Jenny Lunnon v The Information Commissioner

1.This decision relates to an appeal brought by the Appellant p ursuant to section 57

Freedom of Information Act 2000 . It is in respect of a decision notice issued by the Information Commissioner on 23 January 2026 with reference IC-392846-V0V3 that decided that the Appellant's request for information, made on 17 January 2025 to Woodeaton Manor School, was vexatious.

2.What follows is a summary of the submissions, evidence and our view of the law. It does not seek to provide every step of our reasoning. The absence of a reference to any specific submission or evidence does not mean it has not been considered. In this decision, any page numbers indicated by their inclusion in brackets refer to pages of the bundle.

3.The following defined terms have been adopted in this decision: - Freedom of Information Act 2000

FOIA

Data subject access request

DSAR

Woodeaton Manor School the School

The School's interim executive board the IEB

Propeller Academy Trust

Propeller multi academy trust

MAT

Oxfordshire County Council

OCC

Department for Education

DfE

National Governance Association

NGA

Evidence and matters considered

4.We heard from the Appellant and had a bundle of 203 pages. On 13 August 2026 the Appellant also provided an update, mostly on various procedural issues. The Request was made at the same time as a DSAR. The School's response to this DSAR is not part of this appeal and as it potentially involves special category data about an identifiable individual we have sought to minimise the information about it in this decision.

5.The School did not become a party to the appeal and there was no attendance by and no witness statement from anyone on the School's behalf. The IC also did not attend.

Background

6.In November 2023 Ofsted rated the School as inadequate and it was made subject to special measures. This triggered legislative provisions that required the conversion of the School from being local authority maintained to one run by an academy trust selected by the secretary of state for DfE. We understand that between the inadequate rating and conversion the School was managed by the IEB. Propeller is a MAT and was selected to take over the School. This transfer occurred on 1 October 2025.

7.The Appellant has raised questions about various matters. These, in summary, involved the governance of the School, certain safeguarding questions and specific concerns about the alleged practice of "off rolling" pupils.

8.Relevant however to this appeal is concern raised about the process by which the School became part of Propeller. The Appellant thinks that the process by which Propeller took over the School was "clandestine" and lacked the necessary transparency. Part of this concern relates to visits to the School made by Mr Pegler of Propeller in September and October 2023 ie the period shortly before the inadequate rating was issued by Ofsted. The Appellant's concerns are denied by the School who explained that Propeller was chosen by DfE and point to the supportive outcome of part of an investigation carried out by the NGA in July 2024.

The Request

9.On 17 January 2025 (78) the Appellant wrote to the School and made a DSAR and the Request. The FOIA element was a follow up to a previous reply from the School about visits to the School. The Appellant set out concerns about these visits as follows:-

"I would like to know why Tom Pegler was visiting the school so frequently in September and October 2023, when Simon Bishop was not there, and before the Ofsted inspection of early November, and why these visits appear to have been concealed by then Acting Head Jenny Jura, and by the co-chairs and some of the other governors, from other members of the Full Governing Body, and the school community at large...”

10.The Appellant went on to say that she considered it likely that "...information about the nature and purpose of these visits is contained in email correspondence of the time between..." about ten people in different combinations. The Request itself (79) then asked: -

"My request is for copies of all this email correspondence and any other relevant correspondence that would explain the nature and purpose of these six recorded visits (and any out-of-hours unrecorded visits) to Woodeaton made by Tom Pegler in September and October 2023."

11.The School's solicitors replied on 14 February 2025 (80). The School did not answer the Request as its position was that the Request was vexatious by section 14 FOIA. An internal review was requested. The School maintained its position (91). The Appellant complained to the IC. The School set out its position to the IC by letter of 19 January 2026 (176). On 23 January 2026 the IC issued the DN which in summary said "...that the complainant’s request for information about particular visits is a vexatious request under section 14(1) of FOIA."

Appeal

12.This appeal is dated 6 February 2026. It is supported by grounds of appeal. By it the Appellant asked (23): -

"For the ICO to look carefully at the evidence I have provided and reconsider its decision that the school's refusal of my FOI request and DSAR, both dated 17 January 2025, was justified on the grounds that I have been "vexatious". "For the school to provide all the information I requested in my FOI request of 17 January 2025 and my DSAR of 17 January 2025."

13.The IC has responded to the appeal (62) and the Appellant has replied (68). The School is not a party to the appeal.

FOIA

14.FOIA provides that any person making a request for information to a public authority is entitled to be informed in writing if that information is held (section 1(1) (a) FOIA) and if it is held to be provided with that information (section 1 (1) (b) FOIA). This obligation is subject to exemptions and section 14 FOIA which provides that: -

"(1)

Section 1(1) does not oblige a public authority to comply with a request for information if the request is vexatious.

(2)Where a public authority has previously complied with a request for information which was made by any person, it is not obliged to comply with a subsequent identical or substantially similar request from that person unless a reasonable interval has elapsed between compliance with the previous request and the making of the current request. "

15.FOIA does not provide a definition of the word vexatious. The UT in Information Commissioner vs Devon County Council & Dransfield [2012] UKUT 440 (AAC) , (28 January 2013) said that "vexatious” connotes manifestly unjustified, inappropriate or improper use of a formal procedure”

16.The decision in Dransfield provides guidance on the approach to section 14(1) FOIA. Four broad and non-exhaustive issues were identified for consideration namely (1) the burden on the public authority and its staff (2) the motive of the requester (3) the value or serious purpose of the request and (4) any harassment or distress of or to the public authority. These questions are non-exhaustive and illustrative only. As was said in Dransfield:-

“It is important to remember that Parliament has expressly declined to define the term “vexatious”. Thus the observations that follow should not be taken as imposing any prescriptive and all encompassing definition upon an inherently flexible concept which can take many different forms.” … “There is no magic formula – all the circumstances need to be considered in reaching what is ultimately a value judgement as to whether the request in issue is vexatious in the sense of being a disproportionate, manifestly unjustified, inappropriate or improper use of FOIA”.

17.In Dransfield-v- (1) Information Commissioner and (2) Devon County Council and Craven -v-(1) The Information Commissioner and (2) The Department for Energy and Climate Change [2015] EWCA Civ 454 the Court of Appeal added (para 68): -

"...the starting point is that vexatiousness primarily involves making a request which has no reasonable foundation, that is, no reasonable foundation for thinking that the information sought would be of value to the requester, 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 vexatiousness can be inferred. If a requester 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 requester, if the request was aimed at the disclosure of important information which ought to be made publicly available."

Role of the Tribunal

18.The Tribunal's role in an appeal by section 57 FOIA is set out in section 58 FOIA which provides that: -

(1)If on an appeal under section 57 the Tribunal considers— (a)

that the notice against which the appeal is brought is not in accordance with the law, or (b)

to the extent that the notice involved an exercise of discretion by the Commissioner, that he ought to have exercised his discretion differently, the Tribunal shall allow the appeal or substitute such other notice as could have been served by the Commissioner; and in any other case the Tribunal shall dismiss the appeal.

(2)On such an appeal, the Tribunal may review any finding of fact on which the notice in question was based.

19.This appeal is a "full rehearing on the merits" and in Peter Wilson -v- The Information Commissioner [2022] UKFTT 0149 the FtT said (with which we agree): -

"30...the Tribunal’s statutory role is to consider whether there is an error of law or inappropriate exercise of discretion in the Decision Notice. The Tribunal may not allow an appeal simply because it disagrees with the Information Commissioner’s Decision. It is also not the Tribunal’s role to conduct a procedural review of the Information Commissioner’s decision making process or to correct the drafting of the Decision Notice.”

20.We also had regard to authorities such as NHS England -v- Information Commissioner and Dean [2019] UKUT 145 (AAC) and Information Commissioner v Malnick and Advisory Committee on Business Appointments [2018] UKUT 72 (AAC) and Forstater v Information Commissioner and others [2023] UKUT 303 (AAC)

where the UT at para 40 said: -

"the “ordinary presumption” is that it is for an appellant to prove their case... however, the concept of the burden of proof is of secondary importance in tribunal proceedings which involve a full merits review, since to apply strict burdens of proof may prevent the tribunal from properly discharging its responsibility to decide the facts for itself and/or exercise any discretion afresh..."

Issues

21.The issue for the Tribunal was to determine whether the Request was vexatious. It is important to note that: (a)

it was not our role to deal with any issues arising from the DSAR or the questions of governance, safeguarding or the allegation of "off rolling";

(b)

it was not part of our role to reach conclusions about issues such as whether Propeller was the appropriate MAT to take over the School or if the process adopted lacked transparency or was in any way flawed; and (c)

while we noted the assertions made by the Appellant and the School's rebuttal this decision contains no criticism of Mr Pegler, Propeller or anyone else involved.

Burden

22.In its response to the Request the School said (82): -

"3.2.4...The School does not have significant resources to dedicate to conducting the wide range of searches necessary to satisfy the request, and therefore responding to the request will place an unreasonable burden on the School and distract the School from its ability to focus on its pupils."

23.In our view the Request itself is not burdensome. It relates to 6 visits on known dates in a 2 month period of one named person. The Request seeks email correspondence which is, in most email systems, readily searchable by reference to sender, recipient and by key words. If, due to the number of combinations of those named, the School considers it necessary to seek to narrow the scope of the Request then, if so advised, the School may wish to engage with the Appellant pursuant to section 16 FOIA.

24.In Dransfield the UT said: -

“29...the present or future burden on the public authority may be inextricably linked with the previous course of dealings. Thus the context and history of the particular request, in terms of the previous course of dealings between the individual requester and the public authority in question, must be considered in assessing whether it is properly to be characterised as vexatious.”

25.The School has said for example that: (a)

the Appellant has been" ...Repeatedly re-opening and re-considering matters that have concluded..."

(b)

it had been "...constantly bombarded by accusations from JL..."

(c)

the Appellant "continued with inappropriate communications to the local authority, the Department for Education, the local press and her MP."

26.In the DN the IC says (11): -

"49...Repeatedly re-opening and re-considering matters that have concluded will cause a burden to the school and that burden is disproportionate to the request’s value. At a time when the school needs to focus its energies on turning the school around, and to focus its funding on its students, the complainant’s requests are an unnecessary and unhelpful distraction for the school."

27.Although not in the bundle the Appellant also says (30) that the IC told her on 21 October 2025 that: -

"Woodeaton Manor School has explained that they have handled numerous SAR’s from yourself which repeat requests for the same information. In their handling of each SAR they have reviewed any new data protection concerns and provided you with the information."

and that this was repeated on 23 October 2025 as follows: -

"We understand that you have explained to us that you have only ever sent one subject access request (SAR) to Woodeaton Manor School. However, it is the Schools position is that they have received numerous SAR’s from you over a prolonged period."

28.In the School's response to the Request (82) it was said that "The School does not have significant resources to dedicate to conducting the wide range of searches necessary to satisfy the request, and therefore responding to the request will place an unreasonable burden on the School and distract the School from its ability to focus on its pupils."

29.In the DN the IC referred to the burden on the School in having to take legal advice. The IC said (10): -

" Furthermore, by taking legal advice at each stage to ensure that it was conducting itself properly, the school says it incurred costs that were a serious detriment to the school. This is especially the case at a time when it had a very significant deficit and where funds should have instead been spent on pupils."

30.The School also said to the IC (179): -

"A very significant amount of time and resource has been spent carrying out a repeat exercise to address JL's same two allegations and the school cannot continue doing this when all information has already been provided. Given that all relevant and appropriate information has been provided, to continue to entertain any further requests would be prejudicial to the school.

Whilst the school is no longer in complete crisis, it nevertheless remains in special measures and it will be perhaps another few years before it can be turned around and become a good school. For significant leadership time to be diverted away from working towards this is detrimental to the school and the pupils it continues to serve, particularly where throughout the period the school has been very unstable due to constant change in its leadership"

31.We accept that, prior to the Request, the Appellant had been in communication with the School for some time about two main issues namely the conversion of the School to an Academy and the issues relating to the DSAR. From the evidence with which we were provided what we have seen, as between the School and the Appellant regarding the FOIA matter, mainly consists of the following, although we can see there was other contact: (a)

on 21 April 2024 the Appellant made a written complaint to the School which ultimately led to an investigation carried out by the NGA including a meeting with the Appellant on 5 July 2024 and a report of 15 July 2024;

(b)

on 10 October 2024 the Appellant made a FOIA request to the School about "governor conflicts";

(c)

on 4 November 2024 the Appellant made a second FOIA request (58) for a "...digital copy of the full electronic record of visits made by Propeller Academy Trust CEO Tom Pegler to Woodeaton School since the electronic signing in system was put in place in 2023, up until and including 25 March 2024." to which the School responded on 29 November 2024; and (d)

the Request was then made on 17 January 2025.

32.Other connected activity that was not directly between the School and the Appellant included that: (a)

just prior to the Request, on 8 January 2025, the Appellant made a FOIA request to OCC which asked about the School's governance (109) and there were other requests made to OCC (76);

(b)

the Appellant raised concerns with the DfE, her Member of Parliament and OCC; and (c)

the Appellant had direct correspondence with Mr Pegler in April 2024 (50).

33.If our consideration were to be expanded to the DSAR matter, then clearly there was further interaction on that subject but, to be clear, we have concluded that there was one not numerous DSAR as it appears to be alleged.

34.We conclude that in period of about 12 months leading up to the Request and as regards the interaction with the School and the perceived issue about Propeller the Appellant together with associated correspondence in summary: (a)

made a complaint which ultimately led to the NGA report;

(b)

made a FOIA request about governance and conflicts; and (c)

made a FOIA request about visits which was answered (which led to the Request).

35.We have also taken into consideration the submissions made by the School that the Appellant's FOIA is burdensome by reference to the amount of time and money being expended on dealing with the questions raised which might better be spent on the provision of education. The IC in the non-binding guidance says: -

"When considering the amount of work that would be involved in dealing with a request and whether it would impose an unreasonable burden, you need to take account of the level of resources that your organisation has at its disposal. For example, a small public authority, such as parish council, only has very limited resources because a parish clerk may be employed for just a few hours a week. Therefore, the threshold at which the burden becomes grossly oppressive is lower than for a larger public authority."

36.In Cabinet Office v Information Commissioner and Ashton [2018] UKUT 208 (AAC) (at para 50) the UT rejected the Cabinet Office's argument that " section 14(1) entitled a public authority to refuse to comply with a request for information on the general basis that it is struggling to meet a large number of obligations with limited resources” because: -

“the same is true for the majority of public authorities, and recognition of any such entitlement would deprive the right to information under section 1 FOIA of much of its effectiveness.”

37.We agree that, as the Guidance says, what might be classed as burdensome may vary depending on the size and resources of the public authority concerned. However, the necessary evidence was not provided to the Tribunal in this case that would have enabled us to conclude that the work needed to answer the Appellant put the School's core functions under so much pressure that it rendered the Request vexatious. For example, while the School told the IC that the time spent was " very significant" we were not provided with any detail by the School about how much work might be needed, how much actual work/time/cost had already been expended or what size of team it has deployed to deal with these sorts of issues.

38.Having considered the above and the number, pattern, duration and breadth of the Request in combination with the other relevant interactions our conclusion is that the Request was not a burden and the Appellant's course of dealing with the School had not become burdensome.

Motive

39.The UT in Dransfield said: -

“34...the motive of the requester may well be a relevant and indeed significant factor in assessing whether the request itself is vexatious. The FOIA mantra is that the Act is both “motive blind” and “applicant blind”. … the proper application of section 14 cannot side-step the question of the underlying rationale or justification for the request...”

40.In its response to the Request the School said that it had concluded that the Appellant's intention with the ongoing communication was to " cause disruption". In the School's letter to the IC it says (180): -

"...she appears to be solely motivated by attempting to "uncover the truth behind a matter" that simply does not exist. The school [redacted] and no one has attempted to help Propeller gain unfair advantage to operate the school this was completely out of our control and entirely within the hands of the Department for Education."

and

"For JL to be allowed to persist with her mission seems to be for no reason other than to maximise disruption for the school and to target individuals who have conducted themselves properly at all times."

41.The DN says (10): -

"44.

The school considers that for the complainant’s mission seems to be to maximise disruption for the school and to target individuals who have conducted themselves properly at all times."

"48.

Motive: The complainant’s two substantive allegations or complaints about the school have been thoroughly considered by the IEB and an independent investigator. They didn’t uphold either complaint. At this point, the evidence suggests that the complainant’s motivation isn’t a genuine desire for recorded information but is to uncover a conspiracy about the school’s academisation that there is no evidence to suggest exists. Their motive may also be to disrupt the school intentionally."

and

"51.

The Commissioner is persuaded that at the point of the request being considered here, the complainant was using FOIA to pursue aims for which the legislation wasn’t designed. The complainant appears to have formulated an unsubstantiated theory about the school and is using FOIA to try to confirm that theory."

42.The Appellant told us that as regards the (FOIA) Request, at the time it was made, for various reasons (about which we make no findings) she considered Propeller to be a less appropriate MAT candidate for the School. She also told us that she was motivated to ensure that the process being followed was more transparent than she perceived it was being. She said that she was motivated to discover whether the choice of Propeller was a fully open process or whether there were a number of pre-existing connections between various parties that made the choice of Propeller something of an inappropriate and foregone conclusion.

43.When seeking an internal review on 31 March 2025 the Appellant said (85): -

"The reason I am doing this is because I care about the welfare and education of [redacted] and that of the other pupils at Woodeaton Manor School and that of vulnerable young people with SEND, many of whom are not in a position to speak up for themselves. I also care about the life-changing consequences there have been for many members of Woodeaton's staff, to whom we owe a huge amount of gratitude for their work [redacted]. I understand that more than 40 of them have been made redundant or decided to leave since September 2023."

44.In an email of 5 November 2025 (72) the Appellant said: -

"This is not a petty legal dispute between [redacted] and the governors of her [redacted] school, it's a principled attempt to uncover and challenge what appears to be widespread corruption in our institutions and misconduct in public office on the part of many people, that cumulatively has destroyed a unique and well-loved special school and caused irreparable damage to the lives of vulnerable children. It goes to the very heart of the question: are we really living in a democracy, or are all the checks and balances failing us? "

45.Having heard the Appellant at the appeal we are satisfied that the alleged motivation of being disruptive, ascribed to her, is not made out and that she had the several motivations explained to us.

Value

46.The IC in the DN accepts that the Request has value to the Appellant but "46...he’s less persuaded that the request has much wider value" and any value is "greatly outweighed by its negative impacts" In Dransfield the UT asked “38...Does the request have a value or serious purpose in terms of the objective public interest in the information sought?"

47.It is said that the Request lacked any serious wider purpose or value because for example: (a)

the questions were answered by the NGA report which did not uphold the Appellant's complaint;

(b)

the information requested has been addressed "in the outcome of... previous complaints"

(c)

relevant information is available to the public; and (d)

the Appellant is looking for a conspiracy that does not exist.

48.The NGA report said (56): -

" This aspect of your complaint relates to the selection and appointment of board members, their links to the Propeller Trust, and the appointment of the Propeller Trust as sponsor to Woodeaton Manor School.

"I recognise that when viewed retrospectively there may appear to be a degree of coincidence that individual board members have had connections with the trust, given that the trust has subsequently been identified as the chosen sponsor for Woodeaton Manor School. Having looked into this, however, I am satisfied that the DfE Regions Group carried out due diligence in respect of the appointment of the interim governing board members. They took the view that they were suitably skilled and experienced to undertake their governance roles, and that their involvement with the school did not present a conflict of interest. I am also satisfied that the DfE Regions Group took the sole decision regarding the choice of the Propeller Trust as sponsor for Woodeaton Manor. Propeller were one of three trusts whom they considered, and the interim board members had no influence in the DfE Regions Group decision. Based on the evidence made available to me, I am unable to uphold this aspect of your complaint."

49.In our view the existence of the NGA's investigation and the findings of this report do minimise the value of the Request. However, it was of concern to us that when writing to the IC the School said that the NGA investigator (178): (a)

"...drew up a report which, in short, provided that there was no basis for JL's two complaints and where they were completely unfounded"

because, in our view, that is an incorrect description of the report which partially upheld one complaint and upheld another as well as not upholding the complaint about Propeller.

(b)

"...told JL in a 5 hour meeting that if she persisted with her unfounded complaints, the school would not need to continue to entertain her many requests for information and where it may elect not to engage with her any further, as it was a waste of time and resources at a time when the school was in crisis and IEB and leadership time was being diverted away from the important work of driving rapid school improvement."

because, even though this was repeated in the DN at para 29, that would be a very surprising thing for an independent investigator to do especially prior to issuing the report and especially as there is no mention of it in the report itself.

50.Our concern about the report, which we cannot resolve, reduced its impact when we were assessing the question of value and purpose.

51.In its response the School said (82)

"the School considers that the information requested has already been addressed in the outcome of your previous complaints."

We were not certain whether this was a reference to the complaint that led to the NGA report or it was referring to the two previous FOIA requests. We have dealt with NGA report above. As regards the previous requests (if that is what was intended) in our view they do not provide an answer to the Request. The first was about governors and conflicts. The second was closer in terms of its subject matter to the Request but asked for

"A digital copy of the full electronic record of visits made by Propeller Academy Trust CEO Tom Pegler to Woodeaton School since the electronic signing in system was put in place in 2023, up until and including 25 March 2024."

52.Part of the response said (58) (emphasis added): -

"Whilst we are unable to provide you with a copy of the full digital records, we are able to provide the information contained within them to a certain extent. After reviewing the records, we can confirm that Tom Pegler visited the school 7 times between the system's installation, 10 June 2022, and 25 March 2024. However, please note that these logs do not contain any details regarding what was discussed or the nature of any meetings Tom Pegler had at the School"

53.The Request asked for information from emails as to the purpose of the visits. The November 2024 response does not answer this question as its focus was the content of the logs and it contained no information about the purpose.

54.In its response the School said "It is not clear to the School that the request has any substantive value or overriding public benefit. Information that is relevant is contained in minutes which are publicly available..." However, the Appellant says (32) that the minutes do not record the visits. As far as we could see, apart from it being asserted, we had no evidence in the bundle that indicated that the information sought in the Request was contained in minutes of meetings or available publicly elsewhere.

55.The IC in the DN said (10): -

" 48...the evidence suggests that the complainant’s motivation...is to uncover a conspiracy about the school’s academisation that there is no evidence to suggest exists."

" 51... The complainant appears to have formulated an unsubstantiated theory about the school and is using FOIA to try to confirm that theory"

56.In its letter of response, the School referred to the Appellant's (82) "...continued baseless and unsubstantiated allegations of wrongdoing..."

57.When writing to the IC the School said (177/180): -

"JL has, over the past two years, accused various parties of committing a conspiracy...JL believes that the fact Propeller took over the school was "fixed" by Department for Education's officers together with senior officers from the local authority and the IEB. This was fundamentally not true."

"...no one has attempted to help Propeller gain unfair advantage to operate the school this was completely out of our control and entirely within the hands of the Department for Education."

"The allegations are unfounded and there is no value or serious purpose to JL's requests for further information (180) Her ongoing attempt to extract information which does not exist is inappropriate and improper use of the FOIA"

58.As set out previously it is not the role of the Tribunal to reach conclusions as to whether the process by which the School became part of Propeller was in any way flawed. We accept that the School considers the worries expressed to be without basis and that the Appellant thinks that the early involvement of Propeller may be an indication of a lack of adequate transparency and/or something being amiss with the process. We also accept that as a matter of fact the choice of a MAT for the School was made by the DfE not OCC or the IEB even if, as part of the process, on 8 March 2024 the DfE sought the views of OCC (147).

59.Having considered the submissions made we have concluded that the Request does have the necessary value because of what is said above and because: (a)

we accept the Appellant's submission that "A very large number of other people in the Woodeaton community, and working in education and education governance in Oxfordshire and beyond, have also expressed serious concerns about the events of the past two and a half years at this school";

(b)

there is strong public interest in education generally and more particularly where a school has been assessed as inadequate; and (c)

it appears that (105) OCC's Education and Young People Scrutiny committee have formed a review group to carry out a "deep dive" into the School which the Appellant says is to find out " what has gone on... over the last two years, to identify "lessons learned".

Harassment and distress

60.The UT in Dransfield said: -

"39...vexatiousness may be evidenced by obsessive conduct that harasses or distresses staff, uses intemperate language, makes wide-ranging and unsubstantiated allegations of criminal behaviour or is in any other respects extremely offensive (e.g. the use of racist language)"

61.The School said to the Appellant: -

"4.2

Your persistent and vexatious correspondence is causing undue distress to staff members and an unnecessary burden on the School’s limited resources"

"3.2.3...The level of disruption, irritation and/or distress caused by your request is likely to be disproportionate or unjustified..."

62.The School told the IC that the Appellant (177):-

"... made direct attacks at local authority officers, Tom Pegler, the then Chair of the IEB, [redacted] and also me." and that the Appellant: -

"..submitted repeated complaints to senior officers within the council (including about the role of the officers in the "fraud" being perpetrated; and also to the DfE....had for some months been threatening to also go to the press to expose "fraud"

"made direct personal attacks on [redacted] and also on me, as to our integrity; and also accused me and Tom Pegler of being involved in fraud, which amounts to unacceptable harassment."

63.In the DN the IC concluded: -

"39.

In addition, the complainant has made direct personal attacks on individuals working with the school, as to their integrity. They’ve accused those individuals of being involved in fraud, which amounts to unacceptable harassment."

"50.

Harassment to staff: The complainant has levelled accusations at named individuals which is a direct form of harassment. But the persistent nature of the complainant’s correspondence will also be a form of harassment."

64.In this appeal the School is not a party and did not attend the appeal to challenge the Appellant if it wishes to do so. It has also not provided a statement. The Tribunal's only source of evidence therefore was the relevant content of the bundle and our assessment of what the Appellant told us when appearing in person.

65.From this we saw that by email of 21 April 2024 when making a complaint to the School the Appellant said (44) "My complaint covers a number of related issues regarding the governors' probity, honesty, competence, and accountability." In the complaint itself the Appellant referred to alleged "leadership failures" and that the Appellant said there had been "gaslighting and stonewalling." When giving alleged examples the Appellant:(a)

said that there had been "...: a complete failure to hold incompetent, negligent, and bullying [redacted] to account for [redacted] actions whilst at Woodeaton..."

(b)

said that "the truth" had not been "told to us and the wider school community".

(c)

s aid that conflicts of interest had been deliberately concealed (d)

said that Propeller had been given an unfair advantage

66.When making the Request the Appellant said (79) "It seems to me that it would have been both unethical and unlawful for someone with a vested interest, such as the CEO of a Multi-Academy Trust that wanted to take over the school, to be making such visits..."

67.When seeking an internal review on 31 March 2024 the Appellant said (85) "I want to help ensure that all those who are responsible are held to account for their decisions and actions (and, sometimes, lack of action" and " The evidence I have obtained to date, from witnesses and the written record, strongly suggests that the governors of WMS, Oxfordshire County Council, and the DfE are all trying to conceal information that is potentially embarrassing and may leave them open to losing their jobs or roles, and/or prosecution for misconduct in public office, and negligence"

68.The Appellant also said (89) "People who think they are suited to public office have a legal and moral responsibility to obey the rules and norms of governance and to resign if it is proven that they have not done so. That would be the honourable thing to do."

69.From the evidence provided it is likely to be examples such as these cited above that resulted in the School concluding that the Appellant's correspondence had been " persistent and vexatious" and "is causing undue distress to staff members."

70.We also looked for what might be relevant evidence that post-dated the Request. On 5 November 2025 (after the Request) the Appellant said for example (72): -

"I am writing back to you to request that you look again at your correspondence with Woodeaton Manor School. Are they being untruthful, or have you misinterpreted what they wrote?"

"In its initial response OCC had claimed that all advice about conflicts had been given verbally, and in January and February 2024. This was either a mistake or a deliberate lie"

"The documents I was sent on 28 February proved beyond any reasonable doubt that [redacted] had lied to the independent investigator...”

"it is a principled attempt to uncover and challenge what appears to be widespread corruption in our institutions and misconduct in public office on the part of many people"

71.Without hearing directly from anyone at the School at the appeal we have concluded that the evidence shows the Appellant being persistent (as described) and challenging.

72.The Appellant says (39): -

"To the best of my recollection I did not use the word "fraud" when writing to the governors or OCC officers. To OCC I did use the word "misconduct", as well as "Conspiracy?", with a question mark, in an email to OCC's CEO...A fraud investigation would be a matter for the Police and the Crown Prosecution Service, and, in the case of a MAT, The Charity Commission."

and we accept that the Appellant does not appear to have used the word "fraud".

73.We also note that allegations were sometimes made in the form of questions or softened by adding words such as "appears to be " and "the evidence suggests". However, to the recipients, despite this use of language the allegations will have appeared as being accusatory of serious matters such as being dishonest, concealing conflicts, being part of a conspiracy and misconduct.

74.We gained the impression that, although we are dealing with the FOIA Request about the visits, when dealing with the Appellant the School saw all its interaction with her as being connected and continuous. However, even taking account for this, we did not conclude, from the evidence, that the interactions amounted to the School being "bombarded".

75.The Appellant thought the School had described her as being "obsessive". In fact in its letter in response to the Request the School's solicitors said generically (81): -

"However, the School may consider a complaint unreasonable if the complaint is one that:...2.1.2 Is “obsessive, persistent, harassing, prolific, defamatory or repetitive”

but then when dealing with the Request itself from para 3.2.3 the School did not make this actual assertion.

76.Despite the lack of much direct evidence from the School we accept that the Appellant's correspondence would have appeared at times excessively accusatory and that it is therefore understandable if some at the School found it to be distressing. However, in our view this did not itself go so far as to make the Request vexatious.

Summary

77.We reviewed the submissions made and the evidence in accordance with the tests set out in Dransfield and holistically. The School does not accept that it, or anyone connected with the process by which it became part of Propeller, was in any way flawed or that more particularly Propeller was provided with an unfair advantage in the process. Bearing in mind that the decision to select Propeller as the MAT was one taken by DfE and that the Appellant's complaints had been looked at by the NGA we can also understand why the Request would have been perceived as being an unwarranted continuation of baseless allegations.

78.However, for the reasons set out above we have concluded that: (a)

the Request was not burdensome itself or when seen in the context of what had gone before;

(b)

the Appellant's motivation was not to cause disruption but was, for example, to get particular information about the process of the School joining Propeller, to expose any flaws in the process and if possible (at the time of the Request) to have the School transferred to a different MAT;

(c)

the Request had value for the Appellant and objectively some value more widely in support of the public interest notwithstanding the findings of the NGA investigator;

(d)

although the Appellant's persistent challenges will have been perceived as being seriously accusatory and this may have caused distress whatever the intention, they did not go so far as to mean the Request itself was vexatious.

79.Although it does not provide a full answer to the Request, we also noted that, when writing to the IC about a year after the Request on 19 January 2026, the School provided the following explanation regarding Mr Pegler's visits (177): -

"In the summer of 2023, when it became clear to Oxfordshire County Council that there were problems at the school, the then substantive headteacher was off sick with the deputy being left to run the school. The Council engaged the CEO of Propeller, Tom Pegler, to provide support to the deputy head."

but that this explanation was not seen by the Appellant until being sent the bundle for the appeal.

Decision

80.Having considered all the circumstances and reviewed the issues holistically we are not satisfied that the Request was a manifestly unjustified, inappropriate or improper use of the FOIA procedure. Accordingly in our view the DN was not in accordance with the law.

81.The appeal is allowed.

Signed: Judge Heald Date: 26 August 2026