Dear Sir or Madam,

3/12/08

Dear Sir or Madam, I am researching details regarding Gatso camera
108, on the Bristol Road near Viceroy Close. Under FOI, please
advise me of the DATES on which the camera has been calibrated
during the past THREE years. Please advise me of the DATES of any
site visits to camera 108 since 28 October 2008, the PURPOSE of the
visits, the names(or job titles) of any personnel who were in
attendance and provide a copy of any site reports(by pdf file).
Please provide information as to WHO requested that the tree
planted in front of the camera should be removed,any reason for the
removal being necessary, and WHEN this work was requested. Please
advise if, since 28 October 2008, this camera has been discussed
with anyone outside of the partnership, and if so please identify
them.

Please reply within the usual FOI timescales VIA THIS WEBSITE,and
attach any supporting documents as pdf files to justify the facts.

Yours faithfully, Dennis Fallon

Dear Mr Fallon

FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT 2000

Your request for information, received 03 December 2008, concerning Camera Housing 108, has now been considered.

Unfortunately, it has not been possible to meet your requirements in full. Information has been excluded. Instead, I please find below a partial response /summary to your request.

The majority of the requested information is exempt by virtue of section of Sections 31 and 38 of the FOI Act. Release of this information would provide information about the operation of a specific camera housing site and, as noted in the Tribunal decision regarding Hemsley vs The Information Commissioner and Northamptonshire Police (EA/2005/0026), release of detailed information could set a precedent for further FOI requests. Such a situation could create a situation where It might be difficult to distinguish between the public spirited motivation of such as the appellant. and others whose purpose was less admirable, for example the creation of a commercial website selling forecasts on the operation of safety cameras. See:

http://www.informationtribunal.gov.uk/Do...

and also

http://www.informationtribunal.gov.uk/do...(18%20january%202007).pdf

Please find attached the exemptions relevant to your request and a summary of the reasons why they have been applied.

However I can answer part of your request. At the request of the Police, Peter Bethell of Birmingham City Council authorised the removal of the tree on 23rd May 2008. Removal was required because, although the tree was not actually obscuring the camera, it had potential to cause an obscurity if the tree was left unaddressed. The tree was actually removed on 13th November 2008 by The Trees Section with the Parks and Nature Conservation Division within Birmingham City Council.

Your attention is drawn to your right to request a re-examination of your case under West Midlands Police review procedure (attached). Please note that such an appeal must be received within six months of the date of this correspondence.

Yours sincerely,

Freedom of Information Unit

West Midlands Police in complying with their statutory duty under sections 1 and 11 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 to release the enclosed information will not breach the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. However, the rights of the copyright owner of the enclosed information will continue to be protected by law. Applications for the copyright owner s written permission to reproduce any part of the attached information should be addressed to The Force Solicitor, West Midlands Police Headquarters, Lloyd House, Colmore Circus Queensway, Birmingham, B4 6NQ.

show quoted sections

Dear Sir or Madam,

Please pass this on to the person who conducts Freedom of
Information reviews.

I am writing to request an internal review of West Midlands
Police's handling of my FOI request 'Bristol Road Speed camera
information'.

A full history of my FOI request and all correspondence is
available on the Internet at this address:
http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/br...

Thank you for your email reply to my FOI 1911/08 regarding the
recent maintenance history of Safety Camera 108. Unfortunately your
reply contains zero useful data regarding any of the queries and
appears to be excessively restrictive.TO QUOTE FROM YOUR REPLY "For
a public interest test, issues that favour release need to be
measured against issues that favour non-disclosure. The public
interest is not what interests the public, or a particular
individual, but what will be the greater good, if released, to the
community as a whole".FROM MY POINT OF VIEW I am concerned that the
camera may have been mismanaged,especially considering that there
has originally been an attempt to hide the camera by planting a
tree in front of it,contrary to the DfT guidelines,and although
these Guidelines are simply `best practices`it is a matter of
concern that the `best practices`were being deliberately
contradicted.I ACCEPT that you have obvious reasons for with
holding the details of WHO has been responsible,before and
subsequent, and that the police wish for a cloud of total
uncertainty to surround cameras to maintain the threat of
enforcement, but I do require the DATES on which the camera has
been calibrated during the past THREE years, as this is a legal
requirement that does NOT impact on camera integrity.It would be a
matter of public concern if the camera was not being legally
calibrated, an ideal candidate for a reassuring disclosure under
FOI,but alternatively a concern if they are unavailable.It would be
most reassuring to see copies of the THREE Calibration Certificates
provided by way of pdf attachment, or a SPECIFIC explanation as to
why the certificates and calibration dates are being with
held.Please post all the required response,including pdf`s, via
this website.

Yours sincerely,

dennis fallon