FS50077716: 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" |
||
| (3 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{DNSummaryBox | {{DNSummaryBox | ||
|dn_ref=FS50077716 | |dn_ref=FS50077716 | ||
|dn_date=28 | |dn_date=28 September 2006 | ||
|dn_pa=Chief Officer South Wales Police | |dn_pa=Chief Officer South Wales Police | ||
|dn_summary=The complainant requested information from the public authority about allegations of mistreatment, neglect and abuse at premises operated by an NHS Trust. The public authority responded by asking the requestor to narrow down his request, which he did. The public authority then refused the request by virtue of section 12, stating that the cost of complying would exceed the | |dn_summary=The complainant requested information from the public authority about allegations of mistreatment, neglect and abuse at premises operated by an NHS Trust. The public authority responded by asking the requestor to narrow down his request, which he did. The public authority then refused the request by virtue of section 12, stating that the cost of complying would exceed the ‘appropriate limit’. The Commissioner sought evidence to show that the cost of compliance would exceed the appropriate limit, and a member of his staff visited the authority to view its records management systems. The Commissioner has decided that, in this case, the authority applied the Act appropriately by refusing the request by virtue of section 12 and in particular the Freedom of Information and Data Protection (Appropriate Limit and Fees) Regulations 2004. However, he also finds that the authority did not deal with the request in accordance with the requirements of Part I of the Act because it exceeded the time for compliance, as set out in section 10 of the Act. The Information Tribunal has ruled on this decision and has dismissed the appeal. | ||
|dn_url=http://www.ico.gov.uk/upload/documents/decisionnotices/2006/fs50077716_dn.doc.pdf | |dn_url=http://www.ico.gov.uk/upload/documents/decisionnotices/2006/fs50077716_dn.doc.pdf | ||
}} | }} | ||
{{DNDecision | {{DNDecision | ||
| | |dnd_section=FOI 12 | ||
| | |dnd_finding=Not upheld | ||
}} | |||
{{DNDecision | |||
|dnd_section=FOI 10 | |||
|dnd_finding=Upheld | |||
}} | }} | ||
Latest revision as of 22:23, 15 May 2010
Decision Summary
- Case Ref: FS50077716
- Date: 28 September 2006
- Public Authority: Chief Officer South Wales Police
- Summary: The complainant requested information from the public authority about allegations of mistreatment, neglect and abuse at premises operated by an NHS Trust. The public authority responded by asking the requestor to narrow down his request, which he did. The public authority then refused the request by virtue of section 12, stating that the cost of complying would exceed the ‘appropriate limit’. The Commissioner sought evidence to show that the cost of compliance would exceed the appropriate limit, and a member of his staff visited the authority to view its records management systems. The Commissioner has decided that, in this case, the authority applied the Act appropriately by refusing the request by virtue of section 12 and in particular the Freedom of Information and Data Protection (Appropriate Limit and Fees) Regulations 2004. However, he also finds that the authority did not deal with the request in accordance with the requirements of Part I of the Act because it exceeded the time for compliance, as set out in section 10 of the Act. The Information Tribunal has ruled on this decision and has dismissed the appeal.
- View PDF of Decision Notice: [1]
- Section of Act / Finding: FOI 12 - Complaint Not upheld - Find other matching decisions
- Section of Act / Finding: FOI 10 - Complaint Upheld - Find other matching decisions
