FS50066390: 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=FS50066390 | |dn_ref=FS50066390 | ||
|dn_date=05/12/2005 | |dn_date=05/12/2005 | ||
| Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
}} | }} | ||
{{DNDecision | {{DNDecision | ||
| | |dnd_section=FOI 10 | ||
| | |dnd_finding=Upheld | ||
}} | |||
{{DNDecision | |||
|dnd_section=FOI 17 | |||
|dnd_finding=Upheld | |||
}} | }} | ||
Revision as of 21:24, 3 May 2010
Decision Summary
- Case Ref: FS50066390
- Date: 05/12/2005
- Public Authority: London Borough of Lewisham
- Summary: The complainant requested copies of letters sent to the Council in 2003 detailing allegations of blackmail. The Council had supplied some of the information, refusing the remainder on the basis that the information contained third party data. During the course of the Commissioner's investigation, the Council revisited their initial decision and chose to release more of the information. The complainant was satisfied with this but asked the Commissioner to investigate the technical breaches which had occurred when the complainant originally requested the information. The Commissioner found that the Council had not issued a proper refusal notice under section 17 and consequently had breached the twenty working day limit in which to respond.
- View PDF of Decision Notice: [1]
- Section of Act / Finding: FOI 10 - Complaint Upheld - Find other matching decisions
- Section of Act / Finding: FOI 17 - Complaint Upheld - Find other matching decisions
