Dear Mr Fletcher,
Many thanks for this. As it happens, you have satisfied my enquiries completely: I had only one, in fact. At the risk of posing questions, which the MHRA has no realistic capacity to satisfy, and thus being confirmed as vexatious, I would ask just how much control the MHRA actually has over its members - to which end, how capable is it of safeguarding the public? Please don't concern yourself with a reply.
The MHRA certainly did have the capacity to satisfy my enquiries. It just chose not to, that's all.
From: "MHRA Information Centre"
To: "Matthew Holford"
Subject: Matthew Holford Review - Final Report
Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2007 10:48:32 +0100
Dear Mr Holford,
Please find attached the outcome of our internal review into your recent Freedom of Information Act requests.
Please contact me again if you need further assistance with this, or any other queries.
Central Enquiry Point
Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency
Tel: 020 7084 2000
Attachment (I've only included the Conclusions and Recommendations on the ground that it's the only relevant bit:
Conclusions and Recommendations
65. Those questions which have not been answered under FOI requests 07/066 (see paragraphs 11, 32 and 33) and 07/088 (see paragraphs 13, 34 and 35) should now be considered and appropriate responses sent to Mr Holford.
66. In respect of FOI requests 07/140 and 07/142, the MHRA correctly applied the principles of aggregation in terms of S12(4) of the FOI Act. I do not think, however, that the aggregation caused the costs of dealing with Mr Holford’s requests to exceed the appropriate limit of £600.
Rather than relying on S12, the Agency should have invoked Section 14 of the FOI Act.
67. The Agency was justified in applying Section 14 of the FOI Act to Mr Holford’s requests in late May and early June.
Subsequent requests from Mr Holford on Seroxat and matters relating to Seroxat can, likewise, be deemed vexatious and the Agency would be justified in refusing such requests.