Information on Public Notice 0062 Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984

Freedom of information request reference no: 01.FOI.25.042493

I note you seek access to the following information:

Thank you for that disclosure. However, you will note that that email disclosed confused "Order" in the body with "Notice" in the subject line and it is not clear at all what purpose this email from TfL serves and whether it is what I requested.

As background, TfL rather confusingly issued a Public Notice 0062 (made under S.14(2) of the Road Traffic Regulation Act) on 25 September 2023 and an Order 0062 (made under S.14(1) of the Road Traffic Regulations Act) on 6 October 2023. I attach both for convenience.

To remedy this confusion, could you please disclose the following:

1. The letter of 25 September 2023 referenced in the body of the email from TfL
2. Please disclose any such notice relating to the Public Notice 0622 (not the Order 0622) given by Transport for London under Chairman Sadiq Khan (the traffic authority) to the the Chief Officer of the Met Police relating to GLA 2023 No.0622 PUBLIC NOTICE ROAD TRAFFIC REGULATION ACT 1984 – SECTION 14(2)THE A20 GLA ROAD (SIDCUP BY-PASS, LONDON BOROUGHS OF BEXLEY AND BROMLEY) (TEMPORARY PROHIBITION OF TRAFFIC AND 40 M.P.H. SPEED LIMIT) NOTICE 2023. This Public Notice was made 25 September 2023. Please ensure the notice provides proof of the date on which the notice was given. The Road Traffic (Temporary Restrictions) Procedure Regulations 1992 require under Regulation 10 that "No later than the day on which the notice is issued, the traffic authority shall give notice of it - (a) to the chief officer of police of any police area in which any road to which the order relates is situated."

If no such notice of the Public Notice 0062 was given by TfL to the Met Police then please confirm this is the case.

I note that the TfL email that you disclosed giving notice is dated 9 October 2023. This is AFTER the issuance of the Public Notice on 25 September 2023 and AFTER the making of the Order 0622 on the 6 October.

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 40(2)&(3) - Personal Information

Reason for decision

Section 40(2)(a)(b) of the Act provides that any information to which a request for information relates, is exempt information if the first condition of Section 40(3A)(a) is satisfied. The first condition of Section 40(3A)(a) states that personal information is exempt if its disclosure would contravene any of the data protection principles. If the disclosure of the requested personal data would not contravene the data protection principles, the disclosure must also not contravene Sections 3A(b) and 3B of the Act.

There are six principles that are set out in Article 5(1)(a) of the General Data Protection Regulations (GDPR) that dictate when the processing of personal data is lawful. The first principle requires that any processing of personal data must be lawful, fair and transparent. Under Article 6(1)(f) of the GDPR, the disclosure of personal data is considered to be lawful if:

a. There is a legitimate interest in the disclosure of that personal data.
b. The disclosure of the personal data is necessary to meet that legitimate interest.
c. The disclosure would not cause unwarranted harm to the data subject.

Having considered the release of information relating to the names of individuals, signatures, email addresses and contact numbers I have found, having considered the legitimate interest test, that:

a. The disclosure of this information would satisfy an identifiable legitimate interest, being to provide information that will show transparency.

b. This disclosure of the requested personal data is necessary to satisfy the legitimate interest identified at point a.

c. However, publication of names of individuals, signatures, email addresses and contact numbers would be likely to lead to unwanted and unsolicited intrusion. In this regard, I believe that disclosure of this personal data would be likely to cause unwarranted harm.

The provision to refuse access to information under Section 40(2)(a)(b) and (3A)(a) of the Act is both absolute and class based. When this exemption is claimed, it is accepted that harm would result from disclosure. There is accordingly no requirement to demonstrate what that harm may be in refusing access to information.

Disclosure

Please see the below and the attached redacted documents as requested.

Q1 - The letter of 25 September 2023 referenced in the body of the email from TfL

There is no physical “letter” held. The notice is served unto the MPS electronically via email. Although that email includes the phrase “I enclose a copy for your information and retention”, this is not a physical item and the “copy” referred to, which is attached to the email, is just a duplicate of the order (attached) made by TfL under the Road Traffic Regulation Act.

Q2 - Please disclose any such notice relating to the Public Notice 0622

Please see the redacted referenced Notice attached, dated 25 September 2023 at 13:10 hours.