FS50178424: Difference between revisions
From FOIwiki
Jump to navigationJump to search
Alex skene (talk | contribs) (XML import) |
Alex skene (talk | contribs) (CSV import) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{DNSummaryBox | |||
|dn_ref=FS50178424 | |dn_ref=FS50178424 | ||
|dn_date=29 | |dn_date=29 September 2009 | ||
|dn_pa=Wakefield Metropolitan District Council | |dn_pa=Wakefield Metropolitan District Council | ||
|dn_summary= finely balanced, he has found that section 14(1) does apply and therefore has not upheld the complaint. | |dn_summary=The complainant has, over a period of three years, made a series of requests stemming from Wakefield Metropolitan District Council’s application of its high-hedges policy. Given the extent of its communications with the complainant about this issue, the Council deemed the latest of the requests as vexatious pursuant to section 14(1) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000. Whilst the Commissioner believes that this matter was finely balanced, he has found that section 14(1) does apply and therefore has not upheld the complaint. | ||
|dn_url=http://www.ico.gov.uk/upload/documents/decisionnotices/2009/fs_50178424.pdf | |dn_url=http://www.ico.gov.uk/upload/documents/decisionnotices/2009/fs_50178424.pdf | ||
}} | }} | ||
{{ | {{DNDecision1 | ||
|dnd_section=FOI 14 | |dnd_section=FOI 14 | ||
|dnd_finding=Not upheld | |dnd_finding=Not upheld | ||
}} | }} | ||
Revision as of 22:29, 15 May 2010
Decision Summary
- Case Ref: FS50178424
- Date: 29 September 2009
- Public Authority: Wakefield Metropolitan District Council
- Summary: The complainant has, over a period of three years, made a series of requests stemming from Wakefield Metropolitan District Council’s application of its high-hedges policy. Given the extent of its communications with the complainant about this issue, the Council deemed the latest of the requests as vexatious pursuant to section 14(1) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000. Whilst the Commissioner believes that this matter was finely balanced, he has found that section 14(1) does apply and therefore has not upheld the complaint.
- View PDF of Decision Notice: [1]
