1. Background

Over the past 12 months, I have raised multiple concerns, regarding destruction of protected land/Local Wildlife Site, which falls squarely within the remit of environmental responsibility under the Environmental Information Regulations 2004 (EIR). My contact with the council is listed here and is not yet a complete record https://blogging.sheilaoliver.org/category/padden-brook/

Despite my efforts to engage constructively, the council has failed to act, delayed responses, ignored follow-up requests, provided vague or contradictory information. My concerns are grounded in evidence and a reasonable expectation of action from the council.

2. Misrepresentation and Misuse of Vexatious Classification

I was shocked to learn that my requests have now been labelled as “vexatious,” with reasoning that appears to mischaracterise both the content and tone of my communications.

This decision appears to rest on a misrepresentation of the facts and fails to account for the council’s own lack of responsiveness, which is what necessitated my repeated follow-up requests. According to the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) guidance, persistence does not equate to vexatiousness, especially where the public authority has failed to adequately address the matter.

The conduct of the Information Officer in this regard is highly concerning. It suggests a deliberate attempt to block scrutiny and deflect accountability, rather than a fair application of the EIR or FOIA criteria.

3. Action the Council should take

  1. A full internal review of the decision to label my request(s) as vexatious, including a disclosure of the reasoning and any internal correspondence or notes used in making this determination.
  2. Clarification of the council’s position and actions to date in relation to the environmental issue I raised.
  3. A formal investigation into the conduct of the council information officer who made or contributed to the misrepresentation, including whether any breaches of the Council’s Code of Conduct or professional standards have occurred.

If misconduct is proven—especially if it involved deliberate misrepresentation or suppression of information—the officer could face:

  • Formal warning (written or verbal)
  • Re-training or reallocation of duties
  • Demotion or suspension
  • Dismissal for gross misconduct, particularly if there is evidence of bad faith, dishonesty, or repeated breaches