Steve Sanders v The Information Commissioner & Anor

Steve Sanders v The Information Commissioner & Anor

The Tribunal found that the cumulative volume, breadth, and frequency of the Appellant’s FOIA requests and associated correspondence imposed a manifestly disproportionate burden on the Financial Ombudsman Service. Even allowing for the Appellant’s personal circumstances and motives, the effect on FOS resources justified reliance on section 14(1) FOIA. The requests were predominantly aimed at reopening a closed dispute, and any public interest value was outweighed by the operational impact. The Information Commissioner’s decision notice was upheld.

Parties
Appellant: Steve Sanders; First Respondent: The Information Commissioner; Second Respondent: Financial Ombudsman Service
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
13 May 2026
Procedural Posture
FOIA Appeal / Final Judgment After Hearing
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Freedom of Information, Vexatious Requests, Section 14 FOIA, Tribunal Procedure
Information Law Administrative Law Freedom of Information Vexatious Requests Section 14 FOIA Tribunal Procedure

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Steve Sanders

Appellant

The Information Commissioner

First Respondent

Financial Ombudsman Service

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

FOIA Appeal / Final Judgment After Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Financial Ombudsman Service was entitled to rely on section 14(1) FOIA to refuse the Appellant’s requests as vexatious
  2. 2 Whether the Information Commissioner’s decision notice upholding FOS’s reliance on section 14(1) was correct in law and fact
  3. 3 Whether the volume, breadth, and effect of the Appellant’s requests justified refusal under section 14(1) FOIA

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal found that the cumulative volume, breadth, and frequency of the Appellant’s FOIA requests and associated correspondence imposed a manifestly disproportionate burden on the Financial Ombudsman Service. Even allowing for the Appellant’s personal circumstances and motives, the effect on FOS resources justified reliance on section 14(1) FOIA. The requests were predominantly aimed at reopening a closed dispute, and any public interest value was outweighed by the operational impact. The Information Commissioner’s decision notice was upheld.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The appeal is refused.
  • The Decision Notice dated 21 November 2023 is upheld.