FS50074146: Difference between revisions
From FOIwiki
Jump to navigationJump to search
Alex skene (talk | contribs) CSV import |
Alex skene (talk | contribs) XML import |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{DNSummaryBox | {{DNSummaryBox | ||
|dn_ref=FS50074146 | |dn_ref=FS50074146 | ||
|dn_date=12/06/2007 | |dn_date=12/06/2007 | ||
| Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
}} | }} | ||
{{DNDecision | {{DNDecision | ||
| | |dnd_section=FOI 17 | ||
| | |dnd_finding=Upheld | ||
}} | |||
{{DNDecision | |||
|dnd_section=FOI 40 | |||
|dnd_finding=Not upheld | |||
}} | }} | ||
Revision as of 21:01, 3 May 2010
Decision Summary
- Case Ref: FS50074146
- Date: 12/06/2007
- Public Authority: Nottinghamshire County Council
- Summary: The complainant requested details of expense claims made by a Councillor, these included claims made for telephone calls and the complainant required the numbers called. The public authority provided information but redacted the telephone numbers called on the basis that the exemption at section 40(2) of the Act applied, the numbers are personal data and to disclose them would breach the first data protection principle. The Commissioner agrees that the exemption has been applied correctly although the public authority breached section 17(1) of the Act as the Refusal Notice provided was not fully compliant.
- View PDF of Decision Notice: [1]
- Section of Act / Finding: FOI 17 - Complaint Upheld - Find other matching decisions
- Section of Act / Finding: FOI 40 - Complaint Not upheld - Find other matching decisions
