FS50170381: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 21:11, 3 May 2010

Case Ref: FS50170381
Date: 20/04/2009
Public Authority: Metropolitan Police Service
Summary: ity failed to cite fully the exemption that it relied upon within the statutory timescales, but requires no steps to be taken.
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 40 - Complaint Not upheld - Find other matching decisions

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
-{{DNSummaryBox
+	{{DNSummaryBox
 |dn_ref=FS50170381
 |dn_date=20/04/2009
 |dn_pa=Metropolitan Police Service
-|dn_summary=The complainant asked the public authority for information about various aspects of an internal investigation into a particular officer�s conduct that he believed had taken place. The public authority informed the complainant that it was not obliged to comply with section 1(1)(a) in relation to this information by virtue of the exclusion from that duty found in section 40(5)(b)(i) of the Act. The Commissioner is satisfied that the public authority applied section 40(5)(b)(i) properly and dismisses the complaint. However, the Commissioner has found a procedural breach of section 10(1) as the public authority did not issue its refusal notice within twenty working days and a breach of section 17(1)(b) because the public authority failed to cite fully the exemption that it relied upon within the statutory timescales, but requires no steps to be taken.
+|dn_summary=ity failed to cite fully the exemption that it relied upon within the statutory timescales, but requires no steps to be taken.
 |dn_url=http://www.ico.gov.uk/upload/documents/decisionnotices/2009/fs_50170381.pdf
 }}
 {{DNDecision
-|1=FOI 40
+|dnd_section=FOI 10
-|2=Not upheld
+|dnd_finding=Upheld
+}}
+{{DNDecision
+|dnd_section=FOI 17
+|dnd_finding=Upheld
+}}
+{{DNDecision
+|dnd_section=FOI 40
+|dnd_finding=Not upheld
 }}