FS50240406: 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_50240406 .pdf | |dn_url=http://www.ico.gov.uk/upload/documents/decisionnotices/2009/fs_50240406 .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: FS50240406
- Date: 1 December 2009
- Public Authority: Royal Mail
- Summary: The complainant requested recent performance figures for first and second class mail. Specifically he was seeking figures which showed actual delivery times. Royal Mail confirmed that it held this information, but withheld it under section 43(2). During the investigation of the case the complainant confirmed that he was seeking access to figures for the 2007/08 financial year. After investigating the case the Commissioner decided that although section 43(2) was engaged, the public interest in maintaining the exemption did not outweigh the public interest in disclosure. Therefore the information should be disclosed. In addition to this, the Commissioner also found that Royal Mail did not meet the requirements of sections 1(1)(b) or 10(1). This decision notice is currently under appeal to the Information Tribunal.
- View PDF of Decision Notice: .pdf
- Section of Act / Finding: FOI 10 - Complaint Upheld - Find other matching decisions
- Section of Act / Finding: FOI 43 - Complaint Upheld - Find other matching decisions
