FS50079628: Difference between revisions

From FOIwiki
Jump to navigationJump to search
CSV import
 
XML import
Line 1: Line 1:
{{DNSummaryBox
{{DNSummaryBox
|dn_ref=FS50079628
|dn_ref=FS50079628
|dn_date=29/11/2006
|dn_date=29/11/2006
|dn_pa=Transport for London
|dn_pa=Transport for London
|dn_summary=The applicant submitted a request to the public authority on 3 April 2005 for copies of the questionnaires it had received as part of the Thames Gateway Bridge public consultation. The public authority dealt with the request under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and responded that it would be unable to supply all the information requested as to do so would exceed the �appropriate limit� specified in section 12 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000. Having investigated this case the Commissioner is of the view that the requested questionnaires in fact contain �environmental information�. Accordingly, the Commissioner is of the view that the public authority should reconsider the request under the Environmental Information Regulations 2004 and ensure that any charge imposed for the provision of the information is both legitimately chargeable under the Regulations and is �reasonable�.
|dn_summary=ity should reconsider the request under the Environmental Information Regulations 2004 and ensure that any charge imposed for the provision of the information is both legitimately chargeable under the Regulations and is ‘reasonable’.
|dn_url=http://www.ico.gov.uk/upload/documents/decisionnotices/2006/fs_50079628.pdf
|dn_url=http://www.ico.gov.uk/upload/documents/decisionnotices/2006/fs_50079628.pdf
}}
}}
{{DNDecision
{{DNDecision
|1=EIR 5(1)
|dnd_section=EIR 5(1)
|2=Upheld
|dnd_finding=Upheld
}}
}}

Revision as of 21:01, 3 May 2010


Decision Summary

  • Case Ref: FS50079628
  • Date: 29/11/2006
  • Public Authority: Transport for London
  • Summary: ity should reconsider the request under the Environmental Information Regulations 2004 and ensure that any charge imposed for the provision of the information is both legitimately chargeable under the Regulations and is ‘reasonable’.
  • View PDF of Decision Notice: [1]