FS50160725: 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/2008/fs_50160725.pdf | |dn_url=http://www.ico.gov.uk/upload/documents/decisionnotices/2008/fs_50160725.pdf | ||
}} | }} | ||
{{ | {{DNDecision | ||
|dnd_section=FOI 14 | |dnd_section=FOI 14 | ||
|dnd_finding=Not upheld | |dnd_finding=Not upheld | ||
}} | }} | ||
{{ | {{DNDecision | ||
|dnd_section=FOI 17 | |dnd_section=FOI 17 | ||
|dnd_finding=Upheld | |dnd_finding=Upheld | ||
}} | }} | ||
Latest revision as of 22:32, 15 May 2010
Decision Summary
- Case Ref: FS50160725
- Date: 15 December 2008
- Public Authority: The Governing Body of Garforth Community College
- Summary: The complainant requested information relating to 3 teachers and a governor of the public authority. The public authority refused to provide a full response citing Section 14(2) (Repeated request) in relation to one part of the request and Section 14(1) (Vexatious request) in relation to the other part of the request. The Commissioner has decided that the public authority correctly cited Section 14(1) and Section 14(2) as its basis for not providing a full response to the request. However, the public authority failed to respond to the complainant within 20 working days as required by Section 17(5) of the Act where a public authority seeks to rely on Section 14 as its basis for refusing a request. No steps are required.
- View PDF of Decision Notice: [1]
- Section of Act / Finding: FOI 14 - Complaint Not upheld - Find other matching decisions
- Section of Act / Finding: FOI 17 - Complaint Upheld - Find other matching decisions
