FS50129430: Difference between revisions
From FOIwiki
Jump to navigationJump to search
Alex skene (talk | contribs) m Text replace - "DNDecision3" to "DNDecision" |
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/2009/fs_50129430.pdf | |dn_url=http://www.ico.gov.uk/upload/documents/decisionnotices/2009/fs_50129430.pdf | ||
}} | }} | ||
{{ | {{DNDecision | ||
|dnd_section=FOI 10 | |dnd_section=FOI 10 | ||
|dnd_finding=Upheld | |dnd_finding=Upheld | ||
}} | }} | ||
{{ | {{DNDecision | ||
|dnd_section=FOI 12 | |dnd_section=FOI 12 | ||
|dnd_finding=Not upheld | |dnd_finding=Not upheld | ||
Latest revision as of 22:29, 15 May 2010
Decision Summary
- Case Ref: FS50129430
- Date: 18 November 2009
- Public Authority: Financial Services Authority
- Summary: The complainant asked the public authority for information about two firms of stockbrokers. The public authority did not hold information about one; provided a small amount of information about the other; and applied the exemptions under sections 44, 43 and 40 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (‘the Act’) to the remaining information. After the Commissioner’s intervention the public authority indicated that it was prepared to release some further information; it added the exemptions under sections 21 and 31 to some of the information; and identified further information held which fell within the request, the processing of which was likely to bring the whole request over the appropriate costs limit and so render it non-disclosable under section 12. The Commissioner decided that the request could have been refined to bring it within the costs limit, had the public authority identified all of the relevant information at the outset. He also decided that some of the information was exempt under sections 21, 40 and 44 of the Act but, in breach of section 1(1), the public authority had failed to disclose other information to which the cited exemptions under sections 21, 31, 40, 43 and 44 did not apply. The Commissioner further decided that the public authority had failed to identify all relevant information falling within the request and therefore provide adequate written notification about whether it was held, in breach of section 1(1)(a); and that it had delayed in disclosing information in breach of sections 10(1) and 1(1)(b). The Commissioner required the public authority to disclose the information which it had improperly withheld. This decision notice is currently under appeal to the Information Tribunal.
- View PDF of Decision Notice: [1]
- Section of Act / Finding: FOI 10 - Complaint Upheld - Find other matching decisions
- Section of Act / Finding: FOI 12 - Complaint Not upheld - Find other matching decisions
- Section of Act / Finding: FOI 31 - Complaint Upheld - Find other matching decisions
- Section of Act / Finding: FOI 40 - Complaint Upheld - Find other matching decisions
- Section of Act / Finding: FOI 43 - Complaint Upheld - Find other matching decisions
- Section of Act / Finding: FOI 44 - Complaint Upheld - Find other matching decisions
