Freedom of Information vexatious or repeated requests data: FOI Review

Information requested

Original request 202600510718

1) Please provide the number of Freedom of Information requests refused by the Scottish Government for being vexatious since John Swinney became First Minister. Also provide the same for the time Humza Yousaf was First Minister and the same for when Nicola Sturgeon was First Minister.

2) For each of the above provide a list of all the FOI reference numbers along with a brief description of the topic of the request along with the evidence and criteria used by the Scottish Government to deem it vexatious in their opinion. 

3) Provide the number of times the vexatious requests were appealed to the Scottish Information Commissioner and the number of times the Scottish Information Commissioner disagreed with the vexatious classification and ordered the Scottish Government to alter its position and publish the information requested. Also provide details of what disciplinary action was taken against staff who incorrectly ruled a request for bent vexatious and if no disciplinary action was taken provide the evidence used to clear the employee and the evidence used that demonstrates they have fully complied with the Civil Service Code.

4) Provide the number of times, the FOI reference numbers and a brief description of the topic of request where the Scottish Government have classed a request as vexatious due to a complaint, criticism or maladministration claim being made against a member of Scottish Government staff. And what disciplinary action was taken against the staff who have attempted to cover up any embarrassment, maladministration or wrongdoing. If no disciplinary action was taken provide the evidence used to clear the employee and the evidence used that demonstrates they have fully complied with the Civil Service Code.

5) Publish the policies, procedures and checks the Scottish Government carry out on vexatious requests to ensure that Scottish Government staff are not classing requests as vexatious to cover up any embarrassment, wrongdoing, fraud, corruption or maladministration of either themselves, their team or any other Scottish Government colleague or employee.

6) Provide the evidence that the policies, procedures and checks requested in 4) above were carried out in relation to FOI requests on property factors which sought information that would expose maladministration and wrongdoing by Scottish Ministers and the Housing Directorate in relation to the registration of property factors - particularly as the Director of Housing was involved in allocating both the original request and review to someone in his own team. Something your previous response told me couldn’t and wouldn’t happen but somehow did.

Response

In your request for review, dated 15th April 2026, you have expressed dissatisfaction regarding the application of all the exemptions: “I disagree with the application of every exemption relied upon in that response and ask that the decision be reconsidered in full..”, whilst outlining a further six points of “Remedies sought”.

The response to your initial request refused to release some information under the following exemptions:

Section 141) – Vexatious
Section 17(1) – Information not held
Section 25(1) ‐ Information otherwise accessible
Section 38(1)(b) ‐ Personal information

I have been asked by Andrew Bruce, Director for Communications and Ministerial Support, to respond to your review request because I was not involved in handling your original request.

The outcome of my review is that I am confirming the original decision with modifications.

We provided the information held to answer question 1 and question 2 (part 1) of the request above. The ‘Case Summary’ as provided in the table meets that of the ‘brief description of the topic of request’ stated in your initial request.

We advised that the information provided is derived from that which is recorded on our current Correspondence Management System from November 2018. We explained that it may not be accurate because there is no compulsory requirement to record the exemption criteria for each case.

We also provided an explanation as to how we would need to obtain the accurate number of cases that were refused under the exemption of section 14(1) and that to do so would exceed the upper cost limit of £600.00. This additional context was provided under our duty to advise and assist and did so under section 15(1) of FoI(S)A and I apologise if this was unclear.

It was explained that every individual case since November 2018 until 12th March 2026 (the date your request was received) would need to be reviewed to determine what exemptions were applied and how many cases were refused under section 14(1). Our initial response advised that there would be in excess of 42,000 cases to be reviewed.

As part of my review I have revisited the total number of cases from November 2018 – 12 March 2026 and there are 40,824 cases, however to check every case, would still exceed £600.00 as it would take a minimum of 680 hours, which at £15/hr, would cost £10,206, to locate this information. This is on the basis of allowing a minimum of 1 minute per case. However we estimate that in order to prepare the information, in terms of formatting it for release to provide the case number and case summary, the length of time would increase and as such the cost would be significantly greater.

The application of the exemption of section 17(1) – information not held – has been applied as some of the information requested is pre‐2018 is no longer held by the Scottish Government, This is because it relates to data from the previous system which was decommissioned in 2018 and is no longer available for scrutiny. I am therefore upholding the decision to refuse some of the information requested under section 17(1) of FoI(S)A.

Part 2 of Question 2 was refused under section 25(1) of FoI(S)A as the information requested is contained within the guidance relating to exemption section 14(1) which is provided by the Office of the Scottish Information Commissioner (OSIC). When considering whether or not to refuse a request on the grounds of it being vexatious, it is done so on a case by case basis, using the criteria the briefing sets out.

I confirm that it is publicly available on the OSIC website, therefore it is otherwise accessible and we have provided you with the link to where this guidance can be found. Again, if you do not have internet access to obtain this information please contact me and I will send you a paper copy of the briefing.

Part one of Question 3 was also refused on the basis that the information requested is publicly available and we provided you with the link to where this information can be found. We also provided the steps you need to take to locate this information.

On this basis I am upholding the application of the exemption of section 25(1) to both parts 2 of question 2 and part one of question 3 of your request.

Part 2 of question 3 and also questions 4, 5 and 6, were refused on the grounds that these requests were vexatious.

As confirmed in our response, the Scottish Information Commissioner's guidance on vexatious requests at: Briefing Section 14 Vexatious or Repeated Requests.pdf says that “The following factors will be relevant to a finding that a request ﴾which may be the latest in a series of requests or other related correspondence﴿ is vexatious:

(i) it would impose a significant burden on the public authority;

(ii) it does not have a serious purpose or value;
(iii) it is designed to cause disruption or annoyance to the public authority;
(iv) it has the effect of harassing the public authority;
(v) it would otherwise, in the opinion of a reasonable person, be considered to be manifestly unreasonable or disproportionate.

I therefore maintain that (iii), (iv) and (v) of these factors apply to these parts of your initial request. Under section 21(8((b) of FoI(S)A a public authority is not obliged to comply with a review request if it refused the original request under section 14(1) because it was vexatious.

As your original request was refused on that basis and there is nothing in your review request which would provide grounds to suggest that our decision was incorrect, we consider that we are not obliged to comply with your review request for Questions 3 (part 2), 4, 5 and 6.

Finally, in relation to the application of section 38(1)(b) – Personal Information of a Third party, I have revisited the two occasions where the exemption was applied and information was withheld. I have established that the information should have been disclosed as it relates to individuals who have publicly available profiles and we were wrong to have withheld it. Please accept my apologies.

I have provided it below for your consideration:

Reference	Case Summary
202100202927	FOI Nicola Sturgeon Ministerial diary Jay Hambro
202100202936	FOI Ministerial diary Nicola Sturgeon Tim Haywood

About FOI

The Scottish Government is committed to publishing all information released in response to Freedom of Information requests. View all FOI responses at https://www.gov.scot/foi-responses.