Reclosure statistics

FOI request reference: F0060223
Publication date: January 2020




Request & response

1. What are the reclosure figures for 2017 and 2018?

The reclosure statistics for 2017 and 2018 are available on TNA’s website:

2. When was the last time that records were considered before the reclosure panel?

The Reclosure Panel last met on 16 April 2019 and a further eleven cases were considered in December 2019.

3. How many reclosed records have been destroyed by year from 2010-2019?

None. The Reclosure Panel’s decisions are two-fold; either the record will remain open and available for viewing or the record will be closed and withdrawn from public access. No records are destroyed.

4. Correspondence regarding the reclosure panel between 01/01/2017-25/11/2019, particularly regarding why the figures haven’t been published on your website?

We know from experience of reviewing correspondence such as this that it is likely to contain a large amount of personal and potentially sensitive data. As such, reviewing all the correspondence which is substantial in volume would place a significant burden on the organisation as it is likely to contain a significant amount of information for which an exemption may apply.

We have now established that the correspondence you have requested, if processed in its entirety, would amount to the volume of work associated with meeting the threshold for a Section 14(1) refusal. ICO (Information Commissioner’s Office) guidance states that a public authority may refuse a request if the amount of time required to review and prepare the information for disclosure would impose a grossly oppressive burden on the organisation (Section 14 FOI Act 2000; vexatious requests).

In our preliminary assessment we consider that the burden threshold has been reached. We have however in terms of your secondary question regarding correspondence that relates to the publication of the figures, determined that we do not hold information on this specific subject. If there is any additional information that you were looking for within the correspondence and you were able to consider refining question four to narrow the scope, this may not hit the burden threshold and we may be able to provide this information.

In terms of question 4 as it currently stands we have found this to be exempt under Section 14 (vexatious) owing to the burden associated. However you have the option of refining the scope of this question and if so, we would be happy to assist you further.