TfL Ref: 1602-2425

Thank you for your request received by Transport for London (TfL) on 16 August 2024 asking for information about Offensive and Non-Offensive Graffiti and Fly-posting.

Your request has been considered in accordance with the requirements of the Freedom of Information Act and our information access policy.  I can confirm that we hold the information you require. You specifically asked: Can you please advise me how TfL actions the removal and enforcement of the above which are 1. visible from the TLRN (for example Commercial and Private Properties) , 2.on all 3rd party assets on the TLRN within each of the London Boroughs, and 3 including those on all TfL owned assets on TLRN and borough roads?

We confirm that we hold the information you are requesting however we are exempting from disclosure under sections 31 (law enforcement), 38 (health and safety) and 43 (commercial interests) of the Freedom of Information Act. The rationale for the application of each is given below.

Section 31 applies where release of information would be likely to prejudice the prevention of crime. As you will no doubt be aware, the TfL network can often be the target of graffiti and other vandalism, and anything that encourages this is detrimental to our efforts to combat it. We have avoided releasing information on graffiti, and our response to it, on the TfL network in the past and we continue to be very cautious about encouraging vandalism by releasing any information that makes TfL assets an attractive target by increasing the perceived “challenge” to graffiti vandals which we know is a key motivation for their activity, including our procedures and timeframes for removing any graffiti.  We believe section 31 is therefore correctly engaged as release of the information would prejudice the prevention of crime.

Section 38 is engaged because in order to commit graffiti offences it is often necessary for perpetrators to trespass onto prohibited, unsafe areas - including on tracks  / bridges. Clearly this can be highly dangerous, as illustrated by the deaths of young people on the National Rail network in the past, as covered in this news item: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-44523953. There have been other deaths associated with possible graffiti vandals, as featured in this news item: https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/mar/21/two-graffiti-artists-dead-east-london-rail-tracks-electrocution

It is clear to us that any increase in graffiti attempts on our network translates into an increased danger to health and safety, not only for those committing the offence but also to the TfL employees and law enforcement personnel who work in these areas and who have to deal with the consequences.

Section 43 is engaged because the consequences of graffiti and other forms of vandalism for TfL and others can be very costly, both in terms of the need to have assets professionally cleaned but also additional, less obvious costs that might arise including, but not limited to, the repair and maintenance of security measures – intruders frequently damage fencing or other infrastructure in the process of gaining access to sites for graffiti. It may also be necessary for TfL to install additional security measures in locations that are frequently targeted, which has both direct and indirect staff costs.

All three of these exemptions are “qualified”, meaning we have to consider whether the greater public interest rests in them applying and the information being withheld, or in releasing the information in any event. TfL recognises that there is an inherent public interest in openness and transparency, and in particular where this relates to the maintenance of public assets and the effective expenditure of public funds. In this case, it may also be of interest in enabling the general public to understand the extent of this problem on our network and in London generally. On the other hand, there is a very strong public interest in discouraging graffiti and other forms of vandalism and criminal activity, in order to protect the spending of public money and to protect the health and safety of perpetrators and staff. We consider that the inherent public interest in openness and scrutiny of our expenditure is to a large extent satisfied by the information that TfL already publishes, such as via our Annual Report and Accounts. We do not consider that the publication of this additional information would add sufficiently to public understanding so as to warrant the risk to TfL’s commercial interests or to health and safety, and therefore believe that the balance of public interest rests with the exemptions applying.

To summarise, we consider that it is inevitable that the practice of graffiti anywhere on the TfL network has criminal, commercial and health and safety implications. We would like to draw your attention to the following decision notice where these matters have been considered by the Information Commissioner in a request on the topic of graffiti, which we hope will assist in the consideration of any further request: https://ico.org.uk/media/action-weve-taken/decision-notices/2023/4026983/ic-210387-g5p2.pdf.

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

Yours sincerely

Sara Thomas

FOI Case Management Team

General Counsel

Transport for London