Request ID: FOI-0445-2122 Date published: 11 June 2021
You asked
As ever I would be grateful for your assistance with a number of matters. Please can you advise:
1. what maintenance from 2014 to date has been undertaken by TfL to rectify the ‘feelability’ (as a consequence of inefficient maintenance) experienced in properties above the Kennington Loop as referred to in paragraph 8.73 of the report dated 19 June 2014 by Inspector J S Nixon;
2. whether the work to renew rail and track from the track points south of Kennington station to the new turn-out points leading to the NLE has been completed and if not when it will be;
3. what the expected consequences in terms of noise and vibration for this renewal using lower-vibration track form;
4. whether the work to replace worn track/sleepers around the ‘Kennington Loop’ track section has been completed and if not when it will be;
5. how speed controls from Kennington station onto the Kennington loop are determined;
6. what the speed limit for travel from Kennington station onto the Kennington loop are and when the current speed came into force;
7. how speed limits from Kennington station onto the Kennington loop are monitored and what happens if they are exceeded; and
8. how noise and vibration levels from Kennington station onto the Kennington loop are monitored and details of this data for June 2020 to June 2021 that has been collected.
Thank you for your requests received by Transport for London on 22nd May 2021, 2nd June 2021 and 4th June 2021 asking for information relating to noise and vibrations from the Northern Line. Your requests are shown in full below this email.
Your requests have been considered in accordance with the requirements of the Environmental Information Regulations (EIR) and our information access policy. Please note that any requests for recorded information fall under the terms of the EIR and/or the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) regardless of whether the applicant has cited the legislation themselves or where in an organisation their correspondence has been sent. As well as being consistent with the terms of the legislation, this ensures that TfL handles information requests consistently, fairly and in accordance with our legal obligations. Note further that the Information Commissioner advises that requests for information should be kept separate from more general correspondence and underlying complaints (see the following page of the ICO website on how best to access information from public bodies, and in particular the table of “Dos and Don’ts” found halfway down the page: https://ico.org.uk/your-data-matters/official-information/).
In regard to your latest three requests, these are being refused under Regulation 12(4)(b) of the EIR (which applies to requests that are “manifestly unreasonable”) on the basis of vexatiousness. This decision has been taken following careful consideration of the Information Commissioner’s guidance on the use of this exception which can be found on its website here:
“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.”
And;
“Detailed guidance on when a request can be considered to be vexatious under section 14(1) of FOIA can be found via our guidance index. Public authorities should use this guidance when considering whether a request for environmental information is manifestly unreasonable on the grounds that it is vexatious.
Although there are some differences between the structure of the relevant provisions in FOIA and the EIR, these should make no difference in practice.”
This guidance includes the following key points which all apply in relation to your requests:
“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 of circumstances.”
“…the key question to ask is whether the request is likely to cause a disproportionate or unjustified level of disruption, irritation or distress.”
“The public authority may also 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. Furthermore, these requests can also damage the reputation of the legislation itself.”
In helping public authorities to identify requests which may be considered to be vexatious the guidance includes the following indicators:
“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.”
It is these indicators that lead us to conclude that your requests meet the threshold for vexatiousness. Since 15th October 2020 you have submitted eight separate information requests - a rate of one every month (and noticeably at a rate that is increasing, with five separate requests received since 4th April 2021 - around two per month since the start of this financial year). The first five of these eight cases (1354-2021; 1992-2021; 2536-2021; 0002-2122; and 0168-2122 - shown below this email) were all responded to positively with information provided where it was held. However, we believe that a juncture has now been reached where the continued, frequent submission of requests on the same subject - including the submission of overlapping requests before we have had an opportunity to respond to earlier enquiries - meets the definition of ‘vexatious’ as laid out above, and that the resources that would be required to continue to respond to them would represent a “disproportionate or unjustified level of disruption”.
Considering each of your requests in isolation it is not necessarily the case 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 exception. The cumulative effect of these requests is that it ultimately provides a sustained burden and disruption to colleagues whose principal function is the running and planning of transport services. While your requests no doubt relate to matters that are of a personal interest to you, the specific information requested is not necessarily of wider public value. Responding to them requires the re-allocation and diversion of already limited resources and places a burden on a number of personnel.
Further, the decision has been taken not just on account of the resource that has been - and would have to continue to be - exhausted across several teams in answering your requests, but because the value of the requests themselves is questionable given that a separate process is underway to consider the impact of noise and vibrations at your property. I am aware that TfL engineers have already visited your property to take measurements and that you have been supplied with a copy of the attached report outlining their findings. I understand that another visit is imminent where further measurements are to be taken.
Given all of this, we consider that the overall public interest rests in applying the exception and protecting TfL resource, especially given that your concerns about noise and vibrations are already being addressed separately by an established process that is in hand and ongoing via TfL’s Customer Service team.
Please be assured that our application of the exception does not reflect a conclusion that it has been your deliberate intention to place an undue burden on TfL, and we will consider any future request for information on its merits and in accordance with the requirements of the relevant legislation. If you do choose to submit future requests, we would encourage you to think carefully about their purpose and value and to focus on the information that is of most importance to you, to ensure that you are able to make the best use of our resources.
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
