Delay between cameras and variable speed signs and FOI requests withheld
Case reference FOI2025/02305
Received 16 December 2025
Published 4 March 2026
Request
In relation to the National Highways system anomaly of delay between cameras and variable speed signs (15/12/2025 press release, link below), (1) how many FOI requests were made by affected individuals,
(2) how many of the FOI requests were denied,
(3) how many FOI requests were denied by National Highways on the purported grounds of ICO decisions relating to variable speed signage FOI requests and / or s31, and
(4) who in the National Highways organisation and / or external consultants gave the direction for the FOIs requests to be withheld based on the ICO decisions relating to variable speed signage FOI requests,
(5) who in the National Highways and / or external consultants identified the anomaly, and
(6) who in the National Highways organisation and / or external consultants gave the direction to rectify the effects of the anomaly for affected individuals.
https://nationalhighways.co.uk/press/fix-being-rolled-out-after-variable-speed-camera-anomaly/#:~:text=National%20Highways%20is%20implementing%20a,anyone%20who%20has%20been%20affected )
Response
We have addressed each of your questions in turn below
1. Under Section 1(1)(a) of the Freedom of Information Act we can confirm that National Highways does not hold this information. The reason for this is National Highways does not hold the data as to which individuals were issued a Notice of Intended Prosecution (NIP), because it is not an enforcement agency and the relevant enforcing police force hold this information. Therefore we also do not know if an affected individual also made an FOI request to National Highways.
2. As with the above response under Section 1(1)(a) of the Freedom of Information Act we can confirm that National Highways does not hold this information, as it relies on us holding the information requested at 1 above.
3. Since 20 March 2024 National Highways has refused 337 requests under S31 on this subject. We do not hold the records for before this date owing to a change in case management system at this time.
4. There was no individual decision maker, the matter arose from discussions with RSS (Road Safety Service), the Police and National Highways, which the published ICO Decision Notices make reference to, where the information being provided by National Highways was being misunderstood and erroneously represented as evidential material.
The signs and signals information National Highways holds is operational records generated for network management purposes and is not designed or intended to serve as evidential material for enforcement or prosecution decisions. It is a system-generated representation of what was set and does not constitute an authoritative or legally determinative record of the speed limit displayed at any given moment. Provision of this information has directly prejudiced the Police’s ability to prosecute an offender, and thus it was prejudicing the prevention or detection of crime and the administration of justice.
Therefore, following this discussion a review of how such requests were handled took place and National Highways began to refuse the requests based on the exemption in Section 31 of the Freedom of Information Act which was engaged via the public interest test.
5. The anomaly rose to National Highways attention following a query from Avon and Somerset Police following a challenge to a NIP they had issued whereby dashcam footage from the vehicle in question showed a different speed on the gantry to that which was enforced on the NIP.
6. As Chief Executive Officer of National Highways, Nick Harris, made this decision.
Documents
This is National Highways' response to a freedom of information (FOI) or environmental information regulations (EIR) request.
You can browse our other responses or make a new FOI request.