Mark Steele v The Information Commissioner & Anor

Mark Steele v The Information Commissioner & Anor

On the balance of probabilities, TfL does not hold the information requested by the Appellant because the technology described (fusion of LIDAR, RADAR, and vision sensors) is not used in ULEZ cameras. Therefore, TfL was entitled to refuse the request under Regulation 12(4)(a) EIR, as it cannot disclose information it does not possess.

Parties
Appellant: Mark Steele; First Respondent: The Information Commissioner; Second Respondent: Transport for London
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
10 October 2025
Procedural Posture
Appeal (information Rights) / Final Judgment After Full Hearing
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Environmental Information Regulations, Freedom of Information, Public Authority Duties, Disclosure Exceptions
Administrative Law Information Law Environmental Law Environmental Information Regulations Freedom of Information Public Authority Duties Disclosure Exceptions

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mark Steele

Appellant

The Information Commissioner

First Respondent

Transport for London

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal (information Rights) / Final Judgment After Full Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Transport for London holds information responsive to the Appellant's requests under the Environmental Information Regulations 2004 regarding alleged fusion technology in ULEZ cameras.
  2. 2 Whether TfL was entitled to rely on Regulation 12(4)(a) EIR to refuse the request on the basis that the information is not held.

Ratio Decidendi

On the balance of probabilities, TfL does not hold the information requested by the Appellant because the technology described (fusion of LIDAR, RADAR, and vision sensors) is not used in ULEZ cameras. Therefore, TfL was entitled to refuse the request under Regulation 12(4)(a) EIR, as it cannot disclose information it does not possess.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed