Request ID: FOI-0379-2223 Date published: 15 June 2022
You asked
I am writing to request for the captioned information of Elizabeth Line, can you please me the booklet in PDF for reference?
We answered
TfL Ref: 0379-2223; 0414-2223; 0500-2223
Thank you for your three requests received by Transport for London (TfL) on 18 May, 23 May and 1 June 2022 asking for information about the Elizabeth Line Working Timetable, the Metropolitan Line Working Timetable No. 343 / Hammersmith & City, Circle Line Working Timetable No. 37, and for Traffic Circulars and Timetable Notices of all London Underground lines. Your request has been considered in accordance with the requirements of the Freedom of Information Act and our information access policy. I can confirm we hold the information you require. However, we are refusing your requests under section 14(1) of the Act. We consider that providing the requested information would place an unreasonable burden on us. Our principal duty is to provide an effective transport service for London and we consider that answering these requests would represent a disproportionate effort. It would be a significant distraction from our work managing the TfL network, requiring re-allocation of already limited resources and placing an unacceptable burden on a small number of personnel. In reaching this conclusion we have drawn on guidance from the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO), both in relation to the specific application of section 14 and in relation to FOI-handling more generally. On the specific application of section 14(1) we have been steered by the ICO guidance on the use of that exemption that can be found on its website here:https://ico.org.uk/media/1198/dealing-with-vexatious-requests.pdf You will note that this guidance includes the following advice to public authorities: “Section 14(1) may be used in a variety of circumstances where a request, or its impact on a public authority, cannot be justified. Whilst public authorities should think carefully before refusing a request as vexatious they should not regard section 14(1) as something which is only to be applied in the most extreme circumstances”; “Sometimes a request may be so patently unreasonable or objectionable that it will obviously be vexatious….In cases where the issue is not clear-cut, the key question to ask is whether the request is likely to cause a disproportionate or unjustified level of disruption, irritation or distress…This will usually be a matter of objectively judging the evidence of the impact on the authority and weighing this against any evidence about the purpose and value of the request”; “The public authority may take into account the context and history of the request, where this is relevant”; “The information Commissioner recognises that dealing with unreasonable requests can place a strain on resources and get in the way of delivering mainstream services or answering legitimate requests.” “Section 14(1) is designed to protect public authorities by allowing them to refuse any request which have the potential to cause a disproportionate or unjustified level of disruption, irritation or distress”. “…the concepts of ‘proportionality’ and ‘justification’ are central to any consideration of whether a request is vexatious”; The guidance includes some specific indicators to help public authorities judge whether or not a case should be considered vexatious. This includes the following: “Burden on the authority: the effort required to meet the request will be so grossly oppressive in terms of the strain on time and resources, that the authority cannot reasonably be expected to comply, no matter how legitimate the subject matter or valid the intentions of the requester”; “Frequent or overlapping requests: the requester submits frequent correspondence about the same issue or sends in new requests before the public authority has had an opportunity to address their earlier enquiries”. “Disproportionate effort: the matter being pursued by the requester is relatively trivial and the authority would have to extend a disproportionate amount of resources in order to meet the request.”
Considering each of your requests in isolation it is unlikely that we would find that any of them would meet the criteria of being ‘vexatious’. However, the guidance from the ICO makes it clear that public authorities should take into account the ‘context and history’ in which a request is made, and that this will “…often be a major factor in determining whether the request is vexatious”. This part of the guidance goes on to say that: “In practice this means taking account of:
Other requests made by the requester to that public authority (whether complied or refused).
The number and subject matter of those requests”, and;
“A request which would not normally be regarded as vexatious in isolation may assume that quality once considered in context. An example of this would be where an individual is placing a significant strain on an authority’s resources by submitting a long and frequent series of requests, and the most recent request, although not obviously vexatious in itself, is contributing to that aggregated burden”. It is this ‘aggregated burden’ that is central to our decision to apply the exemption set out in section 14(1) in response to your requests. The first two requests we have from you are requests for information that has previously been available, is currently available, or will be available in future on our website and it’s noted that you have previously been advised of where the information can be found (https://tfl.gov.uk/corporate/publications-and-reports/working-timetables). In addition, we have already answered your request ref 0414-2223 as we appear to have received a duplicate of this request – this was answered under ref 0401-2223 and is published on our website here: https://tfl.gov.uk/corporate/transparency/freedom-of-information/foi-request-detail?referenceId=FOI-0401-2223
In relation to your last request (ref 0500-2223), you have asked for ‘Traffic Circular and Timetable Notice of all London Underground lines’. We note that you have not provided a time period for this request; in addition Traffic Circulars are internal documents produced for London Underground operational staff and average around 30-40 pages each in length and they are produced frequently every two weeks. They may contain operationally sensitive information and each one would need to be reviewed in terms of content and any necessary redactions made to information exempt from disclosure under FOI. We therefore consider the burden of retrieving, reviewing and redacting the information you have requested in this particular request would be disproportionate to the benefit of providing it.
If you would like to re-submit a more focused, specific request then we will, of course, consider it. However, we would ask that you consider carefully what information is of most importance to you, and to take into account the guidance and advice provided by the ICO such as the “dos and don’ts” published on its website here: https://ico.org.uk/your-data-matters/official-information/ You will note that the table halfway down that page includes the following advice to FOI applicants: Do….“Give the authority ample opportunity to address any previous requests you have made before submitting new ones”; Don’t… “Submit frivolous or trivial requests; remember that processing any information request involves some cost to the public purse”; Don’t… “Disrupt a public authority by the sheer volume of information requested. Whether you are acting alone or in concert with others, this is a clear misuse of the Act and an abuse of your ‘right to know’”, Please see the attached information sheet for details of your right to appeal. Yours sincerely
Sara Thomas FOI Case Officer FOI Case Management Team General Counsel Transport for London
