FS50068235: Difference between revisions
From FOIwiki
Jump to navigationJump to search
Alex skene (talk | contribs) XML import |
Alex skene (talk | contribs) m Text replace - "DNDecision1" to "DNDecision" |
||
| (One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{DNSummaryBox | |||
|dn_ref=FS50068235 | |dn_ref=FS50068235 | ||
|dn_date= | |dn_date=5 January 2006 | ||
|dn_pa=Department of Trade and Industry | |dn_pa=Department of Trade and Industry | ||
|dn_summary=The complainant requested the reason for the investigation of a property management company. The DTI did not challenge whether this was a request for specific information and therefore treated this as a valid request under the FOI Act. The DTI refused to release the information citing the exemption provided by section 30 (1)(b) and 30(2)(i) and (b). Section 30 covers investigations and proceedings conducted by public authorities. The DTI argued that disclosure could identify those complaining to it and prejudice its ability to carry out its functions effectively. The Commissioner has agreed that section 30 was applied correctly to the information sought by the complainant, but he has decided that in this particular case, the public interest test in disclosing the information in outline terms, as detailed in the Decision Notice, outweighed the public interest in withholding the information. The Infomation Tribunal has ruled on this decision and has upheld the appeal | |dn_summary=The complainant requested the reason for the investigation of a property management company. The DTI did not challenge whether this was a request for specific information and therefore treated this as a valid request under the FOI Act. The DTI refused to release the information citing the exemption provided by section 30 (1)(b) and 30(2)(i) and (b). Section 30 covers investigations and proceedings conducted by public authorities. The DTI argued that disclosure could identify those complaining to it and prejudice its ability to carry out its functions effectively. The Commissioner has agreed that section 30 was applied correctly to the information sought by the complainant, but he has decided that in this particular case, the public interest test in disclosing the information in outline terms, as detailed in the Decision Notice, outweighed the public interest in withholding the information. The Infomation Tribunal has ruled on this decision and has upheld the appeal | ||
Latest revision as of 22:22, 15 May 2010
Decision Summary
- Case Ref: FS50068235
- Date: 5 January 2006
- Public Authority: Department of Trade and Industry
- Summary: The complainant requested the reason for the investigation of a property management company. The DTI did not challenge whether this was a request for specific information and therefore treated this as a valid request under the FOI Act. The DTI refused to release the information citing the exemption provided by section 30 (1)(b) and 30(2)(i) and (b). Section 30 covers investigations and proceedings conducted by public authorities. The DTI argued that disclosure could identify those complaining to it and prejudice its ability to carry out its functions effectively. The Commissioner has agreed that section 30 was applied correctly to the information sought by the complainant, but he has decided that in this particular case, the public interest test in disclosing the information in outline terms, as detailed in the Decision Notice, outweighed the public interest in withholding the information. The Infomation Tribunal has ruled on this decision and has upheld the appeal
- View PDF of Decision Notice: [1]
- Section of Act / Finding: FOI 30 - Complaint Upheld - Find other matching decisions
