Request ID: FOI-1768-2122 Date published: 06 December 2021
You asked
• The film regarding PCN xxx from start to finish
•
• A summary of where the camera was looking in the hour before - exact spots (traps!)
•
• All notes, data and reports concerning the issue of PCN xxx
•
• A still image to show the second parking sign misleadingly was turned sideways
•
• How long has this sign misleadingly been turned sideways
•
• Why has this sign not been moved to face the road as all the other signs do?
•
• A still image to show all the parking area and signs
•
• Confirmation that there are no camera signs facing the traffic going towards Bromley for this parking area
•
• Confirmation that there are no images of a camera on the signs for this parking area
•
• Confirmation that there is a bus lane camera sign underneath the camera for vehicles headed towards Catford
•
• Confirmation that the camera is in fact a bus lane camera and not a parking camera
•
• What action was taken against the black vehicle parked in front of me
•
• What action was taken against the Police vehicle parked in front of the black vehicle
•
• A diagram of the parking area and signage - including directions the signage is facing and what is displayed
•
• Confirmation that the parking signs and loading signs are exactly the same size and misleadingly no attempt has been made to vary the size to convey different parking rules
•
• Confirmation that the parking area is marked out the same size for vehicles parking as well as vehicles loading
•
• Explain why the marked loading area is not larger to show that this area is for larger goods vehicles and not private cars?
•
• All paperwork/records of any discretion that was considered in this case
•
• All documents regarding consideration and examples of when discretion can be excersised
•
• All documents regarding 'traps' set to catch out drivers
•
• All documents regarding consideration of Human Rights and the issuing of camera PCNs
•
• All documents regarding the issue of overt and covert cameras
•
• Qualifications gained or obtained by Camera Operator 150
•
• Training records for Camera Operator 150
•
• PCNs issued - Targets numbers for camera operators
•
• Target numbers for Camera Operartor 150
•
• Over the past 12 months how many PCNs have been issued for vehicles parked in the loading area
•
• Over the past 12 months how many PCNs have been issued for vehicles overstaying in the parking area
•
• Over the past 12 months how often has Camera Operartor 150 reached his/her tagets and those numbers
•
• For the year 2021 how many bus lane PCNs have been issued using this camera, and broken down into months of the year
•
• For the year 2021 how many parking PCNs have been issued using this camera, and broken down into months of the year
•
• For the year 2020 how many bus lane PCNs have been issued using this camera, and broken down into months of the year
•
• For the year 2020 how many parking PCNs have been issued using this camera, and broken down into months of the year
•
• Explanation as to why a bus lane camera is being misused to enforce parking restrictions
•
• Explanation as to why Uniformed CEOs are not being used to monitor this area
•
• Explanation as to why a PCN is being issued when the alleged offence is 1 minute?
•
• Have the camera operations been contracted out from TfL - if so;
•
• What company was awarded the contract?
•
• What does the CEO of that company earn?
•
• What is the breakdown of income from PCNs that goes to TfL and the private company
•
• How much was that income for the past 5 years
We answered
TfL Ref: FOI-1768-2122
Thank you for your request received by Transport for London (TfL) on 8 November 2021.
Your request has been considered in accordance with the requirements of the Freedom of Information Act and our information access policy. Please note this excludes questions for information that relate to you or are about you. These questions have been dealt with as a Subject Access Request (SAR) in accordance with the Data Protection legislation.
I can confirm we hold some of the information you require. However, in accordance with the FOI Act we are refusing your request under section 14(1) of the FOI Act. After reviewing the substantial volume of information that your request captures, we consider that providing it 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. We do wish to clarify that whilst we consider that your request falls under section 14(1) of the FOI Act, this does not reflect a conclusion that it has been your intention to deliberately place an undue burden on our resources.
The ICO guidance provides the following examples of a 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. Additionally, Paragraph 71 of the guidance on section 14(1) (https://ico.org.uk/media/for-organisations/documents/1198/dealing-with-vexatious-requests.pdf ) states the following: 71. However, we consider there to be a high threshold for refusing a request on such grounds. This means that an authority is most likely to have a viable case where: · The requester has asked for a substantial volume of information AND · The authority has real concerns about potentially exempt information, which it will be able to substantiate if asked to do so by the ICO AND · Any potentially exempt information cannot easily be isolated because it is scattered throughout the requested material.
We believe that the wider purpose and value of your requests is not necessarily obvious and it exists solely for the purposes of avoiding a Penalty Charge Notice (PCN). This brings into question whether it is a justified and proportionate use of our time to comply. We consider the burden of retrieving, reviewing and redacting the information covered by your request would be disproportionate to the benefit of providing it. Therefore, we are refusing it under s14 of the FOI Act.
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/
You will note that the table halfway down that page includes the following advice to FOI applicants:
Do….“Give the authority ample opportunity to address any previous requests you have made before submitting new ones”; Don’t… “Submit frivolous or trivial requests; remember that processing any information request involves some cost to the public purse”; Don’t… “Disrupt a public authority by the sheer volume of information requested. Whether you are acting alone or in concert with others, this is a clear misuse of the Act and an abuse of your ‘right to know’”,
Finally, if you believe you were issued a PCN incorrectly, you can contact the CC&TE Correspondence team, with the PCN details, at [email protected] and they will look into it further for you.
Please see the attached information sheet for details of your right to appeal.
Yours sincerely
Eva Hextall FOI Case Management Team General Counsel Transport for London
