Free Traffic Legal Advice

I have received a reply from the TfL FOI:


Dear ,

 

TfL Ref: EIR-3162-2324

 

Thank you for your request received by Transport for London (TfL) on 10th December 2023 asking for information about a CCTV camera at 74b Stamford Hill, London, N16 6XS.

 

Your request has been considered in accordance with the requirements of the Environmental Information Regulations (EIR) and our information access policy.

 

Specifically you asked:

 

“There is a CCTV camera outside 74b Stamford Hill, London, N16 6XS, which is visible here: https://maps.app.goo.gl/wxfZBYiGhGwckp4n7

I would like to know the make and model of this camera.

I would also like copies of any documentation confirming the make and model of the camera.”

 

Your request is being refused under Regulation 12(4)(b) of the EIR on the basis that it is ‘manifestly unreasonable’. The rationale for this is as set out below.

 

We have received a large number of requests from different applicants asking for the exact same information in respect of different cameras. TfL has been refusing to release any information that would allow any of our ‘Digital Traffic Enforcement System’ cameras to be identified given the widespread instances of vandalism that some of these cameras have been subject to since the expansion of the Ultra Low Emission Zone (ULEZ). The rationale for this is as set out under a previous request for similar information, published on our website here:

 

https://tfl.gov.uk/corporate/transparency/freedom-of-information/foi-request-detail?referenceId=FOI-0970-2324

 

Clearly, if the exceptions cited in the reply above were only ever applied to requests for information about the ANPR cameras used to enforce ULEZ, but not other cameras on the road network operated by TfL, then that would defeat the purpose of the exceptions applying – i.e. if that were the approach, then any time a request was refused then this would, in effect, identify our ANPR cameras. Therefore, the exceptions apply to all of our road camera infrastructure, so that the specific cameras used to enforce ULEZ cannot be distinguished from other cameras via FOI / EIR requests.

 

The use of the exceptions cited in the reply above have been challenged under Internal Review by other applicants, and the result of those reviews were that the use of the exceptions were upheld. In turn, an applicant has subsequently lodged an appeal on three separate occasions with the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) which is currently being considered by that body. The ICO will determine whether or not it agrees with TfL’s reliance on these exceptions. In the meantime, TfL stands by its use of the exceptions.

 

Given the above, TfL now considers that any current and future requests asking for information on the make and models of our roadside cameras be exempted as ‘manifestly unreasonable’. There is no public benefit in rehearsing the same arguments that are already before the ICO. As such, we believe that the current series of requests, which have an identical template-style wording and therefore appear to be part of a co-ordinated campaign, are ‘manifestly unreasonable’ because they represent:

 

Frequent or overlapping requests
Unreasonable persistence on matters which have either been resolved or are already before the Information Commissioner
Appear to lack serious purpose or value
Appear designed to cause disruption and disproportionate burden
 

We do not believe that the greater public interest is served by TfL considering each such case on an individual basis while the matter remains before the ICO.

 

Please see the attached information sheet for details of your right to appeal.

 

Yours sincerely,

 

David Wells

FOI Case Officer

FOI Case Management Team

General Counsel

Transport for London

Good afternoon,

I received the following reply from TfL.

- - -

Dear ---,

I am contacting you regarding your request for an internal review concerning the response provided to FOI-3162-2324. Following your email of 21 December a review has been carried out by an Independent Review Panel (‘the Panel’) consisting of individuals who were not involved in the handling of your requests.

To confirm you submitted the following request – There is a CCTV camera outside 74b Stamford Hill, London, N16 6XS, which is visible here: https://maps.app.goo.gl/wxfZBYiGhGwckp4n7

I would like to know the make and model of this camera.

I would also like copies of any documentation confirming the make and model of the camera.”

The panel noted that since the 1 October TfL’s FOI Case Management team have received 35 requests from different individuals - 36 including yours -all using template wording asking for the same information in relation to the make and model of varying cameras across London. Additionally since the 1 October its noted that following these 36 requests, 14 internal review appeals have been received using duplicated template wording. This would suggest the pursuance of a campaign from individuals who appear to be working in concert.


In the reply of 19 December, it was explained that under regulation 12(4)(b) of the Environmental Information Regulations (EIR) , we are not obliged to comply with a request if it is ‘manifestly unreasonable’ to do so. To explain further, the EIR allow public authorities to refuse a request(s) for information which is manifestly unreasonable. The inclusion of the word “manifestly” means that there must be an obvious or clear quality to the unreasonableness. The purpose of the applied exception is to protect a public authority from exposure to a disproportionate burden or an unjustified level of distress, disruption or irritation, in handling information requests. This exception can be used when the cost of compliance with the request(s) would be too great or, as in this instance, is vexatious. In practice there is no material difference between a request that is vexatious under section 14(1) of FOIA and a request that is manifestly unreasonable on vexatious grounds under the EIR.

 
In assessing whether the burden of dealing with a request is “too great”, public authorities need to consider the proportionality of the burden involved and decide whether they are clearly or obviously unreasonable. The Information Commissioners position is that there are occasions where it is permissible to consider a number of EIR requests together when deciding if they are manifestly unreasonable because of cost or burden. This is in line with the approach to requests considered manifestly unreasonable on the grounds that they are vexatious in the wider sense, where the context in which they are made can be taken into account.

 
This means we take into account all the circumstances of the case including:

the nature of the request and any wider value in the requested information being made publicly available;
the importance of any underlying issue to which the request relates, and the extent to which responding to the request would illuminate that issue;
the size of the public authority and the resources available to it, including the extent to which the public authority would be distracted from delivering other services; and
the context in which the request is made, which may include the burden of responding to other requests on the same subject from the same requester.
 
The panel agree that the continued pursuance of frequent and overlapping requests focusing on camera make and model is unreasonable and places a disproportionate burden and unjustified level of disruption or irritation on a small specialised team to repeatedly answer. This current line of information and data being sought by yourself (and as mentioned numerous other individuals) would continually divert staff away from their core functions within the organisation for the pursuance of a campaign which appears to lack serious purpose or value.

TfL’s FOI Case Management Team adhere to the Information Commissioners (ICO) guidance on the application of section 14(1) under the Freedom of Information Act which, as outlined above, is one of the indicators that the ICO measures against when considering if a request has an “obvious or clear quality of unreasonableness” under regulation 12(4)(b). In relation to the application of regulation 12(4)(b) to refuse your request(s) we consider that these elements are met. The above makes no judgement on the motive of a request but does focus on the burden created. We are fully aware of the importance of accountability and the strong argument it provides for the release of information that enables the public to satisfy themselves that we have the appropriate mechanisms in place, however we maintain that the disruption it would cause to continually respond to each of these individual requests now and in the future is unjustified and a disproportionate use of the public purse as we do not believe that the greater public interest is served by TfL considering each such case on an individual basis while the matter remains before the ICO.

Therefore on balance we consider that the public interest currently favours the use of the exception and the application of regulation 12(4)(b).

For further information the following decision notices which have been issued by the ICO provides examples of a similar nature whereby is was concluded that regulation 12(4)(b) had been appropriately engaged

https://ico.org.uk/media/action-weve-taken/decision-notices/2023/4027135/ic-250573-b2z4.pdf

I hope the above response has provided a better clarity regarding the information you seek, however if you are dissatisfied with the internal review actions to date please do not hesitate to contact me or alternately you can refer the matter to the independent authority responsible for enforcing the Freedom of Information Act, at the following address:


Information Commissioner’s Office
Wycliffe House
Water Lane
Wilmslow
Cheshire SK9 5AF


A complaint form is also available on the ICO’s website (www.ico.org.uk).


Yours sincerely

Emma Flint
Principal Information Access Adviser
FOI Case Management Team
Transport for London
foi@tfl.gov.uk

Some people never return to this site, but you could try a PM to sandef.