FOI Fleet Disposal Methods (140-2024/25)

Request

This email is following on from a recent FOI request we sent you regarding the vehicles in your fleet. In this instance you refused to supply us with the relevant information which we requested.
 
Q1. Firstly, we would now like to request for a copy of the NPCC letter, so we can have a better understanding as to why and who is refusing the release of the data we requested.
Q2. Additionally, we would like to request to know how you as an organisation dispose of the vehicles in your fleet? We are requesting this information on how the vehicles are exited from your fleet (i.e. Auction).
Q3. Further to this, we request information regarding to whether vehicles are disposed of randomly or there is a process and set time as to when the vehicles are released from your fleet.
Q4. Finally we request you to notify us on how many vehicles are currently in your fleet.

Response

Extent and Result of Searches to Locate Information

To locate the information relevant to your request searches were conducted within North Yorkshire Police. I can confirm that the information you have requested is held by North Yorkshire Police.

Decision

I have today decided to disclose the located information to you.

Q1. Please see the bottom of this letter for a response, some redactions are present pursuant to Section 40(2) – Personal Information.

Q2. NYP dispose of its fleet via auction

Q3. NYP follow a capital replacement plan worked out over a five year period. If a vehicle is written off, it would be replaced sooner.

Q4. This information is exempt pursuant to Section 31 - (Law Enforcement).

Section 31 – Law Enforcement

Section 31 is a prejudice-based qualified exemption and there is a requirement to articulate the harm as well as carrying out a public interest test.

Evidence of Harm

Disclosure of full information on fleet could be of intelligence value to a person or persons with criminal or malicious intent. Full disclosure could provide and enable targeted malicious actions, be that some form of attack on an operational unit or avoiding that unit for example where strengths and weakness may be perceived (whether incorrectly or not).

Additionally, law enforcement tactics and operational capability would be compromised with the disclosure fleet details requested such as that relating to unmarked cars, as those who wish to commit criminal acts will be more aware of what vehicles may belong to the force in a covert role, that assist with preventing and detecting crime.

To disclose details of fleet could cause harm to the Police Service’s ability to protect the public it serves and could prejudice its ability to perform core functions such as the prevention and detection of crime. Releasing this data would give individuals with criminal intent the intelligence required to disrupt Police activity. Criminals would be able to identify in which force areas resources are weak and use this knowledge to their advantage in furthering criminal activity around the county and the country as a whole.

The disclosure of information which is likely to undermine the Police Service’s ability to serve the public in preventing and detecting Information and the apprehension and prosecution of offenders can only be considered as being harmful to the public.

Factors favouring disclosure under Section 31

There is a legitimate public interest in the public being satisfied that the Police force has up to date and well-maintained vehicles to deliver services to the public when and where required. It would also adhere to the general principle of openness and transparency and better inform the public about how public funds are spend, better awareness which may reduce crime or lead to more information from the public.

Factors against disclosure under Section 31

The Police service has a duty to deliver effective law enforcement ensuring that the prevention and detection of crime, apprehension or prosecution of offenders and administration of justice is carried out appropriately. Disclosing any information relating to vehicles for specific roles, such as custody vans and traffic policing vehicles may reveal what resources are available for a given role and this information could enable police strength to be determined and circumvented by those intent on committing crime. The release of this information could therefore provide a tactical advantage to offenders which would negatively impact on public safety and undermine the policing purpose. Any disclosure of information which is likely to undermine the Police Service’s ability to serve the public in preventing and detecting crime can only be considered as being harmful to the public.

Balance test

It is not in the public interest for law enforcement tactics and operational capability to be compromised with the disclosure of all Fleet details, as those who wish to commit criminal acts will be more aware of the vehicles in operation to assist with preventing and detecting crime. Such disclosure that would allow those with criminal intent the ability to build up a mosaic picture of force capabilities and resources which could be used to undermine law enforcement. This would not be in the public interest. Disclosure is also not in the public interest as it places the community at increased unnecessary risk of harm and impact police resources. This is especially the case if additional tactics/resources need to be put in place to counter harm caused by an adverse FOIA request regarding police vehicles. Therefore, at this moment in time, it is our opinion that the balance test favours against the disclosure of the information requested.

Section 40 – Personal Information

Redactions are present within the attached document pursuant to Section 40(2) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the Act).

Where an individual can be identified by such data, releasing it would clearly breach the first data protection principle of being ‘fair’ to the data subject.

Section 17 of the Act requires North Yorkshire Police, when refusing to provide such information (because the information is exempt) to provide you the applicant with a notice which: (a) states that fact, (b) specifies the exemption in question and (c) states (if that would not otherwise be apparent) why the exemption applies.

Section 40(2) is an absolute class based exemption, which does not require a public interest test, but requires the balancing of the legitimate interests of the public against the interests of the individual under the first Data Protection Principle; in that processing of personal data must be lawful and fair (DPA 2018 35(1), EUGDPR Article 5(1)).

This exemption applies because the right given under the FOI Act to request official information held by public authorities does not apply to the personal data of third parties where disclosure of that information would not be fair to the individual, and where there is no legitimate public interest in disclosure.

In all the circumstances of the case it has been determined that the duty to the individual under the Data Protection Act 2018 & EU General Data Protection Regulations, and the public interest in maintaining the exemption from disclosure of personal information held by the force in such instances, outweighs the public interest in disclosure.  In this instance, personal information can only be disclosed to the individual concerned. 

Releasing personal details to a person other than the data subject would not only breach the data subject’s Data Protection rights it may also breach the obligations placed on an authority under the European Convention on Human Rights

Pursuant to Section 17(1) of the Act this letter acts as a Refusal Notice in response to part of your request.

Please note that systems used for recording information are not generic, nor are the procedures used locally in capturing the data.  It should be noted therefore that this force’s response to your questions should not be used for comparison purposes with any other responses you may receive.