FS50150268: 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=FS50150268 | |dn_ref=FS50150268 | ||
|dn_date=18/08/2008 | |dn_date=18/08/2008 | ||
|dn_pa=Office of Fair Trading | |dn_pa=Office of Fair Trading | ||
|dn_summary= | |dn_summary=Enterprise Act 2002. The Commissioner’s decision is that the OFT was correct both to rely on sections 44 and 31 to neither confirm nor deny whether it held the requested information. However, the Commissioner finds that the refusal notice issued was issued in breach of section 17(1) and 17(3). | ||
|dn_url=http://www.ico.gov.uk/ | |dn_url=http://www.ico.gov.uk/upload/documents/decisionnotices/2008/fs_50150268.pdf | ||
}} | }} | ||
{{DNDecision | {{DNDecision | ||
| | |dnd_section=FOI 44 | ||
| | |dnd_finding=Partly Upheld | ||
}} | |||
{{DNDecision | |||
|dnd_section=FOI 31 | |||
|dnd_finding=Partly Upheld | |||
}} | |||
{{DNDecision | |||
|dnd_section=FOI 17 | |||
|dnd_finding=Upheld | |||
}} | }} | ||
Revision as of 21:09, 3 May 2010
Decision Summary
- Case Ref: FS50150268
- Date: 18/08/2008
- Public Authority: Office of Fair Trading
- Summary: Enterprise Act 2002. The Commissioner’s decision is that the OFT was correct both to rely on sections 44 and 31 to neither confirm nor deny whether it held the requested information. However, the Commissioner finds that the refusal notice issued was issued in breach of section 17(1) and 17(3).
- View PDF of Decision Notice: [1]
- Section of Act / Finding: FOI 44 - Complaint Partly Upheld - Find other matching decisions
- Section of Act / Finding: FOI 31 - Complaint Partly Upheld - Find other matching decisions
- Section of Act / Finding: FOI 17 - Complaint Upheld - Find other matching decisions
