The British Parking Association v Information Commissioner & Anor

The British Parking Association v Information Commissioner & Anor

The Tribunal found that, although compliance with the request would impose a significant burden on the Department, it was not grossly oppressive or disproportionate when balanced against the compelling public interest in disclosure. The request was not vexatious under section 14(1) FOIA. The Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to determine the application of substantive exemptions under Part II FOIA at this stage and ordered the Department to issue a fresh response compliant with section 1(1) FOIA, excluding reliance on section 14.

Parties
Appellant: The British Parking Association; First Respondent: Information Commissioner; Second Respondent: Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
24 April 2025
Procedural Posture
FOIA Appeal / First Tier Tribunal (general Regulatory Chamber) Decision on Appeal
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Freedom of Information, Vexatious Requests, Public Consultation, Statutory Interpretation
Administrative Law Information Law Freedom of Information Vexatious Requests Public Consultation Statutory Interpretation

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 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The British Parking Association

Appellant

Information Commissioner

First Respondent

Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

FOIA Appeal / First Tier Tribunal (general Regulatory Chamber) Decision on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Department was entitled to rely on section 14(1) FOIA (vexatious requests) to refuse the BPA’s request for information
  2. 2 Whether the Tribunal should determine the application of substantive exemptions under Part II FOIA (sections 40(2), 36) or remit for a fresh response
  3. 3 Whether the burden on the Department was grossly oppressive or disproportionate

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal found that, although compliance with the request would impose a significant burden on the Department, it was not grossly oppressive or disproportionate when balanced against the compelling public interest in disclosure. The request was not vexatious under section 14(1) FOIA. The Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to determine the application of substantive exemptions under Part II FOIA at this stage and ordered the Department to issue a fresh response compliant with section 1(1) FOIA, excluding reliance on section 14.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • The Department is not entitled to rely on section 14 FOIA and must comply with section 1(1) FOIA.
  • The Department must respond to the BPA’s request within 35 days, either supplying the information or issuing a refusal notice under section 17 FOIA (excluding reliance on section 14(1)).