FS50090383: Difference between revisions
From FOIwiki
Jump to navigationJump to search
Alex skene (talk | contribs) XML import |
Alex skene (talk | contribs) CSV import |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{DNSummaryBox | |||
|dn_ref=FS50090383 | |dn_ref=FS50090383 | ||
|dn_date=30 | |dn_date=30 July 2007 | ||
|dn_pa=Vale of Glamorgan Council | |dn_pa=Vale of Glamorgan Council | ||
|dn_summary= | |dn_summary=The complainant requested a copy of an internal audit report prepared by the public authority. The request was initially refused by the public authority, citing the exemptions at sections 40, 41 and 42 of the Act. In its response to a request for internal review, the public authority released some information but stated that, in addition to the exemptions already cited, the information was also exempt by virtue of the section 30(2) exemption. During the course of the Commissioner’s investigation the public authority also claimed that the exemption at section 44 of the Act applied, because schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972 (as amended) acted as a statutory bar for disclosure. The Commissioner’s decision is that the exemptions at sections 30, 40, 41 and 44 have been applied inappropriately. In terms of the section 42 exemption, the Commissioner’s decision is that it has been applied appropriately only in a small number of instances. Accordingly, the Commissioner requires the public authority to disclose the information withheld, with that information that has been appropriately withheld by virtue of section 42 redacted. The public authority also initially breached the requirements of section 10 and 17(1). | ||
|dn_url=http://www.ico.gov.uk/upload/documents/decisionnotices/2007/fs_50090383.pdf | |dn_url=http://www.ico.gov.uk/upload/documents/decisionnotices/2007/fs_50090383.pdf | ||
}} | }} | ||
{{ | {{DNDecision1 | ||
|dnd_section=FOI 17 | |dnd_section=FOI 17 | ||
|dnd_finding=Upheld | |dnd_finding=Upheld | ||
}} | }} | ||
{{ | {{DNDecision2 | ||
|dnd_section=FOI 40 | |dnd_section=FOI 40 | ||
|dnd_finding=Upheld | |dnd_finding=Upheld | ||
}} | }} | ||
{{ | {{DNDecision3 | ||
|dnd_section=FOI 41 | |dnd_section=FOI 41 | ||
|dnd_finding=Upheld | |dnd_finding=Upheld | ||
}} | }} | ||
{{ | {{DNDecision4 | ||
|dnd_section=FOI 42 | |dnd_section=FOI 42 | ||
|dnd_finding=Partly Upheld | |dnd_finding=Partly Upheld | ||
}} | }} | ||
{{ | {{DNDecision5 | ||
|dnd_section=FOI 44 | |dnd_section=FOI 44 | ||
|dnd_finding=Upheld | |dnd_finding=Upheld | ||
}} | }} | ||
Revision as of 21:23, 15 May 2010
Decision Summary
- Case Ref: FS50090383
- Date: 30 July 2007
- Public Authority: Vale of Glamorgan Council
- Summary: The complainant requested a copy of an internal audit report prepared by the public authority. The request was initially refused by the public authority, citing the exemptions at sections 40, 41 and 42 of the Act. In its response to a request for internal review, the public authority released some information but stated that, in addition to the exemptions already cited, the information was also exempt by virtue of the section 30(2) exemption. During the course of the Commissioner’s investigation the public authority also claimed that the exemption at section 44 of the Act applied, because schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972 (as amended) acted as a statutory bar for disclosure. The Commissioner’s decision is that the exemptions at sections 30, 40, 41 and 44 have been applied inappropriately. In terms of the section 42 exemption, the Commissioner’s decision is that it has been applied appropriately only in a small number of instances. Accordingly, the Commissioner requires the public authority to disclose the information withheld, with that information that has been appropriately withheld by virtue of section 42 redacted. The public authority also initially breached the requirements of section 10 and 17(1).
- View PDF of Decision Notice: [1]
Template:DNDecision1 Template:DNDecision2 Template:DNDecision3 Template:DNDecision4 Template:DNDecision5
