Request ID: FOI-4309-2324 Date published: 15 March 2024
You asked
Please could you release any reports, presentations, maps, graphics, or other documents (including data protection impact assessments) relating to TfL’s work with SamDesk and Immense, as described in this news story - so covering the time period from 2021 until the present day.
https://www.fleetnews.co.uk/news/fleet-industry-news/2021/08/09/tfl-to-adopt-new-technology-to-detect-incidents-on-london-s-roads
We answered
Our Ref: FOI-4309-2324
Thank you for your request received on 20 February 2024 asking for information about our work with SamDesk and Immense.
Your request has been considered in accordance with the requirements of the Freedom of Information (FOI) 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 FOI Act. After reviewing a sample of our records 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.”
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 have identified over 150 documents that are captured by your requests, this equates to approximately 3000 pages. This would need to be reviewed in its entirety to determine whether any exemptions would be applicable. Given that the majority of the information is commercial in nature, it is likely that an exemption would need to be considered for the majority of the material.
We consider the burden of retrieving, reviewing, and redacting the information would be disproportionate to the benefit of providing it. Therefore, due to the wide and unfocused scope of your request, we are refusing it under section14 of the FOI Act. If you would like to re-submit a more focused, specific request then we will, of course, consider it. For example, a request for information on a particular, specific, subject or issue over a limited period of time is less likely to raise concerns about the disproportionate effort required to answer it. Alternatively, if you have specific questions then we may be able to process these rather than a blanket request for documents.
We will consider your request again, if you are able to narrow its scope so that we can more easily locate, retrieve and extract the information you are seeking.
If you are not satisfied with this response 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
