FS50216278: 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" |
||
| (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_50216278.pdf | |dn_url=http://www.ico.gov.uk/upload/documents/decisionnotices/2009/fs_50216278.pdf | ||
}} | }} | ||
{{ | {{DNDecision | ||
|dnd_section=FOI 10 | |dnd_section=FOI 10 | ||
|dnd_finding=Upheld | |dnd_finding=Upheld | ||
}} | }} | ||
{{ | {{DNDecision | ||
|dnd_section=FOI 43 | |dnd_section=FOI 43 | ||
|dnd_finding=Upheld | |dnd_finding=Upheld | ||
}} | }} | ||
Latest revision as of 22:39, 15 May 2010
Decision Summary
- Case Ref: FS50216278
- Date: 9 November 2009
- Public Authority: Royal Mail
- Summary: The complainant made a request under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the ‘Act’) to the Royal Mail for information relating to Post Offices in Norfolk. The Royal Mail refused the complainant’s request as it stated that some of the information requested was exempt from disclosure by virtue of section 43(2) of the Act. The Royal Mail confirmed that the remainder of the information requested was not held under section 1(1)(a) of the Act. The Commissioner has reviewed the withheld information and has decided that section 43(2) was not correctly engaged in this case. The Commissioner considers that the remainder of the requested information is not held under section 1(1)(a) of the Act. Furthermore the Commissioner considers that the Royal Mail breached section 1(1)(b) and section 10(1) in the handling of this request.
- View PDF of Decision Notice: [1]
- Section of Act / Finding: FOI 10 - Complaint Upheld - Find other matching decisions
- Section of Act / Finding: FOI 43 - Complaint Upheld - Find other matching decisions
