Can you supply in excel format passenger usage data for bus route 296 from 1st July 2016 to 30th October 2017

---

TfL Ref: 2115-1718, 2121-1718, 2122-1718, 2123-1718, 2124-1718, 2125-1718, 2126-1718, 2127-1718, 2128-1718, 2270-1718, 2420-1718, 2421-1718, 2422-1718, 2424-1718, 2425-1718, 2426-1718, 2427-1718, 2428-1718.

Thank you for your requests received by Transport for London (TfL) recently, reference numbers as above asking for various bus passenger and bus route information.

Your requests have 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 requests under section 14(1) of the Act. After reviewing your 18 open requests we consider that retrieving and compiling all 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 these requests 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.

Our records show that, since March 2017, you have submitted 41 FOI requests for information. We are very enthusiastic about public transport ourselves and we recognise that people are interested in London’s iconic transport network. We arrange regular open days at our depots and last year provided over £5m grant funding for London Transport Museum, which holds a collection of 400,000 items. In addition we are publishing more and more information solely for the benefit of transport enthusiasts, including working timetables.

The Freedom of Information Act gives a right of access to information. Section 14(1) of the Act states that public authorities do not have to respond to vexatious requests. Vexatiousness is not defined in the FOI Act, but the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) has provided extensive guidance in determining whether or not a request is vexatious. This has been informed by recent decisions from the Upper Tribunal concerning vexatious requests. In view of this, we have considered your requests against this guidance in determining whether your requests could legitimately be considered to be vexatious and feel that s14 is engaged.

In the case of Information Commissioner vs Devon County Council and Dransfield [2012] the purpose of section 14 was defined as follows:

‘Section 14…is concerned with the nature of the request and has the effect of disapplying the citizen’s right under Section 1(1)…The purpose of Section 14…must be to protect the resources (in the broadest sense of that word) of the public authority from being squandered on disproportionate use of FOIA…’ (paragraph 10).

The Tribunal then went on to state that ‘vexatious’ could be defined as the

“…manifestly unjustified, inappropriate or improper use of a formal procedure.’ (paragraph 27).

The large number of live requests that we are currently processing cover a large amount of information across various periods of time with limited wider public interest.  For example you have asked for a monthly breakdown of passenger numbers for 9 different bus routes over a 16 month period.  Locating and compiling the information you have requested and drafting the 18 responses necessary would be a significant task. Whilst we recognise the requested information will be of interest to some people, we do not consider that the wider public interest is served by the diversion of resources that would be necessary to answer these numerous requests. In reaching this conclusion we have taken into account the 17 other requests you have submitted that we have answered since 10 August this year, but in this instance the current 18 open requests were sufficiently burdensome to engage s14 on its own.   The nature of your requests made under the Act leave us in little doubt that no matter what information we proactively publish, or make available to you in response to requests for transport information made under the Act, there is very likely to be another request for further unpublished information. Much of the information requested can only be located by a small number of specialist employees, meaning that they are diverted from their core duties.

We apologise that we are unable to assist you on this occasion.

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

Back to top

---