ULEZ expansion ANPR Data Camera Locations and 'types'
Request ID: FOI-0524-2324 Date published: 16 June 2023
You asked
Please can you advise as to whether existing LEZ have been used to collect 'compliance data' for the 'expansion' and whether this is permitted within their current Home Office Approval, and which roads these cameras are located on.
Please can you also advise whether 'new ANPR cameras' have also been used for 'compliance data' and 'other purposes' and whether that is their 'home office approved use' ? Also which roads those cameras are located on. Please bear in mind The Home Office and secretary of state cautioned as to whether the approvals for the current ULEZ zone were 'appropriate' and may breach GDPR conditions.
Thank you for your requests received between 21 May and 8 June 2023 asking for information about the our Road User Charging processes and electric vehicles.
Your requests have been processed in accordance with the requirements of the Environmental Information Regulations (EIRs) and our information access policy.
Given the extent of the information you are looking for across all ten of your current requests, we are applying Regulation 12(4)(b) as we believe that the requests are ‘manifestly unreasonable’ because providing the information you have requested would impose unreasonable costs on us and require an unreasonable diversion of resources.
A large amount of data has already been published in response to other information requests we have received regarding our Road User Charging schemes, in particular the Ultra Low Emission Zone (ULEZ). For example, the following requests that were recently responded to gives information on the use of the ANPR data that has been/will be captured and how compliance is determined:
With regard to your request regarding electric vehicle charging points, again we already publish information on our website which includes our plans on sustainability and how we plan to reduce our emissions:
After reviewing the information that is already published, you may wish to consider narrowing and/or focussing the scope of your requests so that we can more easily locate, retrieve and extract any additional information you are seeking that is not already provided in these documents. There are limits on the time that TfL are required to spend determining whether TfL holds the information you are requesting and the time spent locating, retrieving and extracting it. Therefore you should identify the information that you want as clearly and concisely as you can, specifying the types of document that you are looking for.
While the arguments regarding vexatious requests applies to those made under the Freedom of Information (FOI) Act, we believe that some of the guidance given by the Information Commissioner Office’s (https://ico.org.uk/media/1198/dealing-with-vexatious-requests.pdf) is applicable to your requests and forms the basis of our application of Regulation 12(4)(b). 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, or in this case manifestly unreasonable. 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.”
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 set out in Regulation 12(4)(b) to your requests. Given the sheer number of requests you have submitted this year (you have submitted 14 requests in the last 27 working days) we believe the threshold for applying the exception has been met. The cumulative effect of these requests is that it ultimately provides a sustained burden and disruption to our colleagues across the organisation whose principal function is the running of transport services or the support services required to make that happen.
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 FOI Act/EIRs and the expectations of the ICO. However, in making any future request I 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/.
Please note, that although your request can take the form of a question, rather than a request for specific documents, TfL does not have to answer your question if it would require the creation of new information or the provision of a judgement, explanation, advice or opinion that was not already recorded at the time of your request.
The use of this exception is subject to a public interest test, which requires us to consider whether the public interest in applying the exception outweighs the public interest in disclosure. We recognise that the release of information would promote accountability and transparency in public services and may help address your particular concerns about this issue. However, the time it would take to provide the information you have requested would divert a disproportionate amount of our resources from its core functions and as there is already a large amount of data already published on these matters, on balance we consider that the public interest currently favours the use of the exception.
We will consider your requests again, if you are able to narrow their scope so that we can more easily locate, retrieve and extract the information you are seeking. However, please consult the extensive documentation that has already been published before submitting any further requests.
Please see the attached information sheet for details of your right to appeal.
Yours sincerely
Gemma Jacob Senior FOI Case Officer FOI Case Management Team General Counsel Transport for London
