DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: The Flame Pit
*****************************************************
#Post#: 45364--------------------------------------------------
FOI request draft ..
DIR By: kenley1996
Date: November 12, 2024, 7:39 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Hello.
I wish to submit a FOI request to TfL relating to PCNs issued on
a certain road (A22 Godstone Road) and
I would just like to run it past this site and welcome any
feedback to avoid wasted time.
The A22 is a 2-mile stretch of Red Route which has single/double
red lines, 20-min loading bays and 1-
hour parking bays (one with a dedicated EV charging 'bay'). The
only fixed anpr camera I have seen is
pointed at a loading bay.
Request ..
Please can you confirm the number of PCNs issued on the A22
Godstone Road from January 2021 for the
following contravention codes ..
Code 14. Parked in an electric vehicles’ charging place during
restricted hours without charging.
Code 25. Parked in a loading place or bay during restricted
hours without loading.
Code 30. Parked for longer than permitted.
Code 46. Stopped where prohibited (on a red route or clearway).
Code 62, Parked with one or more wheels on or over a footpath or
any part of a road other than a
carriageway.
I also request the number of representations (informal and
formal) accepted/rejected and the total figure of
payments received for each contravention code from January 2021.
Can you present the answers on a
yearly basis i.e. 2021, 2022, 2023, 2024 to date.
Many thanks.
End of request.
Does that sound achievable, within the cost budget for a
request, and not 'exempt from disclosure/likely to
prejudice the prevention of crime ' response?. It's the
breakdown of offences i'm interested in primarily and the above
I believe cover the majority.
Any input welcome.
Cheers.
#Post#: 45663--------------------------------------------------
Re: FOI request draft ..
DIR By: John Glacier
Date: November 14, 2024, 5:00 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Send away. ;D
#Post#: 45677--------------------------------------------------
Re: FOI request draft ..
DIR By: kenley1996
Date: November 14, 2024, 8:02 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Cheers John.
As I didn't get any immediate pushback I sent it yesterday and
got the following response this morning ..
"Your request will be considered in accordance with the Freedom
of Information Act 2000 and our information access policy, and
we will issue you with a response by 12 December 2024."
Hopefully they'll supply everything. Cheers again.
#Post#: 48825--------------------------------------------------
Re: FOI request draft ..
DIR By: kenley1996
Date: December 7, 2024, 8:19 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Got my reply ..
Thank you for your request received by Transport for London
(TfL) on 14 November 2024 asking for information about A22
Godstone Road enforcement.
I can confirm that we hold the information you require. However,
the information you have requested is exempt from disclosure
under section 31 of the Freedom of Information Act, which can
apply where release of information would be likely to prejudice
the prevention of crime, or to prejudice the apprehension or
prosecution of offenders. This is because the release of this
information (or similar information in relation to other areas)
would reveal locations where enforcement activity is less likely
to be implemented and may therefore encourage people to ignore
restrictions at those locations. Whilst we make no suggestion
that you would use this information for anything other than your
own interest, the disclosure of information under FOI is
regarded as a disclosure to the public at large.
The use of this exemption is subject to an assessment of the
‘public interest test’ to determine whether the greater public
interest rests in the exemption applying and the information
being withheld, or in releasing it in any event. We recognise
the need for openness and transparency by public authorities and
the fact that you have requested the information is in itself an
argument for release. However, in this instance we feel that
balance of public interest lies in favour of withholding the
information to ensure that we are able to manage traffic on the
TfL Road Network. It would be strongly against the public
interest to release any information that would undermine this.
We consider that the release of this information would lead to
increased traffic problems as some motorists may seek to take
advantage of the information, which would have a detrimental
effect on street management. This principle has been previously
agreed by the Information Commissioner in relation to a similar,
previous request, as can be seen in the following Decision
Notice - the same arguments apply in your case:
HTML https://ico.org.uk/media/action-weve-taken/decision-notices/2021/2620057/ic-69434-n9n7.pdf
Please see the attached information sheet for details of your
right to appeal.
I reviewed a number of FOI responses before carefully wording my
request in line with those responses. They could basically throw
this response at every FOI request. I will appeal.
#Post#: 48847--------------------------------------------------
Re: FOI request draft ..
DIR By: Southpaw82
Date: December 8, 2024, 5:19 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Can the prevention of crime exception apply to decriminalised
contraventions and enforcement?
#Post#: 48853--------------------------------------------------
Re: FOI request draft ..
DIR By: 666
Date: December 8, 2024, 5:39 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Southpaw82 link ---
>
> Can the prevention of crime exception apply to decriminalised
contraventions and enforcement?
>
--- End Quote ---
It appears the ICO think it can.
'You should interpret the term ‘law enforcement’ broadly. In
William Thomas Stevenson v the Information Commissioner and
North Lancashire Teaching Primary Care Trust [2013] UKUT 0181
(AAC), the Upper Tribunal commented that:
“it is plain from reading the activities listed in s.31(1) and
the purposes specified in s.31(2), that they include activities
and purposes which go beyond actual law enforcement in the sense
of taking civil or criminal or regulatory proceedings. They
include a wide variety of activities which can be regarded as in
aid of or related to the enforcement of (i) the criminal law,
(ii) any regulatory regime established by statute, (iii)
professional and other disciplinary codes, (iv) standards of
fitness and competence for acting as a company director or other
manager of a corporate body (v) aspects of law relating to
charities and their property and (vi) standards of health and
safety at work” (paragraph 75).'
My emphasis.
HTML https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/foi/freedom-of-information-and-environmental-information-regulations/section-31-law-enforcement/
#Post#: 50720--------------------------------------------------
Re: FOI request draft ..
DIR By: ivanleo
Date: December 21, 2024, 6:49 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Southpaw82 link ---
>
> Can the prevention of crime exception apply to decriminalised
contraventions and enforcement?
>
--- End Quote ---
No, but it doesn't mean they won't try.
One entertaining example was Decision Notice FS50857816
HTML https://ico.org.uk/media/action-weve-taken/decision-notices/2020/2617400/fs50857816.pdf,<br
/>which was so weak and poorly reasoned that the ICO didn't even
try and defend it at the First-tier tribunal, see Murray-Smith v
ICO (Allowed) (Rev 1) [2020] UKFTT 2020_0131
HTML https://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKFTT/GRC/2020/2020_0131.pdf.
#Post#: 51721--------------------------------------------------
Re: FOI request draft ..
DIR By: kenley1996
Date: January 2, 2025, 7:34 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Hi again.
I got my response above on 6th December and there wasn't a time
limit to appeal on the attached email notice so I should be ok
to send something in the next week?
With reference to the 'law enforcement broadly' highlight above,
would it be therefore ok and correct for correspondence purposes
to refer to the list of contraventions above as generally
'illegal' or should I split my wording for the various codes?
I.e. parking on the pavement is 'illegal', parked in a loading
bay without loading is a 'contravention'. I'm looking for one
general term if possible to cover all the above codes and i'm
leaning towards 'contravention' :-\ .
Thanks in advance.
#Post#: 51830--------------------------------------------------
Re: FOI request draft ..
DIR By: ivanleo
Date: January 4, 2025, 4:15 am
---------------------------------------------------------
[member=2703]kenley1996[/member] I suggest you show us the
response.
*****************************************************
Page 1 of 1