FS50197355: Difference between revisions
From FOIwiki
Jump to navigationJump to search
Alex skene (talk | contribs) XML import |
Alex skene (talk | contribs) m Text replace - "DNDecision1" to "DNDecision" |
||
| (3 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{DNSummaryBox | |||
|dn_ref=FS50197355 | |dn_ref=FS50197355 | ||
|dn_date=27 | |dn_date=27 July 2009 | ||
|dn_pa=City of Westminster Council | |dn_pa=City of Westminster Council | ||
|dn_summary= | |dn_summary=The complainant requested information from the City of Westminster Council (“the council”) for 13 sets of information for each of 4 year groups for 7 academic years relating to 2 schools. The council refused to provide this as, when aggregated with requests from others acting together, compliance would exceed the appropriate cost limit. The Commissioner has investigated and found that the council were not obliged to comply with the request by virtue of section 12(1). The Commissioner also found that the council breached the requirements of section 17(5) for not issuing the refusal notice within the statutory timeframe and for not explicitly stating that it was relying on section 12. The Commissioner also found a breach of section 16(1) and requires the council to contact the complainant in order to refine his request in line with its duty under section 16 to provide advice and assistance. | ||
|dn_url=http://www.ico.gov.uk/upload/documents/decisionnotices/2009/fs_50197355.pdf | |dn_url=http://www.ico.gov.uk/upload/documents/decisionnotices/2009/fs_50197355.pdf | ||
}} | }} | ||
Latest revision as of 22:37, 15 May 2010
Decision Summary
- Case Ref: FS50197355
- Date: 27 July 2009
- Public Authority: City of Westminster Council
- Summary: The complainant requested information from the City of Westminster Council (“the council”) for 13 sets of information for each of 4 year groups for 7 academic years relating to 2 schools. The council refused to provide this as, when aggregated with requests from others acting together, compliance would exceed the appropriate cost limit. The Commissioner has investigated and found that the council were not obliged to comply with the request by virtue of section 12(1). The Commissioner also found that the council breached the requirements of section 17(5) for not issuing the refusal notice within the statutory timeframe and for not explicitly stating that it was relying on section 12. The Commissioner also found a breach of section 16(1) and requires the council to contact the complainant in order to refine his request in line with its duty under section 16 to provide advice and assistance.
- View PDF of Decision Notice: [1]
- Section of Act / Finding: FOI 12 - Complaint Not upheld - Find other matching decisions
- Section of Act / Finding: FOI 16 - Complaint Upheld - Find other matching decisions
- Section of Act / Finding: FOI 17 - Complaint Upheld - Find other matching decisions
