FS50078594: 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=FS50078594 | |dn_ref=FS50078594 | ||
|dn_date= | |dn_date=8 March 2006 | ||
|dn_pa=Birmingham City Council | |dn_pa=Birmingham City Council | ||
|dn_summary=The complainant made 27 largely thematic requests for information and was advised by the Council that they were considering applying the section 14 exemption. The complainant then submitted a further 11 largely thematic requests. In line with Freedom of Information Act 2000 Awareness Guidance No. 22: Vexatious and Repeated Requests, the Commissioner considered whether the Public Authority had demonstrated that the requests would impose a significant burden, have the effect of harassing the public authority, or could otherwise be characterised as obsessive or manifestly unreasonable. In addition the Commissioner considered the number and nature of the requests, the previous history of the complainant and the manner in which the section 14 exemption had been applied by the Council. The Commissioner concluded that there was a demonstrable pattern in all but two of the requests for information, and so judged that the Council had applied the exemption correctly in all but the two identified requests. | |dn_summary=The complainant made 27 largely thematic requests for information and was advised by the Council that they were considering applying the section 14 exemption. The complainant then submitted a further 11 largely thematic requests. In line with Freedom of Information Act 2000 Awareness Guidance No. 22: Vexatious and Repeated Requests, the Commissioner considered whether the Public Authority had demonstrated that the requests would impose a significant burden, have the effect of harassing the public authority, or could otherwise be characterised as obsessive or manifestly unreasonable. In addition the Commissioner considered the number and nature of the requests, the previous history of the complainant and the manner in which the section 14 exemption had been applied by the Council. The Commissioner concluded that there was a demonstrable pattern in all but two of the requests for information, and so judged that the Council had applied the exemption correctly in all but the two identified requests. | ||
|dn_url=http://www.ico.gov.uk/upload/documents/decisionnotices/2006/decision_notice_fs50078594.pdf | |dn_url=http://www.ico.gov.uk/upload/documents/decisionnotices/2006/decision_notice_fs50078594.pdf | ||
}} | }} | ||
{{ | {{DNDecision1 | ||
|dnd_section=FOI 14 | |dnd_section=FOI 14 | ||
|dnd_finding=Not upheld | |dnd_finding=Not upheld | ||
}} | }} | ||
Revision as of 21:21, 15 May 2010
Decision Summary
- Case Ref: FS50078594
- Date: 8 March 2006
- Public Authority: Birmingham City Council
- Summary: The complainant made 27 largely thematic requests for information and was advised by the Council that they were considering applying the section 14 exemption. The complainant then submitted a further 11 largely thematic requests. In line with Freedom of Information Act 2000 Awareness Guidance No. 22: Vexatious and Repeated Requests, the Commissioner considered whether the Public Authority had demonstrated that the requests would impose a significant burden, have the effect of harassing the public authority, or could otherwise be characterised as obsessive or manifestly unreasonable. In addition the Commissioner considered the number and nature of the requests, the previous history of the complainant and the manner in which the section 14 exemption had been applied by the Council. The Commissioner concluded that there was a demonstrable pattern in all but two of the requests for information, and so judged that the Council had applied the exemption correctly in all but the two identified requests.
- View PDF of Decision Notice: [1]
