Hello Your website gives the motorist the following advice re the Congestion Charge: "Diverted into the congestion charging zone. If you are diverted into the congestion charging zone due to an incident, accident or roadworks you should either follow the diversion route or leave as soon as possible". 1. Can you please explain why TFL has decided to give the motorist advice on its website? What is the purpose of this advice? 2. Can you confirm how often this advice is reviewed and when the last review was conducted? 3. Can you please confirm that the advice quoted above was on your website on 21.11.2020. 3. Are all of your staff who deal with issuing PCNs / appeals etc relating to the Congestion Charge made aware the advice referred to above is on your website? 4. What training are TFL staff given in relation to information that is on your website? How often is this training given? 5. Can you confirm that if the motorist follows the above advice, they should not be liable to pay a PCN re the congestion charge? If you disagree, please explain why and why you disagree with information on your own website? 6 Can you confirm that the ordinary meaning of the sentence from your website above applies. And that the ordinary meaning can only be that if a motorist is diverted into the charging zone due to roadworks, they have two options. To either follow the diversion route OR leave the charging zone as soon as possible. If you disagree with the ordinary meaning of point 6, can you explain why. 7 Can you confirm whether there are any English language requirements for recruitment of your staff and what they are. For example, are all TFL staff required to have GCSE English as a condition of entry into TFL? 8 Can you explain what training staff dealing with PCNs have in relation to disclosure, their obligations re disclosure and also their training in relation to the Human Rights Act 1998 and the European Convention on Human Rights. For your information, the link containing the advice from your website has been copied below for your convenience. tfl.gov.uk/modes/driving/congestion-charge/penalties-and-enforcement/challenge-a-penalty-charge/make-a-representation#on-this-page-0 Please reply to me by email.

---

TfL Ref: FOI-2135-2021 and FOI-2153-2021

Thank you for your requests received by Transport for London 21^st and 23^rd January 2021.

Your requests have been considered in accordance with the requirements of the Freedom of Information Act and our information access policy. 

Case reference FOI-2135-2021 was a follow-up to an earlier case, reference FOI-1826-2021, which was closed because we did not receive the clarification requested within three weeks of the date of our request. Under that case you asked the following in relation to Penalty Charge Notice you received:

“1) A copy of the 'Adjudication Requirements' which is referred to at the bottom of your 'Evidence Checklist';

2) Records of every temporary diversion sign for northbound traffic approaching Vauxhall Bridge from south of the river Thames and how often they have been maintained since Vauxhall Bridge was closed.

3) Any documentary evidence, photos, CCTV you have of the signs referred to in point 2.

4) All records you have of my vehicle xxxxxx being in the congestion charging zone & records of payments made in relation to my vehicle being in the charging zone when payment is due.

5) Copies of all training records for appeals officer xxxxxxx relevant to her position as an appeals officer. Copies of any complaints made against her and her disciplinary record. I also need the dates and nature of training she has had in relation to Data Protection and the General Data Protection Regulations.

6) I also require the attendance of xxxxxxx at London Tribunals on xxxxxxx 2021 for our hearing at 10.45.

7)  All CCTV of my vehicle xxxxxx in the Congestion Charging Zone not on the 'signed diversion' and the exact length of time this was for.”

In our letter of 15^th December 2020 you were asked to specify the timeframe to which your questions related, and whether you actually wanted “any..CCTV” of any of the signs in question 2, given this could potentially involve a large amount of information and may lead to the consideration of exemptions. In your email of 23^rd January 2021 - logged as a new case with reference FOI-2135-2021 - you stated that the timeframe referred to is the “…most recent period of time when Vauxhall Bridge was closed for maintenance” and that “In relation to question 3, yes, I mean any CCTV or photos from any TFL owned cameras of any signs within the scope of question 2”, as well as confirming that you wanted the other FOI-questions in your original request responded to (having already established that some of the questions fell under data protection law as a ‘Subject Access Request’ rather than the Freedom of Information Act).

On 21^st January 2021 you submitted a separate, but related, request as follows, logged as case reference FOI-2153-2021:

“Your website gives the motorist the following advice re the Congestion Charge:

"Diverted into the congestion charging zone. If you are diverted into the congestion charging zone due to an incident, accident or roadworks you should either follow the diversion route or leave as soon as possible".

1. Can you please explain why TFL has decided to give the motorist advice on its website? What is the purpose of this advice?

2. Can you confirm how often this advice is reviewed and when the last review was conducted?

3. Can you please confirm that the advice quoted above was on your website on 21.11.2020.

3. Are all of your staff who deal with issuing PCNs / appeals etc relating to the Congestion Charge made aware the advice referred to above is on your website?

4. What training are TFL staff given in relation to information that is on your website? How often is this training given?

5. Can you confirm that if the motorist follows the above advice, they should not be liable to pay a PCN re the congestion charge? If you disagree, please explain why and why you disagree with information on your own website?

6 Can you confirm that the ordinary meaning of the sentence from your website above applies. And that the ordinary meaning can only be that if a motorist is diverted into the charging zone due to roadworks, they have two options. To either follow the diversion route OR leave the charging zone as soon as possible.

If you disagree with the ordinary meaning of point 6, can you explain why.

7 Can you confirm whether there are any English language requirements for recruitment of your staff and what they are. For example, are all TFL staff required to have GCSE English as a condition of entry into TFL?”

8 Can you explain what training staff dealing with PCNs have in relation to disclosure, their obligations re disclosure and also their training in relation to the Human Rights Act 1998 and the European Convention on Human Rights.

For your information, the link containing the advice from your website has been copied below for your convenience.

tfl.gov.uk/modes/driving/congestion-charge/penalties-and-enforcement/challenge-a-penalty-charge/make-a-representation#on-this-page-0”.

I can confirm that we hold some of the information you require. However, your requests are being refused under section 14(1) of the Freedom of Information Act. As explained in the guidance produced by the Information Commissioner on the application of this exemption (found on the Commissioner’s website here: https://ico.org.uk/media/1198/dealing-with-vexatious-requests.pdf), “Section 14(1) may be used in a variety of circumstances where a request, or its impact on a public authority, cannot be justified.” The guidance further states that, “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 of circumstances”, and, “..the key question to ask is whether the request is likely to cause a disproportionate or unjustified level of disruption, irritation or distress.” The guidance also states that, “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” and, “The public authority may also take into account the context and history of the request, where this is relevant.”

In this case we believe that sourcing the information to answer your questions would cause a disproportionate and unjustified level of disruption given the amount of work that would be required across various different teams, and that the requests have limited value. In terms of context, your requests relate to a Penalty Charge Notice that was issued to you last year and which I understand was in any case cancelled in December. The works on Vauxhall Bridge to which your requests relate lasted over 3 months, running from 9^th August 2020 to 30^th November 2020. Given this, trying to answer the request for “any CCTV or photos from any TFL owned cameras of any signs within the scope of question 2” would itself require a disproportionate amount of effort on our part simply to ascertain what might be held. As shown via the following page of our website, TfL operates a large number of different CCTV cameras for various different reasons, including cameras that are focussed on a specific location, cameras that can scan an area, cameras that can be remotely operated, and body-worn cameras worn by staff such as Revenue Control Inspectors: 

https://tfl.gov.uk/corporate/privacy-and-cookies/cctv

There is no single individual or team within TfL that has sole responsibility for all of these cameras, and there is no easy or efficient way of finding out what might be held in relation to your request. In order to source “any CCTV” of “any sign” for the three month period in question, we would have to establish the position of each of those signs for the entire period; establish what cameras there are - or might have been - in the vicinity that may potentially have captured footage of those signs over the entire period; and then work with different colleagues to establish exactly what was captured. If footage is held, we would then need to go through the process of reviewing it to ensure that it did not contain images of identifiable individuals, which if released may infringe data protection law. While addressing this element of your request alone would require an inordinate amount of effort on our part, addressing all of your other questions would add to the burden further still, with various different teams having to be involved in sourcing information.

We do not believe that this represents a proportionate use of TfL resource, which is largely funded by public money in the form of fares and taxes in the form of grants. This is in line with the Information Commissioner’s guidance cited above that states “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.” For these reasons we believe the section 14(1) exemption rightfully applies.

If you are considering submitting a further FOI request please think carefully about whether the request is essential at this current time, as answering FOI requests will require the use of limited resources and the attention of staff who could be supporting other essential activity. Where requests are made, please note that our response time may be impacted by the current situation.

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

Yours sincerely,

David Wells

FOI Case Officer

FOI Case Management Team

General Counsel

Transport for London

Back to top

---