FS50090632: Difference between revisions

From FOIwiki
Jump to navigationJump to search
m Text replace - "DNDecision3" to "DNDecision"
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/2007/decision_notice_fs50090632.pdf
|dn_url=http://www.ico.gov.uk/upload/documents/decisionnotices/2007/decision_notice_fs50090632.pdf
}}
}}
{{DNDecision1
{{DNDecision
|dnd_section=FOI 1
|dnd_section=FOI 1
|dnd_finding=Partly Upheld
|dnd_finding=Partly Upheld
}}
}}
{{DNDecision2
{{DNDecision
|dnd_section=FOI 10
|dnd_section=FOI 10
|dnd_finding=Upheld
|dnd_finding=Upheld

Latest revision as of 22:25, 15 May 2010


Decision Summary

  • Case Ref: FS50090632
  • Date: 10 April 2007
  • Public Authority: Transport for London
  • Summary: The complainant submitted a number of requests to the public authority between February and June 2005 which mainly focussed on issues relating to the public authority’s pension fund. The complainant alleged that in processing these requests the public authority committed a number of breaches of the Act. The Commissioner has investigated the matter and concluded that the public authority breached section 1 of the Act twice by failing to provide the complainant with information he was entitled to under the Act, breached section 10 by failing to provide requested information within 20 working days and breached section 17 by failing to supply a refusal notice. However, the Commissioner has established that in relation to a number of other requests, TfL did fulfil the duty at section 1 by providing the complainant with all the information it held within 20 working days. The Commissioner has also decided that the public authority was correct to rely on section 14 as a basis to refuse one of the complainant’s later requests.
  • View PDF of Decision Notice: [1]