Vehicle Fleet

Request Number: FOI/16525

Category: Finance and Procurement - Finance 

Subject: Vehicle Fleet

Request and Answer:

Your request for information has now been considered. In respect of Section 1(1)(a) of the Act we can confirm that the Police Service of Northern Ireland (PSNI) does hold information to which your request relates. The decision has been taken not to supply the information you have requested and the reasons for this are set out in more detail below. We have also provided you with links to guidance issued by the Information Commissioner's Office (ICO) which we have followed in responding to your request.

Question 1

What is the total cost of the current fleet?

Question 2

Provide a breakdown of how many vehicles have been purchased by each unit. Include the name of any vehicle purchased, and the price of the vehicle.

Answer

Section 17(1) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA) requires the Police Service of Northern Ireland, when refusing to provide such information (because the information is exempt) to provide you the applicant with a notice which:

1. states that fact,
2. specifies the exemption in question and
3. states (if not otherwise apparent) why the exemption applies.

The exemption/s, as well as the factors the Department considered when deciding where the public interest lies, are listed below:

Section 24 (1) National Security - information required for the purpose of safeguarding national security.

Section 31(1)(a)(b) - Law Enforcement- Information would be likely to prejudice (a) the prevention or detection of crime (b) the apprehension or prosecution of offenders

Section 43 (2) - Commercial Interests - Information would or would be likely to prejudice commercial interests of any person, including the public authority holding it.

The full text of exemptions can be found at www.leqislation.qov.uk and further guidance on how they operate can be located on the Information Commissioners Office website www.ico.org.uk.

Sections 24 and 31 are prejudice based qualified exemptions which means that the legislators have identified that the harm (prejudice) in disclosure as well as the public interest considerations need to be evidenced and articulated to the applicant

Section 43 is a class based, qualified exemptions, which means the legislators have agreed there would be harm if this information was released and a Public Interest test must be carried out.

Harm

Disclosure of detailed fleet information such as makes and models would be of intelligence value to individuals or groups with criminal or malicious intent. While some information is obviously visible on public roads, publishing a ready-collated list of all fleet details provides a far greater level of insight than is realistically accessible to the public. This would allow offenders to: Identify specialist vehicles (e.g., Armed Response or Roads Policing Units) and adapt tactics to evade or target

them, Compromise covert operations by making unmarked vehicles easier to identify, Exploit post-service risks, as many police vehicles are sold at auction; knowledge of specifications or VRNs could enable impersonation of officers or misuse of residual equipment, Reverse engineer security systems: This means studying ex-police vehicles to learn how their security features work—such as wiring, electronics, or software—and using that knowledge to copy, bypass, or exploit those systems in active vehicles, Build a national mosaic picture of fleet composition and operational strength, undermining law enforcement capability.

A disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act is a release into the public domain and not just to the individual requesting the information. Once information is disclosed by FOI there is no control or limits as to whom or how the information is shared with other individuals

Public Interest Test

Factors Favouring Release – Section 24

Disclosure would promote transparency and accountability in how public funds are spent on fleet procurement. It may also increase public confidence in policing by demonstrating openness and supporting informed public debate about resource allocation.

Factors Favouring Retention – Section 24

Disclosure of this information cannot be deemed as being in the public interest if it would compromise any ongoing or future operations and the security in Northern Ireland. Detailed fleet information could assist hostile actors in targeting law enforcement vehicles, which would undermine national security. Knowledge of makes, models, and connected systems could enable cyberattacks on manufacturers or fleets, creating vulnerabilities in emergency response and critical infrastructure. Furthermore, disclosure could facilitate reverse engineering of security systems, significantly increasing the risk of exploitation by organised crime or terrorist groups.

Balancing Decision - Section 24

The public interest in transparency does not outweigh the substantial risk of harm caused by disclosure.

Publishing detailed fleet specifications would allow those with criminal or hostile intent to build a mosaic picture of police capabilities, evade detection, and exploit vulnerabilities. This risk extends beyond law enforcement tactics to national security: aggregated data could assist organised crime or hostile actors in targeting specialist vehicles, exploit cyber vulnerabilities, and undermining emergency response at scale.

Factors Favouring Release - Section 31

Disclosure would reassure the public that police forces maintain appropriate vehicles and resources to deliver services effectively. There is a public interest in making information available which would provide an insight into the PSNI as all police investigations will involve the use of public funds and disclosure may reassure the public that the PSNI are appropriately using resources to prevent and detect crime.

Factors Favouring Retention - Section 31

Releasing detailed fleet information, including makes and models would provide criminals with a tactical advantage by revealing operational capabilities and specialist resources. It could compromise covert policing and allow offenders to take steps to evade detection or destroy evidence. Disclosure would also increase the risk of police impersonation, particularly where decommissioned vehicles are sold at auction, and could lead to the misuse of residual equipment or reverse-engineering of security systems.

These risks would undermine law enforcement effectiveness and negatively impact public safety.

Balancing Decision - Section 31

PSNI acknowledge the need to be transparent and accountable wherever possible. However, police need to make balanced judgements which justify why some information needs to remain exempt and unpublished. Whilst there is a public interest in the transparency of the law enforcement role of the police by providing assurance that the PSNI is appropriately trained, prepared and effectively dealing with crime, the police service also has a greater duty of care to all members of Public and PSNI officers.

The disclosure of this information would compromise policing operations, increase risks to officers and the public, and require significant resources to counteract the harm. Therefore, disclosure is not in the public interest.

Factors Favouring Release - Section 43

Releasing this information would facilitate the accountability and transparency of public authorities in the spending of public money. There is a keen public interest in how public authorities spend public money and that value for money is achieved. Disclosure would better inform the public of the costs involved.

Factors Favouring Retention - Section 43

Disclosure of how much PSNI spend at this time may reduce the ability of PSNI to obtain value for money in future procurement. Obtaining value for money is in the overriding public interest when considering whether to disclose the further information sought.

Discounts offered to the Public Sector / Blue Light customers are generally not released to the public as it could create a false retail customer expectation and therefore mislead potential

customers. Disclosure would provide competitors an insight to the unique product offer that helped to win a contract leaving contractors at a commercial disadvantage.

Balancing/Decision - Section 43

Companies may lose confidence in the PSNI as they would have no expectation that costs would be released into the public domain. If companies are discouraged from participating in the tendering process this may adversely affect the quality of tenders for public contracts and this would not be in the public interest.

A release under Freedom of Information is considered a release into the public domain not just to the applicant requesting the information and therefore a release in effect would be to other competitors vying for the contract. Disclosing the current costs paid would provide an advantage to rival businesses and undermine the main contractor’s trading ability to tender for future contracts.

Whilst accountability surrounding the use of public funds is always a strong argument in favour of releasing information, we have decided that disclosing costs at this time would not be in the public interest.

Disclosing this information could disadvantage a company and weaken their ability to tender for future contracts in a competitive market, impacting on future business revenue. The PSNI's commercial interests could be prejudiced if costs were disclosed which would damage the business reputation of the Service. The FOIA does not define commercial interests and the ICO Guidance on the application of Section 43 suggests that “… a commercial interest relates to a person’s ability to participate competitively in a commercial activity i.e. the purchase and sale of goods or services.”

Disclosure could discourage companies from submitting commercially sensitive information and consequently undermine the ability of the PSNI to procure best value for public funds and to conduct a fair tender competition in the future. To disclose such commercially sensitive information could diminish confidence in the integrity of the public tendering process thus discouraging companies from competing in public sector tenders. A consequence of this would be to reduce the ability of public authorities to obtain value for money in procurement.