FS50142898: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 21:08, 3 May 2010

Case Ref: FS50142898
Date: 30/11/2009
Public Authority: Lancashire Police
Summary: ches of sections 16(1), 17(1), 17(1)(b), 17(5), 17(7)(a) and 17(7)(b). He requires no remedial steps in this case.
View PDF of Decision Notice: [1]

Section of Act / Finding: FOI 12 - Complaint Not upheld - Find other matching decisions

Section of Act / Finding: FOI 16 - Complaint Upheld - Find other matching decisions

Section of Act / Finding: FOI 17 - Complaint Upheld - Find other matching decisions

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
-{{DNSummaryBox
+	{{DNSummaryBox
 |dn_ref=FS50142898
 |dn_date=30/11/2009
 |dn_pa=Lancashire Police
-|dn_summary=The complainant wrote to the public authority in July 2006 seeking information regarding two police Operations. The public authority stated that section 30(1) applied. In the course of the Commissioner�s investigation the public authority stated that it wished to rely upon section 12 of the Act, which applies when the costs of responding to a request exceeds the �appropriate limit�. The Commissioner agrees that section 12(1) can be applied in this case. However, he does find procedural breaches of sections 16(1), 17(1), 17(1)(b), 17(5), 17(7)(a) and 17(7)(b). He requires no remedial steps in this case.
+|dn_summary=ches of sections 16(1), 17(1), 17(1)(b), 17(5), 17(7)(a) and 17(7)(b). He requires no remedial steps in this case.
 |dn_url=http://www.ico.gov.uk/upload/documents/decisionnotices/2009/fs_50142898.pdf
 }}
 {{DNDecision
-|1=FOI 17
+|dnd_section=FOI 12
-|2=Upheld
+|dnd_finding=Not upheld
+}}
+{{DNDecision
+|dnd_section=FOI 16
+|dnd_finding=Upheld
+}}
+{{DNDecision
+|dnd_section=FOI 17
+|dnd_finding=Upheld
 }}