FOI request detail

MyTaxi

Request ID: FOI-2430-1819
Date published: 11 January 2019

You asked

I note that MyTaxi is still claiming that they are licensed (by TfL presumably) - can I ask whether TfL has written to the advertising standards agency regarding this misleading advertising unless of course, TfL has now licensed MyTaxi? Additionally, can you please provide all e-mails, attachments and discussions notes under an FOI request between TPH and any @mytaxi.com email suffix between 1-6-2018 to 1-12-2018.

We answered

Our Ref:          FOI-2430-1819

Thank you for your request received on 23 December 2018 asking for correspondence with MyTaxi.

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 the correspondence 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. 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 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.”

As previously advised, 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. 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 further consider that all of these three elements are met.

We have done an initial search for all emails held by TfL sent/received by email accounts with a @mytaxi.com suffix and this has returned 208 hits. These results contain a significant number of emails which appear to be of little to no material value (i.e. administrative emails setting up a meeting), and most, if not all, of the results will require the redaction personal data, alongside any other potentially exempt material.

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. We therefore conclude this process of manually reviewing the material creates a burden that far outweighs the benefit of disclosure given the very unfocussed and non-specific request.

As you have been advised in the past, you should consider precisely the information you require in order to ensure that your request is less likely to raise concerns about the disproportionate effort required to answer it.

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

Yours sincerely

Gemma Jacob
Senior FOI Case Officer
FOI Case Management Team
General Counsel
Transport for London

[email protected]

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.