FS50265162 and FS50274024: 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/2010/fs_50265162_and_fs50274024.pdf | |dn_url=http://www.ico.gov.uk/upload/documents/decisionnotices/2010/fs_50265162_and_fs50274024.pdf | ||
}} | }} | ||
{{ | {{DNDecision | ||
|dnd_section=FOI 10 | |dnd_section=FOI 10 | ||
|dnd_finding=Upheld | |dnd_finding=Upheld | ||
Latest revision as of 22:40, 15 May 2010
Decision Summary
- Case Ref: FS50265162 and FS50274024
- Date: 9 February 2010
- Public Authority: Vehicle and Operator Services Agency
- Summary: The complainant made two separate requests to VOSA and modified those requests on the telephone. All his requests concerned information about a named company and in particular information connected to maintenance investigations and the prohibition notices served on it (PG9s). The public authority eventually provided complete copies of the 2007 and 2008 maintenance reports. The Commissioner finds breaches of section 1(1) (b) and 10(1) in not providing this information within twenty working days of receiving the requests for information. The outstanding information consisted of the PG9 notices themselves, to which the public authority applied sections 43(2) and 31(1)(g). The Commissioner has determined that the public authority has applied section 31(1)(g) correctly. He finds breaches of sections 17 in failing to cite an exemption on which it has later relied. He requires no remedial steps to be taken in this case.
- 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 31 - Complaint Not upheld - Find other matching decisions
