Request ID: FOI-2825-2324 Date published: 10 November 2023
You asked
Please send with your response a copy of the relevant traffic order and proof that the camera in use is an approved device as well as the camera safety and maintenance logs. Please consider this a request under The Freedom of Information Act 2000. I wish to also request the following information should my appeal be rejected:
+ The CCTV camera's instruction manual for operation as well as information regarding the amount of PCN's issued using this CCTV camera, and the frequency of PCN's issued.
+ Road maintenance logs and information regarding the time and date the red route markings were inspected and if necessary, re-painted
+ Information about the amount of PCN's issued around the area due to alleged 'red route' offences
+ Information about the amount of successful and unsuccessful appeals to alleged 'red route' offences around this area
+ Information about the amount of PCN's issued across the London area via CCTV for alleged red route offences and further to this, information about the amount of successful and unsuccessful appeals to alleged red route offences within the London area
We answered
TfL Ref: 2825-2324
Thank you for your request received by Transport for London (TfL) on 16 October 2023 asking for information about CCTV cameras and Penalty Charge Notices.
Your request has been considered in accordance with the requirements of the Freedom of Information Act and our information access policy. You asked for:
a copy of the relevant traffic order and proof that the camera in use is an approved device as well as the camera safety and maintenance logs. Please consider this a request under The Freedom of Information Act 2000. I wish to also request the following information should my appeal be rejected:
+ The CCTV camera's instruction manual for operation as well as information regarding the amount of PCN's issued using this CCTV camera, and the frequency of PCN's issued.
+ Road maintenance logs and information regarding the time and date the red route markings were inspected and if necessary, re-painted
+ Information about the amount of PCN's issued around the area due to alleged 'red route' offences
+ Information about the amount of successful and unsuccessful appeals to alleged 'red route' offences around this area
+ Information about the amount of PCN's issued across the London area via CCTV for alleged red route offences and further to this, information about the amount of successful and unsuccessful appeals to alleged red route offences within the London area
+ Information on the amount of vehicles involved in accidents within this area, and within the London area due to red route offences
I can confirm that we do hold some of the information you require. However, your request is being refused under section 14(1) of the Freedom of Information Act, which provides an exemption to the disclosure of information where a request is considered to be ‘vexatious’. In reaching this conclusion we have drawn on guidance from the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO), both in relation to the specific application of section 14 and in relation to FOI-handling more generally.
You will note that this guidance includes the following advice to public authorities:
“Section 14(1) may be used in a variety of circumstances where a request, or its impact on a public authority, cannot be justified. 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 circumstances”;
“Sometimes a request may be so patently unreasonable or objectionable that it will obviously be vexatious….In cases where the issue is not clear-cut, the key question to ask is whether the request is likely to cause a disproportionate or unjustified level of disruption, irritation or distress…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”;
“The public authority may take into account the context and history of the request, where this is relevant”;
“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.”
“Section 14(1) is designed to protect public authorities by allowing them to refuse any requests which have the potential to cause a disproportionate or unjustified level of disruption, irritation or distress”.
“…the concepts of ‘proportionality’ and ‘justification’ are central to any consideration of whether a request is vexatious”;
The guidance includes some specific indicators to help public authorities judge whether or not a case should be considered vexatious. This includes the following:
“Burden on the authority: the effort required to meet the request will be so grossly oppressive in terms of the strain on time and resources, that the authority cannot reasonably be expected to comply, no matter how legitimate the subject matter or valid the intentions of the requester”;
There is already an established appeals process for Penalty Charge Notices; which anyone who receives a PCN is advised they may use..
We consider that several indicators of section 14 are met and therefore have concluded that the exemption is engaged in this instance. We would like to reassure you that this refusal notice has no bearing whatsoever on the processing of, for example, any related PCN appeal which will be considered as appropriate but we would strongly encourage you to utilise the pre-existing and well-established appeals process to raise any concerns you may have with the PCN that may have been issued. If this is not the information you are looking for, or if you are unable to access it for any reason, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Please see the attached information sheet for details of your right to appeal as well as information on copyright and what to do if you would like to re-use any of the information we have disclosed.
Yours sincerely
Jasmine Howard FOI Case Officer FOI Case Management Team General Counsel Transport for London
