Request ID: FOI-3514-2223 Date published: 19 April 2023
You asked
Hello,
Could I please have some data on the vandalism of ULEZ cameras, such as wires being cut, or cameras being obscured? Can I also have how much it cost TfL to replace/fix?
Could I have this broken up by month from November 2022, until the latest month available, in an Excel or Google Sheets format?
Here's an example of the sort of format I'm hoping for:
Number of vandalism incidents of ULEZ cameras reported to TfL Cost to TfL to fix/replace
November 2022 1 £399
December 2022 3 £1,029
January 2022 2 £826
Thank you.
We answered
TfL Ref: 3514-2223 Thank you for your request received by Transport for London (TfL) on 25 March 2023 asking for information about ULEZ cameras and vandalism. 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. You asked: Could I please have some data on the vandalism of ULEZ cameras, such as wires being cut, or cameras being obscured? Can I also have how much it cost TfL to replace/fix? Could I have this broken up by month from November 2022, until the latest month available, in an Excel or Google Sheets format? I can confirm that we hold the information you require. However, we have concluded that the information is exempt from release under sections 31 (law enforcement), 38 (Health and Safety) and 43 (Commercial Interests) of the FOI Act. In all three cases, TfL considers that the release of this information would be likely to cause the prejudice or harm indicated by the exemptions, by encouraging vandalism to target our traffic enforcement cameras. Section 31 applies where release of information would be likely to prejudice the prevention of crime. As you will no doubt be aware, the TfL network can often be the target of graffiti and other vandalism, and anything that encourages this or can be used to assist with this criminal activity is detrimental to our efforts to combat it. Whilst we make no suggestion that you would use this information for anything other than you own personal interest, disclosure of this information to you has to be regarded as a disclosure to ‘the public at large’.Our view is that release of the information would be likely to encourage further instances of copycat vandalism by making TfL assets a more attractive target for further vandalism as well as providing useful information to those who have previously and may wish to carry out these criminal attacks. We believe section 31 is therefore correctly engaged as release of the information would prejudice the prevention of crime. Some of the cameras being targeted may have a live electricity supply to them and lives could be endangered by individuals tampering with the wiring, as well as the potential danger to individuals from falling from equipment or being involved in road traffic accidents whilst carrying out these activities. We believe that there is good reason to conclude that release of the requested information would lead to an increase in incidents of vandalism to our cameras by encouraging other like-minded individuals to do the same, therefore we believe that the section 38 “health and safety” exemption is rightfully engaged. In relation to the section 43 exemption, clearly there is a direct financial cost to TfL in dealing with vandalism both in terms of protecting cameras from such crime and in dealing with the consequences when it does occur. These costs comprise the repair works as well as the subsequent disruption it causes to the road network in having to repair cameras and close sections of the footway and roads to facilitate this. This not only leads to significant delays and inconvenience for our customers, but also has direct financial consequences for TfL in deterring and dealing with the effects of the vandalism. As sections 31, 38 and 43 are “qualified” exemptions we are required to consider whether the greater public interest lies in withholding the information or in releasing it in any event. We recognise that there is an inherent public interest in openness and transparency, and in particular where this relates to the maintenance of public assets and the effective expenditure of public funds. In this case, it may also be of interest in enabling the general public to understand the extent of this problem on TfL’s road network. However, we do not consider that there are any other public interest factors in favour of the disclosure of this information, which otherwise is only likely to be of interest to those who follow and/or commit vandalism. On the other hand, there is a very strong public interest in preventing further crime, in protecting the health and safety of individuals and in protecting the commercial interests of TfL as a public authority. As outlined above, we consider that the publication of this information would be likely to increase the number of vandalism incidents, and this in turn would have considerable implications for law enforcement, public safety as well as TfL expenditure. We therefore believe that the greater public interest favours the application of the exemptions, as we do not consider that the publication of this additional information would add sufficiently to public understanding of this issue, especially when weighed against the consequences of increased vandalism. Please see the attached information sheet for details of your right to appeal. Yours sincerely Sara Thomas FOI Case Officer FOI Case Management Team General Counsel Transport for London [email protected]
