FER0096306: Difference between revisions
From FOIwiki
Jump to navigationJump to search
Alex skene (talk | contribs) (XML import) |
Alex skene (talk | contribs) m (Text replace - "DNDecision1" to "DNDecision") |
||
| (3 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{DNSummaryBox | |||
|dn_ref=FER0096306 | |dn_ref=FER0096306 | ||
|dn_date=14 | |dn_date=14 February 2008 | ||
|dn_pa=East Lindsey District Council | |dn_pa=East Lindsey District Council | ||
|dn_summary= exception at regulation 12(5)(b) by claiming that the legal advice was excepted from disclosure. | |dn_summary=The complainant was in dispute with the Council about a proposal to site a wind farm in the locality. He contacted the Commissioner to ask for assistance in obtaining a copy of some legal advice received by the Council, having been told that it was confidential. He also wanted copies of any correspondence surrounding the advice. After the Commissioner’s intervention the Council provided the legal advice and copies of all the surrounding correspondence it said it held. The complainant considered that the Council held further information. The Commissioner was satisfied that the Council had searched thoroughly for all the information which was covered by the request and that it had supplied this to the complainant. He concluded that on the balance of probabilities no other material was held, although the Council had failed to communicate this in its Refusal Notice, thereby breaching regulation 14(1) of the EIR. The Council also failed to provide an adequate Refusal Notice within 20 working days, thereby breaching regulation 14(2) and (3). The Commissioner also considered the Council had breached regulation 5(2) by failing to provide the information it did hold with 20 working days. He concluded that the Council had wrongly applied the exception at regulation 12(5)(b) by claiming that the legal advice was excepted from disclosure. | ||
|dn_url=http://www.ico.gov.uk/upload/documents/decisionnotices/2008/fer_0096306.pdf | |dn_url=http://www.ico.gov.uk/upload/documents/decisionnotices/2008/fer_0096306.pdf | ||
}} | }} | ||
Latest revision as of 23:20, 15 May 2010
Decision Summary
- Case Ref: FER0096306
- Date: 14 February 2008
- Public Authority: East Lindsey District Council
- Summary: The complainant was in dispute with the Council about a proposal to site a wind farm in the locality. He contacted the Commissioner to ask for assistance in obtaining a copy of some legal advice received by the Council, having been told that it was confidential. He also wanted copies of any correspondence surrounding the advice. After the Commissioner’s intervention the Council provided the legal advice and copies of all the surrounding correspondence it said it held. The complainant considered that the Council held further information. The Commissioner was satisfied that the Council had searched thoroughly for all the information which was covered by the request and that it had supplied this to the complainant. He concluded that on the balance of probabilities no other material was held, although the Council had failed to communicate this in its Refusal Notice, thereby breaching regulation 14(1) of the EIR. The Council also failed to provide an adequate Refusal Notice within 20 working days, thereby breaching regulation 14(2) and (3). The Commissioner also considered the Council had breached regulation 5(2) by failing to provide the information it did hold with 20 working days. He concluded that the Council had wrongly applied the exception at regulation 12(5)(b) by claiming that the legal advice was excepted from disclosure.
- View PDF of Decision Notice: [1]
- Section of Act / Finding: EIR 5 - Complaint Upheld - Find other matching decisions
- Section of Act / Finding: EIR 14 - Complaint Upheld - Find other matching decisions
- Section of Act / Finding: EIR 12(5)(b) - Complaint Upheld - Find other matching decisions
