FS50207431: 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" |
||
| (5 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{DNSummaryBox | {{DNSummaryBox | ||
|dn_ref=FS50207431 | |dn_ref=FS50207431 | ||
|dn_date=17 | |dn_date=17 August 2009 | ||
|dn_pa=Department for Transport | |dn_pa=Department for Transport | ||
|dn_summary=The complainant asked the Department for Transport (the | |dn_summary=The complainant asked the Department for Transport (the “DfT”) to confirm whether it had provided financial support to the Silverlink Rail Franchise during industrial action in 2007. He also asked it to confirm whether, as a result of that dispute, any changes were made to the London Midland franchise agreement with Govia, or whether any extra financial support was offered. The DfT refused to provide this information, and cited section 43(2) of the Act. After investigating the case the Commissioner decided that section 43(2) is not engaged. Therefore the withheld information should be disclosed. The Commissioner also found that the DfT did not meet the requirements of sections 1(1)(b), 10(1), 17(1)(c) and 17(3). | ||
|dn_url=http://www.ico.gov.uk/upload/documents/decisionnotices/2009/fs_50207431.pdf | |dn_url=http://www.ico.gov.uk/upload/documents/decisionnotices/2009/fs_50207431.pdf | ||
}} | }} | ||
{{DNDecision | {{DNDecision | ||
|1=FOI 43 | |dnd_section=FOI 1 | ||
| | |dnd_finding=Upheld | ||
}} | |||
{{DNDecision | |||
|dnd_section=FOI 10 | |||
|dnd_finding=Upheld | |||
}} | |||
{{DNDecision | |||
|dnd_section=FOI 17 | |||
|dnd_finding=Upheld | |||
}} | |||
{{DNDecision | |||
|dnd_section=FOI 43 | |||
|dnd_finding=Upheld | |||
}} | }} | ||
Latest revision as of 22:38, 15 May 2010
Decision Summary
- Case Ref: FS50207431
- Date: 17 August 2009
- Public Authority: Department for Transport
- Summary: The complainant asked the Department for Transport (the “DfT”) to confirm whether it had provided financial support to the Silverlink Rail Franchise during industrial action in 2007. He also asked it to confirm whether, as a result of that dispute, any changes were made to the London Midland franchise agreement with Govia, or whether any extra financial support was offered. The DfT refused to provide this information, and cited section 43(2) of the Act. After investigating the case the Commissioner decided that section 43(2) is not engaged. Therefore the withheld information should be disclosed. The Commissioner also found that the DfT did not meet the requirements of sections 1(1)(b), 10(1), 17(1)(c) and 17(3).
- View PDF of Decision Notice: [1]
- Section of Act / Finding: FOI 1 - Complaint Upheld - Find other matching decisions
- 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 43 - Complaint Upheld - Find other matching decisions
