Information about ULEZ cameras

Freedom of information request reference no: 01.FOI.24.035513

I note you seek access to the following information:

You said: “The MPS became responsible in July 2023, but the cameras were under technical review until September 2023, when they became operational.”

You later gave some statistics : “As of 17 November 2023, 877 NIPs issued.
b) 4 Conditional Offers or Fixed Penalty paid, 36 Educational Courses offered, 5 No Further Actioned and 832 cases still ongoing.”

1. It is unclear whether the NIP’s issued relate to a period when MPS were responsible for these cameras or not therefore can you please clarify this situation and declare the start date of the statistics that were given.

2. If these statistics given are for a time before MPS were responsible or that the equipment was still undergoing technical review between July and September then please explain how any action based upon a perceived infringement could be taken when the equipment is still undergoing technical review?

3. Please provide the actual date and time when the cameras became operational.

4. Please confirm whether the cameras were operational in conjunction with air quality reasons before MPS were involved and who was responsible for this at that time?

Obviously the provision of monthly statistics is relevant in this case to ensure that the equipment and the scheme are being operated lawfully and with the necessary oversight and calibration .

With regards to the redaction of so-called “personal details “then on the basis that this information is able to be requested by any person subject to an NIP and also on the basis that such information has more than likely been used in open court then consequently it is deemed to already be within the public domain and therefore there is no right to anonymity for a person that has given evidence in open court.

5. It is unclear whether the calibration has been carried out by an Australian company or an Australian person on behalf of an Australian company and therefore this company and any employees are not within the EU and do not acquire any rights regarding their data protection because they are outside of the law. Please confirm the nationality of the person calibrating this equipment and if it is not known it will be reasonable to assume that they are Australian and consequently do not receive any protection from UK or EU laws.

6. In question 9 (of closed case 23/32443) you are asked the name of the person overseeing this and for the operational department diagram but refused to disclose this and instead answered some other questions which were appreciated but you are required to be redirected to the original question to answer it please, at least there must be an operational departmental diagram

You said:
“9. This information is not held. Please note, however, that the MPS will enforce lawful speed limits where they determine an operational need. Speed limits are mandatory and the MPS do not consider the reasons a Roads Authority use to establish any speed limit as it is not required to do so. However, the MPS do determine whether a speed limit is lawfully imposed.”

It is very reassuring to know that MPS only enforce lawful speed limits, however you seem to be suggesting that they have determined that the speed limit on the Heston stretch of the M4 is lawful when it is implemented in order to fine motorists that are driving non-polluting vehicles when the basis of the speed restriction is for air quality reasons.

If the MPS are taking people to court then obviously they would have to conduct a” full portion test” to ensure that any consequent prosecution was in the public interest and it would be likely that such a prosecution would fail such a test as it’s basis is nonsensical when applied to electric vehicle drivers.

7. Consequently please provide all documentation which shows that MPS considered the lawfulness of a speeding fine that is implemented for air quality reasons upon vehicles that produce no emissions at the time of the alleged offence .

For the avoidance of doubt please do not confuse the term “lawfulness” with the term “legality “.
Legality means the application of statutes and acts which are implemented by parliament whereas lawfulness concerns the implementation of common law as perfected by the higher courts which overrule statutes and acts. Lawfulness also incorporates the laws of equity which are applied alongside common law in accordance with the senior courts act 1981 and the judicature acts of 1873 and 1875.
In short the laws of “equity” are simply basic rules of fairness and common sense which senior judges use to decide cases , It was previously known as” the kings conscience” wereby judges would rule in matters that had not yet been decided by common law by taking the place of the king to dispense justice and fairness on his behalf.

This is relevant to this particular case because any reasonable person can see that attempting to fine somebody for polluting the air when they vehicle does not pollute the air is nonsensical and affront to logic and fairness . If the MPS genuinely considered the lawfulness of this matter then they naturally would have come to the inescapable conclusion that such fines were not lawful and that such an inescapable conclusion would breach the Wednesbury unreasonableness test that is applied to public bodies and leave the MPS open to a legal challenge on the basis of the absurdity to fine electric vehicles for polluting.

The public have a right to expect that the laws are applied with fairness consistency and transparency and it would seem that in this particular matter that the ramifications of blindly implementing such a law creates absurd and unlawful outcomes which should be investigated and reviewed to ensure that public servants operate the law in the interest of the people.

Decision

I have today decided to disclose some of the requested information. Some data has been withheld as it is exempt from disclosure and therefore this response serves as a Refusal Notice under Section 17 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the Act) by virtue of the following exemptions:
Section 8(1)(c) – valid requests must be made in writing.

Reason for decision

I have today decided to disclose the located information to you for Question One (1), Three (3)

Question Two (2) is considered a request for opinion not recorded information and is therefore not technically valid FOIA requests and so has been refused by virtue of Section 8 of the Freedom of Information Act.

In respect of Question Four (4), Five (5), Six (6) and Seven (7) no information is held.

An FOIA request is only considered valid under FOIA’s Section 8 (Valid Requests) when the request ‘is capable of being use for subsequent reference’. This is where a request relates to a search for recorded information rather than opinion/views or context.

As explained above, Question Two (2) is considered a request for opinion not recorded information and is therefore not technically a valid FOIA request. A valid request under the Act is required to clearly describe the information that is being requested so that it is capable of subsequent reference. The MPS find that the requirement outlined by Section 8(1)(c) has not been met for this query.

Please see the Advice and Assistance section below within this letter which hopefully will assist you a little further with this question.

Disclosure

Q1 - You said: “The MPS became responsible in July 2023, but the cameras were under technical review until September 2023, when they became operational.” You later gave some statistics: “As of 17 November 2023, 877 NIPs issued.
b) 4 Conditional Offers or Fixed Penalty paid, 36 Educational Courses offered, 5 No Further Actioned and 832 cases still ongoing.”
It is unclear whether the NIP’s issued relate to a period when MPS were responsible for these cameras or not therefore can you please clarify this situation and declare the start date of the statistics that were given.

The first Notice of Impending Prosecution was issued on 20h September 2023.

Q3 - Please provide the actual date and time when the cameras became operational.

Midnight on 20 September 2023.

Advice and Assistance – Section 16

Q2 - If these statistics given are for a time before MPS were responsible or that the equipment was still undergoing technical review between July and September then please explain how any action based upon a perceived infringement could be taken when the equipment is still undergoing technical review?

This is a request for opinion and context rather than for recorded information. The MPS is only required to provide recorded information to respond to a FOIA request and not create context or opinion to answer a query.

The MPS can confirm the statistics were not for a time before the MPS became responsible or when the equipment was undergoing technical review.

Q6 - In question 9 (of closed case 23/32443) you are asked the name of the person overseeing this and for the operational department diagram but refused to disclose this and instead answered some other questions which were appreciated but you are required to be redirected to the original question to answer it please, at least there must be an operational departmental diagram

You said:
“9. This information is not held. Please note, however, that the MPS will enforce lawful speed limits where they determine an operational need. Speed limits are mandatory and the MPS do not consider the reasons a Roads Authority use to establish any speed limit as it is not required to do so. However, the MPS do determine whether a speed limit is lawfully imposed.”

It is very reassuring to know that MPS only enforce lawful speed limits, however you seem to be suggesting that they have determined that the speed limit on the Heston stretch of the M4 is lawful when it is implemented in order to fine motorists that are driving non-polluting vehicles when the basis of the speed restriction is for air quality reasons.

If the MPS are taking people to court then obviously they would have to conduct a” full portion test” to ensure that any consequent prosecution was in the public interest and it would be likely that such a prosecution would fail such a test as it’s basis is nonsensical when applied to electric vehicle drivers.

Your original Question Nine (9) in closed case 23/32443 asked for;

“The office and position of the person in charge of the scheme within the your department to fine motorists for a hypothetical infringement in air quality and the organisational department diagram of this department.”

You were advised in the original response that “This information is not held. Please note, however, that the MPS will enforce lawful speed limits where they determine an operational need. Speed limits are mandatory and the MPS do not consider the reasons a Roads Authority use to establish any speed limit as it is not required to do so. However, the MPS do determine whether a speed limit is lawfully imposed.”
The question relates to “a hypothetical infringement in air quality”, not speeding. The MPS reiterate, we do not hold the information requested for this question.