xxxxxxxxx@xxx.xxx.xx
Tyler Binge
Defence Equipment & Support
Whatdotheyknow
Maple 0a #2043
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx.xxx
MOD Abbey Wood
WhatDoTheyKnow
Bristol BS34 8JH
Our Reference: TO2018/04827
Date: 9 April 2018
Dear Mr Binge,
I am writing to you as an identified repeated requester of vehicle histories under the Freedom
of Information (FOI) Act.
Defence Equipment and Support has, until recently, responded to FOI requests for vehicle
histories on the MERLIN database by releasing this information. These were often single
requests for out of service vehicles, presumably from owners and enthusiasts, and we
previously had no identified reason to refuse them.
Fol owing an FOI request late last year for the entire MERLIN database, which was refused
because of the burden it placed on the Ministry of Defence (MOD), concerns were raised for
the first time about the potential security implications of providing vehicle history information
for certain vehicles.
Further to this, MERLIN requests have become more voluminous, with multiple requests from
a small number of individuals. In addition, there has also been a trend towards requests for
in-service vehicle information and maintenance logs which are recorded on the live JAMES
system. This has prompted us to review our processes for these requests. Fol owing this, there
are several things you should note.
Firstly, it has been concluded that the department has exceeded the cost limits of the FOI Act
for individual requesters on several occasions. A recent cost calculation found that a request
for 100 vehicles or more exceeds the cost limits of £600 to locate, retrieve, and collate this
information. Additionally, section 12(4) of the FOI Act allows us to aggregate the costs of
repeated requests. Subsequent requests for information received within 60 consecutive
working days should fall within scope of section 12(4). This has not previously been applied
because most requests tend to be for individual vehicles. However, having reviewed the
requests of some of our frequent requesters, it is clear this has been breached on more than
one occasion.
Secondly, it has also been concluded that any requests for maintenance reports from the
JAMES database for in-service vehicles are likely to fall in scope of section 26 of the FOI Act
because of the potential impact on the capability and effectiveness of the Armed Forces.
Therefore, the public interest in releasing these wil need to be considered on each occasion.
Additionally, you may wish to note that most ex-MOD vehicles will not have maintenance
reports on JAMES. This is because they were cast before the JAMES system went live,
meaning no data for these vehicles was transferred over. Furthermore, when the MOD
switched to JAMES, and MERLIN was archived, there was a crossover period, meaning some
maintenance reports for ex-MOD vehicles appear on JAMES. However, when this data was
transferred over, some of it was corrupted. Therefore, some of the JAMES reports you have
been provided may be inaccurate, which was stated in our responses to you.
For these reasons, and giving the increasing burden on the MOD that these requests are
causing, we will now have to take a much stricter approach to these requests. I would therefore
like to take the opportunity to offer advice on how to take these forward.
Since 7 March 2018, you have submitted multiple requests for JAMES and MERLIN reports
for a total of 110 vehicles. These have been aggregated together and the information wil be
withheld under section 12(4). Any vehicle information requests you submit before 30 May 2018
(which wil be 60 working days from 7 March 2018) wil be aggregated with these previous
requests and wil also have a section 12 response.
From 30 May 2018, you may wish to think about submitting one request, asking for no more
than 100 vehicles. However, you should note that if you request both a MERLIN and a JAMES
report for a vehicle, the cost calculation is double for that of an individual MERLIN request.
This is because it requires two searches. Therefore, it is likely that we can only process around
50 vehicles within the cost limit. Once this request has been received, any further requests
within 60 working days wil be considered within the cost limit.
Should you find it useful, further guidance on how public authorities calculate the cost of
compliance with the FOI Act can be found at the following link:
https://ico.org.uk/media/for-
organisations/documents/1199/costs_of_compliance_exceeds_appropriate_limit.pdf. I am sure you wil appreciate that we genuinely want to help with your requests, but our focus
must remain on supporting our Armed Forces, which is why we need to ensure we are dealing
with the requests in accordance with the FOI Act. I hope this clarifies the department’s position
on this matter. Please feel free to contact us if you have any further questions.
Yours sincerely,
DE&S Secretariat Parliamentary.
