FS50088736: Difference between revisions

From FOIwiki
Jump to navigationJump to search
XML import
CSV import
Line 1: Line 1:
{{DNSummaryBox
{{DNSummaryBox
|dn_ref=FS50088736
|dn_ref=FS50088736
|dn_date=29/01/2009
|dn_date=29 January 2009
|dn_pa=Department of Health
|dn_pa=Department of Health
|dn_summary= its refusal notice that it believed that sections 40(2) and 41 were applicable to the information requested nor explain why they applied.
|dn_summary=The complainant requested a copy of a contract agreed by the public authority for the provision of a national broadband network under the NHS National Programme for IT with certain information removed. The public authority initially refused to disclose the contract under sections 12 (cost of compliance exceeds the appropriate limit) and 43(2) (prejudice to commercial interests) of the Act. It subsequently also sought to rely on sections 40(2) (personal information) and 41 (information provided in confidence). During the course of the investigation, the complainant accepted the public authority’s application of section 40(2) to certain information in the contract. The Commissioner determined that sections 12, 41 and 43(2) were not applicable and ordered that a redacted version of the contract be disclosed to the complainant. He also found that the public authority had not complied with section 1(1)(b), as it did not provide the requested information by the time of the completion of the internal review, and section 10(1), as it did not provide the requested information within 20 working days of the request. In addition, it breached section 17(1)(b) and (c), as it failed to state in its refusal notice that it believed that sections 40(2) and 41 were applicable to the information requested nor explain why they applied.
|dn_url=http://www.ico.gov.uk/upload/documents/decisionnotices/2009/fs_50088736001.pdf
|dn_url=http://www.ico.gov.uk/upload/documents/decisionnotices/2009/fs_50088736001.pdf
}}
}}
{{DNDecision
{{DNDecision1
|dnd_section=FOI 1
|dnd_section=FOI 1
|dnd_finding=Upheld
|dnd_finding=Upheld
}}
}}
{{DNDecision
{{DNDecision2
|dnd_section=FOI 10
|dnd_section=FOI 10
|dnd_finding=Upheld
|dnd_finding=Upheld
}}
}}
{{DNDecision
{{DNDecision3
|dnd_section=FOI 12
|dnd_section=FOI 12
|dnd_finding=Upheld
|dnd_finding=Upheld
}}
}}
{{DNDecision
{{DNDecision4
|dnd_section=FOI 17
|dnd_section=FOI 17
|dnd_finding=Upheld
|dnd_finding=Upheld
}}
}}
{{DNDecision
{{DNDecision5
|dnd_section=FOI 40
|dnd_section=FOI 40
|dnd_finding=Not upheld
|dnd_finding=Not upheld
}}
}}
{{DNDecision
{{DNDecision6
|dnd_section=FOI 41
|dnd_section=FOI 41
|dnd_finding=Upheld
|dnd_finding=Upheld
}}
}}
{{DNDecision
{{DNDecision7
|dnd_section=FOI 43
|dnd_section=FOI 43
|dnd_finding=Upheld
|dnd_finding=Upheld
}}
}}

Revision as of 21:23, 15 May 2010


Decision Summary

  • Case Ref: FS50088736
  • Date: 29 January 2009
  • Public Authority: Department of Health
  • Summary: The complainant requested a copy of a contract agreed by the public authority for the provision of a national broadband network under the NHS National Programme for IT with certain information removed. The public authority initially refused to disclose the contract under sections 12 (cost of compliance exceeds the appropriate limit) and 43(2) (prejudice to commercial interests) of the Act. It subsequently also sought to rely on sections 40(2) (personal information) and 41 (information provided in confidence). During the course of the investigation, the complainant accepted the public authority’s application of section 40(2) to certain information in the contract. The Commissioner determined that sections 12, 41 and 43(2) were not applicable and ordered that a redacted version of the contract be disclosed to the complainant. He also found that the public authority had not complied with section 1(1)(b), as it did not provide the requested information by the time of the completion of the internal review, and section 10(1), as it did not provide the requested information within 20 working days of the request. In addition, it breached section 17(1)(b) and (c), as it failed to state in its refusal notice that it believed that sections 40(2) and 41 were applicable to the information requested nor explain why they applied.
  • View PDF of Decision Notice: [1]

Template:DNDecision1 Template:DNDecision2 Template:DNDecision3 Template:DNDecision4 Template:DNDecision5 Template:DNDecision6 Template:DNDecision7