Our ref: FOI-2826-2425/GH

Thank you for your request received by Transport for London (TfL) on 3 December 2024 asking for information shared at IDAG events.

Your request has been considered under the requirements of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and our information access policy. 

I can confirm that we do hold the information you require. However, we are refusing your request under section 14(1) of the Act. Due to the broad scope of your request 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. Information shared at IDAG meetings has come from all different teams across TfL. To answer your request we would need to reach out to many people, who would all have to search for relevant information. Once collated we would have to review all of the information to ensure it was suitable to be released. This 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 staff across the organisation. 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.” 

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. We consider the burden of retrieving, reviewing and redacting all of the ‘documentation, recordings, presentations or other materials’ would be disproportionate to the benefit of providing it. 

However, if you are interested in any specific topics or items mentioned in the minutes you have received, please re-submit a more focused request which we will, of course, consider. 

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

Yours sincerely

Graham Hurt

FOI Case Officer

FOI Case Management Team

General Counsel

Transport for London