FS50192069: Difference between revisions
From FOIwiki
Jump to navigationJump to search
Alex skene (talk | contribs) m Text replace - "DNDecision2" to "DNDecision" |
Alex skene (talk | contribs) m Text replace - "DNDecision1" to "DNDecision" |
||
| Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
|dn_url=http://www.ico.gov.uk/upload/documents/decisionnotices/2009/fs_50192069.pdf | |dn_url=http://www.ico.gov.uk/upload/documents/decisionnotices/2009/fs_50192069.pdf | ||
}} | }} | ||
{{ | {{DNDecision | ||
|dnd_section=FOI 10 | |dnd_section=FOI 10 | ||
|dnd_finding=Upheld | |dnd_finding=Upheld | ||
Latest revision as of 22:37, 15 May 2010
Decision Summary
- Case Ref: FS50192069
- Date: 14 October 2009
- Public Authority: Newcastle College
- Summary: The complainant made a request under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the “Act”) to Newcastle College (the “College”) for information relating to staff surveys that were conducted at the College in 2005, 2006 and 2007. The College refused the complainant’s request as it stated that the provision at section 12 of the Act was applicable and that the information was exempt from disclosure by virtue of sections 40(2) and 41 of the Act. During the course of the Commissioner’s investigation, the College withdrew its application of section 12 and section 41 of the Act but applied the exemption contained at section 36(2)(b)(i) and (ii) and 36(2)(c) of the Act. The Commissioner considers that some of the requested information is not held by the College under section 1(1)(a) of the Act. The Commissioner has reviewed the withheld information and considers that the College correctly applied the section 40(2) exemption to withhold some of the requested information. The Commissioner also considers that the College correctly applied the exemption contained at section 36(2)(b)(ii) to withhold some of the requested information. The Commissioner considers that the College incorrectly applied section 36(2)(b)(i) and section 36(2)(c) as it did not provide sufficient arguments to establish that disclosure would or would be likely to inhibit the free and frank provision of advice or would or would be likely to prejudice the conduct of public affairs. The Commissioner also considers that the College breached section 1(1)(a), section 1(1)(b), section 10(1) and sections 17(1)(a)(b) and (c) in its handling of the request.
- View PDF of Decision Notice: [1]
- Section of Act / Finding: FOI 10 - Complaint Upheld - Find other matching decisions
- Section of Act / Finding: FOI 17 - Complaint Upheld - Find other matching decisions
- Section of Act / Finding: FOI 36 - Complaint Not upheld - Find other matching decisions
- Section of Act / Finding: FOI 40 - Complaint Not upheld - Find other matching decisions
