FS50082420: 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=FS50082420 | |dn_ref=FS50082420 | ||
|dn_date=30 | |dn_date=30 July 2007 | ||
|dn_pa=Valuation Office Agency | |dn_pa=Valuation Office Agency | ||
|dn_summary=The complainant requested information concerning the number of complaints made against an individual employee of the public authority. The public authority refused to confirm or deny whether the requested information was held in the belief that this would constitute a disclosure of personal data that would contravene the first data protection principle. The Commissioner finds that the public authority was correct in refusing to confirm or deny that the requested information was held, but that the refusal notice issued by the public authority was inadequate. Although the public authority failed to comply with the procedural requirements of the Act in its refusal notice, this breach does not necessitate remedial action. An appeal was made to the Information Tribunal, but the appeal was dismissed. | |dn_summary=The complainant requested information concerning the number of complaints made against an individual employee of the public authority. The public authority refused to confirm or deny whether the requested information was held in the belief that this would constitute a disclosure of personal data that would contravene the first data protection principle. The Commissioner finds that the public authority was correct in refusing to confirm or deny that the requested information was held, but that the refusal notice issued by the public authority was inadequate. Although the public authority failed to comply with the procedural requirements of the Act in its refusal notice, this breach does not necessitate remedial action. An appeal was made to the Information Tribunal, but the appeal was dismissed. | ||
|dn_url=http://www.ico.gov.uk/upload/documents/decisionnotices/2007/fs_50082420.pdf | |dn_url=http://www.ico.gov.uk/upload/documents/decisionnotices/2007/fs_50082420.pdf | ||
}} | }} | ||
{{ | {{DNDecision1 | ||
|dnd_section=FOI 17 | |dnd_section=FOI 17 | ||
|dnd_finding=Upheld | |dnd_finding=Upheld | ||
}} | }} | ||
{{ | {{DNDecision2 | ||
|dnd_section=FOI 40 | |dnd_section=FOI 40 | ||
|dnd_finding=Not upheld | |dnd_finding=Not upheld | ||
}} | }} | ||
Revision as of 22:22, 15 May 2010
Decision Summary
- Case Ref: FS50082420
- Date: 30 July 2007
- Public Authority: Valuation Office Agency
- Summary: The complainant requested information concerning the number of complaints made against an individual employee of the public authority. The public authority refused to confirm or deny whether the requested information was held in the belief that this would constitute a disclosure of personal data that would contravene the first data protection principle. The Commissioner finds that the public authority was correct in refusing to confirm or deny that the requested information was held, but that the refusal notice issued by the public authority was inadequate. Although the public authority failed to comply with the procedural requirements of the Act in its refusal notice, this breach does not necessitate remedial action. An appeal was made to the Information Tribunal, but the appeal was dismissed.
- View PDF of Decision Notice: [1]
