Request ID: FOI-1692-2223 Date published: 08 November 2022
You asked
Follow-up from 1462-2223:
Can you supply me with the assessment which justified and discharged your duties in the creation of a controlled loading bay at 5-7 Blackheath Hill in terms of any of the above objectives when it is abundantly clear that there is no case for controls whatsoever on an unrelated one way road with ample width for passing vehicles even when the parking or loading bay is filled with no consequences for traffic on the A2 Red Route.
We answered
TfL Ref: 1692-2223
Thank you for your request received by us on 12 October 2022 asking for information about the loading bay at 5-7 Blackheath Hill, south east London, following your previous request for information, TfL Reference: 1462-2223.
Your request has been considered under the requirements of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and our information access policy. You asked for:
the assessment which justified and discharged your duties in the creation of a controlled loading bay at 5-7 Blackheath Hill in terms of any of the above objectives when it is abundantly clear that there is no case for controls whatsoever on an unrelated one way road with ample width for passing vehicles even when the parking or loading bay is filled with no consequences for traffic on the A2 Red Route.
I can confirm that we do hold the information you require. However, your request is being refused under section 14(1) of the Freedom of Information Act, which provides an exemption to the disclosure of information where a request is considered to be ‘vexatious’. 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.
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 requests 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”.
There is already an established appeals process for Penalty Charge Notices; which anyone who receives a PCN is advised they may use. We consider that your request represents an inappropriate use of the FOI Act to place undue pressure on TfL to cancel the original PCN and an attempt to circumvent the appropriate appeals mechanisms.
TfL’s principle duty is to provide an effective transport service for London. The appropriate forum to challenge the parking penalties is through the aforementioned appeal process. We have already responded comprehensively to several strands of correspondence which then lead to further requests being sent in to multiple areas of the organisation, exacerbating the diversion of resources. It is also notable that upon provision of a full and thorough answer the information provided is frequently dismissed and even outright refusals to accept the information being provided with demands for further ‘proof’ of an answer you have been unambiguously provided (“I cannot take your word for it” and “Your word for it just will not be enough”), citing irrelevant legislation as a means to further this disruption and diversion of resource.
We consider that several indicators of section 14 are met and therefore have concluded that the exemption is engaged in this instance. We would like to reassure you that this refusal notice has no bearing whatsoever on the processing of the related PCN appeal which will be considered as appropriate but we would strongly encourage you to utilise the pre-existing and well-established appeals process to raise any concerns you may have with the PCN that was issued.
Please see the attached information sheet for details of your right to appeal.
Yours sincerely
Jasmine Howard FOI Case Officer FOI Case Management Team General Counsel Transport for London
