[Rendel Harris]

London camera cyclists may be interested to know that, according to a response I’ve just received from the traffic public reporting team (after I said that if they wouldn’t tell me the outcome of a submission I would have to make an FOI request for it) that apparently “a project is underway and hopefully will be live in December 2024, where you will be able to view the results of Public Reporting traffic offences.” That would be a definite step forward if it comes to pass!

Topic

[lonpfrb]

IC confirmation bias at it’s

IC confirmation bias at it’s finest, and not the facts of the matter IMHO.

[wtjs]

But the Information
But the Information Commissioner (who is really the Information Restriction Commissioner, see below for his Decision Notice) agreed with Lancashire Constabulary, and will do again when the police refuse my ‘2 years later’ repeat request!

[lonpfrb]

…

wtjs wrote:

…

This exemption is engaged therefore as it satisfies the following two conditions:

1. To confirm whether or not the information is held would reveal the personal data of a data subject as defined by Article 4 (1) of GDPR and Part 1 Section (3)(2) of the Data Protection Act 2018.
…

The vehicle registration plate is not personal data of the subject since only DVLA can reference that to a Registered Keeper for Police purposes, thus failing the ‘public’ test.

So I concur that they are attempting to BS you with this response…

[wtjs]

Bungle_52 below says:

Bungle_52 below says: Gloucestershire will now only send an advisory letter for a close pass no matter how close. That shows how much progress is being made on close-passing: none. Some force, may have been Gloucestershire, recently demanded that cyclist have to demonstrate that they have been ‘inconvenienced’ by a close pass, and Essex (I think) came up with the idea years ago that there had to be evidence that the cyclist had braked or changed course before they would take close-passing seriously. Lancashire, as far as it’s possible to tell, has never taken anybody to court over close passing a cyclist, and it’s doubtful if Gloucestershire has. WU59 UMH is outside the Eagle and Child pub in Garstang right now, with no VED for over 7 years and previously, before his business insurance must have forced him to get one, had no MOT for 6 years and a badly failed MOT for 6 months. Police Officers and their attitudes are the problem badly affecting cycling safety on UK roads, and it’s not only Lancashire and Scotland

[quiff]

Your cynicism may be well

Your cynicism may be well founded in Lancashire, but since I have been to court on one of my reports, I do actually believe them.

[wtjs]

Positive action taken on

Positive action taken on every report I’ve made so far…

[wtjs]

Calling HoarseMann!

Calling HoarseMann!

If you look back to the links in my post below with the Travellers Choice coach photo, you’ll know what this refusal letter from Lancashire Constabulary dated 9.2.23 is about

Lancashire Constabulary can neither confirm nor deny that it holds any information relevant to this request as the duty in Section1(1)(a) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 does not apply, by virtue of the following exemption:
 Section 40(5) Personal Information
To confirm or deny whether we hold any information would in itself reveal the personal data of the subject(s). It is important to note that disclosures under the FOIA are considered as disclosures “to the world” and as such, to confirm or deny whether or not any information is held would be unfair on the data subject(s).
This exemption is engaged therefore as it satisfies the following two conditions:
1. To confirm whether or not the information is held would reveal the personal data of a data subject as defined by Article 4 (1) of GDPR and Part 1 Section (3)(2) of the Data Protection Act 2018.
2. That to confirm whether or not the information is held would contravene one of the data protection principles contained within GDPR and the Data Protection Act 2018 respectively, namely the first one, which states that personal data shall be processed fairly and lawfully (and in the case of GDPR in a transparent manner).
Section 40(5) is an absolute class-based exemption therefore neither the public interest test nor evidence of harm in disclosure needs to be outlined.
This letter serves to act as a refusal notice for this request, as per S.17 (1) of the FOI Act. As per Section 40(5) of the FOI Act, this letter should not be taken as a confirmation or denial that Lancashire Constabulary holds any information pertinent to this request.

I’m going to resubmit the FoI request again, just to see how much time, expense and effort they’re prepared to waste on the cover-up. What I would like from HoarseMann, and from Rendel in the event that the Met does eventually fulfil their promise is a case with a description of the original offence and a piece of the evidence submitted with the registration number of the vehicle, along with the outcome. Thanks

 

[momove]

Ah right, that would be an
Ah right, that would be an interesting case to find the result of.

And don’t mind the tardy reply or lack of a reply! Its always a bit of guesswork on whether any comment will get a response or whether I’ll even remember what I’ve written where!

[Rendel Harris]

momove wrote:

momove wrote:

Disappointing to hear that. If I can ask, what was the format of your FOI request? Was it just a list of reference numbers you provided and you asked for the outcomes for each? How many cases did you ask for? Thanks!

Sorry for the late reply, only just seen this: I was just asking for information on one particular case, with the reference number. It was one I specifically wanted to check on because the offender was driving a Zipcar and I wanted to see if that would be used as a “too difficult to identify the driver” excuse for NFA.

[wtjs]

FOI request submitted

FOI request submitted

There is an almost infinite number of dodges which enable public authorities to refuse FoI requests, and they could do it here under ‘intention to publish the information’ followed by continuing ‘technical difficulties’ to prevent you knowing for as long as possible how little they did when they ‘promised to take action but won’t tell you what it is’. However, if they do refuse to tell you about a few specific cases you will know there’s a lot of weaselling ahead. They’re relying on many people not being organised enough to follow up on this ‘action’ or being satisfied that ‘words of advice’ and ‘advice letter’ really constitute a deterrent. They don’t- and still less do all those NIPs the police couldn’t be bothered to follow up themselves ‘because vehicle not traceable’ or because the offender refuses to admit the offence or ‘has no recollection of it’.

[quiff]

We’ll see. Positive action

We’ll see. Positive action taken on every report I’ve made so far, but my guess is it’s just warning letters so far for the zig zag line offence.

[wtjs]

Turns out they prefer video
Turns out they prefer video evidence to prove beyond doubt a car is parked on zig zag lines; a still won’t do
They ‘prefer’ what you haven’t got! When you give them that they simply don’t respond.

[quiff]

I was pleased this week that,

I was pleased this week that, although Operation Snap can’t tell you the outcome of individual reports (beyond “positive action taken”) they did proactively respond to some of my reports to tell me how I can better evidence the offence so they can take further action. Turns out they prefer video evidence to prove beyond doubt a car is parked on zig zag lines; a still won’t do.  

[momove]

Disappointing to hear that.
Disappointing to hear that.

If I can ask, what was the format of your FOI request? Was it just a list of reference numbers you provided and you asked for the outcomes for each? How many cases did you ask for? Thanks!

[wtjs]

Yep! True to form. Surely,

Yep! True to form. Surely, they can’t be dim enough to sit on it for as long as possible and then claim ‘something…something..GDPR..etc’? Can they?

[Author]

Replies