E Scooters (FOI Ref:2462A/25)
Request
- I would be grateful of you could please provide a response to the FOI Unit by: 25/11/2025 The number of privately-owned e-scooters that were seized by your police force:
- between 1 October 2021 to 30 September 2022;
- between 1 October 2022 to 30 September 2023;
- between 1 October 2023 to 30 September 2024;
- between 1 October 2024 to 30 September 2025.
- Of the e-scooters seized between 1 October 2021 and 30 September 2025, the number that were released back to owners:
- between 1 October 2021 to 30 September 2022;
- between 1 October 2022 to 30 September 2023;
- between 1 October 2023 to 30 September 2024;
- between 1 October 2024 to 30 September 2025.
- The name and date of any specific operations your force has conducted, targeting the illegal or anti-social use of privately owned e-scooters. [Please specify if the operation also targeted enforcement of anti-social or illegal use of e-bikes or other forms of micromobility.]
- Please provide the current policy or standard operating procedure for the disposal or handling of seized e-scooters.
- Please provide a copy of any internal policy, guidance, or standard operating procedure (SOP) that governs how officers should approach enforcement action against e-scooter riders.
Response
Please find enclosed our response.
Our data is not organised in such a way as to allow us to provide this information within the appropriate (cost) limit within the Freedom of Information (FOI) Act (see ‘Reason for Decision’ below).
Although excess cost removes the force’s obligations under the Freedom of Information Act, as a gesture of goodwill I have supplied information, relative to your request, retrieved before it was realised that the fees limit would be exceeded (see enclosed document and attached files). I trust this is helpful, but it does not affect our legal right to rely on the fees regulations for the remainder of the request.
For questions 1 and 2:
Between 1 October 2021 to 30 September 2022. 155 recovered 0 reclaimed
Between 1 October 2022 to 30 September 2023. 69 recovered 0 reclaimed
Between 1 October 2023 to 30 September 2024. 37 recovered 2 reclaimed
Between 1 October 2024 to 30 September 2025. 11 recovered 0 reclaimed
3.The name and date of any specific operations your force has conducted, targeting the illegal or anti-social use of privately owned e-scooters. [Please specify if the operation also targeted enforcement of anti-social or illegal use of e-bikes or other forms of micromobility.]
There is no start date / end date for this search, so we have presumed that you require the data as in the dates at questions 1 and 2.
To locate this information would exceed the 18 hours for the purpose of the FOI Act. West Midlands Police is a large Force, and we will have large operations as detailed in the news articles below. However, force wide each neighbourhood Policing Unit could have had their own separate incentives. As this data is not recorded in a central location it will take more than 18 hours.
Here is an example of larger Operations:
West Midlands Police seize more than 100 e-scooters in crack down - BBC News
Five illegal e-bikes seized in Coventry city centre | West Midlands Police
4.Please provide the current policy or standard operating procedure for the disposal or handling of seized e-scooters.
5.Please provide a copy of any internal policy, guidance, or standard operating procedure (SOP) that governs how officers should approach enforcement action against e-scooter riders.
For questions 4 and 5.
There is also no specific policy around e-scooters as there is no need for one. Almost 100% of e-scooters are seized under s165a of the Road Traffic Act (i.e. driven without insurance/licence) This means you need to gain insurance to get the vehicle back. As these e-scooters are uninsurable we scrap them as per legislation.
To assist I have attached (redacted) copies of our policies around the seizures of vehicles which are generic for all type of vehicle.
Attachment = OIC responsibilities
Attachment = Release - collection of vehicles
All officers will enforce action based on each individual situation and where an e scooter is not insured it will be seized and the rider reported for relevant offences. There is no specific document which governs this enforcement.
The attachments have been redacted by virtues of the following exemptions:
S40 (2) personal data
S31(1) Law enforcement
Section 40(2) is an absolute and class-based exemption if to release the information exists would breach the third party’s data protection rights. In this case to release this personal information would not constitute fair processing of the data. As this exemption is class-based I am not required to identify the harm in disclosure and in this instance, I believe that the right to privacy outweighs any public interest in release.
These exemptions and explanatory notes are shown here:
In line with the above, I am required to complete a Prejudice Test/Public Interest Test (PIT) on disclosure. Please find this PIT below.
Section 31(1) – Law enforcement
Harm
Release via the Freedom of Information Act is deemed release into the public domain. Therefore, releasing the information would allow criminals to accurately evaluate the capability of West Midlands Police (WMP) to deploy specific communication analysis technology. Such detailed knowledge would allow criminals to make a judgement regarding the techniques that have been or may be used against them and therefore to take measures to avoid specific techniques.
Factors that favour Disclosure
Disclosing information about technologies / tactics used by police would provide a greater transparency in their actions and ensure that they operate effectively and efficiently. It is clear that there is a public interest in public authorities operating in as transparent a manner as possible, as this should allow the public to understand how the force spends public money.
Disclosing what specific technologies and tactics are employed should provide the necessary safeguards and satisfy the public interest regarding the use of techniques by the police. Disclosing specific technologies could help to ensure that the police are accountable for the techniques they employ.
Factors against Disclosure
Where the current or future law enforcement role of the force may be compromised by the release of information, then this is unlikely to be in the interest of the public.
Knowledge of the technologies and tactics available to WMP would allow criminals to judge which devices are most difficult to unlock and to choose those in order to avoid detection. It would also allow them to employ other methods to counteract the specific technologies and tactics available to WMP. This would compromise the future prevention and detection of crime.
Balancing Test
The issues of transparency and awareness are noted. However, on balance it is considered that the public interest in disclosing the information is outweighed by the potential impact release would have on current and future law enforcement activities.
Disclosing information in this case would place into the public domain information that would allow criminals to avoid detection and target their activities. To undermine the police’s ability to prevent and detect crime would not be in the public interest. The wider public interest lies in protecting the ability of the police to utilise these techniques effectively and in a proportionate manner, given that there are already a number of independent mechanisms in place to ensure that the technology is used fairly and lawfully.
Having considered the arguments for and against, I therefore consider that the public interest test favours maintaining the exclusion of disclosing the requested information. West Midlands Police will not disclose information that could compromise the current or future law enforcement role of the force.