BUS LANE + YELLOW BOX CONTRAVENTIONS – Last Five Years - By Month
Dear Transport for London,
Please provide a spreadsheet showing the number of bus lane contraventions detected by TFL in each month for the past five years.
Please also provide a spreadsheet showing the number of yellow box junction contraventions detected by TFL in each month for the past five years.
Please also provide a spreadsheet of the (other) moving traffic violations detected by TFL in each month for the past five years.
Separate listing for each type of violation, please.
Please note - data provided by London Councils only includes annual totals, and does not break down moving traffic violations by type.
This information is required to enable the public to assess the extent to which any non-compliance by the public with TFL traffic rules is being enforced across London.
Yours faithfully,
Nyron Johnston
Dear Nyron Johnston,
TfL Ref: FOI-1734-2425
Thank you for your request received by Transport for London (TfL) on 27
August 2024 asking for information about bus lane and yellow box junction
contraventions.
Your request will be processed in accordance with the requirements of the
Freedom of Information Act and our information access policy.
A response will be sent to you by 23 September 2024. We publish a
substantial range of information on our website on subjects including
operational performance, contracts, expenditure, journey data, governance
and our financial performance. This includes data which is frequently
asked for in FOI requests or other public queries. Please check
[1]http://www.tfl.gov.uk/corporate/transpar... see if this helps you.
We will publish anonymised versions of requests and responses on
the [2]www.tfl.gov.uk website. We will not publish your name and we will
send a copy of the response to you before it is published on our website.
In the meantime, if you would like to discuss this matter further, please
do not hesitate to contact me.
Yours sincerely,
Mary Abidakun
FOI Case Officer
FOI Case Management Team
General Counsel
Transport for London
══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
From: Nyron Johnston <[FOI #1168028 email]>
Sent: 27 August 2024 20:04
To: FOI <[email address]>
Subject: Freedom of Information request - BUS LANE + YELLOW BOX
CONTRAVENTIONS – Last Five Years - By Month
Dear Transport for London,
Please provide a spreadsheet showing the number of bus lane contraventions
detected by TFL in each month for the past five years.
Please also provide a spreadsheet showing the number of yellow box
junction contraventions detected by TFL in each month for the past five
years.
Please also provide a spreadsheet of the (other) moving traffic violations
detected by TFL in each month for the past five years.
Separate listing for each type of violation, please.
Please note - data provided by London Councils only includes annual
totals, and does not break down moving traffic violations by type.
This information is required to enable the public to assess the extent to
which any non-compliance by the public with TFL traffic rules is being
enforced across London.
Yours faithfully,
Nyron Johnston
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Please use this email address for all replies to this request:
[FOI #1168028 email]
Is [TfL request email] the wrong address for Freedom of Information
requests to Transport for London? If so, please contact us using this
form:
[3]https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/change_re...
Disclaimer: This message and any reply that you make will be published on
the internet. Our privacy and copyright policies:
[4]https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/help/offi...
For more detailed guidance on safely disclosing information, read the
latest advice from the ICO:
[5]https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/help/ico-...
[6]https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/help/ico-...
Please note that in some cases publication of requests and responses will
be delayed.
If you find this service useful as an FOI officer, please ask your web
manager to link to us from your organisation's FOI page.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
This message has been scanned for malware by Forcepoint. [7]www.forcepoint.com
References
Visible links
1. http://www.tfl.gov.uk/corporate/transpar...
2. http://www.tfl.gov.uk/
3. https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/change_re...
4. https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/help/offi...
5. https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/help/ico-...
6. https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/help/ico-...
7. http://www.forcepoint.com/
Dear Mr Johnston
Thank you for your request received by us on 27 August 2024 asking for
information about contraventions.
Your request has been considered under the requirements of the
Environmental Information Regulations (EIRs) and our information access
policy.
Unfortunately because of its complexity, we will be unable to resolve your
request within the initial statutory 20 working day deadline.
To enable us to fully consider your request, in accordance with the EIRs
we have had to extend the deadline for providing a response to 40 working
days from the date we received your request. The amended date for a final
response is now 18 October. We are working hard to ensure that you receive
a response before this date.
I apologise for the delay and any inconvenience this may cause you.
If you are not satisfied with this response, please read the attached
help-sheet entitled ‘Your Right to Appeal.’
Yours sincerely
Mary Abidakun
FOI Case Officer
Transport for London
This message has been scanned for malware by Forcepoint. [1]www.forcepoint.com
References
Visible links
1. http://www.forcepoint.com/
Dear Nyron Johnston,
TfL Ref: FOI-1734-2425
Thank you for your request received by Transport for London (TfL) on 27
August 2024 asking for information about bus lane and yellow box junction
contraventions.
Your request has been considered in accordance with the requirements of
the Environmental Information Regulations (EIR) and our information access
policy.
I can confirm that we hold the information you require. However your
request is being refused under Regulation 12(4)(b) of the EIR on the basis
that it is ‘manifestly unreasonable’.
As we have set out to you previously, we believe your requests are
submitted within a pattern or requests by others acting in concert or,
more likely, by one individual using multiple pseudonyms.
Whether the requests have been submitted by individuals acting together or
by one individual acting alone, they nonetheless represent a sustained and
cumulative burden and cost which we do not believe is proportionate to
their value. In reaching this conclusion we have taken account of the
Information Commissioner’s guidance on the use of Regulation 12(4)(b),
which can be seen online here:
[1]https://ico.org.uk/media/1615/manifestly...
As you can see, the guidance includes the following:
“This exception can be used:
• when the request is vexatious; or
• when the cost of compliance with the request would be too great.”
“The purpose of the exception is to protect public authorities from
exposure to a disproportionate burden or an unjustified level of distress,
disruption or irritation, in handling information requests.”
“In assessing whether the cost or burden of dealing with a request is “too
great”, public authorities will need to consider the proportionality of
the burden or costs involved and decide whether they are clearly or
obviously unreasonable.
This will mean taking into account all the circumstances of the case
including:
- the context in which the request is made, which may include the burden
of responding to other requests on the same subject from the same
requester.”
“... there may be occasions where it permissible to consider a number of
EIR requests together when deciding if they are manifestly unreasonable on
the grounds of cost. This is in line with the approach to requests
considered manifestly unreasonable on the grounds that they are vexatious,
where the context in which they are made can be taken into account.”
The cumulative effect of these requests is that it ultimately creates a
disruption and sustained burden to our colleagues across the organisation
whose principal function is the running of transport services, or the
support services required to make that happen, which ultimately comes at a
cost to the public purse. Providing input to respond to information
requests requires the re-allocation and diversion of their resources and
places a burden on a small number of personnel. All of this leads us to
believe that answering this latest series of requests, further to those
already answered, is not a justified and proportionate use of our time,
and that there is no wider public interest in doing so. A significant
volume of information on all of the subjects that feature within your
requests can be found on our published responses at the following link:
[2]https://tfl.gov.uk/corporate/transparenc...
Where you have questions or concerns that require the provision of advice,
explanation or opinion we would encourage you to submit them to the
relevant area of TfL by using the following contact pages:
[3]https://tfl.gov.uk/help-and-contact/ . We would also recommend that you
use a singular account to submit requests and allow time between requests
to ensure that you are making the best use of your information access
rights.
Please see the attached information sheet for details of your right to
appeal
Yours sincerely,
Mary Abidakun
FOI Case Officer
FOI Case Management Team
General Counsel
Transport for London
════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
From: Nyron Johnston <[4][FOI #1168028 email]>
Sent: 27 August 2024 20:04
To: FOI <[5][email address]>
Subject: Freedom of Information request - BUS LANE + YELLOW BOX
CONTRAVENTIONS – Last Five Years - By Month
Dear Transport for London,
Please provide a spreadsheet showing the number of bus lane contraventions
detected by TFL in each month for the past five years.
Please also provide a spreadsheet showing the number of yellow box
junction contraventions detected by TFL in each month for the past five
years.
Please also provide a spreadsheet of the (other) moving traffic violations
detected by TFL in each month for the past five years.
Separate listing for each type of violation, please.
Please note - data provided by London Councils only includes annual
totals, and does not break down moving traffic violations by type.
This information is required to enable the public to assess the extent to
which any non-compliance by the public with TFL traffic rules is being
enforced across London.
Yours faithfully,
Nyron Johnston
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Please use this email address for all replies to this request:
[6][FOI #1168028 email]
Is [7][TfL request email] the wrong address for Freedom of Information
requests to Transport for London? If so, please contact us using this
form:
[8]https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/change_re...
Disclaimer: This message and any reply that you make will be published on
the internet. Our privacy and copyright policies:
[9]https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/help/offi...
For more detailed guidance on safely disclosing information, read the
latest advice from the ICO:
[10]https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/help/ico-...
[11]https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/help/ico-...
Please note that in some cases publication of requests and responses will
be delayed.
If you find this service useful as an FOI officer, please ask your web
manager to link to us from your organisation's FOI page.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
This message has been scanned for malware by Forcepoint. [12]www.forcepoint.com
References
Visible links
1. https://ico.org.uk/media/1615/manifestly...
2. https://tfl.gov.uk/corporate/transparenc...
3. https://tfl.gov.uk/help-and-contact/
4. mailto:[foi%20#1168028%20email]
5. mailto:[email%20address]
6. mailto:[foi%20#1168028%20email]
7. mailto:[tfl%20request%20email]
8. https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/change_re...
9. https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/help/offi...
10. https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/help/ico-...
11. https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/help/ico-...
12. http://www.forcepoint.com/
Dear Transport for London,
Please pass this on to the person who conducts Freedom of Information reviews.
I am writing to request an internal review of Transport for London's handling of my FOI request 'BUS LANE + YELLOW BOX CONTRAVENTIONS – Last Five Years - By Month'.
1 – I have made three FOI Requests to TFL.
2 – This FOI was made on 27-8-24.
It was acknowledged by TFL on 9-9-24.
On 23-9-24, TFL extended the time for reply to 18-10-24, citing complexity.
On 18-10-24 TFL refused to provide any information.
3 – The previous request was made on 9-4-24, and was refused.
4 – My other request was made on 15-3-24, and responded with "Information not held" on 9-4-24.
5 – You state that you “believe your requests are submitted within a pattern or requests by others acting in concert or, more likely, by one individual using multiple pseudonyms”.
However you have not stated which other request you are referring-to, and I have no idea why you are linking my request with any other ones – let alone which ones and why.
I say this is manifestly unreasonable of TFL.
- - - -
TFL - Transport for London – is responsible for a vast range of transport services across London, including management of the main road network, and providing funding for local councils to manage the remainder.
It is only to be expected that TFL will receive a large number of FOI requests, and that many will relate to similar issues – without there being any connection between those asking for information, other than having an interest in transport in London – which applies to many millions of people.
Indeed, TFL have received over 8000 FOI Requests via the What Do They Know website, as well as many by other means.
While most are treated fairly, it is noticeable that TFL has sought to avoid providing information that might raise public doubt in the sense, propriety and legitimacy of TFL actions.
> A significant volume of information on all of the subjects that feature within your requests
TFL know that they have not published the information I have asked for – nor anything similar.
Information on other subjects is not helpful or relevant.
Manifestly unreasonable is said by the ICO to be equivalent to vexatious.
Thus the ICO Guidance on vexatious is relevant.
TFL quote many sections of ICO guidance, most of which relate to the cost of providing information.
TFL have made no attempt to quantify the cost of providing my information, nor indeed of any other they may have provided to other people.
TFL say:
> All of this leads us to believe that answering this latest series of requests, further to those already answered, is not a justified and proportionate use of our time, and that there is no wider public interest in doing so.
This sentence makes no sense.
What is this “latest series of requests” – I have made one in 5 months, and I am still simply trying to get the basic information which I have asked for – TFL needs to say which requests it is claiming to be part of a series?
“further to those already answered” – so which Requests is TFL referring to – and how are they connected to myself?
“there is no wider public interest in doing so” – TFL has made no case that the information I have asked for is not information of general public interest – when many would say that is exactly the kind of information for which FOI is intended.
6 – Under FOI Guidelines set out by the ICO, TFL is obliged to consider the following.
A - the burden (on the public authority and its staff);
the motive (of the requester);
the value or serious purpose (of the request); and
any harassment or distress (of and to staff).
B - The key test is to determine whether the request is likely to cause a disproportionate or unjustified level of disruption, irritation or distress. A useful starting point is to assess the value or purpose of the request before you look at the impact handling the request would have on you.
There is no apparent reason why this Request would impose any significant burden upon TFL.
TFL has made no attempt to quantify any burden.
Although not required to do so, I gave the following reason:
“This information is required to enable the public to assess the extent to which any non-compliance by the public with TFL traffic rules is being enforced across London.”
TFL has made no attempt to assess the motive for this FOI.
TFL is well aware that there is public concern over its enforcement practices, and there is obvious value in the information requested.
TFL has made no attempt to assess the value or serious purpose (of the request).
There is no way this Request can be considered to be causing any harassment or distress (of and to staff).
C – “Does the request have a value or serious purpose in terms of there being an objective public interest in the information sought?” The public interest can encompass a wide range of values and principles relating to what is in the best interests of society, including, but not limited to:
holding public authorities to account for their performance;
understanding their decisions;
transparency; and
ensuring justice.
It is clear the answer to that is YES it does.
D - When considering the amount of work that would be involved in dealing with a request and whether it would impose an unreasonable burden, you need to take account of the level of resources that your organisation has at its disposal.
TFL is a vast organisation, with a budget of several £B.
TFL has made no attempt to justify any burden from answering this Request.
E - It is common for a potentially vexatious request to be the latest in a series of requests submitted by an individual.
TFL has made no attempt here to quantify the number of requests, nor the frequency that it is considering.
F - The key question to consider is whether the value and purpose of the request justifies the distress, disruption or irritation that would be incurred by complying with it. You should judge this as objectively as possible. In other words, would a reasonable person think that the value and purpose of the request are enough to justify the impact on the authority?
This balancing exercise can be represented as follows:
Value of the requested information to the public
V
Evidence that dealing with request will cause disruption, irritation or distress
TFL has made no attempt to address this issue.
G - In some cases, you may believe that several different requesters are acting together as part of a campaign to disrupt your organisation by the sheer weight of FOIA requests they are submitting. Then, you can take this into account when determining whether any of those requests are vexatious.
You need to have sufficient evidence to substantiate any claim of a link between the requests before you can go on to consider whether section 14(1) applies on these grounds. Some examples of the types of evidence that could support your case are:
the requests are identical or very similar;
there is an unusual pattern of requests, for example a large number have been submitted within a relatively short space of time;
TFL have produced no “evidence to substantiate any claim of a link” whatever.
TFL has not identified any requests from any other person which fulfil the above – or indeed any requests at all.
There is nothing about my three requests that suggest any attempt to “disrupt your organisation”.
H – You must differentiate between cases where the requesters are abusing their information rights to engage in a campaign of disruption, and those where the requesters are using FOIA as a channel to obtain information that will assist their campaign.
If the requests are motivated by a genuine desire to gather information about an underlying issue, section 14(1) may still apply. This is if the aggregated burden of dealing with all the requests has become disproportionate to their value.
It is also important to bear in mind that sometimes a large number of individuals will independently ask for information on the same subject because an issue is of media or local interest. You should therefore rule this explanation out before arriving at the conclusion that the requesters are acting in concert or as part of a campaign.
If you do conclude that the requests are vexatious, then you should issue refusal notices in the normal manner. It is also useful to record your grounds for concluding the request was part of a campaign, in case a complaint is later made to the ICO.
TFL has not addressed the above.
TFL must say which FOI Requests it is linking and why.
I - Finally, if you refuse a request and the requester complains, then you should recognise the importance of the internal review stage. This is your last opportunity to thoroughly re-evaluate, and, if appropriate, reverse the decision without the involvement of the ICO.
J - Where the ICO receives a complaint, it is your responsibility to demonstrate that you have applied the provisions of FOIA correctly and the request is vexatious.
When building a case to support your decision, you must bear in mind that we will be looking for evidence that the request would have an unjustified or disproportionate effect on your organisation.
You should therefore be able to detail the detrimental impact of compliance and also explain why this would be unjustified or disproportionate in relation to the request itself and its inherent value or purpose.
K – TFL is aggregating requests together and claiming that the total imposes an excessive burden – which TFL has not quantified.
Excessive burden should be considered in terms of section 12 – excessive cost.
> You can aggregate two or more separate requests.
> The Fees Regulations state that you can aggregate requests received within 60 consecutive working days.
> Regulation 5(2) of the Fees Regulations allows you to aggregate requests if they relate “to any extent” to the same or similar information.
TFL claim that multiple requests - which I have not submitted – are linked and that “they nonetheless represent a sustained and cumulative burden and cost which we do not believe is proportionate to their value”.
TFL has to say which request it is linking and why.
TFL also has to say what the burden is that is not cost.
Where the complaint is the cost to TFL, then TFL should apply the cost provisions, especially, where there is no evidence that a request is vexatious.
Should we treat any refined request as a new request?
Yes, the refined request becomes a new request. This means that the statutory time for compliance begins on the date of the receipt of that new request.
However, you cannot aggregate the costs of dealing with the new request with those of dealing with the original request. To do so would frustrate the purposes behind sections 12 and 16.
A full history of my FOI request and all correspondence is available on the Internet at this address: https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/b...
Yours faithfully,
Nyron Johnston
Thank you for contacting TfL’s FOI Case Management Team.
Please note that if your email does not relate to a Freedom of Information
(FOI) Act or Environmental Information Regulations (EIR) matter it will
not be processed or forwarded on for action. You should therefore redirect
any non-FOI/EIR matters to the appropriate area of TfL using the following
links:
[1]https://tfl.gov.uk/help-and-contact/
[2]https://tfl.gov.uk/modes/driving/congest...
[3]https://tfl.gov.uk/modes/driving/ultra-l...
If you need to contact the Privacy team or submit a subject access
request, please use the relevant form on [4]this page or email [5][email
address].
If you have made a request for information held by TfL under the Freedom
of Information (FOI) Act or the Environmental Information Regulations
(EIR), or your request relates to any other FOI/EIR matter, we will
respond as soon as possible.
This message has been scanned for malware by Forcepoint. [6]www.forcepoint.com
References
Visible links
1. https://tfl.gov.uk/help-and-contact/
2. https://tfl.gov.uk/modes/driving/congest...
3. https://tfl.gov.uk/modes/driving/ultra-l...
4. https://tfl.gov.uk/corporate/privacy-and...
5. mailto:[email%20address]
6. http://www.forcepoint.com/
Dear Nyron Johnson
Thank you for your email.
As more than 40 working days have elapsed since the issuing of the response your latest email refers to (18 October) we are unable to open up an internal review.
However, should you wish to pursue this matter you are welcome to resubmit your request and we will reconsider it afresh and issue a new response based on the position as of the date of your request. You would then be entitled to appeal that response if you were to be unsatisfied.
Please note that we will not be working on your request until we have received confirmation on how you would like to proceed.
Yours sincerely
Emma Flint
Principal Information Access Adviser
FOI Case Management Team
Transport for London
We work to defend the right to FOI for everyone
Help us protect your right to hold public authorities to account. Donate and support our work.
Donate Now
VOICE OF THE PUBLIC left an annotation ()
TFL are misusing FOI rules to avoid providing useful information to the public. This Request is clearly fair and reasonable. TFL have not identified any other FOI to which they link this one to justify bulking them together.