FS50207333: Difference between revisions
From FOIwiki
Jump to navigationJump to search
Alex skene (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Alex skene (talk | contribs) CSV import |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{DNSummaryBox | {{DNSummaryBox | ||
|dn_ref=FS50207333 | |dn_ref=FS50207333 | ||
|dn_date=25 | |dn_date=25 February 2010 | ||
|dn_pa=Her Majesty's Courts Service | |dn_pa=Her Majesty's Courts Service | ||
|dn_summary=The complainant requested information concerning the frequency and cost of involvement of locum legal advisers in Magistrates’ Courts. The public authority refused the request under section 12(1) of the Act as it estimated that the cost of compliance with the request would exceed the cost limit of £600. The Commissioner finds that the cost of compliance with the request would exceed the £600 limit and so section 12(1) of the Act was applied correctly. However, the Commissioner also finds that the public authority failed to comply with its duty under section 16(1) of the Act to provide advice and assistance in that it did not provide advice to the complainant as to how to refine his request to bring it within the cost limit. The public authority is required to provide advice to the complainant on refining his request. | |dn_summary=The complainant requested information concerning the frequency and cost of involvement of locum legal advisers in Magistrates’ Courts. The public authority refused the request under section 12(1) of the Act as it estimated that the cost of compliance with the request would exceed the cost limit of £600. The Commissioner finds that the cost of compliance with the request would exceed the £600 limit and so section 12(1) of the Act was applied correctly. However, the Commissioner also finds that the public authority failed to comply with its duty under section 16(1) of the Act to provide advice and assistance in that it did not provide advice to the complainant as to how to refine his request to bring it within the cost limit. The public authority is required to provide advice to the complainant on refining his request. | ||
|dn_url=http://www.ico.gov.uk/upload/documents/decisionnotices/2010/fs_50207333.pdf | |dn_url=http://www.ico.gov.uk/upload/documents/decisionnotices/2010/fs_50207333.pdf | ||
}} | }} | ||
{{ | {{DNDecision1 | ||
|dnd_section=FOI 12 | |dnd_section=FOI 12 | ||
|dnd_finding=Not upheld | |dnd_finding=Not upheld | ||
}} | }} | ||
{{ | {{DNDecision2 | ||
|dnd_section=FOI 16 | |dnd_section=FOI 16 | ||
|dnd_finding=Upheld | |dnd_finding=Upheld | ||
}} | }} | ||
Revision as of 21:19, 15 May 2010
Decision Summary
- Case Ref: FS50207333
- Date: 25 February 2010
- Public Authority: Her Majesty's Courts Service
- Summary: The complainant requested information concerning the frequency and cost of involvement of locum legal advisers in Magistrates’ Courts. The public authority refused the request under section 12(1) of the Act as it estimated that the cost of compliance with the request would exceed the cost limit of £600. The Commissioner finds that the cost of compliance with the request would exceed the £600 limit and so section 12(1) of the Act was applied correctly. However, the Commissioner also finds that the public authority failed to comply with its duty under section 16(1) of the Act to provide advice and assistance in that it did not provide advice to the complainant as to how to refine his request to bring it within the cost limit. The public authority is required to provide advice to the complainant on refining his request.
- View PDF of Decision Notice: [1]
