FAC0064579: Difference between revisions

From FOIwiki
Jump to navigationJump to search
m (Text replace - "DNDecision5" to "DNDecision")
m (Text replace - "DNDecision1" to "DNDecision")
 
(3 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 6: Line 6:
|dn_url=http://www.ico.gov.uk/upload/documents/decisionnotices/2006/decision_notice_fs0064579.pdf
|dn_url=http://www.ico.gov.uk/upload/documents/decisionnotices/2006/decision_notice_fs0064579.pdf
}}
}}
{{DNDecision1
{{DNDecision
|dnd_section=FOI 10
|dnd_section=FOI 10
|dnd_finding=Upheld
|dnd_finding=Upheld
}}
}}
{{DNDecision2
{{DNDecision
|dnd_section=FOI 17
|dnd_section=FOI 17
|dnd_finding=Not upheld
|dnd_finding=Not upheld
}}
}}
{{DNDecision3
{{DNDecision
|dnd_section=FOI 40
|dnd_section=FOI 40
|dnd_finding=Partly Upheld
|dnd_finding=Partly Upheld
}}
}}
{{DNDecision4
{{DNDecision
|dnd_section=FOI 41
|dnd_section=FOI 41
|dnd_finding=Partly Upheld
|dnd_finding=Partly Upheld

Latest revision as of 23:20, 15 May 2010


Decision Summary

  • Case Ref: FAC0064579
  • Date: 15 March 2006
  • Public Authority: Southend-on-Sea NHS Primary Care Trust
  • Summary: The complainant requested information from PCT regarding a GP practice of which he had been a member. The information included minutes of PCT meetings, notes of discussions and copies of correspondence with partners in the practice and with other NHS bodies. The Commissioner found that there had been some delay in response to the request and that the refusal notice should have contained details of the mechanism for seeking a review of the refusal. The Commissioner concluded that the PCT was for the most part justified in relying upon exemptions relating to personal data, legal professional privilege and confidentiality. However, the Commissioner did consider that some information, in particular some minutes of PCT meetings and some standard parts of GP contracts should have been released.
  • View PDF of Decision Notice: [1]