A tribunal has dismissed Bexley Council’s justification for refusing to answer FOI requests from a resident after he sent more than 100 in 18 months.

The authority had claimed the requests were ‘vexatious’ and placed a burden on the council.

The report stated that the resident, Mr Dimitri Shvorob, made several requests to Bexley Council under the Freedom of Information (FOI) Act 2000 between July 2023 and February 2024.

It added that the authority reportedly refused 10 of these requests, claiming they were either vexatious or manifestly unreasonable.

A letter from a Bexley Council officer to Mr Shvorob from December last year, seen by the Local Democracy Reporting Service (LDRS), claimed that the authority would be refusing to answer several of his requests, considering them to be ‘vexatious’ under the FOI Act.

This would exempt the council from disclosing the requested information and from issuing further refusal notices to the resident.

The officer said this was due to the large volume of requests sent to the authority by Mr Shvorob and the burden this had placed on the council.

The letter added that Mr Shvorob reportedly sent 115 FOI requests between April 2022 and November 2023.

Mr Shvorob then complained to the Information Commissioner, who agreed with the council in May this year that the requests were vexatious.

The resident then brought forward an appeal against the authority. The resident said at the hearing that the requests were made to publish accurate information on a local blog he is involved.

He added: “The appellant does not consider that any of his requests were vexatious or without motive. He was plainly aggrieved at having been called vexatious by the public authority.”

When considering the case, the tribunal considered the burden the council was put under by the requests and the distress it caused to staff, as well as the motive of Mr Shvorob and the value of the requests.

The tribunal reportedly found the resident to be fair, measured and have the public interest at heart when making the 10 requests.

A request from the individual for emails sent within the council relating to ULEZ between March 2022 and March 2023 was ruled as having a lack of clear purpose in the report and the public interest in disclosing the information did not clearly outweigh the need to not overwhelm the authority.

The request came shortly before Bexley Council spent £147,000 on a failed legal challenge against the ULEZ expansion last year alongside Surrey County Council and London authorities Bromley, Harrow and Hillingdon.

Mr Shvorob reportedly also made eight separate requests to the authority relating to road safety.

The report said the tribunal did not consider the road safety requests to be unreasonable and stated the authority could have asked Mr Shvorob to condense his multiple requests into one document if desired.

It added that it was important that information relating to road safety was made available to the public.

The tribunal stated that generally, Mr Shvorob’s requests were not vexatious or manifestly unreasonable and were considered to serve the public interest.

The decision notice said: “The requests are of value in not only informing the public but, importantly, ensuring that the public are provided with accurate information. It would hope that this would work to assist the public authority by dispelling any inaccuracies. There is no evidence or suggestion that the requests have harassed or caused distress to the public authority.”

The decision notice stated that Bexley Council must reconsider the 10 requests from Mr Shvorob and issue fresh decisions that did not rule them as vexatious or manifestly unreasonable by November 24.

Mr Shvorob told the LDRS that he felt FOI requests made in the public interest were a beneficial use of taxpayers’ money.

He noted that the average Bexley household paid £2,155 in council tax annually, £200 more than equivalent band D households in the neighbouring boroughs of Greenwich and Bromley.

Data from London Councils stated that the authority had the eight highest annual council tax bill for band D properties in the capital last year.

He said: “I welcome the court’s decision, and am glad that this disappointment to Bexley Council did not cost Bexley taxpayers as much as the council’s failed bid against ULEZ, also thrown out by a judge.”

He added: “Unfortunately, the Tory leadership’s allergy to scrutiny – going well beyond rejected FOI requests… costs us money every day.”

A Bexley Council spokesperson told the LDRS: “The council’s decision to refuse to respond to Mr Shovorob’s numerous information requests was supported by the Information Commissioner’s Office.”

They added: “We, therefore, note with disappointment the decision of the First-tier Tribunal (General Regulatory Chamber). Responding to high volumes of correspondence and persistent enquiries from a single person places pressures on resources, which could otherwise be used to support the delivery of services. At this moment in time the council is reviewing all its options.”