FS50072190: Difference between revisions
From FOIwiki
Jump to navigationJump to search
Alex skene (talk | contribs) CSV import |
Alex skene (talk | contribs) m Text replace - "DNDecision1" to "DNDecision" |
||
| (One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
|dn_url=http://www.ico.gov.uk/upload/documents/decisionnotices/2006/decision_notice_fs50072190.pdf | |dn_url=http://www.ico.gov.uk/upload/documents/decisionnotices/2006/decision_notice_fs50072190.pdf | ||
}} | }} | ||
{{ | {{DNDecision | ||
|dnd_section=FOI 21 | |dnd_section=FOI 21 | ||
|dnd_finding=Upheld | |dnd_finding=Upheld | ||
}} | }} | ||
{{ | {{DNDecision | ||
|dnd_section=FOI 31 | |dnd_section=FOI 31 | ||
|dnd_finding=Upheld | |dnd_finding=Upheld | ||
}} | }} | ||
Latest revision as of 22:23, 15 May 2010
Decision Summary
- Case Ref: FS50072190
- Date: 25 July 2006
- Public Authority: Bexley Council
- Summary: The complainant requested addresses of empty properties in the Borough, the reasons the properties are empty, and information about ownership. The Council released some statistical information in respect of the total number of empty properties in the borough and the reasons the properties are empty, but withheld the remainder of the information under section 31 of the Act on the basis that its release would prejudice the prevention of crime. The Commissioner found that the exemption under section 31 had been incorrectly applied to the addresses of empty properties in the borough. However, the Commissioner also found that information in relation to ownership is exempt from disclosure under section 21 of the Act because it is reasonably accessible to the complainant by other means. The Information Tribunal has ruled on this decision and has upheld this appeal.
- View PDF of Decision Notice: [1]
- Section of Act / Finding: FOI 21 - Complaint Upheld - Find other matching decisions
- Section of Act / Finding: FOI 31 - Complaint Upheld - Find other matching decisions
