Original Copies of FOI Requests and Responses
Request
I request copies of the following records relating to Freedom of Information Act 2000 requests received during the 2024/25 financial year (1 April 2024 to 31 March 2025):
The original final response letter or email issued to the requester in respect of each request.
Copies of any documents, records or other information disclosed to the requester as part of, or accompanying, the final response.
For the avoidance of doubt, I am requesting copies of the actual response letters or emails issued to requesters, together with the associated disclosed records. I am not requesting disclosure log entries, webpages, or versions of responses that have subsequently been reformatted or republished. I am seeking the original correspondence as issued because published versions may not preserve all of the formatting, contextual information or metadata associated with the original correspondence.
If you consider that complying with this request in full would exceed the appropriate limit under section 12 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000, I request that you provide advice and assistance in accordance with section 16 of the Act.
Response
Thank you for your request which has been processed under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA).
In your email you have requested copies of the following records relating to Freedom of Information Act 2000 requests received during the 2024/25 financial year (1 April 2024 to 31 March 2025).
The original final response letter or email issued to the requester in respect of each request.
Copies of any documents, records or other information disclosed to the requester as part of, or accompanying, the final response.
You have noted that you are not requesting disclosure log entries, webpages, or versions of responses that have subsequently been reformatted or republished. You are seeking the original correspondence as issued because published versions may not preserve all of the formatting, contextual information or metadata associated with the original correspondence.
The Gambling Commission can confirm that information is held falling within the scope of your request.
However, the Gambling Commission refuse to proceed with your request under section 14(1) (vexatious requests) of the FOIA. Our considerations for relying on the section 14(1) exemption are detailed below.
Section 14(1)
Firstly, Section 14(1) states:
“Section 1(1) does not oblige a public authority to comply with a request for information if the request is vexatious.”
This exemption is designed to protect public authorities, particularly in terms of resources, by allowing authorities to refuse any requests which have the potential to cause a disproportionate or unjustified level of disruption, irritation or stress.
In order to determine if a request is vexatious, the circumstances surrounding that request must be considered.
The word “vexatious” is not defined in FOIA. However, the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) guidance defines vexatious as “manifestly unjustified, inappropriate or improper use of a formal procedure.” This definition establishes that a public authority must consider the proportionality and justification of the FOIA request in question when determining if the section 14(1) exemption applies.
The FOIA provides individuals with a greater right of access to official information in order to make public authorities more transparent and accountable. As such, it is an important constitutional right. However, the ICO also recognises that dealing with unreasonable requests can cause a strain on resources, with the potential to interfere with the delivery of other services or answering legitimate requests. Vexatious requests can also be damaging to the reputation of the legislation itself, and therefore there is an emphasis on protecting public authorities’ resources from unreasonable requests.
The ICO advise that four broad themes should be considered when determining if the section 14(1) exemption applies:
- the burden (on the public authority and its staff);
- the motive (of the requester);
- the value or serious purpose (of the request); and
- any harassment or distress (of and to staff).
As mentioned, all circumstances of the case need to be considered in reaching an ultimate judgement as to whether the request is vexatious.
There is no obligation for a public authority to explain why the request is vexatious. The code of practice issued by the Cabinet Office under section 45 states that when refusing a request under s14(1), a public authority is not required to explain why the request is vexatious, but comments that a public authority may wish to do so as part of its duty under section 16.
Therefore, although we are not legally obliged to provide advice and assistance where a request is vexatious, we have decided to explain our considerations for refusing the request as follows.
The Burden of Complying with the Request
In accordance with ICO guidance, a single FOIA request taken in isolation may be vexatious solely on the grounds of burden. That is, where complying with the request would place a grossly oppressive burden on a public authority’s resources which outweighs any value or serious purpose the request may have.
Under the section 12 exemption, you can refuse a request if it would cost more than a set limit to find and extract the requested information. Whilst the Commission has considered applying the section 12 exemption to your request, we believe that the burden of complying with the request is sufficient in itself to justify characterising the request as vexatious under section 14(1).
A public authority can apply section 14(1) where the amount of time required to review and prepare the information for disclosure would impose a grossly oppressive burden on the organisation. This includes the cost and effort associated with considering exemptions or redacting exempt information.
There is a high threshold for refusing a request under this exemption. We believe that we have a viable case to refuse this request on the following grounds:
- you have asked for a substantial volume of information across a significant time scale; and
- the Commission adopts a publication scheme and therefore publishes our FOI requests and their responses on the Gambling Commission website.
The scope of your request covers each response and any accompanying documents for FOI requests received during the 2024/25 financial year (1 April 2024 to 31 March 2025). You have specifically requested the original correspondence as issued as published versions may not preserve all of the formatting, contextual information or metadata associated with the original correspondence.
We can confirm that we received 231 requests during the 2024/25 financial year. In order to fulfil your request, we would therefore be required to review each of the 231 case files stored within our case management system. We would then need to manually download, edit and redact a large volume of information, as the original correspondence issued for each response will contain personal information, such as the requester’s email address. This process would generate a significant workload for the Commission resulting in a diversion of resources.
As you are aware, public authorities have a duty to respond to FOIA requests within the statutory deadline of twenty working days. The diversion and strain on resources caused by answering your request will therefore have the potential to interfere with the delivery of other services in the immediate term.
Public Interest in the Subject
The public interest in the subject matter of a request is a consideration that too needs to be balanced against the resource implications of the request.
The Commission recognises that there is a legitimate public interest in promoting the transparency of the Commission and in making information available to the public. As mentioned, the Commission adopts a publication scheme which ensures specific information is regularly made available without individuals needing to request it. We publish information in accordance with the Information Commissioner's definition document for Non Departmental Public Bodies (opens in new tab) (PDF).
In relation to FOI requests, we publish our requests and their responses on our website here: Freedom of Information Requests - Full Register(opens in new tab). The register is updated proactively, with requests and their responses being published shortly after the response has been sent to the requestor.
We also publish FOI statistics and information on our website here: Freedom of Information Requests - Statistics and information(opens in new tab). The tables provide a breakdown of the number of FOI and Subject Access Requests (SAR) received per quarter, plus the number of requests processed within the legal time frame, which is 20 working days for FOI requests and one calendar month for SARs.
We are committed to be an open and transparent organisation, and we aim to share as much information as possible and make it available on our website. This, in conjunction with balancing the public interest against the resource implications of your request which have been discussed above, we conclude that the section 14(1) exemption applies.
Therefore, the Commission determines that continuing to respond to your request would impose a grossly oppressive burden on the Commission and would cause a disproportionate level of disruption to its resources, diverting staff time away from carrying out its regulatory functions.
Review of the decision
If you are unhappy with the service you have received in relation to your Freedom of Information request you are entitled to an internal review of our decision. You should write to FOI Team, Gambling Commission, 4th floor, Victoria Square House, Victoria Square, Birmingham, B2 4BP or by reply to this email.
Please note, internal review requests should be made within 40 working days of the initial response. Requests made outside this timeframe will not be processed.
If you are not content with the outcome of our review, you may then apply directly to the Information Commissioner (ICO) for a decision. Generally, the ICO cannot make a decision unless you have already exhausted the review procedure provided by the Gambling Commission.
It should be noted that if you wish to raise a complaint with the ICO about the Commission’s handling of your request for information, then you are required to do so within six weeks of receiving your final response or last substantive contact with us.
The ICO can be contacted at: The Information Commissioner’s Office (opens in new tab), Wycliffe House, Water Lane, Wilmslow, Cheshire SK9 5AF.
Internal Review Request
I am writing to request an internal review of the decision to refuse my request, case reference 202600104, under section 14(1) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000.
I respectfully ask that the review reconsider both the application of section 14(1) and the advice and assistance provided in relation to my request.
- I sought advice and assistance before submitting the request
I would first like to draw attention to the chronology of this matter.
On 4 August 2026, before submitting the substantive request, I specifically contacted the Commission seeking advice and assistance under section 16. I explained that I intended to request original final response letters and internal review decisions, but wanted to ensure that the request was framed appropriately and, where possible, within the appropriate cost limit.
I specifically asked whether the records could be identified or filtered by business area, directorate, operational division, subject matter, case management system, or another recorded classification, so that I could narrow the request to a manageable subset.
I also expressly stated that my purpose was to avoid imposing an unnecessary burden on the Commission.
The Commission responded on 5 August stating:
"our systems don't enable us to sort or filter requests."
I then proceeded to submit my substantive request, taking account of that response.
I therefore do not consider it appropriate to characterise the resulting request as vexatious without taking into account that I had actively sought to avoid precisely the burden which the Commission now relies upon.
- I expressly proposed a narrower six-month period
My substantive request did not simply insist upon the entire 2024/25 period irrespective of the burden.
I expressly included the following:
"if the request could be complied with by limiting its scope to requests received during the first six months of the 2024/25 financial year (1 April 2024 to 30 September 2024), together with the original final response letters or emails and their associated disclosed records, I would be grateful if you could advise whether that revised scope would be likely to fall within the appropriate limit."
I further stated:
"If not, I would welcome any further advice as to how the request could be refined while still enabling me to obtain a representative set of the original response correspondence and associated disclosed information."
The refusal, however, appears to assess the request principally by reference to all 231 requests received during the entire 2024/25 financial year.
I would therefore ask the reviewer to consider why the six-month formulation expressly proposed in my request was not considered as an alternative to refusing the request under section 14(1).
If six months would also have been considered excessively burdensome, I would ask the Commission to explain why and, in light of my prior request for advice and assistance, why it did not suggest a further practicable reduction.
- The circumstances do not appear to support a finding that the request was vexatious
I appreciate that a single request can, in appropriate circumstances, be refused under section 14(1) where the burden is genuinely grossly oppressive.
However, I would ask the reviewer to consider the circumstances of this particular request as a whole.
There is no suggestion in the refusal that I have engaged in harassment, personal attacks, persistent contact with staff, or any conduct directed at causing disruption or distress.
The request was also focused on a defined category of recorded information for a defined period: the original final correspondence issued in response to FOIA requests, together with information disclosed as part of those responses.
I provided an explanation for why I was seeking the original correspondence rather than merely the subsequently published versions. In particular, I explained that published versions may not preserve all of the formatting, contextual information or other features of the original correspondence.
I therefore respectfully ask the reviewer to consider the request's legitimate purpose and value independently from the resources required to process it.
- The publication scheme does not necessarily provide the information requested
I appreciate that the Commission operates a publication scheme and publishes FOI responses.
However, my request expressly distinguished between the published register and the original correspondence as issued.
I did not request copies of the published register entries.
I specifically requested:
the original final response letter or email issued to the requester; and
the documents, records or other information actually disclosed to the requester as part of, or accompanying, that final response.
The fact that the Commission publishes FOI responses therefore does not necessarily mean that the specific information requested is reasonably accessible elsewhere.
Indeed, the refusal itself acknowledges that I specifically requested the original correspondence because published versions may not preserve the same information.
I would therefore ask the reviewer to consider whether the existence of the publication scheme has been given disproportionate weight in assessing the value and purpose of this particular request.
- The asserted burden requires further explanation
The refusal states that there were 231 requests during 2024/25 and that the Commission would therefore need to review each of the 231 case files.
I accept that reviewing a substantial number of case files could involve significant work.
However, I would ask the reviewer to consider whether the refusal has sufficiently demonstrated that this would constitute a grossly oppressive burden for the purposes of section 14(1), rather than simply a substantial or inconvenient workload.
The refusal does not appear to provide an estimate of:
the total staff time considered necessary;
the average time required to retrieve a case file;
the average number of documents within each case file;
the proportion of case files expected to contain accompanying disclosed records;
the estimated time required for downloading and redaction; or
the basis upon which the Commission concluded that the burden would be grossly oppressive.
I would therefore be grateful if the internal review could explain how the conclusion that the request was grossly oppressive was reached.
In particular, I would ask the Commission to explain why it is necessary to review all 231 case files for the purpose of considering whether a narrower request could be complied with.
- The Commission's records systems
There is also a point arising from the Commission's earlier advice.
When I asked how the records could be narrowed, the Commission stated that:
"our systems don't enable us to sort or filter requests."
The refusal subsequently states that the 231 relevant requests are stored as identifiable case files within the Commission's case management system.
I am not suggesting from this alone that the Commission's records management is deficient. However, I would ask the reviewer to distinguish between the inability of a system to perform a particular sorting or filtering function and the proposition that the requested information can only be identified by manually reviewing every case file.
If the Commission maintains 231 identifiable case files, I would be grateful if the review could clarify what existing metadata or case information is held in relation to those files and whether any method exists for identifying a narrower subset without examining all 231 files.
This is particularly relevant because I specifically sought advice on how to narrow the request before submitting it.
- Section 16 advice and assistance
I also ask the internal reviewer to reconsider whether adequate advice and assistance was provided in the circumstances.
My initial email was specifically intended to obtain assistance in formulating a manageable request.
I asked the Commission to identify categories or other recorded classifications that could be used to narrow the request. The response was that the systems could not sort or filter requests.
I nevertheless attempted to accommodate the anticipated burden by limiting the substantive request to one financial year and expressly proposing a further six-month period if necessary.
If that six-month period was still considered too burdensome, I expressly invited the Commission to advise me how the request could be refined further.
The subsequent refusal does not appear to address that proposal or provide an alternative formulation.
I therefore respectfully request that the internal review consider whether further advice and assistance could reasonably have been provided, particularly given that I sought such assistance before submitting the substantive request precisely in order to avoid imposing an excessive burden.
- Request for reconsideration
In light of the above, I respectfully request that the Commission:
reconsider the application of section 14(1);
specifically consider the six-month period I proposed in the original request;
explain why that narrower formulation was not considered sufficient to address the asserted burden;
if six months is still considered excessive, provide advice on a further practicable refinement which would allow me to obtain a meaningful and representative set of the requested records;
reconsider the weight given to the Commission's publication scheme, given that I specifically requested the original correspondence and accompanying disclosed material rather than the published versions;
explain the evidential basis for the conclusion that processing the request would constitute a grossly oppressive burden; and
reconsider whether the circumstances of my request, including my prior attempt to obtain advice and assistance and my willingness to narrow the request, are properly consistent with the application of section 14(1).
For the avoidance of doubt, I am not seeking to impose an unreasonable burden on the Commission. My correspondence of 4 August demonstrates that I specifically sought assistance in avoiding such a situation.
If the Commission maintains that the original request cannot be complied with, I would nevertheless welcome a constructive indication of the narrowest formulation which the Commission considers capable of being processed, rather than simply treating the request as vexatious.
Internal Review Response
I am writing to you further to your Freedom of Information request dated 05/08/2026, which we responded to on 11/08/2026, and your subsequent request for an internal review received on 11/08/2026.
We have now concluded our review, and our findings are detailed below.
This internal review was conducted by someone who was not involved in the processing of your original request.
In your initial email you requested copies of the following records relating to Freedom of Information Act 2000 requests received during the 2024/25 financial year (1 April 2024 to 31 March 2025).
- The original final response letter or email issued to the requester in respect of each request.
- Copies of any documents, records or other information disclosed to the requester as part of, or accompanying, the final response.
You also noted that you were not requesting disclosure log entries, webpages, or versions of responses that have subsequently been reformatted or republished. You were seeking the original correspondence as issued because published versions may not preserve all of the formatting, contextual information or metadata associated with the original correspondence.
In our initial response, we advised that the Gambling Commission (the Commission) does hold information falling within the scope of your request. However, the Commission refused to proceed with your request under section 14(1) (vexatious requests) FOIA.
In your appeal, you have asked the Commission to complete an internal review of our decision to refuse to supply the information.
Internal Review
Section 14(1)
Section 14(1) FOIA states:
“Section 1(1) does not oblige a public authority to comply with a request for information if the request is vexatious.”
As explained within our initial response, the word “vexatious” is not defined in FOIA. However, the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) guidance defines vexatious as “manifestly unjustified, inappropriate or improper use of a formal procedure.” This definition establishes that a public authority must consider the proportionality and justification of the FOIA request in question when determining if the section 14(1) exemption applies. The definition clearly establishes that the concepts of proportionality and justification are relevant to any consideration of whether a request is vexatious. The Commission adopted this guidance when considering your initial request and now your internal review.
As considered within our initial response, the ICO advise that four broad themes should be measured when determining if the section 14(1) exemption applies. Note, this list is not exhaustive.
- the burden (on the public authority and its staff);
- the motive (of the requester);
- the value or serious purpose (of the request); and
- any harassment or distress (of and to staff).
The code of practice issued by the Cabinet Office under section 45 states that when refusing a request under s14(1), a public authority is not required to explain why the request is vexatious. Whilst there is no obligation for a public authority to explain why the request is vexatious, the Commission detailed the reasons for refusing your request within our initial response as part of our duty under section 16.
All circumstances of the case need to be considered in reaching an ultimate judgement as to whether the request is vexatious. Upon re-reviewing all circumstances of your case and our initial response to your request, I can confirm that I uphold our original decision to engage the section 14(1) exemption. My considerations for this decision are detailed below.
The Burden of Complying with the Request
It must be noted that the FOIA provides individuals with a greater right of access to official information in order to make public authorities more transparent and accountable. As such, it is an important constitutional right. However, the ICO also recognises that dealing with unreasonable requests can cause a strain on resources, with the potential to interfere with the delivery of other services or answering legitimate requests.
The section 14(1) exemption is therefore designed to protect public authorities, particularly in terms of resources, by allowing authorities to refuse any requests which have the potential to cause a disproportionate or unjustified level of disruption, irritation or stress. This will usually involve weighing the evidence about the impact on the public authority and balancing this against the purpose and value of the request. As stated by the ICO, this should be judged as objectively as possible; in other words, whether or not a reasonable person would think that its purpose and value are enough to justify the impact on the public authority.
Within our initial response, we considered the burden of complying with your request and the strain that this would cause on our resources. As previously explained, a single FOIA request taken in isolation may be vexatious solely on the grounds of burden. That is, where complying with the request would place a grossly oppressive burden on a public authority’s resources which outweighs any value or serious purpose the request may have.
We recognised that there is a high threshold for refusing a request under this exemption. However, after reviewing our initial response, we still firmly believe that we have a viable case to refuse this request on the following grounds:
- you asked for a substantial volume of information across a significant time scale; and
- the Commission adopts a publication scheme and therefore publishes our FOI requests and their responses on the Commission website.
The scope of your request covered each response and any accompanying documents for FOI requests received during the 2024/25 financial year (1 April 2024 to 31 March 2025). You have specifically requested the original correspondence as issued as published versions may not preserve all of the formatting, contextual information or metadata associated with the original correspondence.
Within our initial response, we confirmed that we received 231 requests during the 2024/25 financial year. In order to fulfil your request, we would be required to review each of the 231 case files stored within our case management system, before manually completing the following:
- Downloading each FOI response letter and any accompanying documents for the 231 cases. This can only be done by manually reviewing each casefile.
- Saving each downloaded FOI response letter and any accompanying documents for the 231 cases.
- Considering and determining what information should be redacted for each of the 231 cases, as the original correspondence issued for each FOI response and any accompanying documents will contain personal information, such as the requester’s name and email address.
- Considering which exemption is engaged, such as section 40(1) (personal information), for any redacted information for each of the 231 cases.
- Manually completing the redaction of the FOI response and any accompanying documents for the 231 cases.
We acknowledge that all requests for information place some degree of demand on the Commission’s resources in terms of costs and staff time, and we expect to absorb a certain level of disruption to meet our underlying commitment to transparency and openness under the FOIA.
However, with respect to the information you are requesting, this has to be balanced against the burden that would be placed on the Commission in order to comply with your request, given the volume of information falling within the scope of your request and that our FOI responses are already published on the Commission’s website. We believe it would take an excessive amount of time to review and prepare the requested information for disclosure.
Public authorities, such as the Commission, have a duty to respond to FOIA requests within the statutory deadline of twenty working days. The diversion and strain on resources caused by complying with your request within the statutory timeframe will have the potential to interfere with the delivery of other services or answering legitimate requests in the immediate term.
Therefore, the Commission concludes that continuing to respond to your request would impose a grossly oppressive burden on the Commission and would cause a disproportionate level of disruption to its resources, diverting staff time away from carrying out its regulatory functions when the information you are requesting is published on our website.
Information Associated with the Original Correspondence
Within your request, you specifically asked for the original documents as the published versions of our FOI responses may not preserve all of the formatting, contextual information or metadata associated with the original correspondence.
Metadata is additional information that is automatically created and embedded within a document. It is often referred to as ‘data about data.’ It typically includes information such as the author’s name, the title of the piece, the document’s creation date, keywords, and sometimes even the software used to make it. It’s like a hidden digital fingerprint.
Metadata within a document can easily be found. Whenever a document is shared in an electronic form, internally or externally, the metadata containing potentially sensitive information accompanies the document. Sharing sensitive information externally like this would be identified as a data breach and a risk of security.
Therefore, any FOI responses that are sent to the requester, or published on our website, have all metadata removed prior to sending and publishing. As such, any information we would send to you falling within the scope of your request would not contain the metadata that you are requesting and would be the same as the information published on our website.
The actual information provided to each requester in response to their FOI request is exactly what is published on the Commission’s website, albeit in a webpage format opposed to a PDF letter format.
The Commission's Records Systems
We recognise that you sought assistance before submitting a formal FOI request for this information.
When you asked how the search could be narrowed, we stated that “our systems don’t enable us to sort or filter requests.” Note, this statement is referring to how your search could be narrowed to a manageable subset. Whilst our case management system allows us to view statistics such as those that we actively publish, the system does not enable us to sort or filter requests by business area, directorate, operational division, subject matter, case management system, or another recorded classification.
Therefore, whilst we are able to identify that 231 requests were received during the 2024/25 financial year, we would have to manually review each casefile to identify any further information about each request to therefore advise how your request could be narrowed to a manageable subset.
Public Interest in the Subject
In accordance with legislation, there is no specific public interest test for section 14 FOIA. However, the general point remains that there is a public interest in promoting transparency and knowing how public authorities carry out their functions.
As previously advised, the Commission adopts a publication scheme which ensures specific information is regularly made available without individuals needing to request it.
In relation to FOI requests, we again must advise that we publish our requests and their responses on our website here: Freedom of Information Requests - Full Register(opens in new tab). The register is updated proactively, with requests and their responses being published shortly after the response has been sent to the requestor.
We also publish FOI statistics and information on our website here:Freedom of Information Requests - Statistics and information(opens in new tab). The tables provide a breakdown of the number of FOI and Subject Access Requests (SAR) received per quarter, plus the number of requests processed within the legal time frame, which is 20 working days for FOI requests and one calendar month for SARs.
We are committed to being an open and transparent organisation, and we aim to share as much information as possible with the public and make it available on our website. This, in conjunction with balancing the public interest against the resource implications of your request which have been discussed above, we uphold our decision that the section 14(1) exemption applies to your request.
If you are not content with the outcome of your review, you may apply directly to the Information Commissioner (ICO) for a decision. Generally, the ICO cannot make a decision unless you have exhausted the complaints procedure provided by the Gambling Commission. The ICO can be contacted at www.ico.gov.uk or at:
Information Commissioner’s Office Wycliffe House Water Lane Wilmslow Cheshire SK9 5AF.
Yours sincerely,
Information Management Team
Gambling Commission
Information Management Team
Gambling Commission