Issue 9

Former lecturer Joe Whitaker wins appeal against judgement of Information Commissioner 

 

Tribunal agreed that Information Commissioner erred when supporting the view of the UoB that FOI requests were vexatious. 

 

Joe represented himself at the tribunal. Here's the relevant text from the tribunal's judgement .

Conclusion and remedy
32. The Tribunal finds that the oral evidence presented by the Appellant
merits careful consideration in terms of its cogency and credibility.
33. In terms of cogency, the fact that the Appellant is part of a larger group of
individuals interested in specific issues at the University of Bolton does not
in and of itself make his requests vexatious. 
34. The University’s reaction to his information requests seeks to place him
into a group of individuals who, in its view, are carrying out a vindictive
and, by implication, unjustified and disproportionate campaign against the
University. 
35. That has been the University’s reaction but, having heard directly from the
Appellant, the Tribunal is satisfied on the balance of probabilities that this
is likely to have been an overreaction in respect of this individual and in
respect of these requests.
36. In terms of credibility, the Tribunal finds that it was dealing with an
Appellant who presented his reasons for making the information requests
in reasonable language and for an understandable purpose. It is perhaps
unsurprising that, having retired from the University as a Senior Lecturer
after 24 years’ service, he would maintain an interest in the institution.
37. That purpose was to find out why and how certain financial transactions
relating to the Vice Chancellor and the disposition of University funds had
been made and deployed.
38. Echoing the meaning of “vexatious” in the Court of Appeal’s decision in
Dransfield that there was no comprehensive or exhaustive definition of
what comprised the conduct within section 14 (1) FOIA, the Tribunal notes
the higher Court’s reminder:
I consider that the emphasis should be on an objective standard and that the starting point is that the vexatious and is primarily involves making a request which has no reasonable foundation, that is, no reasonable foundation the thinking that the information sought would be of value to the request, or to the public or any section of the public. Parliament has chosen a strong word which therefore means that the hurdle of satisfying it is a high one and that is consistent with the constitutional nature of the right. The decision-maker should consider all the relevant circumstances in order to reach a balanced conclusion as to whether a request is vexatious. If it happens that a relevant motive can be discerned with a sufficient degree of assurance, it may be evidence from which vexatious and as can be inferred. If a request pursues his rights against an authority out of vengeance for some other decision of its, it may be said that his actions were improperly motivated but it may also be that his request was without any reasonable foundation. But this could not be said, however vengeful the request, if the request was aimed at the disclosure of important information which ought to be made publicly available [emphasis added].
39. For these reasons, and echoing the points made in Paragraphs 21 to 28
above in this judgement, the Tribunal finds that both the University and the
Information Commissioner erred in believing that, as a matter of fact,
these information requests were vexatious within the terms of section 14
(1) to the extent that no response was necessary to the requests.
40. In essence, the University of Bolton “drew up the drawbridge” too early in
respect of this Appellant and engaged the section 14 refusal in a manner
in which it was not entitled to do. 
41. It failed to engage at all with the Appellant’s requests but appears to
have decided in advance and as a matter of policy not to respond to
enquiries relating to the matters he raised.  
42. The University failed to recognise that section 1 of FOIA gives a
person requesting information the right to have that information
unless it can show that one of the exemptions set down in the Act is
engaged.  
43. It is the clear view of this Tribunal that the University of Bolton has
failed to do so as regards section 14.  The requests had a serious
purpose and we are not persuaded on the evidence, such as it was,
from the University that that they would, by design or otherwise,
cause harassment or distress.  We are also not persuaded that
responding to them would place an unreasonable burden on the
University, because such information - as the Appellant argued -
should be readily available. 
44. We were surprised to learn that ‘responding to any request is a duty
that is undertaken by staff members in addition to their existing roles’
[page 84 OB] and that as a public body the University does not have
a more coherent way of dealing with FOIA requests.
45. For these reasons the Tribunal’s decision is that the University of Bolton
should respond to all the Appellant’s information requests, save those in
relation to the cost of the relationship with Ginetta Cars Ltd, within 35
working days or rely on other FOIA exemptions for not doing so.
46. In respect of the “Ginetta Cars” information request, the Tribunal agrees
that section 21 of FOIA is engaged and that it is an appropriate response
within the Act. As the University pointed out [pages 80/81 of the OB] the
“cost of the relationship with Ginetta Cars Ltd” is available publicly by way
of the WhatDoTheyKnow.com website.
47. Our decision is unanimous.
48. There is no order as to costs.
Robin Callender Smith
Judge 
4 July 2016

Issue 8

 

 Welcome to 

 

It's Official. Requesting information from UoB is vexatious.

 

Information Commissioner rules that forming a campaign group to highlight practices UoB prefers to keep secret is vexatious. 

 

 Below is the relevant extract from the ICO report.

 Conclusion
48. In light of the evidence presented, the Commissioner is satisfied that the
University is entitled to consider the request in the context of the
campaign initiated by CEUB.
49. When taken into account the number of other similar requests received
by the University, the Commissioner accepts that this has imposed a
significant and disproportionate burden on the University in terms of the
expense and distraction which was caused.
50. The Commissioner acknowledges that the complainant may have a
genuine interest in obtaining the information requested and may not
have intended to cause inconvenience to the University. However, taken
in the context of the other requests, the Commissioner is satisfied that
CEUB, which gave rise to these requests, has caused disruption and
annoyance to the University and inevitably had the effect of harassing
its staff.
51. The Commissioner has therefore determined that the University is
entitled to characterise these requests as manifestly unreasonable and
has consequently applied section 14(1) of the FOIA to the request. The
Commissioner has not considered the application of sections 21 and 40
in this case.

Six steps to secrecy

1. You ask for information because you suspect something untoward has been going on.
2. You get no response.
3. A campaign is organised to hold the UoB publically to account.
4. Individuals refer the University's refusal to divulge the information they have asked for to the information commissioner.
5. The Information Commission concludes that, even though it ignored the individual requests, the University is right to consider itself the victim of a vexatious campaign, despite the fact that none of the requests emanated from the campaign.
6. The Information Commission does not consider that the the University may be holding back information to protect itself from public scrutiny. 

Presumably if everyone had just kept quiet all would have been revealed!

Issue 7

 University of Bolton reach undisclosed settlement with Markeys

 
http://www.theboltonnews.co.uk/news/13787658.Undisclosed_settlement_reached_after_University_of_Bolton_staff_sacked_for_gross_misconduct/

Unabridged copy of letter from CEUB published in Saturday's Bolton News

University of Bolton’s poor showing in the Sunday Times league table will come as no surprise to observers of the way the place has been run over the last few years.  It’s the culmination of bad management decisions and poor oversight by the Board of Governors. As well as failing utterly in their duty of care to staff who now operate in a climate of fear, the Governors have also have sanctioned financial decisions that in most other institutions would be considered at the very least questionable. Legitimate concerns remain over these financial decisions. There are also question marks over the vice-chancellor’s professional qualifications and his awarding of honorary doctorates to staff members in apparent contravention of guidelines. The Campaign for an Ethical University of Bolton has submitted over twenty Freedom of Information requests around these issues to try to bring some clarity to the situation. Each one has been rebuffed, for the flimsiest of reasons, including one nonsensical claim that the person making the request was using a pseudonym.  As a result the University is being referred to the Information Commissioner. All universities in England are independent of government ministries and the Higher Education Funding Council for England. The only check on the governance of the University of Bolton therefore is the Board of Governors. As the vice-chancellor seeks to blame the league tables themselves for the University’s failings, it seems clear that neither he nor the Board of Governors are up to the job. Bolton deserves better. Much better.

Chris Chilton

Joe Whittaker

Tom Hanley

Phil Vasili

Campaign for an Ethical University of Bolton (CEUB)

Issue No 6

An Open Letter to Nigel McCulloch (former Bishop of Manchester), Chair of Board of Governors, University of Bolton.

Dear Mr McCulloch, 

As Chairperson of The University of Bolton, Board of Governors. I am asking you to respond to the following issues : 

a.      I have formally requested minutes from UoB Governors Meetings held by the Vice Chancellor's designated person. These minutes, I am informed, are different from those minutes which are made available for public scrutiny, of which I have copies. I have noted a failure to respond to my request.  I ask you, as Chairperson of UoB Governors, for a copy of the minutes, held on this 'private' file.

b.      I have made a formal complaint to the Head of Human Resources at UoB, relating to the misuse of honorary qualifications by the The UoB Registrar. I have noted a failure to respond. I will now make representation to the Legal Commissioner on the same complaint. I ask you as chairperson to respond to my complaint.

c. I have written directly to those 'named' UoB Governors who were unwilling or unable to respond to legitimate questions, in relation to allegations of corruption and malpractice in the governance and management of the University of Bolton. The specific failure to respond by some 'named' governors to the material sent by Special Delivery has been noted. There are 'named' governors who have accepted material benefits from the UoB, contrary to Principle 2  of the Nolan Standards in Public Life: 

2. Integrity

Holders of public office must avoid placing themselves under any obligation to people or organisations that might try inappropriately to influence them in their work. They should not act or take decisions in order to gain financial or other material benefits for themselves, their family, or their friends. They must declare and resolve any interests and relationships. 

I am making formal representation to the Chairperson of the Committee for Standards in Public Life, naming those Governors who, it has been alleged,  have contravened their public responsibilities and obligations.

d.      I and many other concerned individuals have made 'Freedom of Information' requests, relating to the management and governance of the University of Bolton on several occasions. There appears to have been a concerted and collective effort to ignore the law in relation to the communication of information by the University of Bolton. , and other concerned individuals have made formal complaints to the Information Commissioner.

e.       As Chairperson of Governors of the University of Bolton, you have presided over a Governing Body which has treated those inside and outside the UoB with contempt and disregard. You remain unwilling to offer any response to the intimidation and threatening culture created by management at the UoB. Even in your private correspondence you demonstrate a contempt for that openness and integrity which should be evident in a person who once held the office of Bishop.

Critical questioning of the Governing Body and the management of the University will not end until meaningful responses are offered. The University of Bolton is too important fo, the current indifference to be accepted.

 Yours Sincerely,

Joe Whittaker, 

Senior lecturer University of Bolton (1987-2010)

Below are Freedom of Information Requests Submitted to University of Bolton. The response to each question has been a blanket refusal. 

Applicants are now in correspondence with the Information Commisioner

Request	Reason for interest
Please would you state the financial arrangements, including contracts signed, between the UoB and Ginetta cars surrounding the Le Mans Prototype 3 car. Please would you state the financial arrangements, including contracts signed, between the UoB and Tony Keating (Keating Supercars) and including the cost to the UoB of the stand at the NEC Autosport event in 2015, to be hosted by Tony Keating.	Transparency of Costs
what are the post school age qualifications of the Vice Chancellor from records held by the human resources department, from either the postholders job application form or from subsequent records kept. Where possible please state the name of the awarding institution, the period of study, the name and level of the award gained, any grades given, and the date awarded.	Transparency
Please can the Chair of Board of Governors, Nigel McCulloch confirm that he "signed off" on all financial arrangements between the University of Bolton and Vice Chancellor George Holmes , during his period of office ?	Clarification of Role of Chair of Board of Governors
Please can you provide an itemised breakdown of the cost of any building work commissioned by the University within Bolton One since Jan 2012. a. Name of Supplier carrying out the building work. b. The amount paid to each supplier. In addition, please provide details of the acquisition and tender process carried out for all building work commissioned by the University within Bolton One since 2012.	Transparency of costs
Please would you state all payments (fees and/or expenses) a. made to the company Ginetta Cars Ltd by the University of Bolton b. made to the University of Bolton by Ginetta Cars Ltd. including any costs incurred by the University of Bolton as a result of the unveiling of the Ginetta-Juno LMP3 at Autosport 2015 at Birmingham's NEC (stand 7120, 11am on January 8 2015, as detailed in Bolton News 30th Dec 2014.	Transparency of Costs
Please could you provide answers to the following questions under the Freedom of Information Act: 1 Where did Ms Sue Duncan study and gain her LLD (or is this an honorary title?)? 2 What Honorary award has she been granted by the University of Bolton and when? 3 What was the award given for? 4 What is Ms Duncan’s Legal practice certificate number? 5 What is her Law Society Registration Number? 6 When did she register as a practising solicitor 7 Has she carried out any other work for individuals set out in rule 4 of the SRA practice framework rules 2011. 8 Are these individuals employed as staff at the University; or individuals with no relationship to the University ? 9 Does Ms Duncan have individual Professional Indemnity Insurance cover and if so for how much cover?	Transparency - qualifications of senior staff
Please provide details of all legal costs (by year) incurred by the University during the last 3 years.	Transparency of costs
The totals paid by the University of Bolton for all consultant fees, each year over the last 5 years. To include payments to self-employed individual consultants, as well as consultants employed through a company.	Transparency of costs
Please provide details of any non annual salary payments (including bonuses and gratia payments) made to staff in the Finance department. This should include any payments over and above their graded annual salary scale pay.	Transparency of costs