FOI request detail

Emails to/from Matt Bell

Request ID: FOI-1717-1718
Date published: 11 October 2017

You asked

Please supply all emails to and from Matt Bell (Ex head of TPH Compliance) for the 3 month period leading up to his resignation. By "All emails", to clarify, I mean Matt Bell's TFL email account.

We answered

TfL Ref: FOI-1717-1718

Thank you for your request received by Transport for London (TfL) on 29 September 2017 asking for correspondence.

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 do hold the information you require.

However, we are refusing your request under section 14(1) of the Act. After reviewing a sample of our records 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 this request 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.

The Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) guidance states that one of the indicators of a request which may fall under section 14(1) is that it “appears to be part of a completely random approach, lacks any clear focus, or seems to have been solely designed for the purpose of ‘fishing’ for information without any idea of what might be revealed.”

The ICO guidance provides the following examples of a ‘fishing expedition’ request which may fall under section 14(1) if it:

- Imposes a burden by obliging the authority to sift through a substantial volume of information to isolate and extract the relevant details;

- Encompasses information which is only of limited value because of the wide scope of the request;

- Creates a burden by requiring the authority to spend a considerable amount of time considering any exemptions and redactions.

Our view is that all three of these examples apply in this instance. Your request covers every instance of an email being sent or received by a TfL employee without any focus or direction on a subject matter of interest. Over the time period you have requested, there were in excess of 2,700 emails that are potentially covered. Searching through such a large volume of emails to collate them would be a significant task. By its nature, we feel this wide ranging and non-specific request will very likely encompass information which is only of limited value. In that respect, it is noteworthy that your request is not for information on any specific subject or issue and it is therefore likely that even if you were to limit your request to a much narrower timeframe, such as a single month, we are still likely to have concerns around the nature of such a ‘fishing’ request that would invoke section 14.

We consider the burden of retrieving, reviewing and redacting the information would be disproportionate to the benefit of providing it. Therefore, due to the wide and unfocused scope of your request, we are refusing it under s.14 of the FOI Act.

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

Yours sincerely

Lee Hill

Senior FOI Case Officer

FOI Case Management Team

General Counsel

Transport for London

Back to top

Want to make a request?

We'll email you the response within 20 working days.


We'll publish the response online without disclosing any personal information.