FS50207431: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 21:23, 3 May 2010

Case Ref: FS50207431
Date: 17/08/2009
Public Authority: Department for Transport
Summary: meet the requirements of sections 1(1)(b), 10(1), 17(1)(c) and 17(3).
View PDF of Decision Notice: [1]

Section of Act / Finding: FOI 1 - Complaint Upheld - Find other matching decisions

Section of Act / Finding: FOI 10 - Complaint Upheld - Find other matching decisions

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

Section of Act / Finding: FOI 43 - Complaint Upheld - Find other matching decisions

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
-{{DNSummaryBox
+	{{DNSummaryBox
 |dn_ref=FS50207431
 |dn_date=17/08/2009
 |dn_pa=Department for Transport
-|dn_summary=The complainant asked the Department for Transport (the �DfT�) to confirm whether it had provided financial support to the Silverlink Rail Franchise during industrial action in 2007. He also asked it to confirm whether, as a result of that dispute, any changes were made to the London Midland franchise agreement with Govia, or whether any extra financial support was offered. The DfT refused to provide this information, and cited section 43(2) of the Act. After investigating the case the Commissioner decided that section 43(2) is not engaged. Therefore the withheld information should be disclosed. The Commissioner also found that the DfT did not meet the requirements of sections 1(1)(b), 10(1), 17(1)(c) and 17(3).
+|dn_summary=meet the requirements of sections 1(1)(b), 10(1), 17(1)(c) and 17(3).
 |dn_url=http://www.ico.gov.uk/upload/documents/decisionnotices/2009/fs_50207431.pdf
 }}
 {{DNDecision
-|1=FOI 43
+|dnd_section=FOI 1
-|2=Upheld
+|dnd_finding=Upheld
+}}
+{{DNDecision
+|dnd_section=FOI 10
+|dnd_finding=Upheld
+}}
+{{DNDecision
+|dnd_section=FOI 17
+|dnd_finding=Upheld
+}}
+{{DNDecision
+|dnd_section=FOI 43
+|dnd_finding=Upheld
 }}