportionate or unjustified level of disruption, irritation or distress.” This negative impact must then be considered against the purpose and public value of the request. The Complainant’s position 18. The complainant contests that his request is vexatious, arguing that the Council are therefore treating abuse and hate crimes as vexatious: “It is not often I am shocked by how inept some elements of the public sector are but I truly am gob smacked. Bury council view abuse and hate crimes as 'vexatious' Does the information commission?” 19. The complainant states that: “Quite clearly I have been the victim of hate crimes and abuse because I happen to be disabled. What has Bury Council (or anyone else) done about it? Nothing. At least nothing I am aware of. They could publicly condemn such action and collectively insist that Rochdale MBC (who they work with collectively under the AGMA umbrella) address the issue and bring those responsible to account. Instead they spend 'scarce' public funding arguing that the matter is 'vexatious'”. 20. The complainant states that he has asked the Council for help: “but they ignored me. Given they ignored me it is reasonable to question how many other people they have ignored”. 21. The Commissioner understands that the complainant does not agree that his request is vexatious, and that he believes that he has a valid reason for requesting the information. 5 Reference: FS50673271 The Council’s position 22.