FS50148542: 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=FS50148542 | |dn_ref=FS50148542 | ||
|dn_date= | |dn_date=1 June 2009 | ||
|dn_pa=Plymouth City Council | |dn_pa=Plymouth City Council | ||
|dn_summary=sections of the Act; section 1(1)(a), sections 10(1), section 17(1), section 17(1)(b), section 17(1)(c) and section 17(7). The council is required to respond fully to one request in compliance with it’s obligations under section 1(1) of the Act within 35 calender days. | |dn_summary=The complainant submitted a series of requests to Plymouth City Council (“the council”) stemming from the council’s assessment of his benefit application and as a consequence of the responses received made several complaints to the Information Commissioner (“the Commissioner”). After an initial assessment the Commissioner considered it appropriate to investigate five of the requests. Following the investigation the Commissioner found that the council had provided sufficient evidence to correctly apply section 14(1) of the Act to refuse one request and that, in relation to the other four requests, the council committed breaches of the following procedural sections of the Act; section 1(1)(a), sections 10(1), section 17(1), section 17(1)(b), section 17(1)(c) and section 17(7). The council is required to respond fully to one request in compliance with it’s obligations under section 1(1) of the Act within 35 calender days. | ||
|dn_url=http://www.ico.gov.uk/upload/documents/decisionnotices/2009/fs_50148542.pdf | |dn_url=http://www.ico.gov.uk/upload/documents/decisionnotices/2009/fs_50148542.pdf | ||
}} | }} | ||
{{ | {{DNDecision1 | ||
|dnd_section=FOI 1 | |dnd_section=FOI 1 | ||
|dnd_finding=Partly Upheld | |dnd_finding=Partly Upheld | ||
}} | }} | ||
{{ | {{DNDecision2 | ||
|dnd_section=FOI 10 | |dnd_section=FOI 10 | ||
|dnd_finding=Upheld | |dnd_finding=Upheld | ||
}} | }} | ||
{{ | {{DNDecision3 | ||
|dnd_section=FOI 14 | |dnd_section=FOI 14 | ||
|dnd_finding=Not upheld | |dnd_finding=Not upheld | ||
}} | }} | ||
{{ | {{DNDecision4 | ||
|dnd_section=FOI 17 | |dnd_section=FOI 17 | ||
|dnd_finding=Upheld | |dnd_finding=Upheld | ||
}} | }} | ||
Revision as of 21:27, 15 May 2010
Decision Summary
- Case Ref: FS50148542
- Date: 1 June 2009
- Public Authority: Plymouth City Council
- Summary: The complainant submitted a series of requests to Plymouth City Council (“the council”) stemming from the council’s assessment of his benefit application and as a consequence of the responses received made several complaints to the Information Commissioner (“the Commissioner”). After an initial assessment the Commissioner considered it appropriate to investigate five of the requests. Following the investigation the Commissioner found that the council had provided sufficient evidence to correctly apply section 14(1) of the Act to refuse one request and that, in relation to the other four requests, the council committed breaches of the following procedural sections of the Act; section 1(1)(a), sections 10(1), section 17(1), section 17(1)(b), section 17(1)(c) and section 17(7). The council is required to respond fully to one request in compliance with it’s obligations under section 1(1) of the Act within 35 calender days.
- View PDF of Decision Notice: [1]
Template:DNDecision1 Template:DNDecision2 Template:DNDecision3 Template:DNDecision4
