FOI 586/25 Data Requests to Vivastreet
Date: 11/06/25
Enquiry Reference: 586-25
I write in connection with regards to your Freedom of Information request. Below is your request and our response.
Under the Freedom of Information Act 2000, I am requesting the following information for the time period 1 January 2015 to 4 April 2025:
- The total number of data requests Cleveland Police has made to the website Vivastreet as part of its investigations into potential criminality connected to a prostitution advert on the website.
Having made enquiries within the Force we would rely on the following:
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 the Freedom of Information Act requires that I 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.
Cleveland Police can neither confirm nor deny that it holds the information relevant to your request as the duty in Section 1(1) (a) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 does not apply, by virtue of the following exemptions:
Section 31(3) Law Enforcement;
Section 31 is a prejudiced based qualified exemption and there is a requirement for us to evidence harm in confirming or denying whether information is held and to consider the public interest.
Factors favouring Disclosure:
The Police Service is charged with enforcing the law, preventing and detecting crime and protecting the communities we serve and there is a public interest in the transparency of policing operations to ensure investigations, enquiries, etc. are dealt with appropriately.
Factors favouring Non-Disclosure:
Irrespective of whether information is or isn’t held, to release this information could compromise law enforcement tactics which would lead to a hindrance on the Police Force’s ability to prevent and detect crimes. Vulnerable areas could be identified leading to more criminal activity placing the public in harm’s way.
Balancing Test:
Irrespective of whether information is or isn’t held, public safety and the ability to deliver effective law enforcement is of paramount importance to the Police Service. Confirmation or denial of whether information is held would undoubtedly compromise law enforcement. As much as there is public interest in knowing that policing activity is appropriate and balanced in matters of investigative matters both locally and nationally this will only be overridden in exceptional circumstances. It is our opinion that for these issues the balancing test for disclosure is not made out.
In accordance with Section 17(4) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000, this notification acts as a Refusal Notice to this section of your request.
No inference can be taken from this refusal that the information you have requested does or does not exist.
The Cleveland Police response to your request is unique and it should be noted that Police Forces do not use generic systems or identical procedures to capture and record data therefore responses from Cleveland Police should not be used as a comparison with any other force response you receive.
If you are not satisfied with this response or any actions taken in dealing with your request, you have the right to request an independent internal review of your case under our review procedure. The Freedom of Information Code of Practice (see below link) states that a request for internal review should be made within 20 working days of the date on this response or 40 working days if extenuating circumstances to account for the delay can be evidenced. Public authorities are not obliged to accept internal reviews after this date.
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/freedom-of-information-code-of-practice
Yours sincerely
Information Rights Decision Maker