FS50173284: Difference between revisions

From FOIwiki
Jump to navigationJump to search
CSV import
 
m Text replace - "DNDecision1" to "DNDecision"
 
(3 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{DNSummaryBox
{{DNSummaryBox
|dn_ref=FS50173284
|dn_ref=FS50173284
|dn_date=11/12/2008
|dn_date=11 December 2008
|dn_pa=Office of Fair Trading
|dn_pa=Office of Fair Trading
|dn_summary=The complainants requested information from OFT regarding its investigation into credit card default charges. OFT explained that it held the requested information but to provide it would exceed the appropriate cost limit under section 12 �cost limit�. The Commissioner found that OFT was entitled to aggregate the cost of responding to the request under section 12(4) of the Act and that OFT correctly relied upon section 12(1) as a basis for not providing some of the information. However, the Commissioner found that in failing to inform the complainant that the information requested in part 1 of the request is not held OFT breached the requirements of section 1(1)(a). OFT also breached the requirements of section 1(1)(b) and section 10(1) by failing to disclose the information requested in parts 2 and 4 of the request within twenty working days of the request. In addition, the Commissioner found that OFT did not provide adequate advice and assistance in accordance with the requirements of section 16(1).
|dn_summary=The complainants requested information from OFT regarding its investigation into credit card default charges. OFT explained that it held the requested information but to provide it would exceed the appropriate cost limit under section 12 ‘cost limit’. The Commissioner found that OFT was entitled to aggregate the cost of responding to the request under section 12(4) of the Act and that OFT correctly relied upon section 12(1) as a basis for not providing some of the information. However, the Commissioner found that in failing to inform the complainant that the information requested in part 1 of the request is not held OFT breached the requirements of section 1(1)(a). OFT also breached the requirements of section 1(1)(b) and section 10(1) by failing to disclose the information requested in parts 2 and 4 of the request within twenty working days of the request. In addition, the Commissioner found that OFT did not provide adequate advice and assistance in accordance with the requirements of section 16(1).
|dn_url=http://www.ico.gov.uk/upload/documents/decisionnotices/2008/fs_50173284.pdf
|dn_url=http://www.ico.gov.uk/upload/documents/decisionnotices/2008/fs_50173284.pdf
}}
}}
{{DNDecision
{{DNDecision
|1=FOI 16
|dnd_section=FOI 12
|2=Upheld
|dnd_finding=Not upheld
}}
{{DNDecision
|dnd_section=FOI 16
|dnd_finding=Upheld
}}
}}

Latest revision as of 22:36, 15 May 2010


Decision Summary

  • Case Ref: FS50173284
  • Date: 11 December 2008
  • Public Authority: Office of Fair Trading
  • Summary: The complainants requested information from OFT regarding its investigation into credit card default charges. OFT explained that it held the requested information but to provide it would exceed the appropriate cost limit under section 12 ‘cost limit’. The Commissioner found that OFT was entitled to aggregate the cost of responding to the request under section 12(4) of the Act and that OFT correctly relied upon section 12(1) as a basis for not providing some of the information. However, the Commissioner found that in failing to inform the complainant that the information requested in part 1 of the request is not held OFT breached the requirements of section 1(1)(a). OFT also breached the requirements of section 1(1)(b) and section 10(1) by failing to disclose the information requested in parts 2 and 4 of the request within twenty working days of the request. In addition, the Commissioner found that OFT did not provide adequate advice and assistance in accordance with the requirements of section 16(1).
  • View PDF of Decision Notice: [1]
Retrieved from "https://foiwiki.com/foiwiki/index.php?title=FS50173284&oldid=16814"