Response to Betely Parish Council Minutes and the Parish Clerk’s FOI Refusal

 

Following recent Freedom of Information (FOI) requests submitted to Betley Parish Council, concerns have been raised about both the Council’s response and the way in which the FOI requests have been perceived and recorded in the official Minutes.

1. Inaccurate Wording in the Minutes

The minutes of the 29 July 2025 meeting record that:

‘…additional Freedom of Information requests from the same member of the public who had submitted previous requests.  Many of the questions were a repeat of previously answered questions.”

This statement may reflect what was said at the meeting, but it is not factually correct to say the questions had been ‘answered.’  Several of the FOI questions were repeated because earlier responses were incomplete, unclear, or contradicted existing records. The queries re the ROW footpath project are a case in point.

Replacing ‘answered’ with ‘asked’ would make the record accurate. The public has a right to expect that official Minutes are factually correct, especially when they concern the scrutiny of public bodies.

In recent months, the questions with Betley Parish Council concerned the earmarking of £8,000 in the precept/budget for a possible election — an election with no date or type specified.

When clarification was sought via the Freedom of Information requests, these were refused on cost grounds and were implied to be ‘repetitive’ or even ‘potentially libellous.’

2. The FOI Request and the Refusal

On 4 August 2025, an FOI request was submitted covering:

Clarification and documentation on a resolution passed on 25 June 2025 to explore legal action for alleged libel in relation to a private blog;

The proposer and seconder of that resolution;

Any legal advice sought beforehand;

Financial details on why £8,000 was earmarked in the precept for a possible election;

Follow-up information on rights of way and footpath works.

On 5 August 2025, the Clerk refused my request under Section 12(1) of the FOI Act, claiming it would cost £712.50 to answer — above the £450 statutory limit.

3. Why I Disagree with the Refusal

In my view, this refusal is flawed because:

No advice was offered on how to narrow my request to fall within the cost limit, even though the FOI Act (Section 16) requires public bodies to help requesters do this.

No cost breakdown was provided to show how answering would take three working weeks.

Much of the information should be easily available from existing council records and minutes.

No partial disclosure was offered for parts of the request that could be answered within the legal limit.

4. Why This Matters

The FOI Act exists to promote transparency and accountability in public bodies.  

Refusing requests without offering constructive ways forward undermines public trust.  It also denies the spirit of the ACT (ie as a means to obtain information, which has been requested but which has not been forthcoming).

A response in good faith would have included a breakdown of the cost estimate, and disclosure of any information that can be provided within the cost limit.  A correction to the Minutes so that they reflect factual accuracy, would also be expected.

The public has a right to scrutinise decisions about how, and why, and on what the precept is spent.

Persistence vs Vexatious
Following up on unanswered or unclear FOI requests is not harassment.  The Information Commissioner’s Office makes clear that “vexatious” only applies where a request is clearly unreasonable or intended to cause deliberate disruption.

Seeking clarity on public spending is a lawful right, not a nuisance — and in this case, questions about the £8,000 allocation remain unanswered.