FS50256704: Difference between revisions

From FOIwiki
Jump to navigationJump to search
No edit summary
m Text replace - "DNDecision1" to "DNDecision"
 
(2 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{DNSummaryBox
{{DNSummaryBox
|dn_ref=FS50256704
|dn_ref=FS50256704
|dn_date=08/04/2010
|dn_date=8 April 2010
|dn_pa=Royal Mail
|dn_pa=Royal Mail
|dn_summary=The complainant made a request to Royal Mail for the minutes of the Stamp Advisory Committee (the “SAC”). Royal Mail withheld the minutes of the SAC under sections 36(2)(b)(i) and 36(2)(c). After investigating the case the Commissioner decided that the information was correctly withheld under section 36(2)(b)(i). However, the Commissioner also decided that Royal Mail did not meet the requirements of section 17(3).
|dn_summary=The complainant made a request to Royal Mail for the minutes of the Stamp Advisory Committee (the “SAC”). Royal Mail withheld the minutes of the SAC under sections 36(2)(b)(i) and 36(2)(c). After investigating the case the Commissioner decided that the information was correctly withheld under section 36(2)(b)(i). However, the Commissioner also decided that Royal Mail did not meet the requirements of section 17(3).
|dn_url=http://www.ico.gov.uk/upload/documents/decisionnotices/2010/fs_50256704.pdf
|dn_url=http://www.ico.gov.uk/upload/documents/decisionnotices/2010/fs_50256704.pdf
}}
}}

Latest revision as of 22:40, 15 May 2010


Decision Summary

  • Case Ref: FS50256704
  • Date: 8 April 2010
  • Public Authority: Royal Mail
  • Summary: The complainant made a request to Royal Mail for the minutes of the Stamp Advisory Committee (the “SAC”). Royal Mail withheld the minutes of the SAC under sections 36(2)(b)(i) and 36(2)(c). After investigating the case the Commissioner decided that the information was correctly withheld under section 36(2)(b)(i). However, the Commissioner also decided that Royal Mail did not meet the requirements of section 17(3).
  • View PDF of Decision Notice: [1]