Neil Wilby Media

Investigative journalist Neil Wilby, the author of this article, has launched a robust challenge of Oldham Metropolitan Borough Council‘s handling of his latest Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request. 

The reporter, well known for his investigative work challenging public authorities, policing bodies and statutory regulators, also alleges a long-running campaign of vexing, annoying and harassing conduct by the Council towards him.

It is asserted that this concerning course of conduct is in response to his journalistic endeavours repeatedly and forensically exposing wrongdoing within the same council.

The FOI request, labelled ‘Compliance with Freedom of Information Act’ and seeking access to the Council’s electronic FOIA database, was refused by them, citing section 14(1) of the Act, principally claiming a ‘grossly oppressive burden to collate, redact and prepare the information for disclosure’.

This marks the second internal review application concerning the same FOIA request, with the first being grounded in non-compliance with sections 10 and 17 of the Act. The full correspondence trail relating to the request, and its responses, can be followed here.

The journalist emphasises that FOIA requests are meant to be applicant and motive blind, focusing on transparency and the public’s right to information. As such, it is an important constitutional right. Therefore, engaging section 14(1) to refuse a request presents a high hurdle for a public authority to surmount.

He points to alleged routine non-compliance with FOIA by Oldham Council, a matter of serious public concern. Not least, as it can also damage the reputation of the legislation itself. 

The council’s claim that fulfilling his request would cause a grossly oppressive burden is refuted by stating that a simple redaction of one column of the database (containing the names of all FOIA applicants) is all that’s required. The remainder of the database should be disclosable as FOIA responses are ‘to the world’ and not just individual applicants.

He further questions the council’s lack of a  publicly accessible FOIA Disclosure Log, a standard practice in other authorities.

The Council also accuses Neil Wilby of designing his request to challenge the accuracy of previous information supplied to him. He refutes this, stating it is a misconceived ground for refusal and cites relevant case law (read paras 32 and 33 here).

The journalist also criticises the Council’s previous internal review outcomes for falling short of expected standards.

At the core of the challenge it is submitted that if Oldham Council genuinely believed the request would take excessive time, they could have used the over-cost exemption at Section 12 of the Act and offered advice on how to refine the request, as opposed to the vexatious request refusal by way of section 14(1).

A third ground for refusing the request, advanced by the Council, was put in these terms: ‘You have made unsubstantiated accusations regarding the integrity of the council in relation to our approach to providing accurate responses to Freedom of Information requests’. That allegation by the Council against the applicant is completely, and typically, absent of specification or justification.

It was rebutted comprehensively by way of an examination of their responses and general approach to FOIA on the WhatDoTheyKnow website where an unarguable integrity (and ethical and professional) deficit within Oldham Council is publicly visible. A matter further and very well evidenced on the Neil Wilby Media website where over forty articles on the topic over the past two years stand completely unchallenged, other than by way of the Council’s campaign to vex, annoy and harass the author. The latest article on the topic, published on 2nd February, 2024, provides a relevant example and can be read here.

The challenge concludes by emphasising that the refusal is ill-motivated, lacking evidence and almost entirely misconceived under the Act and by reference to relevant case authorities, alleging, holistically, an escalation by the council to vex, annoy, and harass the applicant.

Neil Wilby calls for a reversal of the decision at the earliest opportunity.

Follow Neil Wilby on Twitter (here) and Neil Wilby Media on Facebook (here) for signposts to any updates.

Page last updated: Sunday 4th February, 2024 at 1145 hours

Thank you for reading and a polite request: If you feel this article is of value and in the public interest, and wish to make a contribution to the running costs of this website, it would be very much appreciated. Donations can made securely (and anonymously if required), via Buy Me A Coffee at this link or via PayPal at this link.

Corrections: Please let me know if there is a mistake in this article. I will endeavour to correct it as soon as possible.

Picture credit:

Right of reply: If you are mentioned in this article and disagree with it, please let me have your comments. Provided your response is not defamatory it will be added to the article.

© Neil Wilby 2015-2024. Unauthorised use, or reproduction, of the material contained in this article, without permission from the author, is strictly prohibited. Extracts from, and links to, the article (or blog) may be used, provided that credit is given to Neil Wilby Media, with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.