Request ID: FOI-4626-2324 Date published: 24 April 2024
You asked
Follow-up to FOI-4209-2324: Dear FOI,
Thank you for your reply.
Firstly, you say that “the search function cannot differentiate between searches with and without an apostrophe and so those results are identical”.
That would explain identical results for a search of “Julie’s map” and “Julies map”.
I note that searches for “Julie map” and “Juliemap” gave different results.
Thus searches for “Julies map” or “Julie’s map” and for “Julie map” should yield different results – even if it makes no difference which of “Julies map” or “Julie’s map” is used.
Please re-run the search and confirm.
‘
Secondly, I note that you say: “these results will include duplicates of the same email”.
Please provide copies of the 18 + 198 emails that were sent to .co.uk email addresses.
It seems likely that several will be duplicates, so the real total for analysis will be notably less than the 216 total.
The key information sought is the SUBJECT and the BODY of the emails, and the outside body to which they were sent.
The specific email addresses used to send are not required, but the generic part is desired – ie the part after the “@”.
‘
Thirdly, please run a search for any emails sent to google.com.
Then please provide as above copies of all such emails.
We answered
TfL Ref: EIR-4626-2324
Thank you for your further request of 13th March 2024 asking for information about emails containing variations of the phrase “Julie’s map”.
Your request has been considered in accordance with the requirements of the Environmental Information Regulations (EIR) and our information access policy.
In response to your first point, there is no need to re-run the previous search as the results are consistent with the explanation previously set out. The search function does not differentiate between keywords that do and do not have an apostrophe. Hence, a search for “Julie’s Map” (i.e. with an apostrophe) returns the exact same results as a search for “Julies Map” (without an apostrophe). This is precisely what the results shown in our previous response show. The search function does, however, differentiate between phrases that have a space in them. So ‘Julie Map’ (with a space) will return different results to ‘Juliemap’ (without a space). Again, this is what the previous results show. There were no emails containing the phrase “Juliemap”. We have, however, run a new search as requested for any emails sent to an email address ending “google.com”. There were no returns.
In regard to your request for the 216 emails previously cited, we have reviewed all of these and can provide you with the attached documents that provide the six relevant email chains that we are able to share. The names and contact details of external staff, and the contact details of TfL staff, have been redacted under Regulation 13 of the EIR, the exception that protects against the unfair release of personal data. Please note, as previously explained, the 216 emails found included duplicates of the same email, as the same email may be found across multiple mailboxes. So, using a theoretical example to illustrate the point, if a single email was sent to 10 recipients, then that email would show up ten times in the search results. If that same email was then responded to, copied to all of the original recipients, then it would show up another ten times. In such an event we have not provided duplicated copies of every such email but, instead, a single email (the latest one of the email “chain”) meaning that 20 emails found in the search would result in only one email – the most recent of the chain. This is the principal reason why the 216 emails originally found have been reduced to only six. Another reason is that some emails are exempt from disclosure in their entirety. These fall into two categories as follows:
Emails between our lawyers discussing the ULEZ expansion judicial review. These emails are exempt from disclosure under Regulation 12(5)(b) of the EIR, which relates to “the course of justice and inquiries” and in particular the aspects of that exception around ‘legal professional privilege’.
Intelligence briefings which contain information about the vandalism of ULEZ infrastructure and measures to combat it. This material is exempt from disclosure under Regulations R12(5)(a) - “international relations, defence, national security & public safety” (in this instance specifically public safety); regulation 12(5)(b) – “the course of justice, the ability of a person to receive a fair trial or the ability of the public authority to conduct and inquiry of a criminal or disciplinary nature” (in this instance specifically the course of justice); and regulation 12(5)(e) – “confidentially of commercial or industrial information where such confidentiality is provide by law to protect a legitimate economic interest.” The rationale for this is as explained in previous responses to requests which have asked for information which may encourage the vandalism of ULEZ infrastructure, such as the following: https://tfl.gov.uk/corporate/transparency/freedom-of-information/foi-request-detail?referenceId=FOI-0970-2324This approach has recently been agreed by the Information Commissioner in relation to a similar, previous request, as can be seen in the following decision notices - the same arguments apply in your case: Microsoft Word - IC-274392-K9K7 DN for website (ico.org.uk) and ic-262996-q1d5.pdf (ico.org.uk)
In both categories where emails have been withheld in full, the references to “Julie’s map” was not the principal subject of the emails but is simply referred to in passing.
Note that some further, minor redactions have also been made to two of the six emails provided, again under Regulations 12(5)(a), 12(5)(b) and 12(5)(e).
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,
David Wells FOI Case Officer FOI Case Management Team General Counsel Transport for London
