I would like to evaluate the effectiveness of the 'see it, say it, sorted' campaign in stations. For this, I would be obliged if you could provide: - The date of the start of the campaign - The number of incidents reported to your staff - The number of incidents reported to your staff that were found to be a real alert (i.e., the reported package was an explosive device or the reported person had terrorist intentions) - The number of real alerts not reported to your staff (discovered through any other method) Both since the start of the campaign, and for a at least a year prior to it. Thank you very much,

---

Our ref: FOI-0281-1819/GH

Thank you for your request received by Transport for London (TfL) on 4 May 2018 asking for information about the 'see it, say it, sorted' campaign.

Your request has been considered under the requirements of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and our information access policy. I can confirm that we do hold some of the information you require.

I would like to evaluate the effectiveness of the 'see it, say it, sorted' campaign in stations. For this, I would be obliged if you could provide:

- The date of the start of the campaign

The ‘see it, say it, sorted’ campaign is a Department for Transport (DfT) initiative, which started on London Underground in October 2017.

- The number of incidents reported to your staff

This is recorded locally (at each individual station in their log books) or not recorded at all – depending on the circumstances. If the matter is referred onwards to the police then they will have records – if it is resolved locally then it may not be recorded.

To manually check the logs at every station for any such reports would exceed the ‘appropriate limit’ of £450 set by the Freedom of Information (Appropriate Limit and Fees) Regulations 2004.

Under section 12 of the FOI Act, we are not obliged to comply with requests if we estimate that the cost of determining whether we hold the information, locating and retrieving it and extracting it from other information would exceed the appropriate limit. In this instance, we estimate that the time required to answer your request would exceed 18 hours which, at £25 per hour (the rate stipulated by the Regulations), exceeds the ‘appropriate limit’.

- The number of incidents reported to your staff that were found to be a real alert (i.e., the reported package was an explosive device or the reported person had terrorist intentions)

In the year before the campaign – at North Greenwich in October 2016 one report from a customer was found to be an explosive device. Since the campaign there have been no such incidents (based upon your definition of alert above).

Whether a person has terrorist intentions is not a matter for TfL – it is a matter for the Justice system and as such we do not hold records of this.

- The number of real alerts not reported to your staff (discovered through any other method)

Both since the start of the campaign, and for a at least a year prior to it.

In the year before the campaign, there was one incident - in September 2017 at Parsons Green where there was a device on the train, it was not reported to us before it activated.

Since the campaign there have been no such incidents (based upon the definition of alert above).

If this is not the information you are looking for please do not hesitate to contact me.

If you are not satisfied with this response please see the attached information sheet for details of your right to appeal.

Yours sincerely

Graham Hurt

FOI Case Officer

FOI Case Management Team

General Counsel

Transport for London

Back to top

---