Fleet Vehicles 844/23
FOI Reference: 844/2023
Request:
Please can you supply me with the following information?
Registration number:
Make:
Model:
of all vehicles currently on your fleet list and all vehicles sold between
14/11/2022 - 05/09/2023
Response:
I can confirm that Dyfed-Powys Police does hold the information requested, however, we are withholding some of that information by virtue of Section 31(1)(a)(b) - Law Enforcement.
All vehicles on the current fleet list:
Please note: The vehicle registration numbers in respect of the below fleet list and make/model relating to vehicles used for specialist roles and information relating to covert vehicles have been exempted under Section 31(1)(a)(b) - Law Enforcement. Please see the end of this document for an explanation of the applied exemption.
|
Make/Model of Fleet vehicles |
Total |
|
ALFA ROMEO STELVIO |
1 |
|
BMW 320 TOURING |
1 |
|
BMW F800GS |
1 |
|
BMW i3 |
11 |
|
BMW R1200 RT M/C |
6 |
|
BMW R1250 RT M/C |
5 |
|
BMW S1000 |
1 |
|
BMW X4 |
1 |
|
BMW330 XDRIVE SALOON |
4 |
|
BMW330 XDRIVE TOURER |
9 |
|
DAF 180 FA |
1 |
|
FIAT DUCATTO |
1 |
|
FORD COURIER |
3 |
|
FORD FOCUS |
21 |
|
FORD FOCUS EST |
14 |
|
FORD KUGA |
13 |
|
FORD RANGER |
7 |
|
FORD TRAN CUSTOM 310 |
43 |
|
FORD TRAN CUSTOM 320 |
15 |
|
FORD TRANSIT 300 |
3 |
|
FORD TRANSIT 310 |
2 |
|
FORD TRANSIT 350 |
2 |
|
FORD TRANSIT 430E HR |
1 |
|
FORD TRANSIT CONNECT |
2 |
|
HONDA CRV |
3 |
|
HYUNDAI i30 |
1 |
|
KAWASAKI 1400GTR |
2 |
|
KIA SPORTAGE |
6 |
|
MERCEDES SPRINTER |
7 |
|
PEUGEOT 208 |
29 |
|
PEUGEOT 3008 |
4 |
|
PEUGEOT 308 |
79 |
|
PEUGEOT 308 ESTATE |
11 |
|
PEUGEOT BOXER |
3 |
|
RENAULT MEGANE |
1 |
|
SINGLE AXLE TRAILER |
4 |
|
SKODA OCTAVIA |
1 |
|
TRACTOR |
1 |
|
TRIPLE AXLE TRAILER |
1 |
|
TWIN AXLE TRAILER |
11 |
|
VAUXHALL ASTRA |
6 |
|
VAUXHALL MOVANO |
2 |
|
VAUXHALL VIVARO |
12 |
|
VOLVO S60 |
1 |
|
VOLVO V90 |
12 |
|
VOLVO XC90 |
2 |
|
YAMAHA WR250F |
2 |
|
S31(1)(a)(b) applies |
35 |
|
Grand Total |
404 |
All vehicles sold between 14/11/2022 -05/09/2023:
I can confirm that Dyfed-Powys police does hold the information requested, however, we are withholding some of that information by virtue of Section 40(2) – Personal information. Please see the end of this document for an explanation of the applied exemption.
|
Vehicles sold (Make/Model) |
Total |
|
AUDI A6 |
1 |
|
BMW X5 |
9 |
|
BMW330 XDRIVE SALOON |
7 |
|
BMW330 XDRIVE TOURER |
9 |
|
FORD FOCUS EST |
4 |
|
FORD KUGA |
1 |
|
FORD MONDEO EST |
2 |
|
FORD S MAX |
1 |
|
FORD TRAN CUSTOM 310 |
3 |
|
FORD TRANSIT 280 |
4 |
|
FORD TRANSIT 300 |
1 |
|
HYUNDAI i20 |
1 |
|
HYUNDAI i30 |
1 |
|
MERCEDES SPRINTER |
1 |
|
PEUGEOT 308 |
2 |
|
TWIN AXLE TRAILER |
1 |
|
VAUXHALL VIVARO |
1 |
|
VOLVO V40 EST |
1 |
|
Grand Total |
50 |
Explanation of the applied exemptions:
Section 1 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 places two duties on public authorities. Unless exemptions apply, the first duty at Section 1(1) (a) is to confirm or deny whether the information specified in a request is held. The second duty at Section 1(1) (b) is to disclose information that has been confirmed as being held.
Where exemptions are relied upon section 17 of FOIA requires that we provide the applicant with a notice which:
- a) States that fact
- b) Specifies the exemption(s) in question and
- c) State (if that would not otherwise be apparent) why the exemption applies
I can confirm that Dyfed-Powys Police does hold the information requested; however we are withholding part of that information by virtue of the following exemptions:
Section 31(1)(a)(b) – Law Enforcement
Section 40(2) – Personal Information
Section 31 is a prejudice based qualified exemption and as such, there is a requirement to provide details of the harm as well as the public interest test. Section 40(2) is a class-based absolute exemption and there is no requirement to consider the public interest in disclosure. That being said, where Section 40(2) is engaged in order to make the exemption absolute there needs to be evidence that a data protection principle would be breached by disclosure. In this case, it would not be fair to process information which could lead to the identification of an individual. Therefore, the first principle of the Data Protection Act would be breached.
Section 31(1)(a)(b) – Evidence of Harm
Disclosure of fleet information such as full VRNs, make/model of covert vehicles and vehicles relating to specialist roles 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 incorrect or not).
Although VRNs are an overtly displayed marker that can be clearly seen and are intended to be seen, to disclose a ready-collated list of vehicles with complete vehicle registration numbers would be substantially more harmful than the limited availability of related information via the visibility of vehicles whilst on public roads. In practice, all of this information is not realistically accessible to a member of the public and is therefore not in the public domain.
Providing full lists of VRNs for marked vehicles provides opportunities for criminality to benefit, or for risks to be extended to members of the public. Marked police vehicles are often exempt toll and congestion charges, facilitated by automatic recognition of VRN; cloned vehicles would avoid these charges. Decommissioned police vehicles are sold at public auction and will re-appear in domestic use, usually driven by members of the public. Lists of VRNs accessible by criminals, such as Organised Crime Gangs (even if out of date), may potentially expose unaware members of public to direct challenge and/or risk of harm. Detailed VRN listings and even providing the make/model of a vehicle will potentially enable a criminal gang to understand the force’s capability, through the volumes and types of vehicles being operated; for example numbers of ARV & RPU (Armed Response / Traffic), comparative to other models.
Additionally, law enforcement tactics and operational capability would be compromised with the disclosure of VRN details and the make/model 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.
Such a disclosure would allow those with criminal intent the ability to build up a mosaic picture of force capabilities and resources and use this information to undermine law enforcement. This places the community at increased unnecessary risk of harm and impacts on police resources if additional resources and tactics need to be put in place to counter any harm caused by an adverse FOIA disclosure.
Public Interest Test
Factors favouring disclosure – S31 – 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.
Factors favouring non-disclosure – S31 – 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 information that would allow the identification of all 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.
Disclosing the details i.e. make and model of covert vehicles and vehicles in a specialist role would provide sufficient information to those involved in criminal activity of the capabilities available to the force when carrying out covert activities in certain areas. This could result in them taking steps to evade detection and to destroy evidence if they believe that their movements are being monitored. This could also lead to vehicles and officers being identified which would render their covert capabilities useless.
Balance Test
It is not in the public interest for law enforcement tactics and operational capability to be compromised with the disclosure of Fleet VRNs and make/model details relating to covert vehicles or vehicles relating to specialist roles, 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 a 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 impacts on 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.
Section 40(2) – Personal Information
Section 40(2) applies to third party personal data and is exempt from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 if disclosure, in relation to data subject to law enforcement processing, would breach any of the data protection principles contained within Part 3 - Chapter 2 of the Data Protection Act 2018.
Under Section 34 within Chapter 2 “The Controller in relation to personal data is responsible for and must be able to demonstrate, compliance with” Chapter 2. Such information would not be released under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 unless there is a strong public interest. One of the main differences between the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and the Data Protection Act 2018 is that any information released under FOI is released into the public domain, not just the individuals requesting the information and disclosure under the Act must be made with that in mind. As such, any release that identifies any individuals through releasing their personal data, even third party personal data is exempt.
Personal data is defined under Section 3 of the Data Protection Act 2018 as:
“(2) ‘Personal data’ means any information relating to an identified or identifiable living individuals (subject to subsection (14)(c)).
(3) ‘Identifiable living individuals’ means a living individuals who can be identified, directly or indirectly, in particular by reference to—
(a) An identifier such as a name, an identification number, location data or an online identifier, or
(b) One or more factors specific to the physical, physiological, genetic, mental, economic, cultural or social identity of the individuals.”
All members of the public including those employed by the force have an intrinsic right to privacy and these rights are protected by virtue of the Human Rights Act, the Data Protection Act 2018 and the UK General Data Protection Regulation (UK-GDPR) and a public authority must not interfere with that right. Any release of the information subject to the exemption is likely to compromise those rights.
Data Protection Act 2018
Part 3 – Law Enforcement – Chapter 2 Principles Section 35
The first data protection principle:
“(1) The first data protection principle is that the processing of personal data for any of the law enforcement purposes must be lawful and fair.”
UK - General Data Protection Regulation
Article 5 of the UK-GDPR – ‘Principles relating to processing of personal data’ provides:
“1. ‘Personal data’ shall be
(a) Processed lawfully, fairly and in a transparent manner in relation to the data subject (‘lawfulness, fairness and transparency);
(b) Collected for specified, explicit and legitimate purposes and not further processed in a manner that is incompatible with those purposes; further processing for archiving purposes in the public interest…
- The controller shall be responsible for, and be able to demonstrate compliance with, paragraph 1 (‘accountability’).”
Dyfed-Powys Police would not want to disclose any information that could potentially identify any individuals. In this particular case, to release the requested information relating to vehicle registration numbers of police vehicles that have been sold could lead to the identification of individuals. To release such information would be a direct breach of Data Protection legislation and as a consequence I am satisfied that Section 40(2) Personal Information exemption is applicable to the release of the information. The Section 40 exemption is in part qualified and in part absolute, in the present case it would be absolute as to release the information would breach Data Protection legislation and therefore there is no requirement to carry out a public interest test.
It should be noted that owing to the systems adopted by Dyfed-Powys Police in relation to the recording of such matters the information provided may or may not be accurate. It should be noted that for these reasons this Force’s response to your questions should not be used for comparison purposes with any other response you may receive.
(This is a response under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and disclosed on 18/10/23)